Graeff v. Ashcroft

1

ALISON GRAEFF, Plaintiff, v. JOHN R. ASHCROFT, Missouri Secretary of State, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:22-CV-971 RLW

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

March 9, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONNIE L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. “Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists[.]” Hertz Corp v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States and is inflexible and without exception.” Kessler v. Nat'l Enterprises, Inc., 347 F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and quoted case omitted). Article III standing “is a jurisdictional prerequisite” and may be raised by the Court sua sponte. Turkish Coal. of Am., Inc. v Bruininks, 678 F.3d 617, 621 (8th Cir. 2012). A federal court must be satisfied that the requirements of standing have been met before turning to the merits of a suit. Id.; City of Clarkson Valley v. Mineta, 495 F.3d 567, 569 (8th Cir. 2007). In the absence of Article III standing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's “Amended Petition to Contest St. Charles County Missouri Primary Election August 2, 2022,” which the Court construes as an Amended Complaint, and finds Plaintiff does not have standing. The Court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute. For the reasons that follow the Court remands this cause of action to state court.

I. Background

A. Procedural Posture

Plaintiff Alison Graeff, who is proceeding in this matter without the assistance of counsel, is a Missouri voter and a former candidate for Missouri's 106th House district. Plaintiff filed suit in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri on August 31, 2022, against Defendants John R. Ashcroft, Missouri's Secretary of State, and Kurt Bahr, Director of Elections for St. Charles County. Plaintiff alleged in her state court petition that in the November 2020 general election, Missouri used electronic voting systems that were not tested by properly accredited test laboratories, and that Missouri continues to use the same voting systems in violation of federal and state election laws. Plaintiff brought six counts against the two defendants in her state court petition for violations of the U.S. Constitution, the Missouri Constitution, and federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, 18 U.S.C. § 245, and 52 U.S.C. § 20511(2)(b).

On September 16, 2022, Defendants removed the cause of action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446(b). Following removal, the Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff amended her pleadings and filed an “Amended Petition to Contest St. Charles County Missouri Primary Election August 2, 2022,” which the Court construes as an Amended Complaint. The factual allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are substantially the same as those in her initial state court petition, but Plaintiff has omitted her claims under the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. Instead, Plaintiff alleges claims under Missouri state law only. Plaintiff now brings the following six counts in her Amended Complaint: Violation of Procedural Due Process, Art. I, § 8 of the Missouri Constitution (Count I); Violation of Substantive Due Process, Art. I, §§ 2 & 25 of the Missouri Constitution and Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.225 (Count II); Deprivation of Civil Rights, Art. I, §§ 14, 10 & 25 of the Missouri Constitution (Count III); Deprivation of Constitutional Rights, Art. I, §§ 14, 10 & 25 and Art. XI, § 3 of the Missouri Constitution (Count IV); Voting Rights Violation, Art. I, § 25 of the Missouri Constitution (Count V); and Declaratory Judgment, Art. V, §§ 14 & 18 of the Missouri Constitution (VI).

Following the amendment of her pleadings, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court, arguing the Circuit Court of St. Charles County has exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims challenging primary elections under Missouri law. Defendants oppose remand. In response, Defendants argue that the claims in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are so related to the claims she had asserted under federal law that they form part of the same case or controversy, and the Court should maintain supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Defendant Ashcroft argues separately that Plaintiff cannot defeat federal jurisdiction by eliminating her federal claims, and she has waived her right to remand by filing an Amended Complaint.

In addition to opposing remand, Defendants filed separate Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Defendants Motions to Dismiss are pending before the Court.

B. Allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to “properly ensure accreditation and certification of Missouri electronic voting machine systems.” (ECF No. 25 at 3). According to Plaintiff, the laboratories that tested voting machines used in Missouri were not properly certified under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 52 U.S.C. §§ 20901, et seq., (“HAVA”).^[1] According to Plaintiff, the State of Missouri adopted provisions of HAVA in 2003, and the national testing procedures promulgated under HAVA apply to voting system in Missouri under state law.

Plaintiff alleges that in Missouri's November 3, 2020 general election, Missouri used electronic voting systems that were tested by three laboratories - SLI Compliance, NTS Huntsville Laboratory (“NTS”), and Pro V&V. According to Plaintiff, none of the three laboratories were properly accredited or certified as VSTLs under HAVA at the time they performed their testing. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts, Missouri continues to use voting systems tested by Pro V&V and SLI Compliance, which remain uncertified as VSTLs under HAVA.^[2] Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Ashcroft and Bahr violated Missouri law in that they “knowingly continued to require Missourians to vote in the August 2, 2022, Missouri Primary elections on uncertified machines.” (ECF No. 25 at 25). Moreover, the voting machines remain uncertified due to Pro V&V's and SLI Compliance's lack of accreditation. Plaintiff claims that the fact the electronic voting systems were tested by unaccredited laboratories “renders the election results, regardless of outcome, null and void.” (Id. at 17). According to the Amended Complaint, “[t]he State of Missouri and St. Charles County continue to certify election results violating my civil liberties. This is subsequently forcing [Plaintiff], as well as all Missouri citizens, into fraudulent contracts with illegally elected government officials: providing said officials with unlawful power to enforce actions under the color of law coercing and subjecting [Plaintiff] into servitude.” (Id. at 27). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' misconduct “silences my voice as a voter and violates my rights as a citizen.” (Id. at 28)

Plaintiff seeks the following for relief in this case: (1) “[t]he immediate and permanent removal of the St. Charles County from the Federal mandates under the [HAVA]” (2) “[t]he immediate and permanent removal of all electronic voting machines, equipment, and poll pads in St. Charles County”; (3) the “immediate[] return” of St. Charles County “to hand-cast[] and hand-counted paper ballots”; (4) an order enjoining Defendants from “implementing or enforcing the use of electronic voting machines, equipment, and electronic poll pads and from taking any other action to implement the use of electronic voting equipment[] in all future St. Charles County elections”; and (5) an order prohibiting the Missouri Secretary of State and all state election officials “from deletion, destruction, disposal, or altering of all election data pertaining to the November 3, 2020 General election in the State of Missouri.” (Id. at 37-38).

C. Related Case

Upon removal, Defendants filed an Original Filing Form in which they indicated that this case is the same the cause of action, or a substantially equivalent complaint, as a case previously filed by Plaintiff in this Court, specifically Graeff v. United States Election Assistance Commission, et al., No. 4:22-CV-682 RLW (Graeff I). All the parties appear to agree that the factual allegations in Graeff I are nearly identical to the allegations in the case at bar. Furthermore, Plaintiff asserted the same six counts under federal law in Graeff I as Plaintiff asserted in her initial state court petition in the present case, although she has since filed an Amended Complaint withdrawing these claims and alleging state law claims only. The defendants in the two cases are not the same, however. In Graeff I, Plaintiff brought suit against the EAC and its Commissioners, Defendants Thomas Hicks, Christy McCormick, Benjamin W. Hovland, and Donald L. Palmer (collectively, “the Federal Defendants”), as well as Defendant John J. Ashcroft, the Missouri Secretary of State.^[3] Defendant Ashcroft is the only defendant named in both suits.

In Graeff I, the Federal Defendants moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) to dismiss the claims against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to establish Article III standing in that Plaintiff had not articulated a concrete and...