> 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?
In my personal view I think you're right, but in my view as a reader of Raines, I have to disagree.
> 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?)
But remember that Raines finds no legislative standing by focusing on the fact that the legislators have not
"been deprived of something to which they personally are entitled–such as their seats as Members of Congress after their constituents had elected them. Rather, appellees’ claim of standing is based on a loss of political power, not loss of any private right, which would make the injury more concrete. … If one of the Members were to retire tomorrow, he would no longer have a claim; the claim would be possessed by his successor instead. The claimed injury thus runs (in a sense) with the Member’s seat, a seat which the Member holds (it may quite arguably be said) as trustee for his constituents, not as a prerogative of personal power.”
So it’s the legislators’ claim that is derivative of the voters claims, in that view, I would think.
Anyway, I agree with you that the decision on the merits is quite a problem. It seems to me the solution should be on appeal though.
Ann
