I agree that Coleman, although alive, has been pushed into a corner by Raines. And I acknowledge that it may be still further narrowed to situations involving US Supreme Court review of state court judgments where the state court has recognized legislative standing -- and therefore not applicable to the case filed in federal district court.
Why, then, do I call legislators the best plaintiffs (apart from the Rooker Feldman problem)? It isn't because I think that they have an easy case, but rather that I don't see how the other plaintiffs are in a better position. In your view, who is a better plaintiff? The claim by voters seems more attenuated than the claim by legislators -- indeed, if seems derivative of the legislator's claims. Isn't the essence of the voters' claim that their own votes have been diluted because the votes of their representatives in the legislature have been nullified by an illegal vote-counting rule? (There is also a claim that those who voted for the constitutional amendment imposing the 2/3 voting requirement have had their votes diluted and nullified; are they the best plaintiffs?) The claim by taxpayers seems premature, at least until the bill is passed by both Houses and signed by the Governor. And even then, wouldn't the Tax Injunction Act bar the federal district court's jurisdiction over their claim, at least so long as Nevada allows them either to resist a state tax enforcement action or to pay the tax and file for a refund on the ground that the tax has been illegally imposed? Am I missing something? The more I think about the Nevada Court's decision, the more troubled I am. Suppose the political positions in the state government were reversed, and the legislature kept passing tax bills that were vetoed by the Governor, but lacked the supermajority required to overcome the veto. See Nevada Constitution, Art. IV, section 35. Should the procedural obstacle of a gubernatorial veto or a supermajority requirement to overcome it give way to the substantive obligation to fund a particular government expense? How about if the House and the Governor supported a bill, but the impediment was the Senate? Should the procedural requirement of bicameralism be dispensed with? None of this necessarily means that there is a violation of the federal constitution afoot, but is anyone willing to defend the decision as a matter of state constitutional law? As Congressman John Dingell once said, "I'll let you write the substance . . . and you let me write the procedure, and I'll screw you every time." Ed Hartnett Seton Hall
