It has been alleged by some that certain private actors, such as Dominion Voting Systems and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, interfered with and altered the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in a manner that violated the constitutional rights of voters.
A lawsuit alleging exactly that was dismissed by both a district court and appeals court had been further appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the case without any explanation, the Conservative Brief reported.
It is now feared by some that the decision by the Supreme Court to not consider this particular case has set a precedent that will allow private actors, including Dominion and Facebook and others, to exert undue influence on the processes and outcomes of future elections across the nation.
Suit alleges Dominion, Facebook, others acted unconstitutionally “under color of law”
The case was known as Kevin O’Rourke, et al. v. Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., et al., and involved a group of eight registered voters in several different states who filed suit against Dominion, Facebook, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscila Chan, and a non-profit organization they created and funded called the Center for Tech and Civic Life.
That suit was centered on a claim that Dominion, Facebook, Zuckerberg and Chan, and CTCL had all violated 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in that they were private parties who “acted under color of law” to influence and perform election-related actions and procedures that are otherwise reserved to state governments and, in the process, violated the civil rights of voters.
Unfortunately for O’Rourke and the other plaintiffs, Law & Crime reported that their lawsuit was viewed as being based on unproven “conspiracy theories” with regard to “hundreds of thousands of votes” being allegedly switched by Dominion machines “as a result of the systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities,” and that the machines themselves were “intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.”
As for the claims against Facebook, Zuckerberg, and CTCL, the lawsuit alleged that they “regulated information that a cadre of progressives thought was misleading to the public” as well as “sought to control the process of local elections across the county under the cover of COVID-19 relief through conditioned grants totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Suit dismissed for lack of standing
Law & Crime reported that the Supreme Court on Monday issued an orders list that included the O’Rourke v. Dominion suit under the “certiorari denied” category without any explanation.
Given that the case had already been dismissed for lack of jurisdictional standing by a Colorado district court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the denial by the Supreme Court effectively puts an end to this particular suit.
Those courts had ruled that the complaints of the plaintiffs constituted a “generalized grievance” against the government and that none of the plaintiffs had shown evidence of any individual harm that would be necessary to have the standing to sue.
Plaintiffs’ arguments apparently insufficient
In their petition to the high court, however, the plaintiffs had argued that their initial claims had been misinterpreted by both the district and circuit courts as being made against state governments when, in fact, the claims were made against the private entities and individuals who had acted as though they had the same authority as state governments.
With regard to Dominion, the plaintiffs asserted that the company “is more than a vender of products and services used by states and their subdivisions to tabulate votes. Dominion administers elections,” and as such, should be considered a “state actor” that is bound to adhere to the Constitution.
As for Zuckerberg and CTCL, the lawsuit state that they took on the role of “state actor” by way of the fact that they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to “pay ballot harvesters, fund mobile ballot pick-up units, deputize and pay political activists to manage ballots, pay poll workers and election judges, establish drop-boxes to bypass and intercept the United States Mail, and consolidate counting centers to facilitate the movement of hundreds of thousands of questionable ballots without legally required observation.”
The petition of the plaintiffs concluded, to no avail, “The rule of law mandates that when the actions of private persons engaged in state action rises to an unconstitutional level, an injured citizen has a remedy through Sec. 1983. As such, that right must be encouraged, empowered and expanded — not denied, suppressed and contracted.”