IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 

KIRK NIELSEN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF 

RON DESANTIS, in his official 

capacity as Florida Governor, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

REPUBLICAN ORGANIZATIONS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE 

Proposed Intervenors Republican National Committee (“RNC”), the 

National Republican Congressional Committee (“NRCC”), and the Republican 

Party of Florida (“RPOF”) are Republican Party Organizations representing 

candidates throughout the state of Florida (collectively, “Movants”), submit the 

Memorandum of Law herein in Support of their Motion to Intervene as Defendants 

in this action pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

The Court should allow Movants, the RNC, the NRCC, and the RPOF, to 

intervene as defendants in this case on two independent grounds. 

First, Movants satisfy the criteria for intervention as of right under Rule 

24(a)(2). Their motion is unquestionably timely—the amended complaint was filed 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 1 of 18
2 

less than 24 hours ago, this litigation is still in its infancy, and no party will be 

prejudiced by intervention at this early stage. Movants also have a clear interest in 

this matter. Political parties have a recognized interest in asserting and protecting 

the rights of their members who are voters in upcoming elections and in protecting 

their own agendas and resources from changes to election laws. Finally, no other 

party adequately represents Movants’ interests. Adequacy is not a demanding 

standard, and the other defendants do not share Movants’ interests in conserving 

their resources and helping Republican candidates and voters. 

Second, in the alternative, the Court should grant Movant’s permissive 

intervention under Rule 24(b). Again, this motion is timely. Movants’ defenses 

share common questions of law and fact with the existing parties, and intervention 

will result in no delay or prejudice. The Court’s resolution of the important 

questions here will have significant implications for Movants and their members, 

as they work to ensure that Republican voters have the undeterred opportunity to 

participate in fair elections and they distribute their resources throughout the 

election season. 

Whether under Rule 24(a) or (b), Movants should be allowed to intervene as 

defendants. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 18
3 

INTERESTS OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS 

Movants are political committees that support Republicans in Florida. The 

RNC is a national committee as defined by 52 U.S.C. § 30101. It manages the 

Republican Party’s business at the national level, supports Republican candidates 

for public office at all levels, coordinates fundraising and election strategy, and 

develops and promotes the national Republican platform. The RNC’s membership 

consists of the Party Chair and National Committeeman and National 

Committeewoman for each state and territory, including the three representatives 

from Florida who are also individuals and registered voters in Florida. 

The NRCC is the only organization dedicated solely to electing Republicans 

to the United States House of Representatives. The NRCC conducts fundraising 

and assists candidates with communication, strategy, and planning. The NRCC’s 

membership consists of all of the elected Republican members of the House of 

Representatives, including the 14 Republican members of the House from Florida, 

all of whom are individuals and registered voters in Florida. 

The RPOF is a Florida state political party committee recognized pursuant to 

state and federal law. See 11 C.F.R. 100.15; § 103.091, Fla. Stat. RPOF is the 

statewide organization representing Republican candidates at the state and local 

level and the more than 4.8 million Republican voters throughout the State of 

Florida. RPOF supports the election of duly nominated Republican candidates 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 3 of 18
4 

through fundraising, voter registration, get-out-the-vote drives, and other campaign 

activities. RPOF is committed to a fair and open election process where every 

lawfully eligible person entitled to vote has the opportunity to cast a ballot and 

have that ballot counted properly. RPOF’s membership includes a large state 

executive committee, all of whom are individuals and registered voters in Florida. 

Movants regularly encourage voters to vote-by-mail (“VBM”) in Florida. In 

2016, 1,108,503 registered Republicans voted by mail. Due to COVID-19 and the 

proactive steps taken by local Supervisors of Elections to encourage voters to 

request a VBM ballot, that number is expected to increase significantly. Movants 

have an interest in ensuring that VBM in Florida is conducted in a safe and secure 

manner and ensuring clear communication to Republican voters regarding the 

requirements associated with voting by mail. 

Florida will have a Republican on the 2020 general election ballot for 

President of the United States and all 27 of Florida’s congressional seats are up for 

election in 2020. In addition, 20 of the 40 Florida Senate seats are up for election 

in November and all 120 seats in the Florida House of Representatives are up for 

election with a Republican candidate running in most of those districts. Florida 

also will have numerous local races with Republicans on the ballot this year 

including for State Attorney, Public Defender, Board of County Commissioners, 

and various County Constitutional Offices. Because this case seeks preliminary 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 4 of 18
5 

and permanent relief, this will impact elections occurring in Florida well beyond 

2020. 

Movants have interests—their own and those of their members—in how 

Florida elections are run and the way that VBM is offered. 

ARGUMENT 

I. Movants Are Entitled to Intervene As of Right 

Rule 24 is liberally construed with all doubts resolved in favor of the 

proposed intervenor. E.g., South Dakota ex rel Barnett v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 

317 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 2003). Under Rule 24(a)(2), this Court must grant 

intervention as of right if: 

1. The motion is timely; 

2. Movants have a legally protected interest in this action; 

3. This action may impair or impede that interest; and 

4. No existing party adequately represents Movants’ interests. 

Chiles v. Thornburgh, 856 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989). Movants satisfy each 

of these requirements. 

A. The motion is timely. 

The Court considers four factors in determining the timeliness of a motion to 

intervene: (1) the length of time that the parties knew or should have known of 

their interest in the case; (2) the extent of prejudice to the original parties; (3) the 

extent of prejudice to the intervenors if the motion is denied; and (4) any other 

unusual circumstances that would inform the Court’s decision on a determination 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 5 of 18
6 

of timeliness. Brown v. Bush, 194 F. App’x 879, 882 (11th Cir. 2006). These 

factors all indicate that Movants filed a timely motion. 

Movants filed this motion quickly—just 17 days after the initial complaint 

was filed and less than 24 hours after the filing of the first amended complaint. 

Movants are unaware of any decision from any court holding that this timeframe is 

too late to intervene. 

Movants’ intervention will not prejudice the original parties. To date, no 

responsive pleadings have been filed nor has this Court decided any dispositive 

motions. Granting intervention at this stage will cause no delay or disruption to this 

litigation. But if Movants are not allowed to intervene, their interests in this case 

could be irreparably harmed by decisions that will affect the upcoming and all 

future elections in Florida. Finally, there exist no unusual circumstances that would 

counsel against this Court determining that Movants’ motion is timely. 

B. Movants have protected interests in this action. 

Movants are Republican Party organizations that represent candidates and 

voters in every county in Florida. Therefore, Movants have a legally protectable 

interest in this litigation. See Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1213-14. 

Movants have direct and significant interests in the continued enforcement 

of state laws governing the conduct of elections and the use of vote-by-mail ballots 

as those laws are designed to serve “the integrity of [the] election process,” Eu v. 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 6 of 18
7 

San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 231 (1989), and the 

“orderly administration” of elections, Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 

U.S. 181, 196 (2008). Federal courts routinely recognize that political parties have 

interests supporting intervention in litigation regarding elections and election 

procedures. See, e.g., Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1169 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001); 

Trinsey v. Pennsylvania, 941 F.2d 224, 226 (3d Cir. 1991); Anderson v. Babb, 632 

F.2d 300, 304 (4th Cir. 1980). Indeed, given their inherent and broad-based interest 

in elections, usually “[n]o one disputes” that a political party “meet[s] the impaired 

interest requirement for intervention as of right.” Citizens United v. Gessler, 2014 

WL 4549001, at *2 (D. Col. Sept. 15, 2014). That is certainly true where, as here, 

“changes in voting procedures could affect candidates running as Republicans and 

voters who [are] members of the . . . Republican Party.” Ohio Democratic Party v. 

Blackwell, 2005 WL 8162665, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 26, 2005); see id. (under such 

circumstances “there is no dispute that the Ohio Republican Party had an interest in 

the subject matter of this case”). 

This Court has permitted Republican party organizations to intervene in 

numerous cases. See, e.g., Jacobson v. Detzner, Case No. 4:18-cv-262, 2018 WL 

10509488 (N.D. Fla. July 1, 2018) (ECF No. 36) (NRSC and RGA intervening); 

Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Detzner, Case No. 4:18-cv-520 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 

9, 2018) (ECF No. 20) (NRSC intervening); VoteVets Action Fund v. Detzner, 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 7 of 18
8 

Case No. 4:18-cv-524 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 11, 2018) (ECF No. 16) (NRSC 

intervening). 

In short, because Movants’ candidates “actively seek [election or] reelection 

in contests governed by the challenged rules,” and because their members’ ability 

to participate in those elections is governed by those challenged rules, Movants 

have an interest in “demand[ing] adherence to those requirements.” Shays v. FEC, 

414 F.3d 76, 88 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 

C. This action threatens to impair Movants’ interests. 

In this Circuit, Movants “must be at least real parties in interest in the 

transaction which is the subject of the proceeding.” Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1213-14 

(internal quotations and alterations omitted). However, the “inquiry is a flexible 

one, which focuses on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding each 

motion for intervention.” Id. at 1214 (internal quotations and alterations omitted). 

Consequently, “[i]n cases challenging various statutory schemes as 

unconstitutional . . ., the courts have recognized that the interests of those who are 

governed by those schemes are sufficient to support intervention.” Id. (internal 

quotations omitted). In this case, Movants are “real parties in interest” precisely 

because it is their candidate members “who are governed” by the election laws of 

Florida. See id. 

If Plaintiffs’ action succeeds, then the rules surrounding VBM ballots could 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 8 of 18
9 

be upended in a matter of months shortly before the 2020 election. Not only would 

this undercut democratically enacted laws that protect voters and candidates 

(including Movants’ members), it would change the “structur[e] of the[e] 

competitive environment” and “fundamentally alter the environment in which 

[Movants] defend their concrete interests (e.g. their interest in . . . winning 

[election or] reelection).” Shays, 414 F.3d at 85-86. The changes requested by 

Plaintiffs also threaten to confuse voters and undermine confidence in the electoral 

process. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2006). In addition, any judicially 

crafted change to the status quo regarding the conduct of elections will force 

Movants’ member candidates to expend time and resources educating voters about 

the new way in which to vote by mail. 

Finally, any stare decisis effect of an adverse ruling will negatively impact 

Movants’ ability to protect its future interests. See Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1214. This 

proceeding may be the only time Movants can litigate Plaintiffs’ claims. If not 

permitted to intervene, Movants will be barred from having the ability to assert 

their rights and interests in this litigation. Furthermore, a ruling here could have 

repercussions throughout the Eleventh Circuit, potentially impacting Movants’ 

members in those states. Cf. Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1310 (11th 

Cir. 2004 (holding that the “persuasive effects” of one court’s opinion on other 

courts can be significant and thus warrant intervention). The result will be that 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 9 of 18
10 

Movants will be in a worse position vis-à-vis their rights if not permitted to 

intervene in this litigation. Therefore, Movants have multiple significant interests 

which will be impaired should intervention not be granted. 

D. The existing parties do not adequately represent Movants’ interests. 

The final criteria in the intervention as of right analysis is the inadequacy of 

the current parties’ representation. The relevant standard is not that the parties must 

be adverse in every respect but rather it is that the other parties’ representation 

“may be” inadequate. Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America, 404 U.S. 528, 

538, n.10 (1972). The Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit have emphasized 

that a movants burden in showing inadequacy is “minimal.” See id.; Clark, 168 

F.3d at 461. 

Plaintiffs’ are generally adverse to Movants’ interests politically and are 

specifically adverse to the current VBM statutes that Movants wish to defend. And 

the existing Defendants do not adequately represent the same interests as Movants. 

The Florida Secretary of State is not an elected position in Florida. Rather, 

the Secretary is appointed by the Governor and serves at his pleasure. The 

Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the state with the responsibility to 

“obtain and maintain uniformity in the interpretation and implementation of the 

election laws.” § 97.012(1), Fla. Stat. In their official capacities, the Secretary of 

State and Governors’ interests are in the faithful execution of the laws. Art. IV, § 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 10 of 18
11 

1(a), Fla. Const. (“The governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed 

. . . .”). 

The Attorney General is a statewide elected official and the Chief Legal 

Officer of the State, but her constitutional and statutory duties do not include 

overseeing elections. 

The Florida Elections Canvassing Commission consists of the Governor and 

two members of the Cabinet selected by the Governor, whose sole duty is to certify 

the election results in Florida and to issue certificates. See §§ 102.111, 102.121, 

Fla. Stat. 

Florida’s 67 Supervisors of Elections are all independently elected and 

charged with the non-partisan conduct of elections in their counties. Like the 

Secretary of State, their interests are to prioritize the technical administration of 

elections, whereas the Movants have a specific interest in maintaining the status 

quo of the lawfully enacted VBM statutes. These differences further prove that the 

representation of Movants’ interests not only “may be” inadequate, see Clark, 168 

F.3d at 461, but will in fact be inadequate. 

For each of these reasons, the Movants interests are not, and certainly “may 

not,” be adequately represented by the current named Defendants.

II. Alternatively, Movants Are Entitled to Permissive Intervention 

Alternatively, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), this Court 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 11 of 18
12 

should permit Applicants to intervene. Rule 24(b) provides for permissive 

intervention where a party timely files a motion and “has a claim or defense that 

shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

24(b)(1)(B). Intervention under Rule 24(b) is a discretionary power left to the 

judgment of the district court. See Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1213. In exercising its broad 

discretion under this Rule, the Court must consider whether intervention will 

unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 24(b)(3). 

Because the Amended Complaint was filed less than twenty-four hours ago 

and no defendant has filed a responsive pleading nor have significant actions been 

taken by the parties or the Court, the requested intervention will not unduly delay 

or prejudice any party. For the same reasons outlined above, Movants have 

demonstrated their right to intervene in this matter. Movants have filed their 

Motion early in the litigation, prior to any action on the merits by the Court. 

Applicants also possess claims and defenses in line with the VBM statutes, given 

that Movants will be directly and irrevocably impacted by any change to existing 

law. 

Disallowing Movants to intervene could prejudice their interests and rights. 

This case asks this Court to upend long-standing statutes and regulations tied to 

VBM in the state—doing so without the input of the parties who stand to be most 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 12 of 18
13 

directly harmed by a change in existing law would be inefficient and unjust. The 

only way to protect the fairness of the litigation and lend credibility and finality 

to the Court’s decision on the merits is to permit Movants to intervene. 

III. Proposed Intervenors’ Position on Merits 

 In order to satisfy the requirement of Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 

1121 (11th Cir. 1985), Movants state that a forthcoming Motion to Dismiss—

should they permitted to intervene—will assert that Plaintiffs’ action should be 

dismissed for a number of reasons including a failure to state a claim for which 

relief can granted and lack of standing. In support, Movants will rely on cases 

such as Rucho v. Common Cause, Gill v. Whitford, and Jacobson v. Florida 

Secretary of State. 

On the merits, Movants assert that they will oppose the claims for relief 

that relate to the extension of mail ballot deadlines and the prohibition on 

payment for ballot harvesting.1 On the VBM ballot deadlines and prohibitions on 

ballot harvesting, the cases Movants will reply upon, but not be limited to, are the 

well-known Anderson/Burdick line of cases—VoteVets Action Fund v. Detzner, 

Case No. 4:18-cv-524, Slip. Op. at 2 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2018), (ECF No. 56)2; 

 

1

 Movants take no position on the merits of the pre-paid postage claim, other than 

to assert that should the State and local defendants choose not to pre-pay postage 

that such a policy choice does not amount to a poll tax. 

2

 In VoteVets, Judge Walker concluded: “The legal questions are two-fold: (1) 

whether the requirement domestic vote-by-mail ballots must be received by the 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 13 of 18
14 

Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, Case No. 1:20-cv-1677, Slip. 

Op. at 7-11 (N.D. Ga. May 14, 2020) (ECF No. 43), and Marks v. Stinson, 19 

F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1994). 

WHEREFORE, Movants respectfully request the Court grant their Motion to 

Intervene and permit Movants to intervene as defendants in this proceeding. 

 

supervisor of elections at 7 p.m. on election day places an undue burden on the 

right to vote; and (2) whether the ability of overseas voters to postmark their ballot 

on election day and have their ballots counted if the ballots arrive within 10 days of 

election deprives domestic vote-by-mail voters of their right to equal protection. 

Neither do.” (emphasis added).

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 14 of 18
DATED: May 21, 2020 

SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 

/s/ Benjamin J. Gibson 

Daniel E. Nordby 

Fla. Bar No. 14588 

Benjamin J. Gibson 

Fla. Bar No. 058661 

215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

Tel: (850) 241-1717 

dnordby@shutts.com

bgibson@shutts.com

mabramitis@shutts.com

Holtzman Vogel Josefiak 

Torchinsky PLLC 

Jason Torchinsky (VA 47481) 

45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100 

Warrenton, VA 20106 

P: (540) 341-8808 

F: (540) 341-8809 

E: JTorchinsky@hvjt.law

Counsel for Proposed Intervenors

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 15 of 18
16 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(B) 

The Movants certify that in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(B), counsel for 

the Movants has conferred with counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 

regarding this Motion. The undersigned conferred with counsel for the Plaintiffs at 

least 24 hours prior to filing this Motion, but counsel for Plaintiffs has not yet 

indicated his clients’ position. Counsel for the following Defendants have indicated 

their client has no objection to this Motion: Governor Ron DeSantis, Secretary 

Laurel Lee, and the Supervisors of Elections for Broward, Collier, Indian River, 

Lee, Lake, Manatee, Marion, Monroe, Pasco, Hernando, Brevard, Flagler, 

Jefferson, Charlotte, Clay, Duval, Holmes, Leon, Martin, Osceola, Polk, St. Lucie, 

Gilchrist, and Highlands Counties. Counsel for the Supervisor of Elections for 

Hillsborough County has indicated his client takes no position on this motion. The 

undersigned conferred with counsel for the remaining Defendant Supervisors of 

Elections prior to filing this Motion, but counsel have not yet indicated their 

clients’ positions. 

SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 

/s/ Benjamin J. Gibson 

Daniel E. Nordby 

Fla. Bar No. 14588 

Benjamin J. Gibson 

Fla. Bar No. 058661 

215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

Tel: (850) 241-1717 

dnordby@shutts.com

bgibson@shutts.com

mabramitis@shutts.com

Holtzman Vogel Josefiak 

Torchinsky PLLC 

Jason Torchinsky (VA 47481) 

45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100 

Warrenton, VA 20106 

P: (540) 341-8808 

F: (540) 341-8809 

E: JTorchinsky@hvjt.law

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 16 of 18
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(F) 

The Movants certify that the foregoing Motion and Memorandum of Law 

complies with Local Rule 7.1(F) because it contains 3,358 words, exclusive of the 

required certificates, case style, and signature blocks. 

SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 

/s/ Benjamin J. Gibson 

Daniel E. Nordby 

Fla. Bar No. 14588 

Benjamin J. Gibson 

Fla. Bar No. 058661 

215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

Tel: (850) 241-1717 

dnordby@shutts.com

bgibson@shutts.com

mabramitis@shutts.com

Holtzman Vogel Josefiak 

Torchinsky PLLC 

Jason Torchinsky (VA 47481) 

45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100 

Warrenton, VA 20106 

P: (540) 341-8808 

F: (540) 341-8809 

E: JTorchinsky@hvjt.law

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 17 of 18
18 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 21, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a Notice 

of Electronic Filing to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Benjamin J. Gibson 

Benjamin J. Gibson 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 54 Filed 05/21/20 Page 18 of 18