Will Baude

Justice Alito, the author of Clapper, recently had a dissent from denial of cert in a different case where he questioned Clapper.

It's one of the good examples in the Ray and Priel realignment article.

Yeah, so there are answers, but it's not a totally straightforward path.

And that's sort of, I guess it's just, again, the problem of, like, saying standing should be common sense sounds great to me.

But then you say that on top of the pile of standing precedents we have, some of which do not meet my common sense, you know, it's like a little less helpful than instruction.

Yeah.

So, I don't know.

I admire the intuition instead of trying to not reinvent the wheel and decide this is a straightforward way.

This might also be right were it not for some other precedents that people have to deal with.

Yeah.

Valid point here to like this case actually was originally filed as a voters case with the main plaintiffs being like Republican voters arguing their votes are being illegally diluted by the fact that other people's votes were being wrongly counted.

And I think that dropped out of the case as the kind of weaker standing theory than the candidate.

And it is the case that like voters, you know, as we mentioned, voters who tried to argue that their district had been illegally gerrymandered before Rucho, and that was a possibly cognizable claim, were told they didn't have standing because the gerrymandering didn't sufficiently affect them.

There's lots of case law about which voters can sue, about what kinds of district drawing

It's not just like you have an interest in a fair process.

So if the law is, you know, I mean, I guess it's like if you think that the right analogy of an election is an analogy to 100 meter dash between two people, like you are kind of centering the candidates and omitting the people.

no that might just yeah yeah yeah this is another remedial problem by the way that it used to be a lot more these cases are brought by the voters and the remedy they used to seek was damages so you'd have people just say like i was denied my right to vote on the basis of my race i want 200 bucks and that was that was a recognizable claim yeah we don't do that anymore

Given, just like the elections, given that there's a time limit, we've got to stop counting.

I guess it's just objectively reasonable basis for believing.

Okay, what does that mean?