Under both federal and Georgia law, the three requirements plaintiffs ‘must meet to have standing are “
(1) an injury in fact;
(2) a causal connection between the injury and the causal conduct; and
(3) the likelihood that the injury will be redressed with a favorable decision.” Sons of Confederate Veterans, 2021 WL. 3087576, at *S.
A plaintiff suffers an injury in fact when the injury is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotations omitted).
Petitioners allege their votes have been diluted due to the “substantial likelihood” that fraudulent ballots were introduced during ballot processing for the General Election. They reason that Respondents” failure to properly implement state election laws and their negligent oversight of Happy Facesstaffand other agents who assisted in counting ballots at al stages of ballot processing resulted in the introduction and counting of counterfeit ballots. They also allege that the issue will persist in future elections if not corrected.** However, regardless of the veracity of these allegations, the Court finds Petitioners have still f[a]iled to allege a particularized injury.
A. Petitioners have failed to allege a particularized injury.
An injury is particularized when it “affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Wood v. Raffensperger, 981 F.3d 1307, 1314 (11th Cir. 2020) (internal citations and styling omitted).
Petitioners” allegations are, in sum, that their state equal protection and due process rights were violated because their votes, and the votes of other Georgia voters, were diluted as a result of the inclusion of fraudulent ballots that were counted because Respondents negligently oversaw the ballot processing for the General Election.
“The 11th Cireuit in food found substantially similar allegations of voter dilution insufficient to confer standing. Wood, the appellant, alleged that “irregularities in the hand recount violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 1312. He asserted he had basis for standing because “the inclusion of unlawfully processed absentee ballots diluted the weight of his vote.” d. at 1314. [excerpt]
However, *regardless of the veracity* of these allegations, the Court finds Petitioners have still f[a]iled to allege a particularized injury.
A. Petitioners have failed to allege a particularized injury.
An injury is particularized when it “affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Wood v. Raffensperger, 981 F.3d 1307, 1314 (11th Cir. 2020) (internal citations and styling omitted).