UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT No. 23-55726 CALIFORNIA, INC.; JAMES P. BRADLEY; MARK REED; BUZZ D.C. No. PATTERSON; MIKE CARGILE; 2:21-cv-00032- RONDA KENNEDY, AB-MAA

Plaintiffs-Appellants, OPINION v. SHIRLEY WEBER, California Secretary of State; ROB BONTA, California Attorney General; SHANNON BUSHEY; FRANCISCO DIAZ; TIM DUPUIS; KRISTIN CONNELLY; JAMES A. KUS; DEAN C. LOGAN; GINA MARTINEZ; BOB PAGE; REBECCA SPENCER; HANG NGUYEN; MICHAEL JIMENEZ; TRICIA WEBBER; MICHELLE ASCENCION; ELIANA CANO; AIME ESPINOZA,

Defendants-Appellees. 2 ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT CA, INC. V. WEBER

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 5, 2024 Pasadena, California

Filed August 15, 2024 Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Michelle T. Friedland, and Jennifer Sung, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Wardlaw

SUMMARY *

Elections

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of a lawsuit brought by Election Integrity Project California, Inc., and 10 former political candidates challenging the California Secretary of State’s certification of the results of the November 2020 general election and seeking to declare unconstitutional California’s vote-by-mail election system. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that state and county officials impermissibly diluted the voting power of in-person voters and voters of certain counties by inadvertently * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT CA, INC. V. WEBER 3

counting some invalid vote-by-mail ballots. A vote dilution claim requires a showing of disproportionate voting power for some voters over others, and plaintiffs have not made— and could not make—that showing based on the facts alleged. Assuming that California officials have inadvertently counted some invalid vote-by-mail ballots in the past, the effect that counting such ballots had on the relative voting power of all votes was the same, regardless of voting method or geography. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that California laws and regulations governing the wide expanse of California’s election administration system, and defendant counties’ practices under these rules, violate the Equal Protection Clause by failing to adhere to the minimum requirement for nonarbitrary treatment of voters. Citing Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (per curiam), the panel held that California’s election rules and county officials’ practices pursuant to those rules satisfied the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that alleged irregularities in California’s elections from 2020 through the present violate their due process rights. The allegations of the complaint failed to plausibly demonstrate the scale of massive disenfranchisement, or complete lack of integrity, necessary to state a claim under the Due Process Clause. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs a further opportunity to amend their complaint. 4 ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT CA, INC. V. WEBER

COUNSEL Mariah Gondeiro (argued), Gondeiro Law PC, San Jose, California; Julianne E. Fleischer, Advocates For Faith and Freedom, Murrieta, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Meghan Strong (argued) and John D. Echeverria, Deputy State Attorneys General; Anthony R. Hakl, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Thomas S.