injury-in-fact and causation under this theory,[1] their constitutional claim cannot stand because Plaintiffs fall flat when attempting to clear the hurdle of redressability.
Plaintiffs fail to establish that the alleged injury of vote-dilution can be redressed by a favorable decision from this Court. Plaintiffs ask this Court to de-certify the results of the 2020 General Election in Michigan. But an order de-certifying the votes of approximately 2.8 million people would not reverse the dilution of Plaintiffs’ vote. To be sure, standing is not “dispensed in gross: A plaintiff’s remedy must be tailored to redress the plaintiff’s particular injury.” Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1934 (citing Cuno, 547 U.S. at 353); Cuno, 547 U.S. at 353 (“The remedy must of course be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established.” (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357 (1996)). Plaintiffs’ alleged injury does not entitle them to seek their requested remedy because the harm of having one’s vote invalidated or diluted is not remedied by denying millions of others their right to vote. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to show that their injury can be redressed by the relief they seek and thus possess no standing to pursue their equal protection claim.
- ↑ To be clear, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs satisfy the first two elements of the standing inquiry.
25
