Pavek v. Simon

Background

The case concerns Minnesota’s “Ballot Order” statute, which required major political-party candidates in general elections to appear on the ballot in reverse order based on the average number of votes their parties received in the previous state general election. On June 15, 2020, the court preliminarily enjoined—temporarily prohibited—Minnesota Secretary of State Steven Simon from enforcing that statute and ordered a statewide lottery to determine the order of Minnesota’s four major political parties on the 2020 general-election ballot.

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Republican Party of Minnesota moved to intervene as defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b). They sought to join the case so they could pursue an interlocutory appeal of the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs and Secretary Simon opposed the motion. The opinion also notes that the court had previously denied the Secretary’s motion to dismiss, but that earlier ruling was not decided in this order.

Legal standard

Rule 24(b) permits a court, in its discretion, to allow a person or organization to intervene when the motion is timely and the proposed intervenor has a claim or defense sharing a common question of law or fact with the main action. The court must also consider whether intervention would cause undue delay or prejudice to the original parties. The court additionally considered standing, timeliness, common legal or factual questions, possible delay or prejudice, and whether the existing defendant adequately represented the proposed intervenors’ interests.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the proposed intervenors had standing at this preliminary stage. It concluded that the loss of the statute’s ballot-order requirements could harm the electoral prospects of their candidates, even though the organizations had not submitted affidavits showing diverted resources and might still receive the first ballot position under the court’s lottery system. The court found that the alleged injury was traceable to the Secretary’s conduct and could be remedied if the intervenors prevailed.

The court described timeliness as a very close question. The organizations waited nearly seven months after the case began and moved only after the preliminary injunction, although the existing parties had already conducted discovery and briefed significant motions. But the court also noted that the motion was filed during the period when the Secretary could have appealed, and that the Secretary’s decision not to appeal created circumstances in which intervention to pursue an appeal could be timely. The court therefore found the motion timely.

The court found common legal and factual questions because the proposed intervenors sought to uphold the same ballot-order requirements that the plaintiffs sought to overturn. It also found that intervention would not cause undue delay or prejudice, even though it would require additional briefing and argument, because the intervenors planned to present their arguments on appeal rather than duplicate those arguments before the district court.

Finally, the court found that the Secretary no longer adequately represented the proposed intervenors’ interests. The Republican organizations sought to protect their party and candidates’ prospects in the 2020 general election, while the Secretary’s interests focused on election deadlines, preparing ballots and voting equipment, and pursuing a legislative remedy. The court concluded that this divergence justified intervention.

Disposition

The court did not reach the proposed intervenors’ alternative request for intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a). It instead granted permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). The order granted the motion to intervene as defendants and canceled the hearing that had been scheduled for August 3, 2020.