Whether a voter has standing to challenge state action based on vote dilution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Georgia Legislature has plenary authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of Federal Elections and has clearly set forth the procedures to be followed in verifying the identity of in-person voters as well as mail-in absentee ballot voters. The Georgia Secretary of State usurped that power by entering into a Settlement Agreement with the Democratic Party earlier this year and issuing an “Official Election Bulletin” that modified the Legislature's clear procedures for verifying the identity of mail-in voters. The effect of the Secretary of State’s unauthorized procedure is to treat the class of voters who vote by mail different from the class of voters who vote in-person, like Petitioner. That procedure dilutes the votes of in-person voters by votes from persons whose identities are less likely to verified as required by the legislative scheme. The Secretary’s unconstitutional modifications to the legislative scheme violated Petitioner’s Equal Protection rights by infringing on his fundamental right to vote. The Eleventh Circuit has held that Petitioner does not have standing to challenge State action that dilutes his vote and infringes upon his constitutional right to Equal Protection. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Petitioner/voter has standing to challenge state action based on the predicate act of vote dilution where the underlying wrong infringes upon a voter’s right to vote. i 2. Whether a weakening of State Legislature’s signature verification procedures for mail-in voters violates Petitioner’s right to Equal Protection as an in-person voter. il