standing grounds. Additionally, Defendants briefly address alternative bases for dismissal.Regardless of the rationale, the end result is the same – Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed.
Plaintiffs Fail To Cure The Standing Problems That Resulted In The DismissalOf Other Cases Challenging President Obama’s Qualifications
As Defendants argued in their Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 5, most suits challengingPresident’s Obama’s qualifications to hold the Office of the Presidency have been dismissed forplaintiffs’ lack of standing.
Drake v. Obama
, 664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011);
Kerchner v. Obama
, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010);
Berg v. Obama
, 586 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2009);
, 359 F. App’x 40 (10th Cir. 2010);
Craig v. United States
, 340 F. App’x 471 (10th Cir.2009);
Taitz v. Obama
, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1, (D.D.C. 2010);
Kerchner v. Obama
, 669 F. Supp. 2d477, 481 (D.N.J. 2009);
Bowhall v. Obama
, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127036 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 30,2010);
Barnett v. Obama
, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206 (C.D. Cal.
Cook v. Good
, 2009U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126144 (M.D. Ga. July 16, 2009);
Dawson v. Obama
, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS16161 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2009);
Hunter v. U.S. Supreme Court
, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3057(N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2009).Plaintiffs allege that this suit is different because, unlike prior plaintiffs, Plaintiff Dummet is a candidate for the Presidency.
However, this argument is based on amisapprehension of the law. It is true that some courts have recognized that political candidateshave standing to challenge an opponent’s qualifications, commonly called “competitivestanding.” As the name suggests, competitive standing requires
Owen v. Mulligan
, 640 F.2d 1130, 1132-1133 (9th Cir. 1981) (finding that
Defendants assume, for purposes of the instant Motions, that Plaintiff Dummet has filed papers to run for Presidentwith the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”). Plaintiffs make no argument that Plaintiffs Volodarsky orMaroney, who are not candidates, satisfy standing requirements, presumably as a concession that they do not havestanding. In fact, Plaintiffs appear to concede, although inartfully, that all Plaintiffs except Plaintiff Dummet lack standing to pursue their claims.
Dkt. No. 19 at 8 (“One Plaintiff with Standing Allows the Case to Proceed”).Accordingly, although Defendants believe all Plaintiffs should be dismissed for lack of standing, at a minimumPlaintiffs Voloardsky and Maroney must be dismissed for a lack of standing.
Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA-cgc Document 23 Filed 05/14/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID 226