Case:-cv--SRB Document Filed // Page of N I" -I :! N,_ Vl V) "" - al.f & u 'C N o' (i < ""!i. S e.g r. Vl - Vl t: :i I" Vl ' N \C Geoffrey S. Kercsmar (#) Gregory B. Collins (#) KERCSMAR & FELTUS PLLC North Scottsdale Road, Suite Scottsdale, Arizona Tel: () - gsk@kflawaz.com gbc@kflawaz.com Paul J. Orfcdcs James F. Peterson Michael Bekesha JUDrCTAL WATCH, INC. Third Street, S.W., Suite Washington, DC Tel: () - Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor/Defendant Arizona State Legislature The United States of America, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA The State of Arizona; and Jance K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants. k Ca No.: :-cv- SRB REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF THE ARIZONA ST ATE LEGISLATURE FOR INTERVENTION AS DEFENDANT (Oral Argument Requested) The Arizona State Legislature (''the Legislature"), by counsel, respectfully submit'l this reply in support its motion see ing leave to intervene as a defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (b). follows: As grounds therefor, the Legislature states as
Case : O-cv--SRB Document Filed // Page of MEl\IORANDU.M OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. Arizona Should Be Permitted to Defend SB in the Manner It Has Deemed Appropriate. With the enactment of SB, the State of Arizona has made clear the manner that it wishes to be sued in this case. The State of Arizona wants to defend SB with both Governor an the Legislature as defendants. It should have the opportunity to do so. Plaintiff, the United States, opposes the manner that Arizona seeks to defend itself in this lawsuit, and has raised a host of meritless objections. See Dkt. No. (Plaintiffs Response to the Motion of the Arizona State Legislature for Intervention as a Defendant ("Response"). First, contrary to plaintiff's suggestion, the LegislatlUe's motion is both :.:: z ""C/ (' (' <'l,. ::N,J en Q Q::> -.a c: -;;; -; t <> ;:: N d< - <; <,-. la!!.{ V) t. fl - ": CJ " timely and will contribute to the "just and equitable adjudication" of the case. Response at -. The motion was plainly timely, as it was filed prior to the deadline for the first responsive pleading in the case and just days after the enactment of SB. See Dkt. Entry No. (Order, issued Dec., ). Intervention also will aid in the ''just and equitable adjudication" of the matter as it will permit the State of Arizona to be sued in the manner it has specified. See Ariz. Const. Ar, Par, Sec., Suits Against State, ("The legislature shall direct by law in what manner and in what courts suits may be brought against the state."). Second, plaintiff objects to intervention on basis that that Arizona has thus fa been "adequately represented" by the Governor. Response at. It is undeniable, however, that th State of Arizona, through its Legislature and with the support of the Governor, has determined that the defense of SD going forvvard is of sufficient importance that a special provision of law (SB ) was enacted. SB specifically provides for a defense of SB by the Legislature and the Governor and, critically, the Governor supports this. At a minimum, "adequate representation" of Arizona must at least include the representation and type of defense that the State selects - in this case, with the Governor and the Legislature as defendants. Third, intervention will not "unduly delay" or complicate this case. Response at.
.J Case :O-cv--SRB Document Filed // Page of IO l l (' u. Si :;;; N Cl., Qi c;_ ;g"g g u ) ;:: ;::i d( " <., "O. ; <>o e l t!'-. Zen ' -. 'lbe Legislature already has lodged a proposed Answer in Intervention (see Dkt No. ) and will fully cooperate with Governor Brewer in defending this action. Moreover, this litigation is proccdw'ally less complex al this point, as most of the other lawsuits challenging SD have already been dismissed or significantly narrowed. See National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders v. State of Arizona, No. - (D. Ariz., dismissed Ja., ); Salgado v. Brewer, No. - (D. Ariz., dismissed Jan., ); Escobar v. Brewer, No. - (D. Ariz., dismissed Aug., ); Frisancho v. Brewer, No. - (D. Ariz., dismissed Aug., O); Friendly House v. Whiting, No. - (D. Ariz., motion to dismiss granted in part Oct., ); League of United Latin American Citizens v. State of Arizona, No. - (D. Ariz., motion to dismiss granted Dec., ). Finally, plaintiff makes the patronizing suggestion that if the Legislature happens to have "argwncnts that it wishes to advance, it should do so through defendants" or simply as an amicus. Response at. It is undeniable that the State of Arizona has now unequivocally indicated how it wishes to be sued in this case. Tt is not the proper role of the United States to try to dictate how Arizona presents its defense. Arizona is entitled to defend itself in the manner it sees fit. With the permission of this Court, it should be allowed to do so. For the forgoing reasons, the Legislature respectfully requests that this Court grant it leave to intervene as a defendant in this action.
Case :-cv--srb Document Filed // Page of Dated.: March, Respectfully Submitted, KERCSMAR & FELTUS PLLC By: s/ Geoffey S. Kercsmar Geoffrey S. Kercsmar (#) Gregory B. Collins (#) North Scottsdale Road, Suite Scottsdale, Arizon Tel: () - JUDICIA WATCH, INC.,.J N.J ti.,. Th Stret, S.W., Suite ll. ( -g co _ coo Washington, DC - Tel: () - t. o. ;: - ::-<= E.g tl Vl '- t :i M tn \( \( Paul J. Orfanedes James F. Peterson Michael Bekesha Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor/Defendant Arizona State Legislature
Case :-cv--srb Document Filed / / Page of CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March,, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk's Offce using the CM!ECF System for tiling and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/CF registrants on records, including: -.- la cfs :g. N Tony West Dennis K. Burke Arthur R. Goldberg Varu Chilakamarri C> N M.l """" Joshua Wilkenfeld U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC Geoffr.l VI s/ S. Kercsmar. c; <: C> c M a( (; < """ E l VI!! -.J -. z tll