If it comes to a choice between the Indiana Supreme Court, and Nana, the smart money would go with Nana.
How about the Alaska Supreme Court then? They ruled unanimously last week (four Republicans and one Democrat) in Lamb v. Obama: “Mr. Lamb clearly lacks interest-injury standing to sue because he cannot establish any injury in fact, nor can he show a genuine controversy. Mr. Lamb claims that his failure to vote was his injury. However, the Supreme Court has ‘consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government - claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large’ - does not present a controversy.
Mr. Lamb’s complaint alleges nothing more than non-justiciable abstract and theoretical claim.
The court is under no obligation to accept as true Mr. Lamb’s complaint that is full of legal conclusions and bald assertions cloaked as facts. Bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded every favorable inference.
Moreover, Mr. Lamb has failed to plead any facts that fit within any cognizable legal theory. Mr. Lamb’s complaint gives his version of the history of Mr. Obama’s life and presidency; however he neither states nor provides allegations sufficient for any recognized cause of action. Even if the complaint and summons were properly served, Mr. Lamb had standing, and this court had jurisdiction, Mr. Lamb pleads no claim entitled to relief.”
http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/webdocs/opinions/ops/sm-1485.pdf