Changes

{{cquote|Legislative standing stems from vote nullification when the executive branch will not enforce a duly enacted law by the legislature and, therefore, a legislator who voted for a bill could show an injury not suffered by the public in general. In ''State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner'', 114 Ohio St.3d 386, 2007 Ohio 3780, ¶ 17, 20, 872 N.E.2d 912, the Supreme Court of Ohio found standing for the Senate President and Speaker of the House, as legislators who voted with the majority to prevent their votes from being nullified. The court indicated that a legislator voting in the minority would not have standing. Id. at ¶ 19. This is the scope of legislator standing recognized by the Supreme Court of Ohio.}}

{{cquote|Legislative standing stems from vote nullification when the executive branch will not enforce a duly enacted law by the legislature and, therefore, a legislator who voted for a bill could show an injury not suffered by the public in general. In ''State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner'', 114 Ohio St.3d 386, 2007 Ohio 3780, ¶ 17, 20, 872 N.E.2d 912, the Supreme Court of Ohio found standing for the Senate President and Speaker of the House, as legislators who voted with the majority to prevent their votes from being nullified. The court indicated that a legislator voting in the minority would not have standing. Id. at ¶ 19. This is the scope of legislator standing recognized by the Supreme Court of Ohio.}}

''ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. JobsOhio'', 2012-Ohio-2655, ¶ 28, 973 N.E.2d 307, 316 (Ct. App.).

''ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. JobsOhio'', 2012-Ohio-2655, ¶ 28, 973 N.E.2d 307, 316 (Ct. App.).

{{cquote|Instead, this matter is akin to Coleman, which has been interpreted as standing "for the proposition that legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to defeat (or enact) a specific legislative Act have standing to sue if that legislative action goes into effect (or does not go into effect), on the ground that their votes have been completely nullified." Raines, 521 U.S. at 823, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849. In this case, the Senate president and the Speaker of the House voted for the bill at issue, there were sufficient votes to pass the bill, and their votes would in effect be nullified by the governor's veto and the secretary of state's refusal to treat the bill as a validly enacted law. Therefore, we hold that the Senate president and the Speaker of the House, as legislators who voted for the bill, have the requisite standing to bring this mandamus action to prevent their votes from being nullified.

{{cquote|Instead, this matter is akin to Coleman, which has been interpreted as standing "for the proposition that legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to defeat (or enact) a specific legislative Act have standing to sue if that legislative action goes into effect (or does not go into effect), on the ground that their votes have been completely nullified." Raines, 521 U.S. at 823, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849. In this case, the Senate president and the Speaker of the House voted for the bill at issue, there were sufficient votes to pass the bill, and their votes would in effect be nullified by the governor's veto and the secretary of state's refusal to treat the bill as a validly enacted law. Therefore, we hold that the Senate president and the Speaker of the House, as legislators who voted for the bill, have the requisite standing to bring this mandamus action to prevent their votes from being nullified.