Brenda Forman, a registered voter in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Al Schmidt, the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Forman challenged the security of voting machines provided by Election Systems and Software (ES&S) used in Allegheny County and elsewhere in the state. She alleged that these machines have security vulnerabilities and lack mechanisms for voters to verify that their ballots are tabulated accurately. She further claimed that the Secretary failed to comply with state and federal laws, including the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), when certifying the equipment. Forman sought an emergency injunction to stop the use of these machines until the certification issues were resolved. The District Court dismissed her second amended complaint, ruling she lacked standing and failed to state a claim. Forman appealed, arguing that her allegations of election insecurity constituted a concrete injury and that her claims could be reframed under the NVRA.
The Third Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, accepting Forman's factual allegations as true but determining they did not support a legal claim. The court focused primarily on Article III standing, which requires a plaintiff to show a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct. The court agreed with the District Court that Forman's injury was speculative. She did not allege that she was prevented from casting a ballot or that her specific vote was not counted. Instead, she challenged the general security of the system. The court characterized this as a generalized grievance shared by all voters, which is insufficient to establish standing. The court noted that a plaintiff cannot sue merely to ensure the government follows the law without demonstrating a personal stake in the outcome. Regarding the merits, the court held that HAVA does not contain a private right of action, meaning voters cannot sue states directly under that statute. Furthermore, the court found that Forman's claims did not align with the NVRA, which governs voter registration and roll maintenance, not ballot tabulation security. Finally, the court rejected her constitutional claims under the First, Ninth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, stating that her allegations were 'conclusory and bare-bones' and did not amount to a violation of any protected federal right. The court also affirmed the District Court's refusal to grant leave to amend, noting that further amendment would be futile given the standing deficiency.
This decision reinforces the high bar for standing in election security cases. Voters challenging the integrity of voting machines must demonstrate a concrete, particularized injury, such as being denied the right to vote or having their specific vote miscounted, rather than relying on general fears about system security. The ruling limits the ability of private citizens to use § 1983 to enforce HAVA or challenge election equipment certification without a direct, personal impact on their voting rights. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint, and no further leave to amend is granted.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download