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 …
-
-
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.
-
Perhaps, but a district court might. In any event, my original point was that I don't think this case raises a collateral review problem, unless they're dumb enough to have the same party file in fed court. So nobody has to brush up on Rooker-Feldman.
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.