Rick HasenVerified account

If the state supreme court's map assigns a voter to a different congressional district than the legislature's map, such a reassignment could constitute an injury-in-fact. Lance v. Coffman is the major obstacle to standing here, but didn't expressly discuss that issue.

But the injury is to the Legislature's power, not the voter's. I don't see it. And there are other standing (Lance) and abstention issues, not to mention the merits.

On the merits, I think the argument is much stronger than you do. Historically, several state supreme courts have held that state constitutions don't bind a legislature when drawing cong'l districts. US House of Reps once resolved a congressional election contest on that basis

Several commentators from the past century, in completely nonpartisan contexts, endorsed the "independent state legislature" doctrine, as well. And the Court's language (dicta?) in McPherson v. Blacker embraces it too in Article II context.

DIdn't see this when I responded to Sasha. I don't see why it's just the Legislature's (purported) injury, and not the voter's too. If it were unconstitutional, the voter would plausibly be harmed by having to vote in that district.

But the voter is not facing a harm of vote dilution. The voter's only complaint is that the district was chosen for him by a court rather than a legislature.

i think the standing claim rises and falls with the substantive claim. The asserted const'al requirement that the legislature draw the districts would not just be a formal rule, but would embody a substantive account of separation of powers in allocating representation.

I'm not trying to defend the actual substantive claim here -- my note 15 years ago argued against this exact claim. But I think it falls on the merits and not on standing.

On this theory, literally every voter in PA has equal standing to sue, right? I can't see a court parceling out standing so liberally. Just because you're alleging a "structural" violation doesn't mean you don't also have to show harm to you as an individual.

I disagree with you here -- I would argue that the right to vote encompasses a right to vote in a constitutionally valid election. In fact, I wrote an article making this argument. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2505549 …

Interesting paper, thanks for posting. I'm having trouble reconciling this with Lance v. Coffman, though. You may be right in theory but I just don't see this Court extending standing to each and every voter to challenge this.