Brief explanation of who has “standing”:
STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person
must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.
There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).
Standing is founded “in concern about the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society. “ Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ “ Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show `a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
Now we need to decide if these suits are brought about by someone who has “standing”.....comments???
5 Moreover, had Plaintiffs alleged an “injury in fact”
sufficient to satisfy Article III standing, prudential standing
concerns would likewise prevent the Court from exercising
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that “even when the
plaintiff has alleged redressable injury sufficient to meet the
requirements of Art. III, the Court has refrained from
adjudicating ‘abstract questions of wide public significance’
which amount to ‘generalized grievances,’ pervasively shared and
most appropriately addressed in the representative branches.”
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation
of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75 (1982).
Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized
grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative
branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what
they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their
remedy may be found through their vote.
To this extent, it appears that Plaintiffs have raised
claims that are likewise barred under the “political question
doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate
political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216
(1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President
to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by
the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3.
The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to
be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the
Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further,
the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to
be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,
in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President
until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions
evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political
choices.