IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPELAS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPELAS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT KRIS W. KOBACH, KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. Case Nos , THE UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and PROJECT VOTE, INC., et al., Intervenors-Appellants. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE WORD LIMIT FOR APPELLEES COMBINED PRINCIPAL BRIEF Thomas E. Knutzen, Kansas Bar No Michele L. Forney, Arizona Bar No Caleb D. Crook, Kansas Bar No ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL S OFFICE KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE S OFFICE 1275 W. Washington Memorial Hall, 1st Floor Phoenix, AZ S.W. 10th Avenue Tel. ( Topeka, KS Fax. ( Tel. ( michele.forney@azag.gov Fax. ( Attorney for Ken Bennett, Arizona tom.knutzen@sos.ks.gov Secretary of State, and for The State caleb.crook@sos.ks.gov of Arizona Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Kris W. Kobach, Kansas Bar No Eric K. Rucker, Kansas Bar No KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE S OFFICE Attorneys for Kris W. Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, and for The State of Kansas ii

2 COME NOW the Plaintiffs-Appellees, Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach, the State of Kansas, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, and the State of Arizona (collectively, the States, by and through the undersigned counsel, and respectfully move the Court for an enlargement of the word limit, from 14,000 words to 20,000 words, for their combined principal brief in response to the Defendants-Appellants and the Intervenors-Appellants three separate principal briefs. In support thereof, the Plaintiffs-Appellees submit the following: 1. On May 21, 2014, the Defendants-Appellants filed their principal brief in this matter. 2. On May 27, 2014, the Intervenors-Appellants filed their principal brief in this matter. 3. On May 27, 2014, Valle del Sol, one of the Intervenor-Appellants filed a separate brief addressing the issue of the Election Assistance Commission s ability to act without a quorum. 4. As a result of the multiple Appellants in this matter and the separate brief filed by Valle del Sol, the Plaintiffs-Appellees must respond to three full length briefs in its one principal brief. 5. Pursuant to an order issued by this Court, Plaintiffs-Appellees principal brief is due on June 30, Fed. R. App. P. 32(a(7(B(i sets a limit of 14,000 words for a principal brief. Additionally, 10th Cir. R states that motions to exceed the word count will be denied unless extraordinary and compelling circumstances can be shown. A motion filed within 14 days of the brief s due date must show why earlier filing was not possible. 7. Extraordinary and compelling circumstances exist for granting leave to enlarge the word limit for Plaintiffs-Appellees principal brief. The Defendants-Appellants and the 1

3 Intervenors-Appellants principal briefs raise complex issues that require detailed and thorough responses. 8. Despite the complex issues raised in the three principal briefs filed by the Defendants-Appellants and the Intervenors-Appellants, the Plaintiffs-Appellees believe they can file one combined principal brief in response to all three opposing briefs rather than file a separate brief in response to each of the three briefs filed by for the Defendants-Appellants and the Intervenors-Appellants. However, in order to adequately respond to all of the issues raised by the three opposing briefs, the Plaintiffs-Appellees require 20,000 words rather than 14,000 words. 9. Allowing the Plaintiffs-Appellees to file one 20,000 word brief rather than three 14,000 word briefs will be more efficient for the Court and the parties. 10. The Plaintiffs-Appellees originally believed they would be able to respond to all three briefs within the 14,000 word limit. However, it has become apparent that it is not possible to adequately address the issues raised by the three opposing briefs in 14,000 words. Plaintiffs- Appellees filed this motion as soon as it became evident that 14,000 words would not be sufficient. 11. On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiffs-Appellees notified Linda J. Smith, counsel for Valle Del Sol, of the States intent to file the present motion. Ms. Smith indicated that Valle Del Sol does not oppose this motion. 12. On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiffs-Appellees notified Mark A. Posner, counsel for Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, of the States intent to file the present motion. Mr. Posner indicated that Inter Tribal Council does not oppose this motion. Mr. Posner also indicated that he is authorized to answer for Project Vote, Inc. on this issue and that Project Vote does not oppose this motion. 2

4 13. On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiffs-Appellees notified Bonnie Robin-Vergeer, counsel for the Defendants-Appellants, of the States intent to file the present motion. Ms. Robin-Vergeer indicated that the Defendants-Appellants do not oppose this motion. 14. On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiffs-Appellees notified Michael Keats, counsel for the League of Women Voters, of the States intent to file the present motion. Mr. Keats indicated that the League of Women Voters does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs-Appellees request that the Court grant this motion and enter an order enlarging the word limit, from 14,000 pages to 20,000 pages, for their combined principal brief in response to the Defendants-Appellants and the Intervenors-Appellants three principal briefs. 3

5 Respectfully submitted this 26th day of June, s/ Thomas E. Knutzen Thomas E. Knutzen, Kansas Bar No Caleb D. Crook, Kansas Bar No KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE S OFFICE Memorial Hall, 1st Floor 120 S.W. 10th Avenue Topeka, KS Tel. ( Fax. ( tom.knutzen@sos.ks.gov caleb.crook@sos.ks.gov Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Michele L. Forney, Arizona Bar No Kris W. Kobach, Kansas Bar No ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL S OFFICE Eric K. Rucker, Kansas Bar No W. Washington Street KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE S OFFICE Phoenix, AZ Attorneys for Kris W. Kobach, Kansas Tel. ( Secretary of State, and for Fax. ( The State of Kansas michele.forney@azag.gov Attorney for Ken Bennett, Arizona Secretary of State, and for The State of Arizona CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, on the 26th day of June, 2014, I electronically filed the above and foregoing document using the CM/ECF system, which automatically sends notice and a copy of the filing to all counsel of record. s/ Thomas E. Knutzen Thomas E. Knutzen, Kansas Bar No Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellees 4