A federal judge today enumerated all the things that were legally wrong in failed Senate candidate Shiva Ayyadurai's bid to overturn the September Republican primary for Senate, then gave him two weeks to file an amended complaint to properly address his grievances - which is basically that Secretary of State Bill Galvin made him lose.
Galvin has denied the claim, specifically Ayyadurai's assertion that his office destroyed one million electronic ballots - which Galvin says the state never had, so there's no way to destroy them, because all the ballots are on paper.
In a ruling today, US District Court Judge Mark Wolf acknowledged that "exceptional circumstances" could compel a judge to "decertify" election results even after they've been officially certified, but then added that Ayyadurai, who wrote his complaint all by himself, never actually requested decertification as a remedy.
Wolf continued that the candidate's complaint failed to prove his allegation that Galvin manipulated the vote or violated the "one person one vote" rule, which in legal terms is known as a principle of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which means that, legally, Ayyadurai had to make certain specific requests for action, which he did not.
Also, Ayyadurai seems to have sued the wrong state official, since under the Massachusetts constitution, it's the governor and the governor's council, not the secretary of state, who certify election results, Wolf wrote.
Wolf said that because the suit does not mention Baker or the council, he could not file any injunctions against them.
Wolf said that judges have to be extra lenient with complaints and motions filed by pro-se litigants like Ayyadurai, but that there are limits, specifically, "it is not the duty of the court 'to fabricate a claim that the plaintiff has not spelled out in the complaint.' "
Although Wolf did not mention it specifically in his ruling, when he told Ayyadurai last week to answer the specific legal issues raised by the state Attorney General's office - which is representing Galvin - Ayyadurai responded with a 10-page document that mainly argued that five other failed Republican candidates with their own election suit are out to get him, rather than responding to the specific points made by the state.
Wolf concluded he could have just dismissed the case without prejudice. But that would let Ayyadurai simply file a new lawsuit, so Wolf concluded it was "more efficient" to continue the case to let Ayyadurai amend his complaint to add Baker and the council and to request the specific legal remedies allowed under the 14th Amendment, which means the case will continue even longer, because the existing and new defendants would have to be given time to respond to the new complaint.
Ayyadurai has a separate suit, also being heard by Wolf, in which he charges Galvin used his influence at Twitter to make that company suspend his Twitter account at key points in the campaign. Galvin has also denied that claim.