Opinion ID: 1364850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Standing For Legislators

Text: When a member of the law-making assembly initiates legal proceedings in his representational capacity as a congressman or a state legislator, he/she holds no elevated status in establishing standing. He/she must meet the same requirements for standing as any other litigant. [24] In order to satisfy the constitutional aspect [25] some type of redressible injury must be alleged. Injuries suffered by legislators fall within three basic categories: [26] (1) diluted vote, (2) usurpation of legislative power, and (3) diminished effectiveness in carrying out legislative duties absent a judicial declaration. Legislators have, unequivocally, a plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes. [27] Any intrusion that works to squelch or infringe upon this core legislative function operates to dilute the constitutional [28] voting equality among legislators. Such an intrusion is a direct injury to a legislator's interest in casting a meaningful vote. [29] In this case, the legislators assert they have been injured by being forced to vote up or down legislative bills which offend the § 56 single-subject mandate. Basically they claim that certain subjects were impermissibly combined, leaving them without the opportunity to segregate out the impermissible parts of each bill. According to these legislators, they were forced to vote for all of the bills' contents in order to secure passage of the parts that benefited their constituency. Because the last sentence of § 56 mandates that certain subjects be voted on in separate bills, these legislators have an interest in this court determining whether their votes have been diluted. To satisfy the prudential aspects of the test for standing the legislators must claim: (a) they, rather than their constituency, were injured; and (b) they fall within the zone of interest to be protected under statutory or constitutional law. [30] The legislators assert here that their voting interest has been directly affected and that this interest falls within the zone of interest protected by Art. 5, § 56. Standing is implicit in any legislator's complaint when a bill is challenged for any § 56 miscombination of subjects. Such a complaint will always raise the issue of vote dilution. The burden is on the respondent to deny that it has occurred. Because these legislators have shown that their voting rights are protected by § 56, they fall within the zone of interest to be protected.