Case: Yi v. Democratic National Party

This case involved a challenge to the use of state resources by major political parties in conducting primary elections.

On February 26, 2016, a pro se plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Democratic National Party, Maryland Democratic Party, Republican National Party, and Maryland Republican Party. Plaintiff based jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1357 (enforcement of voting rights), the 15th Amendment (right to vote), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). Represented by himself, Plaintiff sought injunctive relief ordering the defendants to cease operations, cancel the April 26, 2016 Maryland primaries, and cancel the November 8, 2016 presidential election in Maryland. He also sought declarations that the 2014 House of Representatives election, 2012 presidential election, and 2014 Senate election results in Maryland were improperly certified.

The plaintiff's arguments lacked clarity but centered on several loosely connected assertions. Plaintiff, who was registered as an independent voter, argued that he faced consequences and limitations compared to major party voters, particularly noting that Donald Trump could run as an independent while he had "no such luxury." His central argument was that the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee unconstitutionally used state resources to conduct primaries, unlike private organizations such as the Girl Scouts of America that do not use state resources for their elections.

Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that in Maryland, the parties used Montgomery County voting machines, voter registration information, and the Maryland State Board of Elections to govern primaries. He argued this violated the "liberty" provision of the 14th Amendment without due process of law regarding the right to vote. Plaintiff contended that as non-governmental organizations, the DNC and RNC could not use state resources without due process of law or congressional consent in matters of “Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.” He argued that the parties lacked congressional consent for their role in voting under the 15th Amendment, making their operational protocol unconstitutional.

On March 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that expanded on his original arguments and included additional details about the consequences faced by independent voters when switching party affiliations.

On April 4, 2016, District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis due to his apparent indigent status. However, the court noted that Plaintiff did not allege suffering any direct injury as a result of the defendants’ actions, thus dismissing the complaint.