Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!


Judicial Watch • Memorandum of Law in Support if Motion For Intervention By Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill and Judicial Watch, Inc.(U.S. v. North Carolina Board of Elections and Kim Starch (1:13 CV 861))

Memorandum of Law in Support if Motion For Intervention By Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill and Judicial Watch, Inc.(U.S. v. North Carolina Board of Elections and Kim Starch (1:13 CV 861))

Memorandum of Law in Support if Motion For Intervention By Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill and Judicial Watch, Inc.(U.S. v. North Carolina Board of Elections and Kim Starch (1:13 CV 861))

Page 1: Memorandum of Law in Support if Motion For Intervention By Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill and Jud...

Category:Legal Document

Number of Pages:22

Date Created:December 10, 2013

Date Uploaded to the Library:December 11, 2013

Tags:U.S. v. North Carolina BOE and Kim Starch, North Carolina, election integrity project

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

ELECTIONS; and KIM STRACH, her official
capacity Executive Director the North Carolina
State Board Elections,
1:13cv861 (TDS-JEP)
Judicial Watch, Inc. hereby moves, its own behalf and behalf
Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill Merrill collectively, the Intervenors for
leave intervene defendants pursuant Fed. Civ. 24. The current defendants, and through counsel, have communicated that they not oppose this motion.
Plaintiff the United States America commenced this action pursuant Sections and 12(d) the Voting Rights Act VRA U.S.C. 1973 and 1973j(d), seeking enjoin those provisions North Carolina law contained 589 that require photo
identification photo for in-person voting; eliminate same-day registration during proposed Answer Intervention attached hereto Exhibit 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
early voting; reduce the number days (though not the number hours) early voting;
and require provisional ballots cast the proper precinct. The United States also
requests that, pursuant Section 3(c) the VRA, for unspecified and possibly
indefinite time, the State North Carolina required obtain preclearance for all
changes affecting voting either from this Court from the Attorney General the
United States.
STATEMENT FACTS July 25, 2013, 589 was passed both houses the North Carolina
Legislature. The bill passed contains parts amending various provisions North
Carolina election laws, described above.
That same day, Attorney General Eric Holder gave speech the National Urban
League Philadelphia concerning, among other things, the Supreme Court recent
decision Shelby Co. Holder, 133 Ct. 2612 (2013). Referring lawsuit against
Texas, said, [t]his the Department first action protect voting rights following
the Shelby County decision, but will not our last. Fitton Decl., 21. This
statement was widely seen reference potential lawsuit against North Carolina
over its photo law. Id. former Holder spokesman, Matt Miller, told the CourierTribune (Asheboro) the next day that [f]rom everything Ive read, the writing the
wall that the North Carolina law going draw DOJ challenge. Id., 22. July 29, 2013, group political activists attended meeting the White
House with Attorney General Holder, Labor Secretary (and former Assistant Attorney 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
General for Civil Rights) Tom Perez, and President Obama. Those attending included
representatives from the ACLU, the NAACP, and the Rev. Sharpton. Id., 23. Mr.
Sharpton told interviewer for MSNBC that, based what heard that meeting,
expected action regarding North Carolina when this governor signs the bill. Id., 24. August 12, 2013, 589 was signed into law. That same day, two lawsuits
were filed this Court challenging portions 589. The complaint N.C. State Cfc. the NAACP McCrory, No. 1:13-cv-658 alleged violations the 14th and 15th
Amendments and Section the VRA, and sought relief under Section 3(c). The
complaint League Women Voters N.C. State N.C., No. 1:13-cv-660, alleged
violations the 14th Amendment and Section the VRA, and sought relief under
Section 3(c). September 30, 2013, the United States filed the complaint this action,
alleging violations the 14th and 15th Amendments and Section the VRA and
seeking relief under Section 3(c). November 26, 2013, the United States moved
consolidate all three cases.
The Intervenors
Merrill registered voter and resident North Carolina. 2012, she was
Republican candidate for County Commissioner Buncombe County voting District Merrill Decl., Warren Wilson College local school the border her
election district. Warren Wilson was recently named the most liberal college the
United States poll conducted Newsweek and College Prowler. Id., Merrill 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
alleges that, immediately after the 2012 election, she was leading hundred votes, but
that she ultimately lost, votes, because students one dormitory Warren Wilson
(or those claiming students, claiming reside that dormitory) improperly
registered and voted her district. Merrill believes that number those registrations
and votes were fraudulent. Id., 17-19. Merrill plans run for Buncombe County
Commissioner again 2014 and has taken steps furtherance her candidacy. Id., 
16. explained herein, both North Carolina voter and candidate, Merrill has interest opposing the United States request that this Court reinstate same-day
registration during the early voting period and enjoin its photo law. non-profit organization that seeks promote integrity, transparency, and
accountability government and fidelity the rule law. Fitton Decl.,
membership organization. person becomes member making financial
contribution, any amount. Members financial contributions are the most important
source income and provide the means for financing the activities the
organization. direct benefit its members, regularly files lawsuits and involves
itself litigation against government agencies and government officials federal and
state courts across the United States. Id., 3-4. has 7,260 members North Carolina, many whom are registered voters.
November this year, 143 members specifically identified themselves North
Carolina registered voters and expressed personal support for this lawsuit. Id., 18.
seeks intervene behalf its members who are registered vote North Carolina. 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
Consistent with its mission, activities are focused two directions that are
relevant this action. First, pursues its interest open government making
document requests under the Freedom Information Act (FOIA) and various state
counterparts, and litigating where its requests are denied documents are withheld.
Id., Second, seeks protect the rights and interests its members who are
registered voters engaging research and, necessary, litigation ensure the
integrity the nation voter rolls and the electoral process. Id., 8-10. set forth
greater detail below, seeks defend its interest these activities intervening.
Whether this Court should grant the motion the Intervenors intervene
defendants this action.
The Intervenors are Entitled Intervention Matter Right. timely motion, the court must permit anyone intervene who claims
interest relating the property transaction that the subject the action, and situated that disposing the action may practical matter impair
impede the movant ability protect its interest, unless existing parties
adequately represent that interest.
Fed. Civ. 24(a)(2). movant must show first, interest sufficient merit
intervention; second, that without intervention, its interest may impaired; and third,
that the present litigants not adequately represent its interest. Virginia
Westinghouse Electric Corp., 542 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir. 1976). The district court has
wide latitude ruling motion intervene and entitled the full range 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
reasonable discretion determining whether these requirements have been met. Id. The Proposed Intervention Timely. determining whether intervention motion timely, court should look
how far the suit has progressed, the prejudice which delay might cause other parties, and
the reason for [any] tardiness moving intervene. Gould Alleco, Inc., 883 F.2d
281, 286 (4th Cir. 1989). This motion, including the intervenors proposed answer, was
filed one week after the defendant responded the complaint. scheduling order has
been issued, and there possible prejudice the existing parties. This motion
clearly timely. Compare Felman Prod. Indus. Risk Insurers, Civil Action No. 3:090481, *4-5, 14-15 (S.D. Va., Dec. 16. 2009) (given the Fourth Circuits liberal policy favor intervention, motion intervene filed six months after the complaint,
during the discovery period, and after the filing motion for summary judgment was
still deemed timely). The Intervenors Have Protectable Interest That May
Impaired the Absence Intervention.
 While Rule 24(a) does not specify the nature the interest required for party
intervene matter right, the Supreme Court has recognized that what obviously
meant significantly protectable interest. Teague Bakker, 931 F.2d 259, 261
(4th Cir. 1991), citing Donaldson United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531 (1971). court this circuit recently held that this interest need not amount full
Article III standing. NAACP Duplin County, No. 7:88-CV-00005, *9-11 n.3
(E.D.N.C., Feb. 2012), the court noted that, although other circuit courts are divided 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page the issue whether intervenor, addition satisfying the Rule requirements,
must also demonstrate [Article III] standing the Fourth Circuit has not decided the
issue. The court then declined impose the requirement that defendant intervenors must show Article III
standing order intervene matter right where the Fourth Circuit silent the issue and other case law suggests that intervention desirable dispose much controversy possible with many concerned persons
compatible with efficiency and due process.
Id., citing Feller Brock, 802 F.2d 722, 729 (4th Cir. 1986). any case, clear that each the Intervenors possesses interest strong
enough confer Article III standing.2 Thus, matter how the relevant standard
framed, the Intervenors have protectable interest within the meaning Rule 24.
Merrill has standing. 2012 she ran for County Commissioner Buncombe
County and lost very close election. She alleges that this loss was due same-day
registration during early voting and improperly cast ballots. Merrill Decl., 19.
Merrill has made concrete plans run again for that office 2014 and has taken steps
make that happen. Id., 16. Any ruling from this Court reversing the repeal same-day
registration during early voting enjoining the enforcement North Carolina photo law, would impair impede Merrill interests, including her immediate electoral
prospects for 2014. Id., 20.
Article III standing, party must have suffered injury fact, there must
causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and must
likely, opposed merely speculative, that the injury will redressed favorable
decision. Cooksey Futrell, 721 F.3d 226, 234-5 (4th Cir. 2013), citing Lujan Def.
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
Merrill also registered voter the State North Carolina. Id., The law
repealing same-day registration during early voting and the photo law seek, among
other things, prevent voter fraud. Where there such fraud, North Carolina voters are
harmed having their votes diluted. considering Indiana photo law, the Court Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted that [t]he purpose the Indiana law
reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right legitimate voters vote
diluting their votes dilution being recognized impairment the right vote. 
Crawford Marion County Election Bd., 472 F.3d 949, 952 (7th Cir. 2007), aff 553
U.S. 181 (2008), citing, inter alia, Reynolds Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964) the right suffrage can denied debasement dilution the weight citizen vote
just effectively wholly prohibiting the free exercise the franchise North
Carolina voters, including Merrill, are threatened with the same kind injury.
Moreover, the harm inflicted these voters exists independently any proven fraud,
and goes beyond any strictly numerical diminution the efficacy their votes. the
Supreme Court has observed:
Confidence the integrity our electoral processes essential the functioning our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out the
democratic process and breeds distrust our government. Voters who fear their
legitimate votes will outweighed fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.
Purcell Gonzalez, 549 U.S. (2006); see Crawford Marion County Election Bd.,
553 U.S. 181, 197 (2008) (aside from the State interest preventing voter fraud,
public confidence the integrity the electoral process has independent significance,
because encourages citizen participation the democratic process. Thus, both 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
candidate for local office and voter, Merrill can demonstrate that she has Article III
standing. Cooksey, 721 F.3d 234-5. can establish associational standing behalf its members.
association may assert standing sue for its members when
(a) its members would otherwise have standing sue their own right; (b) the
interests seeks protect are germane the organization purpose; and (c)
neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation
individual members the lawsuit.
Lane Holder, 703 F.3d 668, 675 n.6 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). this case, has 7,260 North Carolina members, 143 whom specifically
identified themselves registered voters and expressed personal support for this lawsuit.
Fitton Dec., 18. Each member who registered North Carolina voter would
have individual standing sue, like Merrill, for vote dilution occasioned fraud that
could have been deterred prevented one more the challenged voting
procedures this case. They also would have standing based the fear that their
legitimate votes will outweighed fraudulent ones and their sense
 disenfranchisement. Purcell, 549 U.S.
Indeed, ongoing lawsuit commenced Indiana, the court found that had
established standing based voters loss confidence the integrity elections. The
claims Judicial Watch, Inc. King, Cause No. 1:12-cv-800 (S.D. In., Dec. 10, 2012),
concerned the state failure conduct the voter list maintenance required federal
law. The court found that had established associational standing alleging that its
members who are registered vote Indiana are injured Indianas failure comply 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
with [federal] list maintenance requirements because that failure undermin[es] their
confidence the legitimacy the elections held the State Indiana and thereby
burden[s] their right vote. Id. *12-13 (citing Purcell, Reynolds, and Crawford).
These concerns are related the core purposes JW, which are promote
integrity, transparency, and accountability government and fidelity the rule law 
purposes pursues litigating voter integrity claims and lawsuits. Litigating these
issues does not, however, require the participation the individual members JW.
Accordingly, can establish associational standing. also has standing its own right organization. Organizational standing
involves the same inquiry the case individual. Lane, 703 F.3d 674.
organization may suffer injury fact when [another party actions impede its efforts carry out its mission. Id., citing Havens Realty Corp. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379
(1982) (standing may based concrete and demonstrable injury the
organizations activities [and] the consequent drain the organizations resources can assert organizational standing for two reasons. First, specializes
making document requests under the Freedom Information Act (FOIA) and state
equivalents, and one the leading FOIA requesters and litigators the nation. Fitton
Decl., its complaint, the United States has asked that North Carolina barred,
pursuant Section 3(c) the VRA, from implementing any change affecting voting
until either (1) precleared the Attorney General (2) approved this Court.
Complaint, 93-94; Prayer for Relief, 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
The involvement the United States approving North Carolina changes
relating voting would immensely complicate the process obtaining voting-related
public documents from (or about) that jurisdiction. Fitton Decl., example will
make this more concrete. If, present, North Carolina made contemplated change its voting laws and communicated with attorneys its employ about that change,
those communications would available for inspection under North Carolina generous
 public records law, N.C. GEN. STAT. 132-1. If, however, the United States prevails,
and all voting changes North Carolina had either precleared the Justice
Department approved this Court, those same communications might fall within
exemption concerning the prosecution, defense, settlement litigation any judicial
action, any administrative other type proceeding, and might withheld. N.C.
GEN. STAT. 132-1.1(a); see also U.S.C. 552(b)(5) (FOIA exemption concerning
litigation privileges). This outcome would frustrate core mission. Even
improper claim exemption such basis would compel expend resources
challenge that claim court. Such injuries are sufficient confer organizational
standing JW. See Haven, 455 U.S. 379.
Second, expends organizational resources pursuit its mission ensure
that voter rolls are current and accurate. Fitton Decl., 8-10. The repealed electoral
practices that the United States seeks reinstate will degrade the accuracy state
registration lists. For example, same-day registration does not have the checks
accuracy including, for example, the simple expedient subsequent mailing the 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
address listed registration form North Carolina current law. Id., 11. The
absence photo requirement increases the risk fraudulent vote, which turn
can foul the registration list number ways by, for example, incorrectly
confirming voter active status. Id., 11-12. Such inaccuracies cause incur
additional expenses researching and validating the accuracy those lists. This drain limited resources will impair its ability carry out its public mission. Id.,
13-14. See Judicial Watch, Inc., Cause No. 1:12-cv-800 *15-16 (similar allegations
afforded standing organization that monitored states list maintenance). conclusion, both Merrill and can readily establish Article III standing. Yet, noted above, the Fourth Circuit does not presently require such showing establish interest under Rule 24(a)(2). NAACP, No. 7:88-CV-00005 *9-11. fortiori, the Intervenors can establish the required, lesser showing protectable interest. Existing Parties Will Not Adequately Represent the Intervenors.
Ordinarily, the burden showing that existing parties will not adequately
represent proposed intervenor minimal. See Virginia Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
542 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir. 1976), citing Trbovich United Mine Workers, 404 U.S.
528, 538 n.10 (1971). Moreover, the movant need not show that the representation
existing parties will definitely inadequate this regard. Rather, need only
demonstrate that representation his interest may inadequate. JLS, Inc. PSC Va., 321 App 286, 289 (4th Cir. 2009), citing Trbovich.
Two presumptions may potentially alter this burden. First, [w]hen the party 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
seeking intervention has the same ultimate objective party the suit, presumption
arises that its interests are adequately represented, against which proposed intervenor
 must demonstrate adversity interest, collusion, nonfeasance. Virginia, 542 F.2d
216. But this demonstration not burdensome. Rather, overcome the presumption,
the intervenor need only offer adequate explanation why not sufficiently
represented the named party. Fernandez Hnos., Inc. Kellogg USA, Inc., 440
F.3d 541, 546 (1st Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); Canadian Natl Ry. Co. Montreal,
Me. Atlantic Ry. Inc., CV-10-452-B-W, *18 (D. Me., Nov. 17, 2010) This
presumption creates low hurdle, citing Hernandez); see also JLS, Inc., 321
App 289 (citing presumption but then describing burden minimal Second, existing party also government agency, more exacting showing inadequacy
should required Stuart Huff, 706 F.3d 345, 351 (4th Cir. 2013). Where
movants both share the same ultimate objective the existing defendants and those
defendants are represented government agency the putative intervenor must
mount strong showing inadequacy. Id. 352. This presumption acknowledges that the government basic duty represent the public interest. Id. 351.
Courts also have noted, however, the ways which the government interest
often diverges from that private litigants. Most obviously, although the government
represents the broadest possible public interest, that interest itself composed
multiplicity smaller interests, and often the government not able adequately
represent each these. Cooper Techs., Co. Dudas, 247 F.R.D. 510 (E.D. Va. 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
2007), the U.S Patent Office and proposed intervenor, TB, both sought uphold the
same definition the statutory term original application, which the plaintiff had
challenged. granting TB intervention right, the court observed:
Although the Government and TB both have interest seeing the present
definition original application upheld, arguably for different reasons, one
narrow and one broad, that might foreseeably dictate different approaches the
litigation. Therefore, proper find that the Government does not adequately
represent the interest TB. When party existing suit must represent
multiple and distinct interests, those multiple interests may dictate different
approach the litigation, and party representing one those interests
exclusively should allowed intervene.
Id. 515 (citations omitted); see also Feller Brock, 802 F.2d 722, 730 (4th Cir. 1986)
(finding that Department Labor had interests adverse intervenor, but noting further
that even DOL agreed with the [intervenor] the merits, the government position defined the public interest, well the interests particular group citizens Only the Intervenors Will Insist Upon Appropriate
Causal Link Between Practice Challenged Under Section and
Any Asserted Discriminatory Result.
Section the VRA proscribes both (1) voting practices motivated
discriminatory intent, and (2) those that lead discriminatory result that is, voting
practices that operate, designedly otherwise, deny equal access any phase
the electoral process for minority group members. United States Charleston County,
365 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2004). The United States has asserted both kinds claims
its complaint.
One the issues law that critical resolving this action concerns what
plaintiff must prove establish Section claim alleging discriminatory result. The 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
United States complaint plainly contemplates simple statistical showing
disproportionate impact other words, showing that the provisions 589
generally affect different racial groups different degrees. This approach pervades the
relevant portions the complaint. E.g., Doc. No. 29-30, 37-38, 42, 50, 69-76, 9798. Although the complaint contains broad historical allegations, there effort
connect causally the actual enforcement the challenged voting procedures 589 any adverse result harming the voting rights minority voters. See id., 16-22, 79. number courts have rejected challenge based purely showing
some relevant statistical disparity between minorities and whites, unless there also
evidence that the challenged qualification causes that disparity. Gonzalez Ariz., 677
F.3d 383, 405 (9th Cir. 2012), aff Arizona Inter Tribal Council Ariz., Inc., 133
Ct. 2247 (2013). That case illuminating. Despite findings that Latinos had suffered
history discrimination socioeconomic disparities [and] racially polarized
voting, the claim still failed because there was proof causal relationship
between [the challenged] Proposition 200 and any alleged discriminatory impact
Latinos. Id. 406; see Irby Virginia State Board Elections, 889 F.2d 1352, 1359
(4th Cir. 1989) (upholding rejection Section claim the absence causal link
between the [challenged] appointive system and black underrepresentation Brown
Detzner, 895 Supp. 1236, 1250 n.14 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (citing similar cases).
Defining and then implementing the proper standard not esoteric issue,
interest only lawyers. matter directly affecting the Equal Protection rights the 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page Intervenors true any effect result impact test based race.
discussing Title VII claim, Justice Scalia noted that
disparate-impact provisions place racial thumb the scales, often requiring
employers evaluate the racial outcomes their policies, and make decisions
based (because of) those racial outcomes. That type racial decisionmaking is, the Court explains, discriminatory.
Ricci DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 594 (2009) (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Mt. Holly
Gardens Citizens Action, Inc. Twp. Mt. Holly, 658 F.3d 375, 381 (3rd Cir. 2011),
cert. dismissed, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 8414 (2013) (discussing risks associated with disparate
impact claims under the Fair Housing Act).
The Intervenors plan defend their own Equal Protection rights properly
defining the Section results standard. The named defendants, the other hand, who
can prevail number ways, are not, apparently, raising this issue. None the
North Carolina defendants have made this point defense any the three answers
they have filed response this and two similar lawsuits.
This not mere difference tactics. Rather, the Intervenors and the
defendants have different interests. See Bragg Robertson, 183 F.R.D. 494, 496 (W.
Va. 1998) (though Movants and the [defendants] have the same ultimate objective, 
intervention was granted, part because Movants raise defense not raised the
[defendants] Answer that the relief sought Plaintiffs constitutes unconstitutional
 taking. see also Ohio River Valley Envtl. Coalition, Inc. Salazar, Civil Action No.
Doc. No. 19; N.C. State Cfc. the NAACP McCrory, No. 1:13-cv-658, Doc. No.
24; League Women Voters N.C. State N.C., No. 1:13-cv-660, Doc. No. 26. 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
3:09-0149, (S.D. Va., June 2009) (even though intervenor had the same
goals defendant, difference degree interest could motivate more
vigorous defense, and this difference vigor could unearth meritorious argument
overlooked the defendant); Canadian Nat Ry. Co., CV-10-452-B-W *18
difference kind degree provides sufficient explanation for adversity interest).
ii. Existing Parties Will Not Adequately Represent Interest
FOIA. one the leading submitters FOIA requests the nation. Fitton Decl., the United States becomes involved approving North Carolina voting laws and
procedures, will complicate the process obtaining documents and make the State less
willing cooperate. Id. one example, documents that previously would have been
available request would become subject exemptions concerning litigation and
related privileges. See N.C. GEN. STAT. 132-1.1 (2013), U.S.C. 552(b)(5). This
would frustrate core mission and require litigate more frequently obtain
documents. The existing defendants will not concerned with vindicating interest FOIA and public records requests. (In fact, government agencies are often hostile
open records requests account the time and expense involved responding.) Thus,
 Indeed, even wished to, North Carolina would not have standing assert the Equal
Protection rights the Intervenors for them. bring claim for third party,
litigant must have suffered injury fact, must have close relation the third
party, and must show some hindrance the third party ability protect its
interests. Powers Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410-11 (1991) (citation omitted). unclear
how North Carolina injured violation the Equal Protection rights the
Intervenors; but even were, there close relationship between them, nor any
 hindrance preventing the Intervenors from protecting their own rights. 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
the defendants will not adequately represent interest FOIA matters.
iii. Existing Parties Will Not Adequately Represent Interest
Maintaining Accurate Voter Rolls. has interest maintaining the accuracy and integrity voter rolls across
the nation, including those North Carolina. this action, will seek emphasize
that the repealed electoral laws that the United States seeks reinstate would make
job harder and require the dedication additional resources accomplish it.
Accordingly, will seek show that the potential for various kinds electoral fraud greater where registration lists are made less accurate same-day registration during
early voting, out-of-precinct voting, the absence photo ID. Fitton Decl., 11-12.
This not the kind showing that the State likely make with any vigor (or all).
Such admissions would not only embarrass North Carolina, they might affect its legal
liability under Section the National Voter Registration Act, U.S.C. 1973gg-6,
which requires states conduct certain kinds voter list maintenance. Fitton Decl., 
15. Thus, the defendants will not adequately represent interest list maintenance.
The Intervenors Should Granted Permissive Intervention.
Under Fed. Civ. 24(b), permissive intervention appropriate where (1) the
application timely; (2) the moving party defense and the main action have
common question law fact; and (3) the proposed intervention will not unduly delay prejudice the adjudication the original parties rights. Bussian DaimlerChrysler
Corp., 411 Supp. 614, 631 (M.D.N.C. 2005). set forth above, the
Intervenors have identified number common questions law and fact concerning, 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
for example, the need for the reforms contained 589 and the harms they will suffer these are reversed. addition, this motion clearly timely, and comes early enough
that will not delay prejudice the adjudication the original parties rights.
Indeed, this motion presents unusually strong case for permissive intervention. explained above, the Justice Department lawsuit against North Carolina was widely
anticipated. fact, both the NAACP (whose State Conference the plaintiff related
lawsuit) and the ACLU (which acting the plaintiffs attorney the other) attended
White House briefing July 2013. Fitton Decl., 23. that briefing, the attendees
either were told, were left conclude, that lawsuit the United States against
North Carolina was imminent. Id., 24. Once 589 was signed, they and other
private organizations and individuals immediately commenced their lawsuits. result, once the United States commenced this action, was all but inevitable
that would consolidated with these other actions for some all purposes. further
consequence, these private organizations, which share many policy aims, orientations,
and goals, will find themselves aligned the same action, and the same side, the
United States, without having seek intervene meet the standards ordinarily
imposed upon private intervenors.
The addition the Intervenors will help equalize the presentation
pertinent facts and legal arguments between the plaintiffs and the defendants, while
adding the arguments the defendants will make. The Intervenors respectfully
submit that their efforts parties will add the development complete and 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
balanced record. See VMI Found. Thornburgh, Civil Action No. 90-0084-R, 90-0126R, *11 (W.D. Va., Nov. 1990) VMI Foundation has stated that intends present
different legal arguments than VMI, and that will not impede speedy resolution this
case. Presentation all possible legal arguments will helpful this Court.
Moreover, district courts have regularly permitted intervention voting rights cases,
including those which the United States another governmental entity has been
party. See, e.g., County Council United States, 555 Supp. 694, 697 (D.D.C. 1983)
(granting intervention where local perspective the current and historical facts issue
could enlightening Shaw Hunt, 861 Supp. 408, 420 (E.D.N.C. 1994); Vera
Richards, 861 Supp. 1304, 1310 (S.D. Tex. 1994); Miller Blackwell, 348 Supp.
916, 919 n.3 (S.D. Ohio 2004); Miller Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 909 (1995); Abrams
Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, (1997). See also Texas Holder, No. 1:12-cv-00128, Doc. No. (Attorney General Response Motion Intervene, acknowledging liberal grants
permissive intervention VRA lawsuits and identifying cases).
For the foregoing reasons, the Intervenors respectfully request that their
motion intervene granted.
Dated: December 10, 2013.
/s/ Gene Johnson
Gene Johnson
State Bar No. 15917
P.O. Box 1288
Arden, North Carolina 28704
Telephone: (828) 650-0859 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
Facsimile: (828) 650-0913
Robert Popper
New York Bar No. 2357275
425 Third Street,
Washington, D.C. 20024
Telephone: (202) 646-5173
Facsimile: (202) 646-5199
(appearing pursuant Local Rule
83.1(d)) Christopher Coates
South Carolina Bar No. 80853
934 Compass Point
Charleston, South Carolina 29412
Telephone:(843) 609-7080
(appearing pursuant Local Rule
Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors
Christina Gallegos-Merrill and
Judicial Watch, Inc. 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page
CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that this 10th day December, 2013, transmitted the
foregoing document the named parties emails means electronic filing
pursuant the ECF system.
/s/ Gene Johnson
Gene Johnson 
Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document Filed 12/10/13 Page