Opinion ID: 1234861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: petitioner, a state senator, has standing to tender the issue under consideration

Text: Respondent challenges Petitioner's standing to bring the tendered issue. [11] Standing refers to a person's legal right to seek relief in a judicial forum. [12] It may be raised as an issue at any stage of the judicial process by any party or by the court sua sponte. [13] When a member of the law-making assembly initiates legal proceedings in a representational capacity as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives, that legislator can claim no elevated status in establishing standing. The lawmaker must meet the same threshold criteria [14] required of any other litigant. [15] An initial inquiry must reveal that (1) an actual or threatened injury (sometimes called injury-in-fact) has occurred, (2) some relief for the harm can be given, and (3) the interest to be guarded is within a statutorily or constitutionally protected zone. [16] Not only is standing confined to those whose interest in the controversy is direct, immediate and substantial, [17] a litigant must also have a personal stake in the outcome. [18] Legislative process requires a substantial quantum of interaction by governor with legislator, whether the latter is a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. Our Constitution gives to a governor the duty (a) to call the Legislature into special session and specify the subject to be acted upon, [19] (b) to approve or to veto an enrolled bill, [20] (c) to approve or disapprove appropriations, [21] (d) to communicate to the Legislature the condition of the State, [22] and (e) to make appointments, [23] some of which require Senate confirmation. [24] Governor and legislators are also linked by the former's adjournment powers [25] and by shared pardon and parole responsibilities. [26] The Senator's interacting contacts vis-a-vis the Governor include (a) giving and receiving constitutionally mandated communications, (b) confirming or refusing to confirm the Governor's appointees, (c) serving on appropriations and other committees, (d) voting on bills and (e) overriding vetoes. Whether the Senator's vote in the confirmation process or to override the Governor's veto is an exercise of futility or an effective governmental act depends upon the outcome of today's controversy. [27] If the office is indeed vacant by forfeiture upon Respondent's failure to take an oath in the form prescribed by 51 O.S. 1961 § 2, then the Senator's confirmation votes would be invited, and indeed cast, to place an imprimatur upon invalid appointments; and his vote to override the Governor's veto would be in vain. The Senator clearly has shown both a plain, direct and legitimate interest in having this court's declaration upon the tendered issue and a personal stake in the outcome. [28] The controversy is lively, real and the requirement of justiciability hence clearly met. [29]