Marc Thielman, et al. v. Lavonne Griffin-Valade, Oregon Secretary of State, et al.

Confidence in elections directly corresponds to individual freedom. When the public is confident that election processes generate fair outcomes, citizens are free because they govern themselves. On the other hand, when elections are widely understood as unfair (such as in Iran or Venezuela), citizens do not govern themselves and they are not free, despite the public show of elections. The degree of public confidence in election processes is the yardstick for measuring the degree of freedom enjoyed by every citizen. As Justice Thomas has noted: “[E]lections enable self-governance only when they include processes that ‘giv[e] citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election.’” Republican Party v. Degraffenreid, 141 S.Ct. 732, 734 (2021) (Thomas, J. dissenting from denial of certiorari) (emphasis added). In seeking to enjoin aspects of Oregon’s election system, Petitioners asser t actual injury to their freedom due to the extraordinary confidence-destroying characteristics of that system, characteristics which chill honest public participation and make any political remedy via that same election system impossible to attain. Question Do Petitioners have standing to challenge Oregon’s vote-by-mail election system due to the loss of their freedom caused by Oregon’s confidence-destroying election processes?