population of those areas in which Plaintiffs reside. Moreover, the county plaintiffs also will be adversely affected by statistical sampling. Second, irrespective of the actual effect of sampling, Plaintiffs will suffer injuries as a consequence of Defendants’ failure to conduct a lawful census in a timely manner. This injury appears certain to occur and thus is premature only if a plaintiff must actually suffer a threatened injury prior to obtaining preventive relief. A plaintiff is not required to wait until a defendant engages in unlawful, unconstitutional conduct to have standing to seek judicial redress. See Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. at 991, 102 S.Ct. 2777; Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 108 S.Ct. 849, 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988); Bennett v. Spear, at -, 117 S.Ct. at 1163-64 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs injuries are “fairly traceable” to
holding that allegation of procedural injury does not affect the issues of injury in fact or causation holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that because fact of injury was a distinct question from quantum of injury common proof could establish classwide injury even though amount of damage to each plaintiff was uncertain recognizing that the government not the relator must have suffered the injury in fact required for article iii standing holding general allegations of injury satisfy requirements of article iii and a plaintiff need not allege each specific subsidiary fact that supports its general claim of injury