Associational standing allows an entity to bring suit on behalf of members upon a showing that: (1) “its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right;” (2) “the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose;” and (3) “neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.”63 In Cegavske (another case in which the Trump Campaign alleged violations of equal protection), the court found that the Trump Campaign failed to satisfy the second prong of associational standing because it “represents only Donald J. Trump and his ‘electoral and political goals’ of reelection.”64 That court noted that while the Trump Campaign might achieve its purposes through its member voters, the “constitutional interests of those voters are wholly distinct” from that of the Trump Campaign.65 No different here. Even if the Individual Plaintiffs attempted to vote for President Trump, their constitutional interests are different, precluding a finding of associational standing. In any event, because the Individual Plaintiffs lack standing in this case, the Trump Campaign cannot satisfy the first prong of associational standing either. The Trump Campaign’s second theory is that it has “‘competitive standing’ based upon disparate state action leading to the ‘potential loss of an election.’”66 63 64 65 66 Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Cegavske, 2020 WL 5626974 at *4 (internal citations omitted). Id. Doc. 170 at 11 (citing Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 783 (9th Cir. 2011)). - 20 -