Case: Equal Vote America Corp. v. Congress
1:19-cv-00311 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Filed Date: Jan. 11, 2019
Closed Date: Dec. 16, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is about an alleged violation of equal representation in Congress.
On January 11, 2019, a non-profit organization called “Equal Vote America Corp.” (EVA) and an individual filed a complaint in federal court in the Southern District of New York. The complaint explained that EVA represented a group of eligible voters and that its mission was educating the public on voting rights and promoting voter participation in the election process. The individual plaintiff was the leader of the organization and also a registered voter in New York. Plaintiffs filed the complaint against all successive classes of Congress since 1911 and named four congressional leaders because they had the power to initiate new legislation and control the legislative process: Speaker of the House of Representatives (the House), Minority Leaders in the House and Senate, and Majority Leader in the Senate. The plaintiffs asked the court to find the statutory method of apportioning House seats under the Apportionment Acts of 1911, 1929, and 1941 (which capped the number of seats at 435 and made the apportionment process self-executing after each 10-year census) to be unconstitutional. In addition to finding the current law unconstitutional, plaintiffs asked the court to hold Congress in contempt if it did not establish a more equitable method of apportionment.
The complaint stated that Congress had collectively failed to update the cap and allocation of seats since 1929 in accordance with the “Great Compromise” of a bicameral legislature approach agreed upon by the founding fathers and the Constitutional provisions mandating that House seats be allocated proportional to each state’s population. Plaintiffs claimed that the significant under-representation in the House had violated the principle of “no taxation without representation” plus their (1) right to equal representation under the Constitution Article I, § 2; (2) right to vote in presidential elections guaranteed by Article II, § 1; (3) privileges guaranteed by Article IV, § 2; (4) Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the First Amendment; (5) Due Process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment; (6) Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment § 1; and (7) right to equal vote under the Fourteenth Amendment § 2.
The complaint explained that based on the current law and the 2010 Census, Wyoming is guaranteed one seat for its population of 563,626, while New York State gets only 27 for its population of 19,378,561, i.e. 717,707 per house seat. If New York had been allocated one seat per 563,626, same as Wyoming, New York should have had 34.4 seats. Therefore, per the complaint, New York residents had been severely under-represented by at least seven seats, or 21%, which was a direct result of the Apportionment Acts. Using 1990, 2000, and 2010 census data and mathematical equations, plaintiffs offered what they claimed to be more appropriate state-by-state representation. Plaintiffs claimed that the requested relief was needed to restore “Every American’s right to equal representation … and equal vote in any election.”
After several failed attempts, the clerk of the court accepted plaintiffs' first amended complaint on February 11, 2019. Subsequently, on June 7, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Supreme Court has already upheld Congress’s chosen method of apportionment against constitutional attack. Defendants also moved to dismiss for lack of standing due to their failure to allege any injury that distinguished them from the vast majority of citizens and a failure to allege that any possible alleged harm was caused by the individual defendants’ actions, and because the relief sought would not address the harms alleged. The defendants also alleged that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by sovereign immunity and absolute immunity. The defendants also alleged that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over three of the four individual defendants because the plaintiffs did not allege sufficient contacts by those individuals with the Southern District of New York.
On July 7, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add 223 individuals from 40 states who joined the lawsuit as co-plaintiffs by signing an online affidavit.
On September 3, 2019, the trial court judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend to add new plaintiffs. The judge found that plaintiffs had not suffered an injury in fact that conferred standing to challenge the Apportionment Acts, and that EVA had no protectable interest at all because it does not vote and was not entitled to any representation because the right to vote is a citizen’s right to vote. EVA also failed to qualify for associational standing because it failed to identify by name at least one member with standing. The judge went on to explain that even if plaintiffs had passed that threshold, the courts routinely rejected claims based on generalized voter standing because the alleged injuries are not distinct and concrete and are shared with the general voting population. The judge also found that plaintiffs failed to establish a causal nexus between their injuries and defendants’ conduct and failed to establish the court’s ability to redress the plaintiff’s alleged injuries. The judge explained that because of the separation of powers, the judiciary could not force the legislature to enact new apportionment laws. In addition, defendants had sovereign and absolute immunity that had not been waived and therefore barred this suit. The judge agreed with defendants that the addition of new plaintiffs was futile and denied with prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend its complaint.
On September 23, 2019, plaintiffs appealed. On October 28, 2020, the 2nd Circuit issued a summary order without precedential effect. The court affirmed the dismissal but remanded the case to the lower court to amend the judgment dismissing the individual plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's decision on lack of standing because there was no legally protected interest that was concrete and particularized; because there was no traceable, direct causation; and because the proposed remedies would not provide the requested relief. The dismissal for lack of standing, however, cannot be dismissed with prejudice—it must be dismissed without prejudice. When the lower court took no action, the 2nd Circuit issued a mandate to the lower court. Despite the order and mandate, the lower court never amended its judgment to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint.
Summary Authors
Angela Morrison (9/9/2024)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14597248/parties/liu-v-congress/
McMahon, Colleen (New York)
Liu, Lewis Y. (New York)
Liu, Yu-Xi (New York)
Kochevar, Steven John (New York)
Berman, Geoffrey S.
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14597248/liu-v-congress/
Last updated June 29, 2026, 5:30 a.m.
Docket for: Liu v. Congress
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 11, 2019
Closing Date: Dec. 16, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A nonprofit corporation "Equal Vote America Corp." with the purported mission of educating the general public on voting rights and promoting voter participation in the election process was a plaintiff. In addition, Lewis Y. Lieu, an individual was a plaintiff. Later, a motion was filed to add more than 200 individual citizens from 40 states as plaintiffs in this case.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Speaker of the U.S. House, Minority Leader of U.S. House, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader
United States Congress
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Southern District of New York 1:19-cv-00311
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Amount Defendant Pays: 0
Issues
Voting:
Challenges to at-large/multimember district/election
Case Summary of Equal Vote America Corp. v. Congress, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44759/ (last updated 9/9/2024).