Hoffman v. State of California

Background

Kristin Hoffman, appearing without a lawyer, sued the State of California, San Benito County, and Santa Clara County. She alleged that her vote in the November 2020 General Election was not counted, in violation of the Nineteenth Amendment.

Hoffman attributed the alleged failure to count her vote to two circumstances. First, she said she remained registered in both Santa Clara County and San Benito County after moving in 2016 and received mail-in ballots from both counties, including one with an incorrect spelling of her name. Second, she focused on a BallotTrax email sent after she voted in person that stated her ballot “will be counted,” rather than saying it was “counted,” as later emails did for other elections.

Hoffman contacted several government offices about her concerns. The San Benito County Registrar’s Office told her that the duplicate registration resulted from turnover in state voter databases and described steps taken to address it. In response to a public-records request, the county provided correspondence, a voter information certificate, and a vote-tabulation spreadsheet showing a “Y” in the “Vote Counted” column.

Hoffman requested documentation proving that her vote was cast and counted and in-person access to electronic voting equipment. Alternatively, she asked the court to decertify the 2020 election results at the local, state, and federal levels.

Motion to Strike

Santa Clara County moved to strike Hoffman’s additional filing replying to Santa Clara’s reply brief. The court relied on Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), which prohibits additional briefs after a reply unless the court gives permission. Because Hoffman filed the additional brief without permission, the court granted Santa Clara’s motion to strike.

Motions to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that Hoffman failed to establish Article III standing. Standing requires an injury that is concrete and particularized, a connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury.

The court agreed with the defendants that Hoffman’s requested relief would not remedy the alleged failure to count her vote. Providing additional documents or access to voting equipment would not itself fix that alleged injury. Decertifying the 2020 election would also not remedy the alleged failure to count Hoffman’s ballot and would disenfranchise other voters.

The court separately held that Hoffman’s claim was moot. Mootness means that there is no longer a live dispute that the court can resolve. The 2020 election had ended, the time to contest it in California had expired, and the court could not undo an alleged failure to count a ballot in an election held nearly four years earlier.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to establish standing and mootness. Because Hoffman was representing herself, the court allowed her to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies by June 25, 2024. The order does not state that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.

The court did not rule on the defendants’ remaining arguments. It noted, however, that Hoffman’s Nineteenth Amendment claim, which the court said would be analyzed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appeared barred by California’s two-year statute of limitations for such claims. The court also noted that the complaint did not allege that Hoffman was denied the vote because of sex and did not plead facts sufficient to establish liability of the public entities under the rule associated with Monell v. Department of Social Services. These observations were not the stated basis for the ruling.