Citizens for Fair Representation, et al. v. Alex Padilla, California Secretary of State

Did any Petitioner/Plaintiffs named in the three complaints filed with the District Court allege sufficient personal concrete and particularized harm therein to assert Article III standing for violations of each Plaintiff’s individual right to self governance, if any such right exists?

Did the Single Judge District Court below and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in appellate review act without or in excess of Article III jurisdiction over the subject-matter as conferred by Congress in 28 U.S.C. §2284(a) and (b)(3) as explained by the United States Supreme Court in Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450 (2015) when each refused to convene a three-court judge district court?

Did the judges below ( a single District Court judge and the presiding judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ) violate Article III § 1 and the principle of “party presentation” when they engaged in conduct so as to deny Plaintiffs ability to access a three-judge District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284(a) to present their claims? PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS An original Complaint (ECF 1), First Amended Complaint (FAC) (ECF 11, Exhibit 1), and Second Amended Complaint (SAC) (ECF 39) were filed with the District Court. The Plaintiffs named in the original Complaint included: Citizens for Fair Representation; City of Fort Jones; the California Libertarian Party; the American Independent Party; the Marin County Green Party; Mark Baird; John D’Agostini; Larry Wahl; Shasta Nation Indian Tribe; Roy Hall Jr.; Win Carpenter; Kyle Carpenter; Patty Smith; Katherine Radinovich; David Garcia; Leslie Lim; Kevin McGary; Terry Rapoza; Howard Thomas;