Page:Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n.pdf/18

14 . Ibid. Coleman, as we later explained in Raines, stood “for the proposition that legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to defeat (or enact) a specific legislative Act have standing to sue if that legislative action goes into effect (or does not go into effect), on the ground that their votes have been completely nullified.” 521 U. S., at 823. Our conclusion that the Arizona Legis­lature has standing fits that bill. Proposition 106, together with the Arizona Constitution’s ban on efforts to undermine the purposes of an initiative, see supra, at, would “completely nullif[y]” any vote by the Legislature, now or “in the future,” purporting to adopt a redistricting plan. Raines, 521 U. S., at 823–824.

This dispute, in short, “will be resolved … in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982). Accordingly, we