all Leadership Act grantees which are members of the Associations. While some individualized showing of facts common to all members to support the factual development of the Associations’ compelled speech and vagueness claims will be necessary, this test does not preclude granting associational standing. See College Bookstores, 990 F.Supp. at 249-50; New York State Nat’l Org. of Women, 886 F.2d at 1349. To enjoin an unconstitutional practice, the Associations do not have to show redundant evidence of each separate impact of the Policy Requirement and Guidelines on every one of their members. See Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, 291 F.Supp.2d at 291; cf American Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Co., Inc., No. 94 Civ. 8566,1995 WL 92270, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 1995) (<HOLDING>). As for the Associations’ claims that the
holding that because the tcpa claims will require extensive individual fact inquiries into whether each individual gave express consent by providing their wireless number to the creditor during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed  individual inquiries   predominate over the class action holding that conviction of a crime requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal holding that it was not necessary for the association to show impact on each and every member because at some point the proof provided by individual members will become redundant holding that the due process clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged