of political questions is analytically distinct from the limits of the doctrine of standing. The latter focuses on the nature of the claimant's interest; the former concerns itself with the nature of the legal standard implicated by that interest. Each is a separate hurdle, and clearing one hurdle (political question) does not erase the need to clear the other (standing). 30 . See Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 829-30, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997) (denying standing to congressmen alleging only wholly abstract and widely dispersed institutional injury from dilution of legislative power where none were authorized to represent their respective houses and where both houses opposed the suit); see also People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 179 F.R.D. 551, 562 (N.D.Ill. 1998) (<HOLDING>). 31 . It is perhaps for these reasons that
holding that members of the board of trustees of an elementary school had standing to challenge the actions of the county board of education because they suffered an actual injury when the county board nullified their unanimous vote to reject a candidate for principal of the elementary school holding that petitioners status as school board members does not permit them to step into the shoes of the school board and invoke its right to appeal recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board holding school board members had standing to complain that statute required them to distribute books in violation of constitution holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board