Whether state legislators have standing to challenge executive actions that nullify their votes on specific legislation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Pennsylvania, 27 state legislators, attempting to guard their duty to determine the manner of federal elections, have been denied standing due to the conflation of this Court’s holdings in Raines, Coleman, and Virginia House of Delegates. As in Coleman, these executive actions nullified the legislators’ votes that were sufficient to enact or defeat specific state laws. A nationwide conflict over individual state legislator standing exists between appellate courts relying on Coleman (1939) and other courts’ interpretations. 1. Whether the lower court erred because “Coleman stands ... ‘for the proposition that [state] legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to defeat (or enact) a specific legislative Act have standing to sue if that legislative action goes into effect (or does not go into effect), on the ground that their votes have been completely nullified.” Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 139 Sect. 1945, 1954 (2019), quoting Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 823 (1997) (referring to Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)). 2. Whether the definition of “sufficient to defeat or enact” referenced in Coleman includes only final votes or votes throughout the entire lawmaking process including votes in legislative committees that defeat legislation, and if “plaintiff's injury in the nullification of his personal vote continues to exist whether or not other legislators who have suffered the same injury decide to join in the suit.” Silver v. Pataki, 755 N.E.2d 842, 848-49 (N.Y. 2001).! ! The petitioners seek expedited consideration of the individual legislative standing issue before the Court. So, if they prevail, they can possibly obtain a preliminary injunction in the district court well before the November 2024 election. i