Why would a private individual have standing to sue for the Legislature's (alleged) injury under the elections clause?https://twitter.com/SaulZipkin/status/965757609503612928 …
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.
-
I can't imagine the courts going down this road now, especially after the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission case.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1/2 That's more of a prudential standing issue than an Article III constitutional standing issue, though, right? Plaintiffs reassigned to different congressional districts and reps can show injury, causation, and redressability.
-
I don't concede on injury. But gotta go now. Enjoy the federal courts discussion.
-
Assignments to the "wrong" legislative district have been held sufficient to give rise to Art. III standing in many contexts. I think prudential standing is your best counterarg. And you're descriptively right about AIRC ruling sending bad signals about Court's position on merits
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.