Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-281_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES v. BETHUNE-HILL 

Opinion of the Court 

the  ground  that  their  votes  have  been  completely  nulli-
fied.”    Raines,  521  U. S.,  at  823.    Nothing  of  that  sort 
happened  here.    Unlike  Coleman,  this  case  does  not  con-
cern the results of a legislative chamber’s poll or the valid-
ity  of  any  counted  or  uncounted  vote.    At  issue  here,  in-
stead,  is  the  constitutionality  of  a  concededly  enacted 
redistricting plan.  As we have already explained, a single 
House  of  a  bicameral  legislature  generally  lacks standing 
to appeal in cases of this order. 
  Aside from its role in enacting the invalidated redistrict-
ing  plan,  the  House,  echoed  by  the  dissent,  see  post,  at 
1–5,  asserts  that  the House  has standing  because  altered 
district  boundaries  may  affect  its  composition.    For  sup-
port,  the  House  and  the  dissent  rely  on  Sixty-seventh 
Minnesota State Senate v. Beens, 406 U. S. 187 (1972) (per 
curiam),  in  which  this  Court  allowed  the  Minnesota  Sen-
ate to challenge a District Court malapportionment litiga-
tion  order  that  reduced  the  Senate’s  size  from  67  to  35 
members.  The Court said in Beens: “[C]ertainly the [Min-
nesota  Senate]  is  directly  affected  by  the  District  Court’s 
orders,” rendering the Senate “an appropriate legal entity 
for  purpose  of  intervention  and,  as  a  consequence,  of  an 
appeal in a case of this kind.”  Id., at 194. 
  Beens  predated  this  Court’s  decisions  in  Diamond  v. 
Charles  and  other  cases  holding  that  intervenor  status 
alone  is  insufficient  to  establish  standing  to  appeal.  
Whether  Beens  established  law  on  the  question  of  stand-
ing,  as  distinct from  intervention,  is thus  less  than pellu-
cid.    But  even  assuming,  arguendo,  that  Beens  was,  and 
remains, binding precedent on standing, the order there at 
issue  injured  the  Minnesota  Senate  in  a  way  the  order 
challenged here does not injure the Virginia House.  Cut-
ting the size of a legislative chamber in half would neces-
sarily alter its day-to-day operations.  Among other things, 
leadership  selection,  committee  structures,  and  voting 
rules  would  likely  require  alteration.    By  contrast,  al-