Cir.1980), rev’d on other grounds, 653 F.2d 732 (2d Cir.1981) (“individual plaintiffs in this ease have alleged concrete harm in the form of dilution of their votes and decreased federal funds flowing to their city and state, thus establishing their standing”). The requirements of Article III are satisfied where a litigant has a “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968). Here, Plaintiffs’ claims of vote dilution and loss of federal funding meet the requirement of having a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. Individual citizens have standing to allege vote dilution resulting from allegedly unlawful legislative apportionment. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs are individual taxpayers in
holding that shareholders had failed to maintain their status as shareholders by selling their shares after they had filed their complaint and therefore had lost standing to maintain a derivative suit recognizing the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and the right of qualified voters regardless of their political persuasion to cast their votes effectively holding that plaintiffs tennessee voters had a plain direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes and therefore had standing to maintain the action holding that plaintiffs complaint against tribal officials was barred under doctrine of sovereign immunity because the officials votes individually had no legal effect and it was the official action of the band following the officials votes that caused plaintiffs injuries holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit