A right-wing coalition that tried to prevent the certification of Maryland’s primary election results last month has followed through on its promise to appeal its case, which a federal judge threw out because she said the group lacked standing.

United Sovereign Americans — a nonprofit Missouri corporation targeting election officials across the country — and Maryland Election Integrity, a limited liability corporation founded by a South Carolina lawyer, had claimed the Maryland State Board of Elections had “lost control of the voting system.”

The groups sought an injunction requiring Maryland to “update and keep accurate the voter rolls” and not certify any election in the meantime. The suit, filed in March, was dismissed just before the May 14 primary, when high-profile nominating contests for U.S. Senate and Baltimore mayor were on the ballot.

An appeal was filed days later in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with a first round of briefs due in July and August, according to court documents.

Neither the State Board of Elections nor local elections officials reported any widespread issues in the primary. The Board of State Canvassers’ certification of all statewide results Thursday marked the end of the certification process for all local and federal races.

C. Edward Hartman III, an Annapolis-based attorney, is representing United Sovereign Americans and Maryland Election Integrity. Asked about the appeal and whether it would look to de-certify the recent primary results, he said the group is “not seeking to change the results of any prior election.”

“Our goal is to get the Maryland Board of Elections to clean up the enormous number of errors, and ensure the entire process from beginning to end complies with state and federal law,” Hartman told The Baltimore Sun via email.

“As stated in our Amended Complaint and uncontradicted by the Maryland State Board of Elections, the entire process from beginning to end is riddled with errors and questions as to the validity of the process,” Hartman said. “The position of the BOE is that citizens have no right to demand that the BOE comply with state and federal law. This response should not be acceptable to anyone, regardless of their party affiliation; we certainly hope that the BOE and the judge are wrong in that conclusion, as it is clear that no one else will require the BOE to take corrective action.”

United Sovereign Americans Chairman Harry Haury said in an interview promoted by the group in early May that his group was “going to go after the officials” in various states and would appeal if necessary. The group’s website describes Maryland as a testing ground, with hopes to get a case on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket before the November election.

In her dismissal of the case, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher said the group lacked standing because they did not allege any “concrete or particularized injury … but simply generalized grievances applicable to the community as a whole.”

“Courts routinely find such grievances insufficient to demonstrate standing to sue,” Gallagher wrote.

In a response letter filed at the same time as the appeal, the plaintiffs wrote they were “confused and disheartened” by the decision and called the judge’s reasoning “more of an excuse not to hear claims of evidence.”

“We are confused because voting is a right, a civil right, not a privilege, and as United States citizens we have a right to question issues that concern us about our rights. Citizens always have ‘standing’ when they know their civil rights have been abridged,” they wrote.

An opening brief in the appeal is due July 9, with the state’s response due Aug. 8, according to court records.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown’s office is representing the elections board. A spokesperson for his office declined to comment about the appeal because the litigation is ongoing.