1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Daniel C. Barr (Bar No. 010149)

PERKINS COIE LLP
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
Telephone: 602.351.8000
Facsimile: 602.648.7000
Email: DBarr@perkinscoie.com
Kevin J. Hamilton (WSBA No. 15648)
Pro Hac Vice Application Pending
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: KHamilton@perkinscoie.com

9
10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ron Barber for

Congress, Lea Goodwine-Cesarec; Laura
Alessandra Breckenridge; and Josh Adam
Cohen.

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

14
15
16

Ron Barber for Congress; Lea GoodwineCesarec; Laura Alessandra Breckenridge; Josh
Adam Cohen,

17

Plaintiffs,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
Ken Bennett, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State of the State of Arizona; the
Pima County Board of Supervisors, a body
politic; Ally Miller, in her official capacity as a
member of the Pima County Board of
Supervisors; Ramn Valadez, in his official
capacity as a member of the Pima County
Board of Supervisors; Sharon Bronson, in her
official capacity as a member of the Pima
County Board of Supervisors; Ray Carroll, in
his official capacity as a member of the Pima
County Board of Supervisors; Richard Elas, in
his official capacity as a member of the Pima
County Board of Supervisors; the Cochise
-183694-0002/LEGAL124325216.1

No. 4:14-CV-02489-TUC-CKJ
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO
MARTHA MCSALLY AND
MARTHA MCSALLY FOR
CONGRESS MOTION TO
INTERVENE

1
2
3
4
5

County Board of Supervisors, a body politic;

Patrick Call, in his official capacity as a
member of the Cochise County Board of
Supervisors; Ann English, in her official
capacity as a member of the Cochise County
Board of Supervisors; and Richard Searle, in
his official capacity as a member of the
Cochise County Board of Supervisors,

6
7

Defendants.

8
9

Plaintiffs Ron Barber for Congress, Lea Goodwine-Cesarec, Laura Alessandra

10

Breckenridge and Josh Adam Cohen (Plaintiffs) do not oppose the intervention of

11

Martha McSally or Martha McSally For Congress (Intervenors).

12

Intervenors contend that they are entitled to intervention as a matter of right

13

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and, in the alternative, under Rule

14

24(b)(2). According to Intervenors, Martha McSally has an interest in being declared the

15

candidate with the most votes by the Secretary of State and any attempt to count

16

disputed ballots potentially affects the outcome of the election. Motion to Intervene, at

17

2-3. Indeed, according to Intervenors, McSallys interest in the outcome of this election,

18

potentially dependent on the resolution of this matter, cannot be overstated. Id. at 7.

19

Plaintiffs agree. A candidate for office plainly has a direct, urgent interest in the

20

State counting all lawfully cast ballots and utilizing election procedures that comport with

21

state and federal law. It is well-established that political parties and candidates have

22

standing to represent the rights of voters. Bay Cnty. Democratic Party v. Land, 347 F.

23

Supp. 2d 404, 422 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (The Court believes that the prospect of recurrence

24

at the upcoming general election is beyond speculation: the plaintiffs will suffer an injury

25

in fact if provisional ballots cast by voters who are eligible under State law are not

26

counted.); see also Walgren v. Board of Selectmen of Amherst, 519 F.2d 1364, 1365 n. 1

27

(1st Cir.1975) (observing that [w]e have in the past indicated that a candidate has

28
-283694-0002/LEGAL124325216.1

standing to raise the constitutional rights of voters); Mancuso v. Taft, 476 F.2d 187, 190

(1st Cir. 1973) (A candidate for public office . . . is so closely related to and dependent

upon those who wish to vote for him and his litigation will so vitally affect their rights

that courts will relax the rule of practice (which is designed to assure vibrant

representation of the vital interests of non-parties) and will permit a candidate to raise the

constitutional rights of voters.).

Because McSally for Congress like Ron Barber for Congress has a direct stake

in whether the State counts all votes lawfully cast in an election in which the candidates

are separated by the narrowest of margins, Plaintiffs do not object to Intervenors Motion

10

to Intervene.

11

November 25, 2014

PERKINS COIE LLP

12
By: s/ Daniel C. Barr
Daniel C. Barr
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788

13
14
15

Kevin J. Hamilton
Pro Hac Vice Application Pending
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099

16
17
18

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ron Barber for

Congress, Lea Goodwine-Cesarec; Laura
Alessandra Breckenridge; and Josh Adam
Cohen

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-383694-0002/LEGAL124325216.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 25, 2014, I electronically transmitted the

attached documents to the Clerks Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Daniel Jurkowitz: Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.pima.gov

Britt Hanson: CVAttymeo@cochise.az.gov

Michael L. Forney: Michele.Forney@azag.gov

Brett Johnson: bwjohnson@swlaw.com

Eric Spencer: spencer@swlaw.com

10
11

I hereby certify that on November 25, 2014, I served the attached document

12

by hand delivery on Judge Jorgenson, United States District Court of Arizona, 405 West

13

Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona 85701.

14
s/ Cindy Anderson

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-483694-0002/LEGAL124325216.1