310 F.R.D. 394
W.D. Wis.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (challenging Wisconsin voting laws) sued members of the Government Accountability Board on May 29, 2015, alleging unlawful election rules.
- Defendants (state officials) moved to dismiss; briefing completed August 21, 2015.
- Six proposed intervenors (two state legislators, two election clerks, two voters) moved to intervene as defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.
- Legislators claim interests in preventing fraudulent votes, avoiding appearance of corruption, and defending laws they sponsored; they are also prospective candidates.
- Clerks claim interest in preserving their authority to require voter ID and administer elections; voters claim interest in protecting their votes from dilution by fraud.
- The Wisconsin Attorney General is representing the named defendants and has statutory duty to defend state laws; proposed intervenors argue the AG will not make certain Equal Protection arguments they would press.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion to intervene | Intervention was untimely given stage of litigation | Proposed intervenors filed promptly after briefing; timely enough | Court assumed timeliness but denied intervention for other reasons |
| Right to intervene based on legislators' sponsorship/support of statutes | Legislators lack unique, protectable interest from personal support of laws | Legislators assert stake in defending laws they sponsored and in fraud-free elections | Court: Sponsorship/support alone does not create a legally protectable, unique interest for Rule 24(a) intervention |
| Right to intervene based on clerks' role administering elections | Plaintiffs: clerks' ministerial duties do not create sufficient discretionary, protectable interest | Clerks: their duties will be directly affected by outcome; thus they have an interest in enforcement and avoiding retraining | Court: Clerks' duties are largely ministerial and not sufficiently discretionary; no protected interest shown and AG adequately represents them |
| Permissive intervention (Rule 24(b)) and potential prejudice/delay | Plaintiffs: additional intervenors would complicate and delay case, jeopardizing resolution before election | Proposed intervenors: will cooperate and raise distinct arguments (e.g., Equal Protection against plaintiffs' VRA theory) | Court: Denied permissive intervention — AG adequately represents interests; added parties would risk delay and expand issues unnecessarily |
Key Cases Cited
- Wis. Educ. Ass’n Council v. Walker, 705 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2013) (standards for intervention and requirement of a direct, legally protectable interest)
- Ligas ex rel. Foster v. Maram, 478 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2007) (burden on proposed intervenor to prove Rule 24 elements)
- Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (caution against turning litigation into a forum for political actors via intervention)
- Blake v. Pallan, 554 F.2d 947 (9th Cir. 1977) (officials have interest when adjudication directly affects their duties and powers)
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528 (1972) (minimal burden to show inadequate representation, but presumption of adequacy applies to governmental representatives)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (importance of timely resolution of election-law disputes to avoid voter confusion)