This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Due Process Violation
Voting

Andrew Maria v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Ventura

Published: Aug. 11, 2023 | Result Date: Mar. 29, 2023 | Filing Date: Jul. 8, 2022 |

Case number: 2:22-cv-05582-MCS (GJS) Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

Mark C. Scarsi

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Pro Per


Defendant

Christine A. Renshaw
(Office of the Ventura County Counsel)


Facts

On August 8, 2022, Andrew Maria filed, pro se, a civil rights complaint against the County of Ventura's Board of Supervisors. In essence, Maria believed that the November 2020 elections were unfair because the voting machines used contained a computer backdoor security risk that would allow computer-savvy individuals to alter vote totals without detection. Accordingly, he asserted three civil rights claims.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that, given that he exposed this possibility, it was now up to defendant to prove that its voting system and procedures were fairly conducted. Specifically, he argued that by using voting machines with these security risks, defendant deprived its citizens of knowing if their votes were accurately counted, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and due process rights. Moreover, the situation also violated the U.S. Constitution's Guarantee Clause because voters of the tainted elections could not guarantee the republican form of government.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued, primarily, that dismissal was warranted because plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his claims, because he failed to satisfy the injury-in-fact element of the standing requirement.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss.


#141224

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390