Filed Date: Sept. 21, 2021
Closed Date: Sept. 30, 2022
Clearinghouse coding complete
A Washington state non-profit organization, Washington Election Integrity Coalition United (WEiCU), and fifteen Pierce County voters, filed suit in state court in Pierce County, Washington, challenging the election administration of the 2020 election by Pierce County Auditor Julie Anderson. The Plaintiffs sought access to already voted ballots and to conduct a thorough review of the voted ballots. The complaint alleged that the Pierce County Auditor used an uncertified voting system, allowed electronic manipulation of results (vote flipping, additions, and/or deletions), tracked party preference (specifically Republican voters), linked ballots to voters’ political affiliation, and used open ballot sleeves instead of the required security envelopes, allegedly violating state election statutes and the Washington and U.S. Constitutions. The individual plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages under §§ 1983 and 1988. WEiCU sought an injunction to permit the Plaintiffs to unseal and produce ballots and related materials under the Public Records Act (PRA), seeking access to ballot images and envelopes and to conduct a full forensic audit of all voted ballots. Defendants removed the case to the Western District of Washington on October 1, 2021, invoking federal‑question jurisdiction based on the federal constitutional and § 1983 claims.
After removal, Defendants moved to dismiss the individual plaintiffs’ claims under Rules 12(b)(1), (2), (4), (5), and (6), claiming the plaintiffs did not have Article III standing, did not properly serve Anderson, and failed to state any federal or state claim. They filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss WEiCU’s PRA claim, arguing that Washington’s ballot‑secrecy and election‑record statutes bar voted ballots and ballot images from disclosure, and contended that the PRA authorizes suit only against agencies, not the Auditor herself. The Plaintiffs sought to return the case to state court, arguing that state‑law claims predominated the case, rather than the federal claims — thus removal to federal court was procedurally incorrect. The Washington State Democratic Central Committee (WSDCC) moved to intervene as a defendant, arguing that the Plaintiffs' claims were one of a series of nearly identical suits they had filed against multiple Washington counties, asserting an interest in protecting and not disturbing the certification of the 2020 election.
On September 30, 2022, Judge King issued an order denying WEiCU’s motion to remand, granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and denying WSDCC’s motion to intervene. The court held that the individual plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they alleged generalized grievances about election administration, speculative vote dilution, and secrecy harms. To have standing they would have had to contend concrete, particularized injuries to their own votes. They did not claim that their ballots were not counted or counted differently from other voters, or were treated less favorably than other voting groups. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the individual plaintiffs’ state‑law claims because the Constitutional and §1983 claims were dismissed. The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s Futility Doctrine and declined to send the case back to state court. The court stated that other Washington state courts had dismissed substantively identical WEiCU election‑contest suits based on standing, timeliness, and merits grounds and in some instances had deemed these cases as frivolous.
The court found that WEiCU's PRA claim was barred by Washington’s Other Statute exemption. The court also found that ballots should remain sealed and can be accessed only in statutorily permissible circumstances like canvassing, recounts, random checks, audits, or a court‑ordered election contest, which were not applicable to the instant case. Ultimately, the Court found no basis to recognize a new PRA right to a forensic audit of ballots, and rejected the Plaintiff's claims that state law permitted or required broader access rights to voted ballots. The court denied the motion to remand, dismissed all claims without prejudice, and dismissed the case based on both jurisdictional and state law grounds.
Summary Authors
Alex Smith (1/19/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60607099/parties/washington-election-integrity-coalition-united-v-anderson/
Baltmiskis, Gregory (Washington)
Creekmore, Yancey (Washington)
Almon-Griffin, Reina A (Washington)
Arora, Nitika (Washington)
Beane, Amanda J. (Washington)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60607099/washington-election-integrity-coalition-united-v-anderson/
Last updated April 9, 2026, 5:38 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 21, 2021
Closing Date: Sept. 30, 2022
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United, a non-partisan voting group focused on access to voting and election integrity, and multiple individual voters
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
County
JULIE ANDERSON, PIERCE COUNTY AUDITOR; PIERCE COUNTY, AND DOES 1- 30, INCLUSIVE
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Western District of Washington 3:21-cv-05726
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting:
Case Summary of Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Anderson, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44644/ (last updated 1/19/2026).