Maricopa County Judge tells anti-Medicaid expansion litigants to pound sand

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

No standing. That’s the verdict of Maricopa County Superior Court to the whiny cast of idiots suing the state to block the Medicaid expansion. Judge Katherine Cooper handily dispatched with all their baseless arguments.

In short, Plaintiffs are a minority group within the Legislature who lost a battle over H.B. 2010. They do not claim a concrete, individual injury. Rather, they seek to overturn the vote of the House and Senate. The Legislature as a whole did not authorize them to bring this action. Like the legislator plaintiffs in Bennett, Plaintiffs here lack standing

Constituents

Constituents Dubreil and Miller allege a denial of effective representation in the voting on H.B. 2010. Like the Legislators, these plaintiffs fail to allege a distinct injury. Constituents are two out of hundreds of voters represented by the Legislators. An injury shared by a large “class of citizens” is not sufficient to confer standing. Sears, 192 Ariz. at 60, 961 ¶ 2d at 1017.

Jenney

Jenney seeks standing under the private attorney general statute, A.R.S. § 35-212(A). This statute provides standing to enjoin the “illegal payment of public monies.” The issue, however, is not the payment of public funds; it is the collection of money from hospitals which Plaintiffs characterize as a tax. A tax is not a payment; it is a collection. A.R.S. § 35-212(A) does not apply and cannot confer standing in this case.

Waiver

Plaintiffs ask the Court to waive standing because no one else will bring this case. As a result, the subject of the lawsuit will not be challenged and will evade judicial review. The Court respectfully disagrees that there are no other potential challengers. The hospitals subject to the assessment are proper plaintiffs. The Court finds no authority to waive what our courts have firmly established as a “rigorous” standing requirement.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs lack standing, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

Pursuant to Rule 54(c), this Order constitutes a final order. There are no other matters
pending.

Date: February 7, 2014

Snap.