Case: Manship v. Virginia Board of Elections

This is a case about the validity of Electronic Voting Systems for use in casting and tallying election ballots. On November 2, 2016, an individual who was an investigative reporter, Virgina voter, and Navy Special Duty Cryptology Disabled Veteran, filed an emergency motion for order for injunctive and declaratory relief and verified class action complaint pro se in the Eastern District of Virgina on behalf of himself and all Virginia voters. This motion was brought against the Virginal Board of Elections and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virgina, Terrance McAuliffe, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and claimed federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).

This motion requested an injunction barring the Virginia Board of Elections from using electronic methods in casting and tabulating votes during the 2016 general election in Virginia. The plaintiff argued that a Voter's right to their completed ballot being "counted as cast" was violated by the use of Electronic Voting Systems, because they allow for votes to be tampered with. He cited a C-SPAN broadcast in which a panel of experts on Cybersecurity and U.S. Voting Systems highlighted vulnerabilities in the U.S. voting system and noted how adversaries could compromise voting machines and data. He also cited his experience in Naval Electronic Systems Command Reconnaissance as basis for his understanding in the complexities of using electronic systems for sensitive information. the plaintiff noted in his motion several instances of what he believed to be potential voter "fraud" or "manipulation" regarding the use of electronic voting systems.

In filing his motion, the plaintiff requested Judge Rober E. Payne due to his familiarity with Virginia voting laws and his presiding over Correll v. Herring, et al., Civil Action No. 3:16v467. Judge Payne reviewed this request and ordered on November 2, 2016, that the action be reassigned according to the standard assignment system, as the action was unrelated to Correll v. Herring, et al.

The case was reassigned to Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. who delivered his order and opinion on November 3, 2016. In his opinion, Judge Gibney stated the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim of injunctive relief because he did not establish a likelihood of suffering from substantial or immediate harm. Judge Gibney referred to the case as frivolous, noting the plaintiff could not rationally amend his complain to state a valid claim. Specifically, the plaintiff's evidence was not sufficient. Judge Gibney noted the need for caution in ruling on cases involving the details of elections. To establish standing as a plaintiff seeking an injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff needed to show 'the likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury" City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 (1983). the plaintiff failed to do so in his complaint. Judge Gibney noted the plaintiff's claims were "delusional facts" rather than facts providing a basis for his claims. Judge Gibney dismissed the action with prejudice and noted the plaintiff had 30 days to appeal.

The plaintiff did appeal and filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal on November 17, 2016. However, the court denied the motion again. Judge Gibney delivered his order on April 20, 2017, noting the plaintiff still failed to state a claim or establish standing. The action was again dismissed.

The plaintiff was given 30 days to appeal this second order. However, he did not appeal again.

This case is closed.