Filed Date: Nov. 8, 2021
Closed Date: Sept. 21, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about various members of state or federal government, named as defendants, who allegedly negligently or purposefully failed to comply with the Help America Vote Act, 42 U.S.C. 15301 et seq., as amended, (“HAVA”) and as a result, had American citizens cast illegal votes. As claimed in the Complaint, these unlawful votes caused all the members of the 117th United States Congress, as well as the President of the United States to be rendered illegitimate.
On January 18, 2021, Latinos for Trump and Blacks for Trump, two political organizations for supporters of 2020 Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and five individual plaintiffs filed suit against the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, one U.S. Senator, two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Georgia Secretary of State, all members of the 117th U.S. Congress, all U.S. Governors, and Co-Founder of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (“CZI”) Mark Zuckerberg. In addition to attorneys’ fees, plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction to stop defendants from participating in any actions related to the process of electing public officials, holding public office or any official government positions. Relying on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985—86, plaintiffs claimed; (a) they were deprived of their civil right to cast a legal vote under § 1983; (b) this deprivation was purposeful and part of a conspiracy in violation of § 1985; and (c) the defendants should have known what was being done was wrong and thus neglected and refused to prevent such deprivation of their civil rights. This suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, and assigned to U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright and Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske.
HAVA set forth minimum requirements regarding “mail-in ballots,” “registration of voters by mail”, and voter identification processes. The plaintiffs claimed that some of the defendants, as state or federal government officials, engaged in conduct that violated HAVA, specifically regarding the certification of voting machines. Other officials allegedly negligently failed to implement these requirements under the guise of states’ rights. These actions were done without amending HAVA to accommodate the changes to state procedures for federal elections. In the complaint, the plaintiffs list out the alleged statutory violations for each state.
On January 27, 2021, Judge Albright ordered the plaintiffs to amend their Complaint to show cause. He found the plaintiff’s initial claims meritless because HAVA did not allow plaintiffs to stop defendants from participating in any actions related to the process of electing public officials, holding public office or any official government positions. Further, the Judge found that HAVA did not allow for the declaratory relief sought and that § 1983 did not apply to federal officers acting under federal law and thus could not be brought against the government defendants.
On February 10, 2021, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in response to the Show Cause Order alleging that the 2020 Federal Election had a “Secret History” where elected Democrats and Republicans conspired to “manipulate the outcome of the election.” Specifically, they alleged that the defendants purposefully denied three hundred and twenty-eight million Americans of their right to vote by “killing” the House of Representatives Bill 2722, also known as the Securing America’s Federal Elections act, turning down a senate tax bill, and altering voting procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, they claimed that records necessary for conducting a congressional election audit to maintain the integrity of the election process were deliberately and improperly destroyed. Finally, the plaintiffs urged that the CEO of CZI, along with co-conspirators, restricted plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by limiting their social media posts and deleting their social media accounts. Plaintiffs added an additional claim that defendants’ conduct was motivated by racial discrimination, depriving plaintiffs of their equal rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
In addition to attorneys’ fees, plaintiffs sought temporary injunctive relief to prohibit Congress and the Executive Branch from passing new legislation and enacting new Executive Orders until a jury trial could be held. Plaintiffs further sought a permanent injunction; (a) to hold a new Federal Election; (b) to restrain defendants from participating in any actions related to the process of electing public officials; and (c) to prevent defendants from violating plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights. The First Amended Complaint also defined potential classes for certification, including “all persons who voted in the 2020 Federal Election[]” and all persons “whom Defendants conspired to deprive of various Constitutional rights”.
On February 16, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint with additional facts alleging that Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator and, then a Presidential Candidate, had the same tactics used against him in the 2020 Democratic Primary that were used against Donald Trump in the general election. The plaintiffs claim that “party leaders were ‘willing to risk intraparty damage to stop [Bernie’s] nomination at the federal convention’” because it would create a “worst-nightmare scenario for the political establishment and ‘corporate elite.’”
On May 27, 2021, two defendants, Georgia’s Secretary and Governor, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and insufficient service of process. The defendants relied on the Eleventh Amendment to argue that claims brought against public officials in their official capacities were “another way of pleading an action against the entity of which the officer is an agent.” They claimed the State was the real party in interest and the Eleventh Amendment did not allow suits against a State or one of its agencies. The defendants argued the plaintiffs lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no cognizable injury that stemmed from the Georgia defendants. Further, the defendants argued they lacked personal jurisdiction because the defendants lacked the requisite contacts with the State of Texas “for them to be hauled into court.” Finally, the defendants argued that they were not properly served notice within 90 days of the filing of their Second Amended Complaint and thus the Complaint should be dismissed.
On August 20, 2021, Magistrate Judge Manske recommended that the plaintiffs’ original Complaint be dismissed for lack of standing and failure to state a claim and that the Second Amended Complaint be stricken from the record. Judge Albright adopted the Order on September 21, 2021, and the case was closed.
Summary Authors
David Gueye (7/19/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29347542/parties/latinos-for-trump-v-sessions/
Albright, Alan D. (Texas)
SoRelle, Kellye (Texas)
Stoy, Lee M. (Texas)
Davis, Paul M. (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29347542/latinos-for-trump-v-sessions/
Last updated Jan. 30, 2025, 5:22 p.m.
State / Territory: Texas
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 8, 2021
Closing Date: Sept. 21, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Latinos for Trump, a political organization of Latino supporters of 2020 Presidential candidate Donald Trump Blacks for Trump, a political organization of Black supporters of 2020 Presidential candidate Donald Trump Five individual plaintiffs.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Senate (- United States (national) -), Federal
Mark Zuckerberg, Private Entity/Person
U.S. House of Representatives (- United States (national) -), Federal
Georgia Secretary of State (Georgia), State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Help America Vote Act (HAVA), 52 U.S.C. § 20901 et seq (previously 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq)
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: