Author: Rachel Alexander

U.S. District Court Judge Dominic Lanza dismissed a lawsuit challenging over a million ineligible voters on Arizona’s voter rolls, asserting that the plaintiffs had no standing. Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda, Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi, and Republican businessman Steven Gaynor filed the lawsuit against Secretary of State Adrian Fontes earlier this year. 

Legal commentator Robert Barnes said rejecting lawsuits based on standing is a legal practice that should not exist in the law. “[I]n some of the worst government abuses over the last century, the main doctrine cited for judicial abdication is standing,” he said, citing a law review article at Pepperdine School of Law. “The meaning of standing keeps involving over the decades since with the courts restricting the definition of injury and rewriting the meaning of causation to exclude most Constitutional injuries from judicial remedy wherever and whenever it politically pleased the courts to do so. As scholars concede: the standing doctrine is ‘so malleable’ that courts ‘routinely manipulate’ it depending on where a judge ‘wishes’ to reach the merits. The wild inconsistency and contradictions in standing doctrine reveal it for it really is: a Pontius Pilate pretext to wash their hands of the dirty deeds of government.”