Robinson v. Ardoin
| Decision Date | 19 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22-214-SDD-SDJ,Civil Action 22-211-SDD-SDJ |
| Parties | PRESS ROBINSON, et al v. KYLE ARDOIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for Louisiana consolidated with EDWARD GALMON, SR., et al v. KYLE ARDOIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for Louisiana |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
RULING
Before the Court are two motions: the Motion of the Presiding Officers of the Louisiana Legislature to Intervene[1] filed by Clay Schexnayder, Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives, and Patrick Page Cortez President of the Louisiana Senate (collectively, “the Legislators”), and the Motion to Intervene[2] filed by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (“the Attorney General”). Both Motions are opposed, [3] though the Robinson Plaintiffs specify that they take no position on the Legislators' Motion.[4] For the reasons that follow both Motions shall be GRANTED.
On March 30, 2022, Robinson v. Ardoin[5] and Galmon v. Ardoin[6] were filed in the Middle District of Louisiana. Both suits challenge Louisiana's new congressional districting plan. In the interest of efficiency and judicial economy, Galmon, which had initially been allocated to Judge Brian A. Jackson, was reassigned to this Court, and on April 14, 2022, Robinson and Galmon were consolidated.[7] Now seeking to join the consolidated cases as parties are Clay Schexnayder, Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives, Patrick Page Cortez, President of the Louisiana Senate, and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry. All of the putative intervenors assert that they are entitled to intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), or, in the alternative, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Plaintiffs oppose the interventions, arguing, inter alia, that the would-be parties have no independent interests to assert and that whatever interests they do have are already adequately represented by Defendant Kyle Ardoin, the Louisiana Secretary of State. The Court will address the parties' arguments in turn.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides that, on timely motion, the Court must permit anyone to intervene who is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or who claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. The movant bears the burden of establishing his right to intervene, but Rule 24 is to be liberally construed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit instructs that “[f]ederal courts should allow intervention where no one would be hurt and the greater justice could be attained.”[8] “The inquiry is a flexible one, and a practical analysis of the facts and circumstances of each case is appropriate.”[9]
Although “[t]here is not any clear definition of the nature of the interest ... that is required for intervention of right, ”[10] the Fifth Circuit has previously interpreted Rule 24(a)(2) to require a “‘direct, substantial, legally protectable interest in the proceedings.'”[11]The Fifth Circuit has held that, ultimately, the “inquiry turns on whether the intervenor has a stake in the matter that goes beyond a generalized preference that the case come out a certain way.”[12]
As for representation, the Fifth Circuit has made clear that the movant's burden of proving inadequate representation is a “minimal” one that is met if the movant shows that “‘representation may be inadequate.'”[13] “Although the applicant's burden of showing inadequate representation is minimal, “it cannot be treated as so minimal as to write the requirement completely out of the rule.”[14] The Fifth Circuit has held that “‘[w]hen the party seeking intervention has the same ultimate objective as a party to the suit, a presumption arises that its interests are adequately represented, against which the petitioner must demonstrate adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance.'”[15]
Rule 24(b) provides that the Court may permit anyone to intervene who (1) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute or (2) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. This rule gives district courts discretion to allow intervention when “(1) timely application is made by the intervenor, (2) the intervenor's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common, and (3) intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.”[16] “Permissive intervention is ‘wholly discretionary' and may be denied even when the requirements of Rule 24(b) are satisfied.”[17]
Clay Schexnayder and Patrick Page Cortez (“the Legislators”) aver that they clearly satisfy the elements of intervention of right, which, again, are:
(1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; (4) the applicant's interest must be inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit.[18]
On the first point, the Court agrees; there is no dispute that the Motion is timely, since it was filed only one week after the Complaints and before anything meaningful transpired in the case. Thus, the Legislators' entitlement to intervention of right hinges on the nature and magnitude of the interest articulated, as well as their ability to demonstrate that their interest is not already adequately represented. The Legislators assert a laundry list of interests in this case.[19] In the Court's view, many of these interests do not satisfy the requirements for intervention of right under Rule 24(a). Several of the assertions boil down to the Legislators' desire to avoid having their maps undone by an order of this Court or to be forced to redraw them; this strikes the Court as nothing more than a “generalized preference that the case come out a certain way.” Other alleged interests are too ineffable, such as the Legislators' interest in defending “the injury to the legislative department of Louisiana, and the State itself.”[20]
Nevertheless, the Court finds that the Legislators have articulated a legitimate interest where they cite their desire to defend the merits of the redistricting plans passed by the Legislature. In League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, [21] the Fifth Circuit signaled that parties who play a “part in creating or revising the election scheme” meet the “real party in interest” test. And, as the Legislators note, the participation of legislators is a not-uncommon feature of recent redistricting litigation across the country.[22] Moreover, as a matter of common sense, the Court finds that the leaders of the legislative bodies that enacted the challenged maps have an interest in participating in a process where the various policy choices and judgments that went into creating the maps will be scrutinized. Especially in light of the liberal and flexible standard prescribed for Rule 24, the Court finds that the Legislators have established an interest.
The argument that the Legislators' interest will be impaired or impeded without their participation is heavily intertwined with their argument regarding adequacy of representation. Essentially, the Legislators argue that the only named Defendant in this suit, Secretary of State Ardoin, “did not enact the challenged plans, lacks constitutional authority to do so, has no knowledge of the policy considerations underpinning them, has no particular interest in defending those policy choices, and will not be tasked with enacting new plans if they are enjoined.”[23] Therefore, they argue, their interest in defending the plans will be impaired if Secretary of State Ardoin, whose function is one of implementation, not development or defense of maps, is the sole Defendant. The Court credits this argument as persuasive.
As for adequacy of representation, the Fifth Circuit instructs that “‘[w]hen the party seeking intervention has the same ultimate objective as a party to the suit, a presumption arises that its interests are adequately represented.'”[24] The Court is persuaded by the Legislators' assertion that their interest in defending House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 5 is not adequately represented by the Secretary, since his ultimate objective is “administering whatever election rules may apply by law, not in administering the specific plans challenged in this case.”[25] Although the Secretary's interest in “orderly elections” may, in this case, mean that he disfavors any attempt to defeat the already-existing maps, the Legislators point out that ultimately, the Secretary may be disinterested in the merits as long as any remedy “were to occur in time to administer the next scheduled legislative elections.”[26] This divergence of interests is evidence of inadequate representation.
Finding that the Legislators have demonstrated their entitlement to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a), the Court orders that their Motion shall be GRANTED.
Attorney General Jeff Landry's Motion is timely, coming only two weeks after the Complaints and before any...
To continue reading
Request your trial