Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

14 

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA 
INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMM’N
 
Opinion of the Court 

ment.  Ibid.  Coleman,  as  we  later  explained  in  Raines, 
stood  “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.” 
521 U. S., at 823.12  Our conclusion that the Arizona Legis­
lature  has  standing  fits  that  bill.  Proposition  106,  to-
gether with the Arizona Constitution’s ban on efforts to un­
dermine  the  purposes  of  an  initiative,  see  supra,  at  11, 
would  “completely  nullif[y]”  any  vote  by  the  Legislature, 
now or “in the future,” purporting to adopt a redistricting
plan.  Raines, 521 U. S., at 823–824.13 

This dispute, in short, “will be resolved . . . in a concrete
factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the 
consequences  of  judicial  action.”  Valley  Forge  Christian 
College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and 
State,  Inc.,  454  U. S.  464,  472  (1982).14   Accordingly,  we 
—————— 

12 The case before us does not touch or concern the question whether 
Congress has  standing to  bring a suit  against the President.  There is 
no  federal  analogue  to  Arizona’s  initiative  power,  and  a  suit  between 
Congress and the President would raise separation-of-powers concerns 
absent  here.    The  Court’s  standing  analysis,  we  have  noted,  has  been
“especially rigorous when reaching the merits of the dispute would force 
[the  Court]  to  decide  whether  an  action  taken  by  one  of  the  other  two
branches  of  the  Federal  Government  was unconstitutional.”   Raines v. 
Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 819–820 (1997). 

13 In an endeavor to wish away  Coleman, JUSTICE SCALIA, in dissent, 
suggests  the  case  may  have  been  “a  4-to-4  standoff.”  Post,  at  5.    He 
overlooks  that  Chief  Justice  Hughes’  opinion,  announced  by  Justice 
Stone, was styled “Opinion of the Court.”  307 U. S., at 435.  Describing 
Coleman,  the  Court  wrote  in  Raines:    “By  a  vote  of  5–4,  we  held  that
[the  20  Kansas  Senators  who  voted  against  ratification  of  a  proposed 
federal  constitutional  amendment]  had  standing.”    521  U. S.,  at    822. 
For opinions recognizing the precedential weight of Coleman, see Baker 
v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 208 (1962); United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 
___, ___ (2013) (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 4–5). 

14 Curiously,  JUSTICE  SCALIA,  dissenting  on  standing,  berates  the 
Court  for  “treading  upon  the  powers  of  state  legislatures.”    Post,  at  6.