Judge tosses mail-in ballot challenge

Crawford found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.

“The plaintiff’s case begins and ends with the issue of standing,” Crawford wrote. “This is a constitutional requirement, which operates as a check on the ability of litigants to file claims for injuries which are insufficiently specific and direct in their effect on the plaintiff. ... Cases in which plaintiffs assert ‘generalized grievances’ of unlawful government action are commonly dismissed on standing grounds.”

Crawford wrote that plaintiffs must show an injury that is “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical” and the only claim they had brought was “theoretical.” Also, he ruled the plaintiffs were not specifically affected by the change in a manner different from any other voter.

Crawford rejected an argument made at a hearing Tuesday that the procedures that would allow them to vote even if their mail-in ballot was sent to the wrong place were difficult enough that it might deprive the plaintiffs of their right to vote. The ruling said that because the lawsuit was not a class action, he had to consider how likely that was to apply to the plaintiffs, who included a sitting town clerk as well as current and former members of the Legislature.

“These are sophisticated voters who have gone to considerable lengths to obtain counsel skilled in election law and to file a lawsuit in federal court,” Crawford wrote. “Of all people likely to be confused about how to vote, these five plaintiffs must be last on the list. The court will not enjoin a statewide mailing because one or more of these plaintiffs may be confused by the non-receipt of a separate mailing last month in connection with the primary election.”

gordon.dritschilo

@rutlandherald.com