Opinion ID: 1918907
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving question.

Text: [J]udicial action must be governed by standard, by rule. Laws promulgated by the Legislative Branch can be inconsistent, illogical, and ad hoc; law pronounced by the courts must be principled, rational, and based upon reasoned distinctions. Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 278, 124 S.Ct. 1769, 158 L.Ed.2d 546 (2004) (discussing the lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards factor enunciated in Baker v. Carr ). In Nixon v. United States , Nixon argued that his challenge to the constitutionality of Senate Rule XI was justiciable and that the word try in the Impeachment Trial Clause imposes a constitutional requirement that an impeachment proceeding be in the nature of a judicial trial. The Supreme Court of the United States held, however, that a variety of definitions could be assigned to the word try and that, therefore, the term lacks sufficient precision to afford a judicially discoverable and manageable standard[] for the judiciary to apply in reviewing the legislative action. 506 U.S. at 230, 113 S.Ct. 732. The Supreme Court addressed the lack of a judicially discoverable and manageable standard for review together with its consideration of the textually demonstrable commitment of the matter to the legislative branch of government. It held that the lack of a judicially discoverable and manageable standard strengthened the conclusion that there had been a textually demonstrable commitment of the question to a coordinate branch of the government, and that the question was, therefore, nonjusticiable. [17] Although this Court did not speak in terms of judicially discoverable and manageable standards in Reed, supra, the determination that the question presented in that case was justiciable rested on the existence of a separate constitutional provision limiting the authority of the legislature in determining the eligibility of its members. The specific limitation of § 60 as to who could serve in the legislature provided the Court with a judicially discoverable and manageable standard for its review of the issue. The Constitution of Alabama, the only source of any limitation on the authority of the legislature, offers no such standard by which the judicial branch of the government can review the legislature's voting rules and procedures with respect to the legislature's determination that a majority of each house voted in favor of the bills that became Act No. 288 and Act No. 357. [18] The Constitution does not define the term majority of each house, and the legislature's power to determine its rules regarding voting procedures is not limited by the text of the Constitution. Therefore, there is no manageable standard this Court can discover to guide our review of the legislative action at issue in this case. Because of the lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the question presented to us, we decline to decide it.