A federal judge dismissed an effort to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot in New Mexico because the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case, though the plaintiff is reportedly appealing the ruling.
Plaintiff John Anthony Castro, who the Hill reports “was indicted last week on 33 counts of aiding the preparation of false tax returns,” had brought the case against Trump and New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver. He has taken similar steps in other states in an effort to thwart Trump’s 2024 White House bid.
Castro, who is reportedly running for president, cited Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Insurrection Clause, in his complaint, according to Judge Matthew Garcia’s order on Friday. Of course, Trump has neither been charged with an insurrection nor seditious conspiracy in either of his federal cases.
Garcia granted Trump’s motion to dismiss the case and denied “Castro’s procedural challenges to President Trump’s Original Motion to Dismiss.” He also noted that Castro’s case lacked standing under Article III of the U.S Constitution because he does not have “political competitor standing” to Trump:
In an effort to establish a cognizable interest for purposes of Article III, Castro invokes the theory of “political competitor standing,”… which is the notion that “a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate’s or party’s own chances of prevailing in the election.”… For a plaintiff to demonstrate injury as a political competitor, they must show that they “have a chance of prevailing in the election” because the underlying injury is the potential loss of the election.
He ruled that Castro’s efforts — which include a claim of amassing $677 in small campaign donations, hosting an online video show, and making the ballot in several states — “even when viewed in totality, do not suffice to confer political competitor standing.”
“Castro has put forth no allegations that suggest, even prima facie, he is genuinely competing with President Trump for votes or contributions, or that President Trump’s inclusion on the ballot damages his chances of winning the nomination in New Mexico,” Garcia added.
He also notes that Castro is not accounted for in national polls and “has offered no concrete proof of campaign operations within the state or contributions from New Mexico voters, nor has he presented evidence proving the location of the supporters that have watched his online show or follow him on social media.”
Ultimately, Garcia dubbed the complaint “futile.”
He concluded:
This case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All other pending motions, such as Castro’s Motion for Issuance of Summons, Doc. 60, and his Motion for Ruling and Notice of Intent to File Writ of Mandamus, Doc. 66, are terminated as moot.
KRQE reports Castro will appeal the case.
After the dismissal. Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung issued a statement via an emailed press release emphasizing that the 45th president “remains undefeated against bogus 14th Amendment claims in federal court.”
“Similar cases in over a dozen other states have now been dismissed, as fair-ruling courts have seen through the Democrat election interference schemes,” he added before accusing Democrats of trying to “steal the election” through legal initiatives to take him off ballots:
Throughout the country, allies of failed president Crooked Joe Biden are attempting to steal the election for him and deprive voters of their Constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice. They are desperate and know Crooked Joe is losing badly. President Trump looks forward to a free and fair election and winning back the presidency, with the support of people of New Mexico and all states, in November
The case is Castro v. Toulouse Oliver, No.1:23-cv-00766-MLG-GJF, in the United States District Court for the District of Mexico.