In Wood v. Raffensperger, Wood alleged that the Georgia 2020 general election was invalid due to the defendants conducting their election-related roles in an unconstitutional manner.

Like most lawsuits seeking to overturn the 2020 general election, the lawsuit failed for lack of standing due to the plaintiff having a generalized, rather than particular, grievance. From the motion denying the request for a temporary injunction:

Starting with his claim asserted under the Elections and Electors Clause, Wood lacks standing as a matter of law. The law is clear: A generalized grievance regarding a state government’s failure to properly follow the Elections Clause of the Constitution does not confer standing on a private citizen.

Who, if anybody, would have had a particularized grievance here? One of the candidates, perhaps? Or, since the quote calls out "private citizens", some member of the government?

This is related to this question, but isn't a duplicate: I'm not asking about generalized grievances in general, but the specific allegations in Wood v. Raffensperger.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.