Filed Date: Dec. 12, 2016
Closed Date: Jan. 4, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about a private Alaska citizen’s challenge to Alaska’s members of the Electoral College chosen by the Alaska Republican Party who planned to cast their votes for President-Elect Donald Trump in the November 2016 presidential election even though Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote. In doing this, the plaintiff argues that the members of the Electoral College diminished the value of her vote in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee to equal protection under the laws and the notion of “one person, one vote”.
On December 12, 2016, the plaintiff, a private individual residing in Alaska, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska against three members of the Electoral College who were chosen by the Alaska Republican Party. The plaintiff claimed that if the defendants casted their votes for President-Elect Donald Trump, then that act would violate the guaranty of plaintiff’s rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and plaintiff made an argument that her vote counted for less than a vote for Donald Trump. Representing herself pro se, the plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief.
Concurrently, on December 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited consideration since the members of the Electoral College were scheduled to meet on December 19, 2016. On December 14, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for expedited consideration.
On December 15, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted because the Electors in the Electoral College are not prohibited from participating in the Electoral College’s selection of the President and Vice President as provided in the 12th Amendment.
On December 16, 2016, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss noting that there had been other courts that had taken up this same issue and rejected the same challenge to the Electoral College that the plaintiff made in her complaint.
On January 4, 2017, the court entered its judgment in the case.
On January 18, 2017, the plaintiff filed an application to waive the filing fee of a civil appeal on the matter that was dismissed. On January 26, 2017, the court asked the plaintiff to file an affidavit accompanying her motion to appeal in forma pauperis to determine whether the plaintiff qualified for in forma pauperis status. On February 14, 2017, the court stated it had not received any further required filings from the plaintiff and revoked the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status for her appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
On February 24, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion and memorandum to accept late in forma pauperis filing and reconsideration of order that denied her in pauperis status in her appeal. On March 24, 2017, the court issued an order that denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and motion to accept the late filing. On April 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order that the appeal is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s February 23, 2017 order.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Leilani Argersinger (4/22/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6865077/parties/park-v-parnell/
Burgess, Timothy Mark (Alaska)
Park, Janice (Alaska)
Witty, Rachel L. (Alaska)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6865077/park-v-parnell/
Last updated Aug. 8, 2025, 7:32 a.m.
State / Territory: Alaska
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 12, 2016
Closing Date: Jan. 4, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is a resident of the state of Alaska and cast a vote in the November 8, 2016 presidential election for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Sean Parnell, Private Entity/Person
Carol Leman, Private Entity/Person
Jacqueline Tupuo, Private Entity/Person
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: