A And they both concluded no, and they reported back as to why the government did not have standing to bring such a case in their view.
Q All right. It looks like Mr. Engel actually sends you, at tab 19—if you could just flip ahead to that—an actual summary of—it's called "Evaluation of Potential Original-Jurisdiction Suit in the Supreme Court." Does that summarize OLC's view that there is no standing to bring this case into the Supreme Court?
A Yes. That was Steve's response that he gave us shortly after we asked him to look at it.
Q This specifically concludes: Mr. Donoghue, there's no legal basis to this bring this lawsuit. We cannot ethically file a suit without a legal basis. And we are certain that, if we did so, the Justices would promptly dismiss it. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply does not know the law, much less the Supreme Court. If there were a legal mechanism available, we would pursue it, but there is not. And this case is definitely not it.
Fairly strong words from OLC that there is just no ambiguity about the standing issue here. Is that fair to say? That summarizes Mr. Engel and the Department's position?
A Yes. That's fair to say that that was his position. We, basically, adopted it. Steve's an excellent lawyer, and I trusted that his analysis was correct.
Q And he says a little bit further down: The United States as a government does not have any standing to challenge the States, whether the States complied with their State electoral procedures, essentially, the Federal Government can't reach into the State and evaluate whether the State, in fact, complied with their own State law.
A Right. And this gets back to the issue that we do not conduct quality control for State elections.
