Biggs v. Cooper, 236 Ariz. 415

In the Fifty-First Arizona Legislature, HB 2010 expanded indigent healthcare and funded the expansion via a hospital assessment.
Arizona Constitution Article 9 §22(A) requires a two-thirds vote for certain revenue-raising measures; the legislature debated whether §22 applied to HB 2010 and voted by simple majority that it did not.
HB 2010 passed by simple majority in each chamber and was signed into law as A.R.S. §36-2901.08.
Thirty-six legislators (27 representatives, 9 senators) who voted against the bill sued to enjoin enforcement, alleging the bill required a supermajority and that their votes were nullified.
The superior court dismissed for lack of standing; the court of appeals reversed, holding the plaintiffs could have standing if their votes would have defeated the bill.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a bloc of legislators who could have blocked the bill has standing to challenge its constitutional enactment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether legislators who voted against HB 2010 have standing to challenge its enactment for failure to satisfy the constitutional supermajority requirement	The 27 representatives (and bloc) argue their votes were effectively nullified because they would have blocked the bill if a two-thirds vote were required, so they suffered a particularized institutional injury	Governor/Director argued plaintiffs lack standing (analogizing to Bennett), plaintiffs should have used political remedies (repeal or referendum), and hospitals are better parties to sue	Held: The representative bloc has standing because their votes would have sufficed to defeat the bill if §22 applied, so they alleged a particularized institutional injury; superior court’s dismissal for lack of standing was erroneous

Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (holding legislators whose votes would have defeated action have standing because their votes were nullified)
Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ariz. 520 (distinguishing individual legislators’ lack of standing when votes weren’t nullified)
Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano, 213 Ariz. 482 (legislature has institutional standing when executive action improperly overrides legislative process)
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (explaining limits on legislative standing but distinguishing Coleman-type vote-nullification injuries)
Biggs v. Cooper, 234 Ariz. 515 (court of appeals decision holding §22 application is judicially reviewable)