| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
| | [**P22] Because we conclude that the Senate president and Speaker of the House have standing to sue, as legislators who voted with the majority for Am.Sub.S.B. No. 117, to prevent nullification of their individual votes, we need not, and therefore do not, consider their other proffered bases for standing. Additionally, because we conclude that relators Harris and Husted have standing, we do not reach the question whether the General Assembly has standing to sue in this case. Cf. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights (2006), 547 U.S. 47, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 1303, 164 L.Ed.2d 156, 167, fn. 2 (noting that the presence of one party with standing was sufficient to satisfy standing requirements).}} | | [**P22] Because we conclude that the Senate president and Speaker of the House have standing to sue, as legislators who voted with the majority for Am.Sub.S.B. No. 117, to prevent nullification of their individual votes, we need not, and therefore do not, consider their other proffered bases for standing. Additionally, because we conclude that relators Harris and Husted have standing, we do not reach the question whether the General Assembly has standing to sue in this case. Cf. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights (2006), 547 U.S. 47, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 1303, 164 L.Ed.2d 156, 167, fn. 2 (noting that the presence of one party with standing was sufficient to satisfy standing requirements).}} |
| | ''State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner'', 2007-Ohio-3780, ¶¶ 20-22, 114 Ohio St. 3d 386, 391, 872 N.E.2d 912, 918-19. | | ''State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner'', 2007-Ohio-3780, ¶¶ 20-22, 114 Ohio St. 3d 386, 391, 872 N.E.2d 912, 918-19. |
| − | ==Supreme Court== | + | ==Arizona== |
| | + | The Arizona Supreme Court has found legislator standing: |
| | + | {{cquote|P1 We granted review to determine whether a group of legislators who voted against House Bill ("HB") 2010 has standing to challenge whether it was passed in a constitutional manner. Because the group had enough votes to have blocked the bill if passage required a supermajority vote, the group has alleged an injury sufficient to confer standing.}} |
| | + | ''Biggs v. Cooper'', 236 Ariz. 415, 417, 341 P.3d 457, 459 (2014). |
| | + | ==U.S. Supreme Court== |
| | *''Coleman v. Miller'', 307 U.S. 433, 438 (1939), in which the United States Supreme Court held that state legislators who voted against ratifying a constitutional amendment had standing to bring an action in mandamus. That action sought to compel the secretary of the Kansas Senate to remove an endorsement on the resolution stating that it had been ratified by the Senate. The Supreme Court found that "at least the twenty senators whose votes, if their contention were sustained, would have been sufficient to defeat the resolution ratifying the proposed constitutional amendment, have an interest in the controversy which, treated by the state court as a basis for entertaining and deciding the federal questions, is sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction to review that decision." ''Id''. at 446. | | *''Coleman v. Miller'', 307 U.S. 433, 438 (1939), in which the United States Supreme Court held that state legislators who voted against ratifying a constitutional amendment had standing to bring an action in mandamus. That action sought to compel the secretary of the Kansas Senate to remove an endorsement on the resolution stating that it had been ratified by the Senate. The Supreme Court found that "at least the twenty senators whose votes, if their contention were sustained, would have been sufficient to defeat the resolution ratifying the proposed constitutional amendment, have an interest in the controversy which, treated by the state court as a basis for entertaining and deciding the federal questions, is sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction to review that decision." ''Id''. at 446. |
| | | | |
| | *''Raines v. Byrd'', 521 U.S. 811, 830 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held that individual members of Congress lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act because they "do not have a sufficient 'personal stake' in this dispute and have not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to have established Article III standing." ''Id.'' But congressional members in Raines challenged the constitutionality of legislation that had been passed by Congress, which they had merely voted against. ''Id.'' at 814. | | *''Raines v. Byrd'', 521 U.S. 811, 830 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held that individual members of Congress lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act because they "do not have a sufficient 'personal stake' in this dispute and have not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to have established Article III standing." ''Id.'' But congressional members in Raines challenged the constitutionality of legislation that had been passed by Congress, which they had merely voted against. ''Id.'' at 814. |
| | [[category:standing]] | | [[category:standing]] |