OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
The Supreme Court has decided that it will not hear a case that alleged Dominion Voting Systems and Facebook had an undue influence on the 2020 elections. The court did not make comment about why it rejected the appeal from eight Americans that were led by Kevin O’Rourke after they had lost two previous times in court, Law & Crime reported.
The site noted:
The lead plaintiff in the case, Kevin O’Rourke, has tried and failed to represent a class of eight people from five different states, seven of whom voted during the 2020 election. One of them, Neil Yarbrough, is identified as a “disgruntled voter” who did not vote. The underlying claims are based on a conspiracy theory that “hundreds of thousands of votes” were switched in the 2020 presidential election “as a result of the systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities” in software used by Dominion’s voting systems. Moreover, the original lawsuit claims Dominion’s voting systems are “intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.”
In the petition for writ of certiorari, Michigan-based attorney Ernest J. Walker wrote that his clients later filed an amended lawsuit, which “further details their factual allegations against Dominion, which included averments concerning the unconstitutional adjudication process integral to Dominion’s voting systems.”
“To ‘fortify’ the election, Respondent, Facebook, Inc., k/n/a, Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) regulated information that a cadre of progressives thought was misleading to the public,” the plaintiffs said. “Additionally, Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) sought to control the process of local elections across the county under the cover of COVID-19 relief through conditioned grants totaling hundreds of millions of dollars provided by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Facebook, Respondent, Mark Zuckerberg (Zuckerberg), and his wife, Respondent, Priscila Chan (Chan).”
“Extraordinary lengths were taken to ensure the incumbent’s defeat,” they said.
It alleged that Dominion “has played in the creation and perpetuation of concerns regarding ‘vulnerabilities and a lack of transparency in the election technology industry.’”
In the complaint, they claimed that “‘hundreds of thousands of votes’ were switched in the 2020 presidential election ‘as a result of the systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities’ in the software utilized by Dominion’s voting systems.”
It said that “Dominion’s voting systems are ‘intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.’”
And it said it was damaged because “illegal votes and unconstitutional procedures dilute the votes of the legally registered voter, persons that create policies and procedures that authorize, encourage, and cover-up unconstitutional behavior are liable for the damages they cause to Plaintiffs with proper standing.”
But the District Court decision, that was attached to the appeal, did not agree with the plaintiffs.
“Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest or injury sufficient to grant them standing to sue. With Plaintiffs not having standing to sue, there is no case or controversy, a necessary predicate for federal court jurisdiction under Article III,” it said.
It said that the lawsuit was “a generalized grievance about the operation of government, or about the actions of the Defendants on the operation of government, resulting in abstract harm to all registered voting Americans.”
“Plaintiffs aver that Defendants’ conduct with regard to the 2020 Presidential election violated the constitutional rights of every registered voter in the United States. That is a generalized grievance,” the court said.
“Accordingly, no matter how strongly Plaintiffs believe that Defendants violated voters’ rights in the 2020 election, they lack standing to pursue this litigation unless they identify an injury to themselves that is distinct or different from the alleged injury to other registered voters,” it said.
The group said that the damage was evident.
“The current executive administration continues with use divisive rhetoric aimed at citizens that strive for election integrity, and to protect their own rights. These Americans are now classified as ‘election deniers,’ and literally labeled as ‘domestic terrorists,’” the group said in its appeal.
“Such is the foreseeable result of allowing private persons to administer the general elections of numerous states across the county, and, otherwise, bring their influence to bear. The founders never intended for that to happen. In fact, the creation of state government was necessary to, if for nothing else, administer the elections of their people. If this Petition is not compelling enough to convince this Court to issue a writ of certiorari, a case like this will likely never happen, again. As it is, this case closes the door to citizens who have been injured by private persons in a fashion that burdens the rights of a large group of citizens,” the appeal said.
“Without clarity in the law concerning a citizen’s standing to sue private persons, who deprive that citizen of his or rights under color of law, how does a citizen stop corporations the size of Facebook and Dominion, and persons as powerful and rich and Zuckerberg and Chan from violating his or her rights? They don’t,” it said.
