the Voting Rights Act, and the 14th and 15th Amendments, all of which were all mentioned earlier in the complaint.
The essence of the Ballot challenge of the Barnett Plaintiffs is their contention that it "did not adequately, accurately, properly or intelligently advise the voters of what, or for what, the voter was casting his or her ballot." Id. This contention is premised upon two theories: first, that the Ballot was insufficient because the proposed maps themselves were not displayed on the Ballot; and, second, that the Ballot was insufficient because the list of aldermen submitting each map was not in the order that the Barnett Plaintiffs contend would have been most logical.
The Barnett Defendants, in response, contend that the Barnett Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this claim.
This argument is premised upon the failure of the Barnett Plaintiffs to plead that they themselves were confused or otherwise injured by the Ballot, or even that they voted in the March 17, 1992 referendum.
To have standing, a plaintiff must establish three elements:
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" -- an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical'" . . . Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of -- the injury has to be "fairly . . . trace [able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . the result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court." . . . Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision" (citations eliminated).
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351, slip op. at 4 (1992); see, also, People Organized For Welfare & Employment Rights (P.O.W.E.R) v. Thompson, 727 F.2d 167, 171 (7th Cir. 1984) (to support a federal cause of action, an injury "must in short be fairly describable as an injury personal to the plaintiff -- a deprivation of his right -- rather than a concern with another's injury" (emphasis in original)).
The Barnett Plaintiffs have not alleged any injury personal to them. They have not alleged that they were personally confused by the Ballot, nor that any confusion suffered by others caused the Barnett Plaintiffs to suffer injury. Furthermore, the Barnett Plaintiffs have not even alleged that they voted in the referendum. Rather, the Barnett Plaintiffs have only alleged that the Ballot was ambiguous, illogical, and confusing to "voters." The Barnett Plaintiffs have therefore not properly plead the necessary standing elements. Count II of the Barnett Amended Complaint is therefore dismissed.
D. The Barnett Plaintiffs Civil Rights Act Claims.
In paragraph 1 of the Barnett Amended Complaint, the Barnett Plaintiffs list several sections from the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq., and then later allege that "the [March 1992 Map] violates and is repugnant to the hereinbefore set forth constitutional and statutory rights . . ." Barnett Amended Complaint at P 85. The Barnett Plaintiffs do not allege any facts to support their Civil Rights Act claims. Furthermore, the Barnett Plaintiffs did not even respond to the arguments regarding the Civil Rights Act claims. Accordingly, the Barnett Plaintiffs Civil Rights Act claims are hereby dismissed.
E. Count III of the Barnett Amended Complaint.
Count III of the Barnett Amended Complaint adopts the allegations contained in Counts I and II, and asks the court to enact some undisclosed map to be drawn by the Barnett Plaintiffs and to hold special elections under that map. This request for an additional remedy does not set forth any legal theory other than theories which this court has already dismissed. Count III is therefore dismissed for the same reasons that the Barnett Plaintiffs' other claims have been dismissed.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Barnett and Smith Amended Complaints are hereby dismissed.
BRIAN BARNETT DUFF, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
December 21, 1992