League of Women Voters of Michigan et al v. Benson

Filing 47

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE BY REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION #21 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay on behalf of the panel. (Marion, Diane)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF MICHIGAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

RUTH JOHNSON, in her official
capacity as Michigan Secretary of
State,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-14148
ORDER

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE
BY REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
Before the Comi is a Motion to Intervene By Republican Congressional Delegation (the
"Delegation"). [Dkt. No. 21.] The Delegation seeks to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) and
Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Delegation also attempts to file two
motions as a group of intervenor-defendants.

[Dkt. Nos. 21-2, 21-3.]

We DENY the

Delegation's motion to intervene and DENY AS MOOT the Delegation's attendant motions to
dismiss [Dkt. No. 21-2] and to stay [Dkt. No. 21-3].
FINDINGS

1.

The Delegation's motion to intervene is timely.

2.

Elected office does not constitute a property interest. See Gamrat v. Allard, No.

1:16-CV-1094, 2018 WL 1324467, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2018) (citing Attorney Gen. v.
Jochim, 99 Mich. 358, 367, 58 N.W. 611, 613 (1894)).

1

3.

All citizens of Michigan share a generalized interest in this litigation insofar as

they have the right to vote, run for office, and otherwise paiticipate in the 2020 election.
4.

The Delegation's "two-fold" interest of (I) protecting "relationships between

constituents and their elective representatives," and (2) not "be[ing] required to expend funds to
learn the new congressional boundaries and constituents, after spending time and resources on
their current districts," [R. 40 at PageID #659-60], is not materially distinguishable from the
generalized interest shared by all citizens, as referenced supra in ~ 3.
5.

To the extent that the Delegation seeks to vindicate an interest that, as it explains,

stands in "contrast" to Defendant's interest of "provid[ing] fair and smooth administration of
elections," [R. 40 at PageID #661], the Delegation's interest is neither legitimate nor substantial.
6.

The Delegation's legitimate, generalized interest in this litigation will be

adequately represented by Defendant's interest in protecting the current appo1tionment plan and
other governmental actions from charges of unconstitutionality.
7.

In light of the complex issues raised by the parties, the need for expeditious

resolution of the case, and the massive number of citizens who share the Delegation's interest in
this litigation, granting the Delegation's motion to intervene could create a significant likelihood
of undue delay and prejudice to the original parties.
8.

For the above-stated reasons, the Delegation does not satisfy the requirements to

intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) or Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that:

A.

The Motion to Intervene By Republican Congressional Delegation [Dkt. No. 21]

is DENIED.
B.

The Delegation's motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 21-2] is DENIED AS MOOT.
2

C.

The Delegation's motion to stay [Dkt. No. 21-3] is DENIED AS MOOT.

ENTERED:

April 4, 2018

I.

Signed for and on behalf of the panel:
HONORABLE ERIC L. CLAY
United States Circuit Judge
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
United States District Judge
HONORABLE GORDON J. QUIST
United States District Judge

3