Case 1:20-cv-01289-MV-JHR Document 12 Filed 12/22/20 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-01289-MV v. MAGGIE TOULOUSE OLIVER, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of New Mexico, the ELECTORS of NEW MEXICO and the STATE CANVASSING BOARD OF NEW MEXICO, Defendants. THE DNC’S MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, the DNC Services Corporation/Democratic National Committee (the “DNC”) files this Motion to Intervene in this action as a matter of right or, alternatively, to permissively intervene. The DNC has conferred with counsel for Defendants, who have no objection to this Motion. The DNC has also conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has not yet taken a position on this Motion. In support of its Motion to Intervene, the DNC respectfully submits the following: Case 1:20-cv-01289-MV-JHR Document 12 Filed 12/22/20 Page 2 of 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2 III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4 A. The DNC is entitled to intervene as of right. .......................................................... 4 1. The DNC’s motion to intervene is timely. .................................................. 6 2. The DNC has a significant protectible interest in the outcome of the litigation. ..................................................................................................... 6 3. Denial of the motion to intervene will impair the DNC’s ability to protect its interests. ................................................................................................. 8 4. The DNC’s interests are not adequately represented by Defendants. ......... 9 B. The DNC is also entitled to permissive intervention. ........................................... 11 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 12 i Case 1:20-cv-01289-MV-JHR Document 12 Filed 12/22/20 Page 3 of 17 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................9 City of Stilwell v. Ozarks Rural Elec. Coop., 79 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir.1996) ..................................................................................................11 Cook Cnty. Republican Party v. Pritzker, No. 20-cv-4676 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2020), ECF No. 37 ............................................................5 Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) ...................................................................................................................8 DCCC v. Ziriax, No. 20-CV-211-JED-JFJ, 2020 WL 5569576 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 17, 2020), ECF No. 56 ......................................................................................................6 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., No. 20-cv10753, 2020 WL 5229209 (D. N.J. Sept. 01, 2020) .............................................................................................................5 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-01083-JTN-PJG, ECF No. 20 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 17, 2020) .................................5 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, No. 4:20-cv-02078-MWB, ECF No. 72 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2020) ..........................................5 Donald J. Trump for President v. Bullock, No. 20-cv-66 (D. Mont. Sept. 08, 2020), ECF No. 35 ...............................................................5 Issa v. Newsom, No. 20-cv-01044-MCE-CKD, 2020 WL 3074351 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2020) ....................5, 11 Kane Cty. v. United States, 928 F.3d 877 (10th Cir. 2019) ......................................................................................... passim King v. Whitmer, No. 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW, ECF No. 28 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020) ..................................5 NEOCH v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................8 Paher v. Cegavske, No. 20-cv-00243-MMD-WGC, 2020 WL 2042365 (D. Nev. Apr. 28, 2020)...........................5 Parnell v. Allegheny Bd. of Elections, No. 20-cv-01570 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2020), ECF No. 34 ..........................................................5 ii Case 1:20-cv-01289-MV-JHR Document 12 Filed 12/22/20 Page 4 of 17 Pearson v. Kemp, 1:20-cv-04809-TCB, ECF No. 42 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2020) ......................................................5 Tex. Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................8 Trbovich v. United Mine Wkers., 404 U.S. 528 (1972) ...................................................................................................................9 Utah Ass’n of Ctys. v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................................6, 10 WildEarth Guardians v. Nat’l Park Serv., 604 F.3d 1192 ........................................................................................................................8, 9 WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 573 F.3d 992 ............................................................................................................................10 Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-CV-04651-SDG, 2020 WL 6817513 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d, No. 20-14418, 2020 WL 7094866 (11th Cir. Dec. 5, 2020) ............................................4 STATUTES 3 U.S.C. §§ 1-11 ................................................................................................................3, 7, 8, 10 52 U.S.C. § 30101 ............................................................................................................................1 N.M. Stat. § 1-12-72 ........................................................................................................................2 N.M. Stat. § 1-12-72(O) ...................................................................................................................2 N.M. Stat. §§ 1-13-13–15 ................................................................................................................3 N.M. Stat. § 1-14-14 ........................................................................................................................3 N.M. Stat. §§ 1-15-1–10 ................................................................................................................10 OTHER AUTHORITIES Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (1966 Amendment) ............................................................................................9 Fed R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) .............................................................................................................2, 4, 8 Fed R. Civ. P. 24(b) ...................................................................................................................2, 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B) and (b)(3) ...........................................................................................11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c) ........................................................................................................................2 iii Case 1:20-cv-01289-MV-JHR Document 12 Filed 12/22/20 Page 5 of 17 I. INTRODUCTION On December 14, 2020, the Electoral College met in accordance with federal law to cast ballots for President and Vice President and carry out the will of the American people as expressed in the November election. Along with three hundred and one other Electors, all of New Mexico’s Electors cast their ballots for and formally elected Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the next President and Vice President of the United States. On that same day, the losing presidential campaign, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the “Campaign”), filed this action seeking— somehow, someway—to defy the expressed will of New Mexico’s voters and undo and overturn the votes cast by New Mexico’s Electors. This timing on behalf of the Campaign was no mistake— indeed, it is part and parcel of the increasingly desperate, and apparently bottomless, efforts by the Campaign and its allies to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. In its oddly-styled Amended “Complaint” slash “Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order or, Alternatively, for Stay and Administrative Stay,” the Campaign boldly asserts that it is entitled to “disregard” federal statutes and disenfranchise almost a million New Mexicans who voted in the Presidential Election. See Compl. ¶ 32, B-E. For myriad reasons, Proposed Intervenor DNC Services Corporation/Democratic National Committee (the “DNC”) has a significant and protectable interest in the outcome of this litigation. The DNC is a national committee, as that term is defined by and used in 52 U.S.C. § 30101, dedicated to electing local, state, and national candidates of the Democratic Party, including President-Elect Biden and Vice-President-Elect Harris, to public office throughout the United States.