Orrin Hatch: “Let me define it. I believe my colleague has the floor but I am trying to respond to him. That is the ``case in…”

“Let me define it. I believe my colleague has the floor but I am trying to respond to him. That is the ``case in controversy'' requirement of Article 3, which requires litigants to show harm. No one can show harm under Section 6 of this amendment. Since Frothingham versus Mellon, that was in the 1920's, the Court held that in order to have standing, a litigant must show particularized harm in budget and tax structures. The case that the Senator is referring to, the one man one vote case, is Reynolds versus Sims. In that case, in the one man one vote case, the Court believed that in that case, in that particular case, the litigant could show particularized harm so the Court did finally decide it on that basis. Now, the difference between that and here, is that there the Court was working on a fundamental right to vote, a fundamental right to have your vote weighed, a fundamental right to have your vote count.”