[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Where do you read that? He never touches standing because he slaps her case down on five different matters: failing to include Obama (as an "indispensable person" to the case), lack of jurisdiction (it's congress's job), failure to comprehend the applicable law (the plaintiff cites as controlling a law specifically excluding the president from it's operation), the unreasonableness of complaining that the Washington secretary of state provisionally certified Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate before their convention (to get the ballots printed in a timely manner), since that outcome was never in doubt, and that the state law treating political party candidates differently than independent write-ins is not, despite plaintiff's claim, a violation of the state constitution.

Basically, the state's lawyers didn't even need to go to the matter of standing.

link to decisison

The fine, by the way, wasn't for using e-verify (although that may have been an illegal use), but for filing a frivolous appeal, which the court rejected, awarding costs to the state. The $13,000 is basically for two lawyers billing a total of 52 hours.

[butterdezillion]

If the law she cites gives her standing to file a lawsuit, then how can it be that the judiciary lacks jurisdiction? If the law allows lawsuits it must allow the judiciary to have jurisdiction. Is this judge claiming that the law is unconstitutional because it doesn’t specifically exempt Presidential eligibility lawsuits?

And if that is what he is claiming, then why should Jordan have to pay $13,000 for the state’s passage of an unconstitutional law?

And BTW, how can he rule on a law’s constitutionality if that is not being challenged?