293 F.R.D. 1
D.D.C.2013Background
- NH filed a declaratory judgment bailout action under Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act to seek relief from Section 5 preclearance for ten covered jurisdictions.
- Section 5 requires preclearance for changes in voting procedures in covered jurisdictions and NH is among those covered in part by Section 5.
- Proposed Intervenor Peter Heilemann moved to intervene on December 5, 2012, claiming he is a NH voter who benefits from Section 5 preclearance.
- The court considers intervention under Rule 24(a) (as of right) or Rule 24(b) (permissive); the motion to intervene was denied.
- Movant does not allege standing or that he is eligible to vote in any covered jurisdiction, and the court found no Article III standing for aggrieved party intervention.
- The court concluded that even if movant had procedural standing, he failed to show an injury in fact or a concrete interest distinct from the general NH electorate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether movant has standing to intervene as of right | Heilemann asserts aggrieved party status under § 4(a)(4). | Aggrieved party requires Article III standing; movant lacks standing. | Movant lacks Article III standing; cannot intervene as of right. |
| Whether movant can intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) given lack of standing | Rule 24(a)(2) allows intervention for aggrieved parties with standing. | With no standing, intervention as of right cannot be granted. | Not permitted to reach the four-factor test because standing is lacking. |
| Whether movant should be allowed to intervene permissively under Rule 24(b) | Movant seeks common questions of law/fact with the main action. | Permissive intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the ongoing resolution via a consent decree. | Denied; intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the original parties' rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 F.3d 461 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (intervention in Section 5 actions governed by Rule 24)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court 1992) (standing requirements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court 2009) (procedural standing relaxes immediacy and redressability for certain injuries)
- City of Dania Beach v. FAA, 485 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (procedural standing requires a concrete interest affected by the violation)
- Center for Law and Educ. v. Dep't of Educ., 396 F.3d 1152 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (procedural standing requires a threatened concrete interest; not all procedural rights suffice)
- Trafficante v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court 1972) (aggrieved party concept approached constitutional standing limits)
- Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (Supreme Court 2011) (aggrieved party concept tied to standing limits)
- Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, 678 F. Supp. 2d 348 (E.D. Va. 2009) (aggrieved person under the Voting Rights Act requires constitutional standing)