Grinols v. Electoral Coll.
| Decision Date | 23 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD,2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | JAMES GRINOLS, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. ELECTORAL COLLEGE, et. al., Defendants. |
The operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC") names the following plaintiffs: (1) James Grinols ("Grinols"), a 2012 California Republican party elector; (2) Edward Noonan ("Noonan"), allegedly the American Independent Party's 2012 presidential candidate; (3) Thomas MacLeran ("MacLeran"), a presidential candidate; (4) Robert Odden ("Odden"), a 2012 California Libertarian party elector; (5) Keith Judd ("Judd"), a 2012 Democratic primary candidate in West Virginia; and (6) Orly Taitz ("Taitz"), Plaintiffs' counsel and a California voter (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"). (ECF No. 69). The FAC lists the following Defendants: (1) California Governor Edmund G., Jr. ("Governor Brown"); (2) California Secretary of State Debra Bowen ("Secretary Bowen"); (3) the Electoral College; (4) President of the Senate, Vice President Joseph Biden, Jr. ("Vice President Biden");(5) the United States Congress ("Congress"); and (6) President Barack H. Obama ("President Obama").1 (ECF No. 69.)
In their FAC, Plaintiffs allege that President Obama is not eligible to be the President of the United States because he is not a "natural born" U.S. Citizen, as required by the United States Constitution. (Id.) Further, according to Plaintiffs, President Obama uses a stolen Connecticut social security number, a forged short-form birth certificate, a forged long-form birth certificate, and a forged selective service certificate as proof that he is a natural born American citizen. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiffs' FAC contains a claim alleging violations of California Elections Code § 2150 by California Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that over one-and-one-half million of California voter registration records contain falsified or missing data with respect to those voters' place of birth, which allegedly makes those voter registrations invalid under California law. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask the Court for "declarative and injunctive relief to clean up California voter roles [sic] and [have] a special election." (Id.)
On April 22, 2013, the Court heard oral arguments regarding California Defendants' and Federal Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. After careful consideration of the parties' filings and exhibits prior to the hearing, as well as oral arguments made during the hearing, the Court orally dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaint without leave to amend. This Order provides further analysis regarding the Court's ruling from the bench. To the extent that there is any inconsistency between this Order and the Court's ruling from the bench, the terms of this Order control.
LITIGATION HISTORY
On December 13, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint and "Petition for Extraordinary Emergency Writ of Mandamus/Stay of Certification of Votes for Presidential Candidate Obama due to elections fraud and his use of invalid/forged/fraudulently obtained IDs" ("Plaintiffs' Petition"). (ECF No. 2.) On December 14, 2012, the Court interpreted Plaintiffs' Petition to be an Application for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). (ECF No. 8.) The Court denied Plaintiffs' Petition for failure to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 231 (c), which governs the procedure for filing a TRO application. (Id.) In its ruling, the Court instructed Plaintiffs to file a corrected TRO application within a week. (ECF No. 12.)
On December 20, 2012, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO to prevent the following events from occurring: (1) Secretary Bowen and Governor Brown certifying the Certificate of Ascertainment; (2) the Electoral College tallying the 2012 presidential election votes; (3) Governor Brown forwarding the Certificate of Electoral Vote to the United States Congress; (4) Vice President Biden presenting the Certificate of Electoral Vote to Congress; (5) the United States Congress confirming the Presidential election results; and (6) President Obama taking the oath of office on January 20, 2013. (Id.) On January 3, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF Nos. 48 and 52.)
On February 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the operative FAC. (ECF No. 69.) Presently before the Court are a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's FAC filed by Federal Defendants on February 15, 2013 (ECF No. 71), and a Motion to Dismiss the FAC filed by California Defendants on February 28, 2013 (ECF No. 73).
THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HISTORY
A brief overview of American presidential elections generally and the 2012 Presidential election in particular is necessary for better understanding Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. 2 The 2012 presidential election was held on November 6, 2012. Nationally, President Obama won the popular vote, earning 62,611,250 popular votes to Governor Mitt Romney's ("Governor Romney") 59,134,475 popular votes. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/, Washington Post, 2012 Election Results.) In California, President Obama defeated Governor Romney by about 3 million votes and a margin of 60.2% to 37.1%. (Cal. Defs' Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN"),3 ECF No. 75, Ex. D.)
The popular national vote does not determine the winner of American presidential races. Instead, the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College to elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Under Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the voters of each state choose electors on Election Day to serve in the Electoral College. The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members in Congress to which the state is entitled. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. There are a total of 538 electors because there are 435 representatives and 100 senators, plus 3 electors allocated to Washington, D.C., under the Twenty-Third Amendment. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. In most states, including California, the State appoints its electors on a "winner-takes-all" basis, based on the statewide popular vote on Election Day.That is all electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes become electors for that State. Two hundred and seventy electoral votes are necessary to win the American presidency.
As soon as the election results are final, the Governor of each State is required to prepare and send to the Archivist of the United States a Certificate of Ascertainment ("COA"), which is a formal list of the names of electors chosen in that State and the number of votes cast for each. See 3 U.S.C. § 6. Of particular relevance to this case, Governor Brown executed California's COA on December 15, 2012. (RJN Ex. A.)
The electors chosen on Election Day meet in their respective state capitals on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President of the Unites States. See U.S. Const. amend. XII; 3 U.S.C. §§ 7, 8. In the instant case, the Electoral College executed California's Certificates of Vote ("COV"), and Secretary Bowen witnessed them, on December 17, 2012. (RJN Ex. B.) On December 18, 2012, California forwarded both its COA and COV to Vice President Biden. (Decl. John Kim in Support of Cal. Defs' Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 59 ¶ 1.)
On January 4, 2013, the Senate and House of Representatives met in the House Chamber and counted the electoral votes. See 3 U.S.C § 15 (2012); H.J. Res. 122, 112th Cong. (2012). Vice President Biden, in his role as President of the Senate, was the presiding officer. Vice President Biden opened and presented the certificates of the electoral votes of the states and the District of Columbia in alphabetical order. See 3 U.S.C § 15 (2012).
Under 3 U.S.C. § 15, when the certificate from each state is read, "the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any." An objection must be made in writing and must be signed by at least one Senator and one Representative. Id. The objection "shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof." Id. If and when an objection is made, each house is to meet and debate it separately. Id. Both Houses must vote separately to agree to the objection to an electoral vote; otherwise, the electoral vote is counted. Id.
No Senators or Congressmen objected at the January 4, 2013, electoral vote count, and the tally confirmed that President Obama was the winner of the 2012 Presidential election with 332 electoral votes to Governor Romney's 206 votes. (RJN Ex. C.) Chief Justice Roberts inaugurated President Obama at noon on January 20, 2013. See U.S. Const. amend. XX, § 1.
STANDARDS
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. Because subject matter jurisdiction involves a court's power to hear a case, it can never be forfeited or waived. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). Accordingly, lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by either party at any point during the litigation, through a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006); see also Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs v. Cnty. of Plumas, 559 F.3d 1041, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2009). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may also be raised by the district court sua sponte. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Indeed, "courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial