Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David H. Johnson, Pamela L. Bickford, and Loy A. Thurman, all Alaska citizens proceeding pro se, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska against Governor Michael J. Dunleavy and other state officials. Their claims arose from the denial of an administrative complaint they filed with the State's Division of Elections concerning Alaska's Better Elections Initiative. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and a freestanding claim for judicial review of an opinion issued by Alaska's Attorney General.
The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims without leave to amend. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Callahan and Lee and District Judge Ezra sitting by designation, determined the case was suitable for decision without oral argument and reviewed the dismissal de novo.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on multiple independent grounds. First, the court held that HAVA does not create a private right of action enforceable by citizens, citing precedent doubting congressional intent to create such a right and noting the statutory enforcement scheme. Second, the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring Elections Clause claims because they are not candidates for office; the court relied on Lance v. Coffman, which requires a candidate or prospective candidate to assert such claims. Third, the request to set aside the Alaska Attorney General's opinion was not a cognizable claim because the opinion was merely a recommendation to the Lieutenant Governor and any challenge was rendered moot by subsequent action of the Alaska Supreme Court in Meyer v. Alaskans for Better Elections. Fourth, the federal APA does not apply to state agencies or state actors, so the administrative appeal of the Division of Elections' decision could not proceed under federal law.
The court concluded that all of the plaintiffs' claims were properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) and affirmed the district court's judgment in full. The disposition was issued as a non-precedential memorandum pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Key Takeaways
- HAVA does not provide a private right of action for individuals to enforce its provisions in federal court.
- Only candidates or prospective candidates have standing to bring Elections Clause challenges; ordinary voters cannot.
- The federal Administrative Procedure Act applies exclusively to federal agencies and does not authorize review of state election administration decisions.
- A request to set aside a state Attorney General's advisory opinion is moot when subsequent state supreme court action has resolved the underlying issue.
- Pro se plaintiffs' election law claims face significant jurisdictional and statutory barriers in federal court.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the limited avenues for private enforcement of federal election statutes and constitutional provisions in the Ninth Circuit. By confirming that HAVA creates no private right of action and that the federal APA does not reach state election officials, the court narrows the tools available to voters challenging state election administration. The standing ruling under the Elections Clause aligns with Supreme Court precedent restricting such claims to candidates, while the mootness determination underscores the importance of timely challenges to state election processes. The non-precedential memorandum disposition nevertheless provides clear guidance on these recurring issues in election litigation.