Opinion ID: 1587732
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does McConkey Have Standing?

Text: ¶ 14 The Attorney General argues that McConkey does not have standing to challenge the marriage amendment. He asserts that because McConkey would have voted no on both propositions, which McConkey concedes is true, he suffered no actual injury to a legally protectable interest. [5] McConkey, on the other hand, frames this case as a violation of his basic voting and speech rights. ¶ 15 As a general matter, a litigant advancing a constitutional claim must have suffered an actual injury to a legally protected interest. See State ex rel. First Nat'l Bank v. M & I Peoples Bank, 95 Wis.2d 303, 308, 290 N.W.2d 321 (1980). The law of standing in Wisconsin is construed liberally, and even an injury to a trifling interest may suffice. Fox v. DHSS, 112 Wis.2d 514, 524, 334 N.W.2d 532 (1983). Unlike in federal courts, which can only hear cases or controversies, [6] standing in Wisconsin is not a matter of jurisdiction, but of sound judicial policy. [7] Zehetner v. Chrysler Fin. Co., 2004 WI App 80, ¶ 12, 272 Wis.2d 628, 679 N.W.2d 919. ¶ 16 Standing requirements in Wisconsin are aimed at ensuring that the issues and arguments presented will be carefully developed and zealously argued, as well as informing the court of the consequences of its decision. See Moedern v. McGinnis, 70 Wis.2d 1056, 1064, 236 N.W.2d 240 (1975) ([T]he gist of the requirements relating to standing . . . is to assure that the party seeking relief has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to give rise to that adverseness necessary to sharpen the presentation of issues for illumination of constitutional questions.); In re Carl F.S., 2001 WI App 97, ¶ 5, 242 Wis.2d 605, 626 N.W.2d 330 (2001) (The purpose of the requirement of standing is to ensure that a concrete case informs the court of the consequences of its decision and that people who are directly concerned and are truly adverse will genuinely present opposing petitions to the court.). ¶ 17 We sympathize with the argument that all voters are harmed by an amendment invalidly submitted to the people. Still, it is difficult to determine the precise nature of the injury here, and we are troubled by the broad general voter standing articulated by the circuit court. However, whether as a matter of judicial policy, or because McConkey has at least a trifling interest in his voting rights, we believe the unique circumstances of this case render the merits of McConkey's claim fit for adjudication. ¶ 18 Numerous reasons support our conclusion. First, McConkey has competently framed the issues and zealously argued his case. Second, it is likely that if his claim were dismissed on standing grounds, another person who could more clearly demonstrate standing would bring an identical suit, raising judicial efficiency concerns. Third, the consequences of our decision are sufficiently clear; a different plaintiff would not enhance our understanding of the issues in this case. Fourth, a detailed analysis of the nature of an injury here might inappropriately require us to prematurely interpret the substance of the amendment. Fifth, as a law development court, we think it prudent that the citizens of Wisconsin have this important issue of constitutional law resolved. The question of whether an amendment was effectually adopted weighs heavily in favor of addressing the merits of McConkey's challenge. Finally, none of our prior cases concerning the separate amendment rule involved a challenge on standing grounds. Instead, we addressed the issue without articulating a specific injury, and were animated by policy considerations similar to those articulated today. See, e.g., State ex rel. Hudd v. Timme, 54 Wis. 318, 332-33, 11 N.W. 785 (1882) (deciding to address the separate amendment claim because forcible arguments against the amendment's validity were presented and because of the importance of settling whether an amendment is part of the constitution or not). ¶ 19 Because we conclude that the merits of McConkey's claim are fit for consideration, we now move to the substance of his claim.