Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS KRIS W. KOBACH, KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE, KEN BENNETT, ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE, THE STATE OF KANSAS, THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW THE UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, ALICE MILLER, in her capacity as the ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, Defendants, and INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., ARIZONA ADVOCACY NETWORK, LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS ARIZONA, and STEVE GALLARDO, Proposed Defendant- Intervenors. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EXPEDITED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 16 The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Arizona Advocacy Network, League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, and Steve Gallardo ( Applicants respectfully submit this memorandum in support of their expedited motion to intervene as defendants pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Applicants seek to intervene as of right or, in the alternative, to intervene permissively. As shown in detail below, Applicants fully meet the standards for intervention as of right, as well as the standards for permissive intervention. Applicants request expedited consideration of this motion to allow Applicants the opportunity (should the motion to intervene be granted to participate in the briefing and hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (doc. 16, which Plaintiffs have moved the Court to convert into a trial on the merits and/or a motion for summary judgment (doc. 32. Applicants have a direct and concrete interest in opposing the claims made by Arizona and Kansas in their Complaint, and the relief sought by the States. Arizona and Kansas essentially are seeking in the instant lawsuit to undo the victory Applicants achieved last term in the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013 ( ITCA. The ITCA litigation was filed in 2006 by the Applicants against the Arizona Secretary of State and dealt with the same basic question presented by the instant lawsuit. That question is whether Arizona (and any similarly situated State, including Kansas is precluded by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 ( NVRA, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq., from enforcing a state law requiring that voter registration applicants submit proof of their U.S. citizenship, when applicants use the national, mail-in registration form prescribed by the NVRA (the Federal Form. The Supreme Court held in ITCA that the Arizona law is preempted by the NVRA as to Federal Form applicants. Id. at 2260. Kansas agrees that the Supreme Court s 2
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 3 of 16 ruling means that a similar Kansas law requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote is likewise preempted by the NVRA as to Federal Form applicants. Arizona and Kansas seek to undo the preemptive effect of the NVRA through the instant lawsuit. Specifically, the States make two alternative claims. First, they assert that the United States Election Assistance Commission ( EAC the agency charged with promulgating and administering the Federal Form violated the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA in declining to amend the Federal Form to include the Arizona and Kansas proof-of-citizenship provisions, thus, allegedly, wrongfully preempting the Arizona and Kansas laws as to Federal Form applicants. Second, the States assert that the NVRA, as applied to the Arizona and Kansas registration laws, is unconstitutional and therefore has no preemptive effect. Applicants oppose both claims because, inter alia, the claims are inconsistent with the Supreme Court s decision in ITCA and, if granted, would allow Arizona and Kansas to undermine the expanded voter registration opportunities Congress established in the NVRA. BACKGROUND I. Applicants in Intervention Applicants include the American Indian tribes, bands, nations, and communities represented by the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; two nonpartisan advocacy groups that seek to increase citizen participation in Arizona s electoral process, the Arizona Advocacy Network and the League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona ( LULAC ; and Steve Gallardo, an individual member of the Arizona Legislature. All were plaintiffs in ITCA. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.: ITCA is a private, non-profit Arizona corporation whose members include 21 Arizona Indian tribes. Each tribe is represented in ITCA by its 3
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 4 of 16 highest elected official. Member tribes occupy reservations with a total land area that comprises approximately one-third of Arizona, or about 25 million acres. 1 ITCA serves as a vehicle for member tribes to act on matters that affect them collectively and individually. For decades, ITCA has been involved in promoting Native American voting rights in Arizona and providing voter education programs for its members. Many individuals in the ITCA s member tribes would face significant hurdles in registering to vote in Arizona if required to comply with Arizona s proof-of-citizenship provision because they lack the documentation specified by the law, and because obtaining the necessary documentation would involve financial hardship (expending time and money to procure documents from one or more agencies, which may be located at a great distance from the reservations of the member tribes. Arizona Advocacy Network: The Arizona Advocacy Network ( AzAN is a coalition of nonprofit public interest organizations dedicated to increasing citizen participation in the political process. AzAN promotes social, economic, racial, and environmental justice by connecting and empowering activists and leaders in those fields, and by leading efforts for electoral justice and increased civic participation. AzAN seeks to protect and improve citizen access to voting by working to diminish limitations and restrictions on registration and voting, including opposing Arizona s requirement for documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. AzAN has conducted and will continue to conduct voter registration in Arizona, and is particularly focused on registering underrepresented communities. 1 The 21 ITCA members are: the Ak-Chin Indian Community; the Cocopah Indian Tribe; the Colorado River Indian Tribes; the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation; the Fort Mojave Tribe; the Gila River Indian Community; the Havasupai Tribe; the Hopi Tribe; the Hualapai Tribe; the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians; the Pascua Yaqui Tribe; the Pueblo of Zuni; the Quechan Tribe; the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; the San Carlos Apache Tribe; the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe; the Tohono O odham Nation; the Tonto Apache Tribe; the White Mountain Apache Tribe; the Yavapai-Apache Nation; and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. 4
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 5 of 16 League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona: LULAC is an Arizona-based branch of an organization founded in 1929 to advance the economic status, educational attainment, political influence, and health and civil rights of the Hispanic population of the United States, including the voting rights of Hispanic citizens. LULAC s activities in Arizona include voter education and registration. Steve Gallardo: Steve Gallardo is a member of the Arizona State Senate representing District 29, and previously served in the Arizona House of Representatives. Senator Gallardo engages in election campaigns, seeks the votes of eligible registered voters, and seeks to ensure that the voting rights of all eligible citizens are protected and that no eligible voters are discouraged or prevented from registering to vote or casting a ballot. Some of Mr. Gallardo s constituents are U.S. citizens who would not be able to register to vote, or would face significant practical burdens in registering to vote, if they were required to present the citizenship documentation required by Arizona law. II. National Voter Registration Act Congress enacted the NVRA in 1993 to establish procedures to increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote, while ensur[ing] that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained and protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg(b. Congress acted pursuant to its authority under the Elections Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, sec. 4, cl. 1, which specifies that Congress has plenary power to regulate the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives. See ITCA, 133 S. Ct. at 2253-54. 2 2 As the Supreme Court explained in ITCA: The power of Congress over the Times, Places and Manner of congressional elections is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith. 133 S. Ct. at 2253-54 (quoting Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 5
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 6 of 16 The NVRA established three new methods individuals may use to register to vote for federal elections. The statute mandates that all covered States (including Arizona and Kansas provide for registration by mail, registration at motor vehicle offices, and registration at other governmental offices (including public assistance and disability offices. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg- 2(a. The NVRA also sets forth specific procedures States must follow in implementing the new registration methods, to ensure that they are accessible and easy to use. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-3 to -5. 3 An essential component of the NVRA s mail-in registration system is the Federal Form. The EAC is responsible for develop[ing] the Federal Form in consultation with the States. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7(a(2. Once the Federal Form is issued by the EAC, every covered State (including Arizona and Kansas shall accept and use the [Form] for the registration of voters for Federal office. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4(a(1. 4 III. Arizona s and Kansas s Proof-of-Citizenship Provisions, and the Supreme Court s Decision in ITCA The instant lawsuit, filed by the State of Arizona, the Arizona Secretary of State, the State of Kansas, and the Kansas Secretary of State, concerns laws enacted by those States to require that applicants for voter registration include, with their application, certain documentary proof of United States citizenship. The Arizona law (which was the subject of the ITCA litigation was 371, 392 (1880. 3 Congress exempted from NVRA coverage certain States that do not employ voter registration or that allow same-day registration when individuals appear to vote at an election. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-2(b. As a result, the NVRA does not apply to six States: Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. U.S. Dept. of Justice, About the National Voter Registration Act, http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/nvra/activ_nvra.php (last visited Nov. 8, 2013. 4 The Federal Form consists of the application itself, along with general instructions and state-specific instructions. 11 C.F.R. 9428.3. The Federal Form may be found at http://www.eac.gov/voter_ resources/register_to_vote.aspx 6
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 7 of 16 enacted through the initiative process at the November 2004 election, and is commonly referred to as Proposition 200. Proposition 200 requires Arizona election officials to reject all voter registration applications not accompanied by what that law defines to be satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-166(F. The Kansas law similarly provides that a voter registration applicant shall not be registered until the applicant has provided satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship in the manner specified by the statute. Kan. Stat. Ann. 25-2309(l. This requirement was enacted by the state legislature in 2011, with an effective date of January 1, 2013. Kan. Stat. Ann. 25-2309(u. Both Arizona and Kansas except from their proof-of-citizenship requirements all individuals who were registered to vote on the date the new requirements became effective. Specifically, each law provides that these registrants are deemed to have provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship notwithstanding that they did not provide the documentation the States now require of new applicants. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-166(G; Kan. Stat. Ann. 25-2309(n. The Federal Form does not require that registration applicants verify their citizenship in the manner specified by Arizona and Kansas law. Instead, the Federal Form requires that each applicant attest, under oath, that she or he is a U.S. citizen and that she or he possesses the other voter qualifications set by state law. 11 C.F.R. 9428.4. 5 In ITCA, the Supreme Court held (by a vote of 7-2 that Arizona s proof-of-citizenship law is preempted by the NVRA insofar as Arizona sought to apply this law to persons registering to vote using the Federal Form. Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia explained that a stateimposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by the Federal Form is inconsistent with the NVRA s mandate that States accept and use the Federal Form. 133 S. Ct. at 2257 5 The EAC adopted this verification procedure for the Federal Form directly from Congress s specifications for the contents of the Federal Form set forth in the NVRA. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7(b. 7
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 8 of 16 (quoting Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. at 397, and 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4(a(1. Thus, the NVRA forbids States to demand that a Federal Form applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form. Id. at 2257. Since Arizona s and Kansas s proof-ofcitizenship provisions demand that a Federal Form applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form, these provisions are preempted as to Federal Form applicants for voter registration. 6 Arizona argued to the Supreme Court that any NVRA preemption of the State s proof-ofcitizenship provision would exceed Congress s authority under the Constitution. The Court rejected this claim, holding that no constitutional doubt is raised by the NVRA s requirement that States, including Arizona, accept and use (without alteration the Federal Form as developed by the EAC. Id. at 2259. The Supreme Court also noted, however, that Arizona still retained the option of submitting a request to the EAC that the agency include [the State s proof-of-citizenship] requirement among the Federal Form s state-specific instructions. Id. at 2260. The Court further noted that if Arizona were to make such a request and the EAC did not grant it, Arizona might seek judicial review of the EAC s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. Following the Supreme Court s decision, Arizona made a request (in June 2013 to the EAC asking the agency to alter the Federal Form to include the State s proof-of-citizenship provision, and Kansas (also in June 2013 made a similar request in support of its law. The EAC did not grant either request, which led to the filing of the instant litigation. 6 Following remand from the Supreme Court, the district court in ITCA entered final judgment enjoining Arizona election officials from implementing the State s proof-of-citizenship provision as against Federal Form applicants. Gonzalez and ITCA v. Arizona, doc. no. 1118-1 (Sep. 11, 2013 (attached as exhibit 1 to this memorandum. 8
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 9 of 16 ARGUMENT This Court should grant Applicants Motion to Intervene as of right under Rule 24(a(2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, should grant permissive intervention under Rule 24(b(1. As explained below, the burden on a proposed applicant is not substantial and courts in this Circuit have taken a somewhat liberal line in allowing intervention. WildEarth Guardians v. USFS, 573 F.3d 992, 995 (10th Cir. 2009 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted. As an initial matter, Applicants motion is timely. No scheduling order has been entered, no discovery has been undertaken, no dispositive orders have been entered, and no trial date has been set. A motion for a preliminary injunction is pending (doc. 16 and, on November 7, 2013, Plaintiffs moved this Court to convert the hearing on that motion to a trial on the merits and/or to convert the motion to a summary judgment motion (doc. 32; this Court has not yet ruled on, the November 7 motion. Defendants have yet to file their Answer, which is not due until November 25, 2013. Applicants are not requesting any change in the schedule for briefing or hearing the pending motion insofar as Plaintiffs have been granted a hearing on their preliminary injunction motion. Granting intervention would not, therefore, cause any delay in the proceedings in this case nor would it prejudice the rights of any existing party. See, e.g., Utah Ass n of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246, 1251 (10th Cir. 2001 (stating that proposed intervenor s application was timely in view of the relatively early stage of the litigation and the lack of prejudice to plaintiffs flowing from the length of time between the initiation of the proceedings and the motion to intervene. I. The Court Should Grant Intervention as of Right The standards for intervention as of right are set forth in Rule 24(a of the Federal Rules 9
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 10 of 16 of Civil Procedure. Rule 24(a(2 provides: On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene 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. See also WildEarth Guardians v. Nat l Park Service, 604 F.3d 1192, 1198 (10th Cir. 2010 (restating the Rule 24(a(2 standards ( WildEarth Guardians II. As demonstrated below, Applicants fully satisfy all three of these standards. A. Applicants Have a Substantial Interest in the Underlying Litigation In determining the sufficiency of a proposed intervenor s interest under Rule 24(a, courts in this Circuit employ the interest standard as a practical guide to disposing of lawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process. San Juan County v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163, 1195 (10th Cir. 2007 (en banc. An applicant s claimed interest is measured in terms of its relation to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, not in terms of the particular issue before the Court. WildEarth Guardians II, 604 F.3d at 1198. More particularly, the Tenth Circuit has held that, where organizations and individuals seek to intervene as of right to defend an administrative decision of a federal agency or other federal official, the applicants have a protectable interest under Rule 24(a(2 so long as they have a well-defined concern about the property or transaction that is the subject of the federal action. See id. at 1200 (organizations representing hunting and conservation interests satisfied the Rule 24(a(2 interest requirement, for purposes of intervening to defend a wildlife management plan adopted by the National Park Service, due to their articulated interest in furthering the use of the Park Service s proposed wildlife management procedure; San Juan 10
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 11 of 16 County, 503 F.3d at 1167-70, 1199 (en banc Tenth Circuit held that conservation groups satisfied the Rule 24(a(2 interest requirement, for purposes of intervening to defend a National Park Service rule addressing vehicular traffic, due to their interest in protecting against environmental damage in the area in question due to such traffic; Clinton, 255 F.3d at 1252 (environmental organizations satisfied the Rule 24(a(2 interest requirement, for purposes of intervening to defend a presidential proclamation establishing a new national monument, due to their interest in protecting the undeveloped status of the lands encompassed in the monument. See also WildEarth Guardians II, 604 F.3d at 1198-99 (summarizing the prior holdings in San Juan County and Clinton. In addition, the requisite interest in the federal action may be demonstrated, in part, by applicants prior participation in proceedings relevant to that action. See id. at 1200. Under these holdings, Applicants plainly have a direct, concrete, and legally protected interest in this litigation. Applicants seek to build citizen participation in the democratic process in Arizona, including voter registration, and oppose altering the Federal Form registration process to include Arizona s (and Kansas s proof-of-citizenship provision, because that action would impede the opportunity of citizens to register to vote. Applicants clearly have demonstrated their interest in maintaining the EAC s current construction of the Federal Form through their filing of the ITCA litigation and their subsequent victory in the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the underlying right at issue, the right to vote, is significant and fundamental. See, e.g., Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787 (1983 ( the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively... rank among our most precious freedoms (internal 11
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 12 of 16 quotation marks omitted; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886 (the right to vote is preservative of all rights. B. The Disposition of this Action Could Impair Applicants Interests In addition to demonstrating an interest in the underlying litigation, Applicants must show that they are so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [their] ability to protect [their] interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a(2. In interpreting this requirement, the Tenth Circuit has held that it imposes only a minimal burden on an applicant. WildEarth Guardians II, 604 F.3d. at 1199. The circuit court has explained that [a] would-be intervenor must show only that impairment of its substantial legal interest is possible if intervention is denied. Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted. Where applicants seek to intervene to defend a federal agency action, the Tenth Circuit has concluded that the requisite possibility of impairment exists where the plaintiffs requested relief, if granted, would result in the injury applicants oppose. For example, in WildEarth Guardians II the applicants for intervention sought to defend the National Park Service s plan to use culling as a wildlife management technique; plaintiffs asserted that this was prohibited by a federal statute and sought an injunction. The applicants satisfied the impairment standard because [i]f WildEarth is granted the relief it requests, the [Park Service] would be prohibited from employing culling as a means of managing and conserving wildlife at [Rocky Mountain National Park]. Id. at 1200. Likewise, Applicants here satisfy the impairment standard because, if Arizona and Kansas are granted the requested relief, the EAC would be required to alter the Federal Form to include each State s proof-of-citizenship provision. This, in and of itself, is a sufficient possible impairment. Moreover, if the EAC is directed to alter the Federal Form, individuals 12
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 13 of 16 associated with the Applicants would be hindered in registering to vote and exercising the franchise. Proof of citizenship, of the type Arizona (and Kansas would require, is not readily available to some citizens, and in some cases may be obtained only after significant time and expense. 7 C. The Existing Parties Do Not Adequately Represent the Interests of the Applicant The final prong of Rule 24(a(2 s test similarly presents a minimal burden. The movant must show only the possibility that the representation may be inadequate. Id. Moreover, [t]he possibility that the interests of the applicant and the parties may diverge need not be great in order to satisfy this minimal burden. We have repeatedly recognized that it is on its face impossible for a government agency to carry the task of protecting the public's interests and the private interests of a prospective intervenor. Id. (quoting Utahns for Better Transportation v. Dep t of Transp., 295 F.3d 1111, 1117 (10th Cir. 2002 (citation omitted. This rule fully applies here. For example, the EAC s arguments in this case may, in part, take into consideration matters relating to the EAC s functioning and future, or the general functioning of federal agencies, whereas Applicants, as private parties, may not share those concerns. Applicants also are able to provide a local perspective regarding the purpose and effect of Arizona s proof-of-citizenship requirement in a manner that the EAC may not be suited to do. Therefore, there exists the requisite possibility that interests may diverge. 7 Even if one possible result of this litigation were that this Court would order the EAC to reconsider Arizona s and Kansas s requests, rather than ordering the EAC to grant the requests, that still would present the requisite possibility of impairment justifying intervention as of right. The Tenth Circuit recognize[s] that the interest of a prospective defendant-intervenor may be impaired where a decision in the plaintiff s favor would return the issue to the administrative decision-making process, notwithstanding the prospective intervenor s ability to participate in formulating any revised rule or plan. WildEarth Guardians II, 604 F.3d at 1199. 13
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 14 of 16 II. In the Alternative, the Court Should Grant Permissive Intervention Under Rule 24(b(1. In addition to meeting the standards for intervention as of right, Applicants meet the requirements of permissive intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b(1, which allows for intervention upon timely application when an applicant has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. The Applicants satisfy the requirements of Rule 24(b(1. As indicated, Applicants motion is timely. Furthermore, the fundamental questions of law and fact which Applicants seek to litigate in this action are no different from the questions presented by the States Complaint, notwithstanding that Applicants perspective on certain factual and legal issues may diverge, to some extent, from that of the EAC. 8 See, e.g., Lower Ark. Valley Water Conservancy Dist. v. United States, 252 F.R.D. 687 (D. Colo. 2008 (granting permissive intervention when the proposed intervenor possessed a claim... that shares with the main action a common question of law[] (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b(1(B; see also Miller v. Silbermann, 832 F. Supp. 663, 673-74 (S.D.N.Y. 1993 (allowing permissive intervention where intervenors defense raises the same legal questions as the defense of the named defendants. Moreover, permissive intervention is particularly warranted where, as here, the Applicants unique knowledge and experiences may help contribute to the proper development of the litigation. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mortham, 915 F. Supp. 1529, 1538-39 (N.D. Fla. 1995 (holding that the NAACP should be permitted to intervene because the organization s unique perspective and expertise would aid the court s constitutional inquiry; see also Miller, 832 F. Supp. at 674 (permitting intervention where applicant s knowledge and concern would greatly contribute to the court s understanding. 8 Applicants do not propose to add a counterclaim or to expand the questions presented by the Complaint, and will confer with Defendants to seek to avoid redundant filings. 14
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 15 of 16 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Applicants respectfully request that the Court grant Applicants intervention in this action as defendants. Dated: November 13, 2013 /s/ Kip Elliott Lane Williams (KS S.Ct. #11106 Kip Elliot (KS S.Ct. #17663 DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER OF KANSAS 635 SW Harrison Street Suite 100 Topeka, Kansas 66603 Tel: (785 273-9661 Fax: (785 273-9414 kip@drckansas.org /s/ Mark A. Posner Robert A. Kengle (MD Bar, no number (pro hac vice to be sought Mark A. Posner (DC # 457833 (pro hac vice to be sought Erandi Zamora (CA # 281929 (pro hac vice to be sought LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1401 New York Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202 662-8389 Fax: (202 628-2858 mposner@lawyerscommittee.org Linda Stein (DC # 376217 (pro hac vice to be sought Errol R. Patterson (DC # 379715 (pro hac vice to be sought Jason A. Abel (DC # 490382 (pro hac vice to be sought STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202 429-8062 Fax: (202 429-3902 epatterson@steptoe.com Joe P. Sparks (AZ # 002383 (pro hac vice to be sought Laurel A. Herrmann (AZ # 025623 (pro hac vice to be sought Julia M. Kolsrud (AZ # 029582 (pro hac vice to be sought THE SPARKS LAW FIRM, P.C. 15
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 34 Filed 11/13/13 Page 16 of 16 7503 First Street Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 Tel: (480 949-1339 Fax: (480 949-7587 joesparks@sparkslawaz.com David B. Rosenbaum (AZ #009819 (pro hac vice to be sought Anna H. Finn (AZ # 026738 (pro hac vice to be sought OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue Suite 2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Tel: (602 640-9345 Fax: (602 640-6051 afinn@omlaw.com Daniel B. Kohrman (DC # 394064 (pro hac vice to be sought AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION 601 E Street, NW Suite A4-240 Washington D.C. 20049 Tel: (202 434-2064 Fax: (202 434-6424 dkohrman@aarp.org 16