The Injury-in-Fact Barrier to Initiative Proponent Standing: How Article III Might Prevent Federal Courts from Enforcing Direct Democracy
Kyle La Rose
Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
44 Ariz. St. L.J. 1717 (2012)
This article discusses whether states can ever statutorily vest initiative proponents with a particularized interest in the validity of their ballot measures that is sufficient to confer federal standing. Part I places this inquiry in the context of the Proposition 8 litigation. In Part II, I provide a brief overview of federal standing and discuss the purposes of the doctrine. In Part III, I address whether state law can vest proponents with a particularized interest in their approved initiatives, and I critique the delegation theory of initiative proponent standing relied upon by the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ultimately, I conclude that the federal courts may be ill-equipped to enforce state direct democracy systems.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 25
Keywords: Proposition 8, Article III, Standing, Initiative Proponent, Particularized Interest, Injury-in-Fact
Date posted: December 10, 2012 ; Last revised: February 21, 2013
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.219 seconds