Court Opinion

ID: 9694870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:58:44.042417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:06.214722
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 1. Eight Wisconsin municipalities, municipal school boards, and school districts (collectively "the municipalities")1 seek review of a published court of appeals decision2 affirm *9ing an order of the Circuit Court for Dane County, David T, Flanagan, III, Judge. The circuit court denied the municipalities participation as parties in the instant case brought by state employees relating to state benefits.3 The court of appeals affirmed the order of the circuit court. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
¶ 2. We begin by explaining what this case is about and what it is not about.
¶ 3. The case is about court procedure. Eight municipalities want to insert themselves into a lawsuit brought by several state employees challenging their state benefits. The question before this court is whether the court should allow these eight municipalities to inject themselves into a state-employee-oriented lawsuit, instead of bringing their own lawsuit governing the rights of their own municipal employees.
¶ 4. The procedural issue before the court is known in the law as "intervention" or "joinder."
¶ 5. Procedure is important in the law. Our judicial system values procedure because we view good procedure as tending to produce fair and sound outcomes. In deciding the procedural issue presented in the instant case, we must consider the positions of the complaining parties, the named defendants, and the eight municipalities, as well as the public's and court's interest in fair, effective, efficient case management. The municipalities *10do not have a monopoly interest on the procedural issue in the instant case, as they and the dissent want the reader to believe.
¶ 6. Broadly speáking, a court determines whether an outside entity should intervene in or join an existing lawsuit by striking a balance between allowing the original parties to a lawsuit to conduct and conclude their own lawsuit and allowing others to join a lawsuit in the interest of the speedy and economical resolution of a controversy without rendering the lawsuit fruitlessly complex or unending. Whether to order intervention or joinder turns on judgment calls and fact assessments.
¶ 7. The eight municipalities in the present case make only generalized claims that they have interests related to the subject of the action. As we explain at length below, and as Justice Butler's concurrence explains, the municipalities have failed to demonstrate in the circuit court or here how their interests relate to the subject of the action in a direct and immediate fashion. Indeed, the dissent concedes, as it must, that the record does not detail the effects on the municipalities of a decision favoring the complainant.4 Importantly, the Department of Employee Trust Funds and the Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin adequately represent the interest of the eight municipalities in defeating the lawsuit. The municipalities' disagreement with the way DETF and the Attorney General are handling the action is not a basis for intervention.
¶ 8. Procedure is what the instant case is about.
¶ 9. The instant case is not about the merits of the state employees' assertion that Wis. Stat. § 40.02(2) *11(2003-04), the state statute defining "dependent," violates the equal protection guarantees of Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution by denying gay male and lesbian state employees and their same-sex domestic partners employment benefits that are available to similarly situated heterosexual state employees and their spouses. We do not even come close to addressing this issue.
¶ 10. After acknowledging that the constitutional issue of benefits for persons in gay and lesbian domestic relationships is not at issue in the instant case,5 the dissent immediately stirs the cauldron of hot-hutton issues. It touches on many issues totally unrelated to the narrow procedural question presently before this court and not even tangentially related to the constitutional question that may ultimately be raised and decided in the instant lawsuit when it is remanded to the circuit court.
¶ 11. Within its first four paragraphs, the dissent asserts elliptically that the present case involves "one of the great social and political controversies of our time"6 and that the case affects "every public employer that operates under the Public Employee Trust Fund" and "potentially, every employer governed by Wisconsin's Family and Medical Leave Act."7 The dissent also identifies the instant action as part of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.8 The dissent is certainly mindful that any reference to the ACLU stirs up partisan passions. See *12George H.W Bush's criticism of presidential candidate Michael Dukakis as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU."9
¶ 12. Although musing that "[i]t can be argued that courts exist for the very purpose of vindicating 'rights' that might otherwise be disregarded by political majorities,"10 the dissent in effect undermines the legitimacy of court decisions that review the constitutionality of legislative enactments.11 The dissent's thesis appears to be, in contrast to the Code of Judicial Conduct, that courts should not determine as a matter of constitutional law politically controversial issues raised in cases legitimately before them.12
¶ 13. The dissent does not present the traditional, mainstream, well-accepted view that courts in the United States are, in settling disputes brought to them, supposed to protect the rights guaranteed to each of us by the United States Constitution Bill of Rights and the Wisconsin Constitution Declaration of Rights, even when such protection may be unpopular. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 180 (1803), the best-known case in American legal history (and indeed in jurisprudence across the world), announced the basic tenet of judicial *13review, namely that courts have the power and duty to hold that "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void."
¶ 14. Finally, the fifth paragraph of the dissent contrives to raise the specter of abortion, questioning the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the United States Supreme Court's decision on abortion.13 Abortion? Hard to believe that abortion has found its way into the instant case!14
¶ 15. The only issue the dissent hasn't brought in to rile up as many readers as possible is, as far as we can tell, the issue of immigration.
¶ 16. Unfortunately, the dissent encourages the reader to confuse the legislative function, which determines public policy in a forum open to all and not governed by court rules of evidence, and the judicial function, which resolves a legal dispute between named parties according to the facts and law (including rules of evidence) in a fair, neutral, impartial, and nonpartisan way.
¶ 17. As United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has stated, a judge's job is like an umpire's, "to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or *14bat,"15 to make calls according to the rules, not according to the voices of a partisan crowd.
¶ 18. Without support in the facts or law on intervention and joinder, the dissent has unfortunately turned to political considerations and appeals to emotions.
¶ 19. We turn now to the procedural issues before us and the facts and law governing intervention and joinder.
¶ 20. Our painstaking and thorough consideration of the municipalities' and the state employees' numerous arguments has resulted in a very long opinion. To assist the reader, we set out the following roadmap to our discussion:
I. Factual and Procedural Background: ¶¶ 21-34
II. The Municipalities Do Not Have the Right to Intervene: Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1): ¶¶ 35-120
A. Motion to Intei'vene is Timely: ¶ 42
B. The Municipalities' Interests Are Insufficiently Related to the Subject of the Action: ¶¶ 43-74
(1) The Financial Interest of Three Municipalities in DETF Health Plans Is Not Direct, Immediate, or Special:
¶¶ 47-53
(2) The Municipalities' Collective Bargaining Agreements Are Not at Stake:
¶¶ 54-58
*15(3) The Municipalities' Pension and Deferred Compensation Plans Are Not at Stake: ¶¶ 59-66
(4) The Municipalities' Home Rule Authority Is Not at Stake: ¶¶ 67-69
(5) Summary: ¶¶ 70-74
C. Disposition of the Action Does Not Impair the Municipalities' Ability to Protect Their Interests:
¶¶ 75-84
D. The Municipalities Are Adequately Represented by DETF and the Attorney General in the Action: ¶¶ 85-114
E. Summary: ¶¶ 115-118
III. The Circuit Court Did Not Err in Denying Permissive Intervention: ¶¶ 119-127
IV Joinder is Not Required: ¶¶ 128-143
A. Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l.: ¶¶ 129-137
B. Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11): ¶¶ 138-143
Conclusion: ¶¶ 144^145
I. Factual and Procedural Background
¶ 21. The facts and procedural background maybe simply stated.
¶ 22. Jody Helgeland and five other current or former state employees, along with their same-sex domestic partners (collectively "Helgeland"), brought suit against DETF, DETF Secretary Eric Stanchfield, the Employee Trust Funds Board, and the Group Insurance Board (collectively "DETF"). Helgeland challenges the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 40.02(20) *16(2003-04),16 which defines "dependent" for purposes of state employee health insurance eligibility, and alternatively asserts that DETF's interpretation and administration of this provision are unconstitutional.17 Helge-land argues that in applying the provision's definition of "dependent," DETF violated the equal protection guarantees of Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution18 by denying gay male and lesbian employees and their same-sex domestic partners the employment benefits of health insurance, sick leave carryover, and family leave that are available to similarly situated heterosexual employees and their spouses. In the amended complaint, Helgeland requests, among other things, that the circuit court enjoin DETF from excluding lesbian and gay male employees and their same-sex domestic partners from the same employment benefits provided to similarly situated heterosexual employees and their spouses.
¶ 23. Eight municipalities seek to participate as parties in Helgoland's law suit. Judgment in favor of Helgeland could not possibly impose an award of damages against any person or entity other than the named defendants.
*17¶ 24. Each municipality involved in the instant suit offers health and dental benefit plans to its employees and pays all or some premium costs on behalf of employees who enroll in these plans.19 The Town of Cottage Grove, the City of Watertown, and the Village of Oostburg each pay premium costs on behalf of employees who enroll in health or dental plans administered by DETE The remaining municipalities apparently arrange for their employees' health or dental benefits without utilizing any DETF plan.
¶ 25. Employees of the Town of Cottage Grove, the City of Watertown, and the Village of Oostburg who enroll in health or dental plans administered by DETF are given the option of obtaining either "family" or "single" coverage. The "family" option provides coverage to employees and to employees' spouses and dependents.
¶ 26. All eight municipalities participate in the Wisconsin Retirement System, which is administered by DETE A number of municipalities also sponsor the DETF-administered Wisconsin Deferred Compensation plan. The municipalities pay no contributions on behalf of employees participating in the Wisconsin Deferred Compensation plan.
¶ 27. DETF is represented by the Wisconsin Department of Justice. Peggy Lautenschlager served as Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin while both the circuit court and the court of appeals considered the municipalities' motion. Subsequent to the court of appeals' decision, Lautenschlager completed her term as attorney general and was replaced by the newly elected J.B. Van Hollen.
*18¶ 28. DETF has moved for judgment against Hel-geland on the pleadings before the circuit court on the ground that Phillips v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 167 Wis. 2d 205, 482 N.W.2d 121 (Ct. App. 1992), forecloses Helgeland's claim.
¶ 29. Helgeland has moved to compel discovery.
¶ 30. The circuit court has not ruled on either DETF's motion for judgment on the pleadings or Helgeland's motion to compel discovery, but has ruled only on the municipalities' motion to participate as parties. The circuit court denied the municipalities' motion to intervene, as a matter of right or by permissive intervention, in the declaratory action brought by Helgeland.
¶ 31. The circuit court also rejected the municipalities' request to be added by the court sua sponte as a necessary party. The circuit court ruled that the municipalities' interests are indirect, hypothetical, and somewhat speculative.
¶ 32. The circuit court invited the municipalities to participate as amicus curiae.20
*19¶ 33. The municipalities contend (1) that they have a right of intervention under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1) as a matter of law; (2) that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in denying the municipalities permissive intervention under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(2); and (3) that the circuit court erred in refusing to join the municipalities sua sponte under either Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. or § 806.04(11).
¶ 34. We agree with the circuit court and court of appeals: the municipalities' arguments are unpersuasive. We conclude (1) that the municipalities have no right of intervention under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1); (2) that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the municipalities permissive intervention under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(2); and (3) that the circuit court did not err in refusing to join the municipalities sua sponte under either Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. or § 806.04(11). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's order denying intervention or joinder.
II. The Municipalities Do Not Have a Right to Intervene: Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1)
¶ 35. We first consider whether the circuit court erred in denying the municipalities' motion for intervention as of right under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1).
¶ 36. Wisconsin Stat. § 803.09(1), governing intervention as of right, provides as follows:
Upon timely motion anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action when the movant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the movant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect that interest, unless the movant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
*20¶ 37. Wisconsin Stat. § 803.09(1) is based on Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and interpretation and application of the federal rule provide guidance in interpreting and applying § 803.09(1).21
¶ 38. A movant must satisfy four requirements to intervene as a matter of right under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1). The movant must show:
(A) that the movant's motion to intervene is timely;
(B) that the movant claims an interest sufficiently related to the subject of the action;22
(C) that disposition of the action may as a practicad matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect that interest; and
*21(D) that the existing parties do not adequately represent the movant's interest.23
¶ 39. A movant must meet each of these four criteria to claim a right of intervention.24 At the same time, the criteria need not be analyzed in isolation from one another,25 and a movant's strong showing with respect to one requirement may contribute to the *22movant's ability to meet other requirements as well.26 We shall discuss each of these four requirements separately, but there is interplay between the requirements; the requirements must be blended and balanced to determine whether the municipalities have the right to intervene.27
¶ 40. "Courts have no precise formula for determining whether a potential intervenor meets the requirements of § 803.09(1)... ."28 The analysis is holistic,29 flexible, and highly fact-specific.30 A court must look at the facts and circumstances of each case "against *23the background of the policies underlying the intervention rule."31 A court is mindful that Wis. Stat. § 803.03(1) "attempts to strike a balance between two conflicting public policies."32 On the one hand, "[t]he original parties to a lawsuit should be allowed to conduct and conclude their own lawsuit... ,"33 On the other hand, "persons should be allowed to join a lawsuit in the interest of the speedy and economical resolution of controversies."34
¶ 41. Whether to allow or to deny intervention as of right is a question of law that this court decides independently of the circuit court and court of appeals but benefiting from the analyses of each court.35 One federal court concluded: "Despite its nomenclature, intervention 'as of right' usually turns on judgment calls *24and fact assessments that a reviewing court is, unlikely to disturb except for clear mistakes."36
A. Motion to Intervene Is Timely
¶ 42. The question of the timeliness of a motion to intervene is left to the discretion of the circuit court.37 Neither Helgeland nor DETF disputes that the municipalities timely moved to intervene. We. agree with the parties that the municipalities satisfied the first requirement of Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1).
B. The Municipalities' Interests Are Insufficiently Related to the Subject of the Action
¶ 43. No precise test exists "for determining which type of interest is sufficient to allow a party to intervene as a matter of right."38 The "interest" requirement is nebulous; courts have not been able to develop more than general guidelines.39 Instead of a precise test, courts employ a "broader, pragmatic approach to intervention as of right," viewing "the interest sufficient to allow the intervention practically rather than technically."40 As the municipalities' brief recognizes, the *25interest requirement has generated a spectrum of approaches.
¶ 44. We thus approach the second requirement of Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1) with the same flexibility that we bring to the statute as a whole, measuring "the sufficiency of the interest by focusing on the facts and circumstances of the particular case before [us] as well as the stated interest in intervention" and analyzing "these factors against the policies underlying the intervention statute,"41 namely to strike a balance between allowing the original parties to a lawsuit to conduct and conclude their own lawsuit and allowing persons to join a lawsuit in the interest of the speedy and economical resolution of controversies without rendering the lawsuit fruitlessly complex or unending. We treat "the interest test as primarily a practical guide to disposing of lawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process."42
¶ 45. At the same time, a claimed interest does not support intervention if it is only remotely related to the subject of the action.43 There must be some sense in which the interest is "of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct operation of the judgment."44 A movant may *26intervene as of right when the movant needs "to protect a right that would not otherwise be protected in the litigation."45
¶ 46. The subject of the present action is the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 40.02(20), which defines "dependent" for purposes of state employee health insurance eligibility. Although the municipalities' employees are not involved in the subject of the action so defined, the municipalities put forth a number of interests and assert that each is sufficiently related to the subject of the action to allow intervention as of right.46 They argue that they meet the interest requirement for the following reasons: (1) three municipalities (Cottage Grove, Watertown, and Oostburg) would have to pay increased premiums on behalf of municipal employees enrolled in DETF health or dental plans should Helgeland prevail; (2) the collective bargaining agreements of all eight municipalities would be affected should Helgeland prevail, because employees' spouses are covered under the agreements but employees' same-sex domestic partners are not; (3) most of the municipalities participate in or sponsor the Wisconsin Retirement System qualified plan and the Wisconsin Deferred Compensation Program (both administered by DETF) that would be adversely affected should Helgeland prevail; and (4) the municipalities' home rule authority over their local affairs and government would be adversely affected by Helgeland's action. We discuss each argument in turn.
*27(1) The Financial Interest of Three Municipalities in DETF Health Plans Is Not Direct, Immediate, or Special
¶ 47. We first consider the municipalities' argument that three of the eight municipalities' financial interest in their employees' DETF health benefit plans is an interest sufficiently related to the subject of Helgoland's action.
¶ 48. Cottage Grove, Watertown, and Oostburg each pay premium costs on behalf of employees who enroll in health or dental plans administered by DETF pursuant to collective bargaining agreements. The municipalities argue that including same-sex domestic partners in the plan could impose additional costs on municipal employers.47 The municipalities therefore assert a financial interest that they claim is directly related to the subject of Helgoland's action.48
¶ 49. The court of appeals voiced some agreement with this portion of the municipalities' argument. While not reaching a definitive conclusion on the matter, the court of appeals conceded that ”[i]t appears likely *28that... Cottage Grove, Watertown, and OostburgG may have interests sufficiently related to the declaratory action by virtue of being enrolled in the DETF health plans."49 The court of appeals reasoned that "[a] decision affecting the applicability of Wis. Stat. § 40.02 ... to same-sex domestic partners of state employees could directly affect these Municipalities in the administration of their health plans pursuant to these statutes, because a judgment in Helgeland's favor would likely increase the amount of benefits these Municipalities would be required, to pay."50 The court of appeals concluded, however, that the remaining five municipalities do not have sufficient interests because they are parties only to DETF pension plans, which Helgeland did not directly challenge.51
¶ 50. Helgeland and DETF respond, arguing that municipal employees' plans, including plans administered by DETF, are in no way the subject of Helgeland's action and that any judgment in favor of Helgeland would apply solely to DETF plans offered to state employees. Helgeland and DETF point to Wis. Stat. § 40.51(7), which provides that DETF may establish different eligibility standards for nonstate employees *29participating in DETF plans. According to Helgeland and DETF, judgment in favor of Helgeland does not directly affect the municipalities.
¶ 51. The municipalities make an additional argument. They charge that Helgeland has deliberately designed her action to gain "a tactical advantage" by excluding the municipalities from the litigation through "shrewd pleading" and "cherry picking."
¶ 52. The municipalities seem to be arguing that when challenging the constitutionality of state conduct, Helgeland is obligated to name as defendants any conceivable state or municipal entity that may be engaging in the conduct challenged. No such requirement exists in the law.
¶ 53. We need not decide the legal issue of the effect of a judgment in the present case on the municipalities; under the practical standard we apply in interpreting and applying Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1), whether municipal employees' DETF plans are the exact plans considered in the action is not dispositive. A relationship may exist between the plans that DETF offers to state employees and the DETF plans offered to the municipalities' employees. The relationship between the municipalities' interest and the subject of Helgoland's action is, however, too remote and speculative to support a right of intervention.52
*30(2) The Municipalities' Collective Bargaining Agreements Are Not at Stake
¶ 54. The municipalities' second claimed interest is that their collective bargaining agreements will be affected by Helgeland's action. They argue that this interest alone is sufficient to require intervention. We do not agree with the municipalities' statement of the law.
¶ 55. The municipalities cite a number of cases as "overwhelming" support for the position that a government or private entity has a right of intervention whenever a judgment may modify an agreement to which the entity is party.
¶ 56. These cases do not provide the support that the municipalities seek. Four of the cases cited simply do not consider the question of intervention.53 In a fifth case, a federal district court granted permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but did not reach the question of intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).54 In sixth case, a federal district court denied a motion to *31intervene on grounds that the movant could not meet the interest requirement of Rule 24(a)(2).55
¶ 57. Only one case that the municipalities cite lends any aid to their argument. In EEOC v. AT&T, 506 F.2d 735, 741-42 (3d Cir. 1974), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a movant union had the right to intervene as party defendant to oppose a consent decree that could modify or invalidate provisions in the union's collective bargaining agreement with defendant AT&T. The EEOC court did not, however, establish a general rule that a person may always claim an interest supporting intervention as of right when judgment in an action may leave the person unable to enforce rights under an agreement to which it is party.56
¶ 58. Although no judgment for Helgeland as a state employee would directly bind the municipalities, on a practical level — the level at which our analysis must focus — the municipalities arguably may be affected if a judgment is entered against DETE Accordingly, the municipalities are concerned about the effect of stare decisis upon them. As we explain below, although the effect of stare decisis is a consideration in determining intervention as of right, it is not determinative.
*32(3) The Municipalities' Pension and Deferred Compensation Plans Are Not at Stake
¶ 59. Thirdly, the municipalities allege that their interests in both the Wisconsin Retirement System and the Wisconsin Deferred Compensation Program (both administered by DETF) are at stake in the action. The court of appeals refused to consider the municipalities' arguments regarding pension benefits on grounds that Helgoland's complaint made no reference to pension plans.57 Applying our practiced standard, we examine the relation of the municipalities' interests in the retirement and deferred compensation plans to the present action.
¶ 60. The municipalities explain the relationship between their interest in the retirement and deferred compensation plans and Helgoland's action as follows: Although employees are free to designate any pension or deferred compensation beneficiary they wish, Wisconsin law provides that employees' "spouses" have specific rights to those benefits under qualified domestic relations orders. A qualified domestic relations order divides the participant's pension and deferred compensation benefits at divorce between the participant and the former spouse.58
¶ 61. The municipalities argue that because Hel-geland asks that the court classify "same-sex domestic partners of state employees as dependents for purposes of participation in all employee benefit contracts and plans . . ."59 and because the Wisconsin Retirement Sys*33tem and Wisconsin Deferred Compensation Program are administered by DETF, any judgment in favor of Helgeland will necessarily entail that DETF be compelled to permit a participant's former same-sex domestic partner to seek a qualified domestic relations order dividing the participant's benefits between the participant and the former same-sex domestic partner.
¶ 62. The municipalities further argue that such a remedy would jeopardize the tax-exempt or tax-deferred status of these plans if a former same-sex domestic partner were, like a spouse, permitted to obtain a qualified domestic relations order dividing a participant's benefits between the participant and the former same-sex domestic partner. The municipalities surmise that by allocating such a right to former same-sex domestic partners, DETF would in some way render the plans inconsistent with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which provides that in determining the meaning of any federal statute or regulation, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. The municipalities cite two IRS private letter rulings that the municipalities claim support their reading of federal law.60
¶ 63. The municipalities' arguments on federal law are extremely weak. Life insurance policies, deferred compensation plans, retirement plans, and pension plans administered by DETF already permit par*34ticipants to name beneficiaries of their choice.61 Private letter rulings, as the municipalities themselves acknowledge, have no precedential value. Furthermore, the private letter rulings do not necessarily support the municipalities' position.
¶ 64. The private letter rulings instead conclude that each plan examined "is an eligible deferred compensation plan,"62 while also noting that "a registered domestic partner ... is not a spouse ... for purposes of' the federal law and that if spousal provisions in the plans are "not interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the Defense of Marriage Act, the operation of [the plans]" would not comply with federal law.63 The private letter rulings do not explain whether an interpretation or application of a plan's spousal provisions would be inconsistent with the Defense of Marriage Act if, pursuant to state law, the plan provided the same benefits to registered domestic partners that it provides to spouses.
¶ 65. Lastly, the municipalities' argument depends upon an interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the word "spouse." The only word at which Helgeland takes aim is, however, the word "dependent" in the state statute. The municipalities offer no reason to conclude that a judgment in favor of Helgeland interpreting the word "dependent" might entail interpretation of the word "spouse" as well.
¶ 66. The municipalities' arguments about federal law are based on "likely scenarios" and speculation about *35the effect of Helgeland's action on the tax status of the retirement and deferred compensation plans and application of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). The municipalities spin an argument but cite no examples or case law illustrating the dire consequences they predict. In contrast, numerous governmental entities now grant employees domestic partner benefits and retain federal tax benefits and apparently do not run afoul of federal laws.
(4) The Municipalities' Home Rule Authority Is Not at Stake
¶ 67. We turn finally to the municipalities' contention that judgment for Helgeland would deprive the municipalities of constitutional and statutory home rule powers.64 The municipalities suggest that Helge-*36land threatens the municipalities' authority to hire personnel and negotiate employment contracts, to negotiate collective bargaining agreements, to establish and administer benefit plans for municipal employees, and generally to determine municipal policy.
¶ 68. Helgoland's position does not threaten to deprive the municipalities of any part of their home rule powers. The municipalities apparently would have this court hold that they face deprivation of their home rule authority — and accordingly may claim an interest supporting intervention — every time a court considers whether a constitutional or statutory provision prohibits the state or municipalities from engaging in some particular form of conduct. We do not so hold. The municipalities' home rule authority is not related to the subject of Helgoland's action.
¶ 69. That a judgment for Helgeland might affect the constitutional or statutory powers of a municipality in operating health care or pension plans does not constitute a deprivation of the municipalities' home rule powers. Home rule powers are explicitly constrained by the state constitution and the statutes.65
(5) Summary
¶ 70. In summary, we examine all of the municipalities' arguments about their interests together and apply the broad, pragmatic approach to intervention as *37of right required by Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1). We determine whether the municipalities' interests are sufficient to allow the intervention practically rather than technically and examine the interest factor in relation to the other factors to decide whether to allow intervention as of right. We balance the right of the original parties to conduct their own lawsuit with allowing others to join the lawsuit in the interest of speedy and economical resolution of the controversy.
¶ 71. Although the municipalities claim that they have interests related to the subject of Helgoland's action, they have failed to show in the circuit court or here how their interests relate to the subject of the action in a direct and immediate fashion. Furthermore, the municipalities' interest in the present case is not a unique or special interest but rather, as Justice Butler's concurrence demonstrates, one that other municipalities or other entities or individuals could claim in almost any action challenging the constitutionality of a state statute, or that any employer could claim when an action before a court affects a similar contract or threatens to increase costs that employers are obligated to pay on behalf of their employees.66 When the interests of a movant are substantially similar to those of a party, as the municipalities claim, it is more difficult for the movant to demonstrate that it is not adequately *38represented by the party.67 The municipalities' interests do diverge from DETF's. The municipalities' interest is in the employees covered by their own plans, not in the state employees who have brought the action. Furthermore, the municipalities' interest in the outcome is more attenuated than the State's. The municipalities, unlike the State, would not be subject to immediate potential damages as well as costs to the taxpayers should the court ultimately rule in Helgeland's favor.
¶ 72. The municipalities cite no case holding that a movant meets the interest requirement of either Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1) or Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure merely when it engages in, and wishes to continue engaging in, conduct identical to another's conduct challenged on constitutional grounds but governed by a different contract. The municipalities also adduce no precedent recognizing a right of intervention based on a widely shared financial interest such as presented in the instant case. Many entities may be concerned with Helgeland's action, but involving them as intervenors as of right is not likely to be compatible with efficiency and would not contribute to the resolution of the controversy unless the movant had a sufficiently different stake in the controversy, was not adequately represented by a party, and could make a unique contribution to the proceedings.
¶ 73. The municipalities conclude their interest argument by asserting that when, as in the present case, the claimant (Helgeland) brings public interest litigation that may change constitutional doctrine and statewide governmental practice, greater consideration *39should be given for intervention by parties of differing perspectives to allow fuller development of the issues. Under this theory, any significant legal question of first impression cannot be resolved without allowing intervention by every person whose rights in a future case might be affected by the stare decisis effect of the decision. This type of free-for-all intervention could not have been contemplated by the legislature. The municipalities' reasoning is therefore flawed.
¶ 74. The municipalities' generalized interest in the subject of the instant action, namely, the constitutionality of a statute applicable to a plan for state employees, is at the far edge of what may constitute a sufficiently related interest for purposes of the right to intervene statute. The weakness of the municipalities' showing with respect to the interest requirement means that to demonstrate a right of intervention the municipalities should make a strong showing in the other requirements to intervene as of right.
C. Disposition of the Action Does Not Impair the Municipalities' Ability to Protect Their Interests
¶ 75. We now consider the third requirement to intervene as a matter of right under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1), namely, that the disposition of Helgoland's action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the municipalities' ability to protect interests that may be related to the subject of Helgeland's action.68 The municipalities are not parties to any contract actually at issue in the present litigation; the municipalities' interest in excluding same-sex domestic partner coverage *40therefore cannot be directly impaired by Helgeland's action.
¶ 76. The municipalities argue that the effect of stare decisis might impair or impede their ability to protect their interest in excluding same-sex domestic partner coverage. The circuit court concluded that the interests of the municipalities "while not directly involved in this lawsuit, may be impaired in some future circumstance by a decision in this litigation, through the operation of stare decisis" and that "the possible future problem arising from stare decisis" is not a sufficient basis for intervention.
¶ 77. Wisconsin courts have not considered, for purposes of intervention as a matter of right under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1), the effect of stare decisis. We therefore turn to the federal decisions for guidance.
¶ 78. The federal courts have reached no consensus on the question under what circumstances the effect of stare decisis may constitute an impairment for purposes of Rule 24(a)(2), governing intervention as of right. In Bethune Plaza, Inc. v. Lumpkin, 863 F.2d 525, 533 (7th Cir. 1988), the Seventh Circuit court of appeals has declared that stare decisis effects should establish a Rule 24(a)(2) impairment "infrequently" and "only when the putative intervenor's position so depends on facts specific to the case at hand that participation as amicus curiae is inadequate to convey essential arguments to the tribunal." Other federal courts consider the effect of stare decisis on a case-by-case basis.69
*41¶ 79. We approach the third requirement of Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1), namely, that the disposition of Helgoland's action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the municipalities' ability to protect interests that may be related to the subject of Helgeland's action, as we approach intervention as of right generally. We take a pragmatic approach and focus on the facts of each case and the policies underlying the intervention statute.70 Although we examine the inability of a mo-vant to protect its interests separately, it is part and parcel of analyzing the interest involved and determining whether an existing party adequately represents the movant's interest.
¶ 80. Two factors might be considered as weighing for or against a movant's claim that the effect of stare decisis may as a practical matter impair the movant's ability to protect a claimed interest. First, a court considers the extent to which an adverse holding in the action would apply to the movant's particular circumstances. The movant's ability to meet the impairment requirement is weakened to the extent that any future action against the movant is likely to be factually distinguishable from the action into which the movant seeks to intervene.71
*42¶ 81. Second, a court considers the extent to which the action into which the movant seeks to intervene will result in a novel holding of law. The effect of stare decisis is more significant when a court decides a question of first impression.72 Consideration of these two factors may aid a court in determining whether the impact of stare decisis may harm the movant as a practical matter.
¶ 82. DETF concedes that if judgment is entered in favor of Helgeland, "by operation of stare decisis, other government employers, such as the municipalities, would likely either have to provide for same-sex domestic partner coverage ... or would have to forego providing family health insurance coverage to its [sic] employees entirely... ."73 In oral arguments, Helgeland's counsel also conceded that the municipalities' benefit plans would be indirectly affected if this court ultimately were to agree that the definition of "dependent" provided by Wis. Stat. § 40.02(20) is unconstitutional for the reasons argued by Helgeland.
¶ 83. We agree with the municipalities that a judgment in favor of Helgeland might present a novel holding of law. Helgeland does not appear to contend that any Wisconsin court has previously held that Wis. Stat. *43§ 40.02(20), or any similar statute, contravenes the constitution for the reasons that Helgeland puts forth.74
¶ 84. Without speculating about the precise relationship between Helgoland's present action and a hypothetical case that one of the municipalities' employees might bring against the municipalities, we acknowledge that judgment in favor of Helgeland might expose the municipalities to the adverse effect of stare decisis. However, just as the municipalities claim only a generalized interest in the subject matter of the present action, an effect of a judgment in favor of Helgeland on the municipalities is essentially the same effect that any employer might claim when an action before the court threatens to increase costs that the employer is obligated to pay on behalf of its employees, or that municipalities or other entities or individuals could claim in nearly any action challenging the constitutionality of a state statute. If stare decisis were enough of a justification for the municipalities' intervention in the present case without an unusually strong showing with respect to other re*44quirements for intervention as of right, then constitutional litigation would, as Justice Butler's concurrence demonstrates, become unwieldy with parties intervening as a matter of right. As with the interest requirement, the municipalities' showing with respect to this third requirement is weak at best.
D. The Municipalities Are Adequately Represented by DETF and the Attorney General in the Action
¶ 85. We turn finally to the fourth requirement of Wis. Stat. § 809.03(9), namely, that the existing parties do not adequately represent the movants' interests. As the municipalities’ brief recognizes, the adequate representation requirement has generated a spectrum of approaches. The court has declared that "the showing required for proving inadequate representation 'should be treated as minimal.' "75 The requirement, however, "cannot be treated as so minimal as to write the requirement completely out of the rule."76
¶ 86. Indeed, this requirement is blended and balanced with the other requirements. If a movant's interest is identical to that of one of the parties, or if a party is charged by law with representing the movant's interest, a compelling showing should be required to demonstrate that the representation is not adequate.77 When the potential intervenor's interests are substantially *45similar to interests already represented by an existing party, such similarity will weigh against the potential intervenor.78
¶ 87. In determining whether an existing party adequately represents a movant's interest, we look to see if there is a showing of collusion between the representative and the opposing party; if the representative fails in the fulfillment of his duly; or if the representative's interest is adverse to that of the proposed intervenor.79
¶ 88. The municipalities do not allege any collusion between Helgeland and DETF. They do not demonstrate that the DETF's interest is adverse to theirs; and do not show that the DETF has failed in the fulfillment of its duty.
¶ 89. In considering whether DETF adequately represents the municipalities, two rebuttable presumptions come into play and work against the municipalities in the instant case.
*46[143
¶ 90. First, adequate representation is ordinarily presumed when a movant and an existing party have the same ultimate objective in the action.80 This presumption applies in the instant case because the municipalities claim no objective that DETF does not also share. Both DETF and the municipalities ask the court to uphold the constitutionality of DETF's plans and of Wis. Stat. § 40.02(20).
¶ 91. Second, "when the putative representative is a governmental body or officer charged by law with representing the interests of the absentee, a presumption of adequate representation arises whether the would-be intervenor is a citizen or subdivision of the governmental entity."81 This presumption applies in the *47present case because, as we will discuss below, both DETF and the Department of Justice are charged by law with the duty to defend the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 40.02(20), the very position advocated by the municipalities, the would-be intervenor.
¶ 92. In support of their position that the DETF does not adequately represent the municipalities' interests, the municipalities argue (1) that former Attorney General Peggy Lautenschlager was not adequately committed to DETF's position in the present case; (2) that institutional features render DETF unable to defend against Helgoland's action with the same vehemence that the municipalities could provide; (3) that DETF cannot adequately represent the municipalities' interests in any remedy phase that might later occur; (4) that DETF has failed to raise defenses against Helgeland that the municipalities wish to raise; and (5) that DETF cannot adequately represent the municipalities' interests given that DETF argues that the municipalities do not meet the interest requirement of the test for intervention as of right. None of these arguments yields any showing that DETF does not adequately represent the municipalities' interests.
¶ 93. With regard to the municipalities' argument concerning former Attorney General Peggy Lauten-schlager's alleged "conflicted loyalties," the municipali*48ties make the following allegations: (1) Lautenschlager's spokesperson criticized the legislature for attempting to intervene in this action, asserting that the dispute between Helgeland and DETF was "a matter best left up to the courts"; (2) During an October 25, 2002, debate between attorney general candidates, Lautenschlager made statements in support of civil unions for same-sex domestic couples; (3) Lautenschlager spoke at a 2005 Madison Gay Pride Rally at which two of Helgoland's co-plaintiffs and Helgoland's attorney also spoke; and (4) Lautenschlager made the "reckless" decision to move for judgment on the pleadings.
¶ 94. We spend little time on these allegations relating to Attorney General Lautenschlager's out-of-court statements. The allegations relating to the Attorney General's statements go solely to the question of Lautenschlager's personal beliefs, not to her official conduct as attorney general. We generally agree with the court of appeals' analysis relating to these statements.82
¶ 95. In the absence of any showing to the contrary, we must presume that Lautenschlager has fulfilled her duty as attorney general to put aside her personal and political beliefs in defending against Helgeland's action attacking the constitutionality of a statute.83 An attorney general's statements of personal *49or political beliefs, without more, do not constitute a showing that the attorney general will violate the statutory duties of the office.
¶ 96. The Attorney General of Wisconsin has the duty by statute to defend the constitutionality of state statutes.84 Indeed, "Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11) recognizes that it is the duty of the attorney general to appear on behalf of the people of this state to show why [a] statute is constitutional,"85 making service on the attorney general a jurisdictional matter in a declaratory action attacking the constitutionality of a statute.86
¶ 97. The municipalities' complaints against Attorney General Lautenschlager are, in any event, irrel*50evant now that she has completed her term as attorney general. The Department of Justice is continuing the present action under the new attorney general on the course previously undertaken. The municipalities do not claim that the present attorney general is biased or is prevented in any manner from changing the trial strategy of the Department of Justice in the present case.87
¶ 98. For these reasons, the allegations relating to Attorney General Lautenschlager provide no support to the municipalities' argument.
¶ 99. The municipalities apparently intend their fourth allegation concerning DETF's motion for judgment on the pleadings as evidence that Attorney General Lautenschlager was reckless in handling the present case and in some sense betrayed her official responsibilities. This argument goes nowhere.
¶ 100. The municipalities accuse Lautenschlager of risking that the action will reach "this court for decision on the merits without an evidentiary record to support deferential review."88
¶ 101. The municipalities apparently are concerned that the present action will reach this court *51"without an evidentiary record to sustain the legislature's" decision to grant state employee benefits to spouses but not to same-sex domestic partners.89 To avoid this result, the municipalities want DETF to move to compel discovery at the circuit court. This position puts the municipalities squarely in agreement with, of all people, Helgeland. Helgeland moved the circuit court to compel discovery shortly after the municipalities moved to intervene.
¶ 102. The municipalities do not explain why they think that the circuit court will grant DETF's motion for judgment on the pleadings and why the circuit court will not grant Helgoland's motion for discovery.
¶ 103. Curiously, the municipalities do not object to DETF's motion for judgment on the pleadings on grounds that it is a weak motion destined to be denied. To the contrary, the municipalities explicitly acknowledge concerns that DETF's motion will be granted.90 In their brief, the municipalities predict, without explanation, that the circuit court will grant DETF's motion and that the court of appeals will then affirm the circuit court's decision granting judgment to DETF.91
¶ 104. The municipalities' very unusual claim is thus that Lautenschlager somehow failed in her duties as attorney general by setting DETF on a course to defeat Helgeland before the circuit court and court of appeals.
¶ 105. The municipalities concede that should DETF prevail in the circuit court and court of appeals on its motion for judgment on the pleadings, this court nevertheless could remand for development of an evi-dentiary record if we determine, contrary to the circuit *52court and court of appeals, that DETF's motion for judgment on the pleadings should not have been granted.92 Yet the possibility of such a remand leaves the municipalities dissatisfied — not with the outcome, but rather, they claim, -with the "extraordinary waste of time and resources" that would result if the action were to proceed to this court and then back to the circuit court whence it came.
¶ 106. The municipalities' criticism is baseless. The municipalities cannot persuasively argue that the Attorney General is abdicating her or his duty to defend the constitutionality of statutes by persuading two courts that a statute is constitutional. By moving for judgment on the pleadings, DETF has not waived its right to move for discovery in the event that its motion for judgment on the pleadings is ultimately denied.
¶ 107. We now move to the municipalities' argument that institutional elements prevent DETF from opposing Helgeland's action with sufficient vehemence. The municipalities argue that DETF merely administers the law that Helgeland challenges, while in contrast the municipalities establish and provide funding for their own employee benefit policies. The municipalities additionally allege that DETF is subject to the pressures of a "diverse" constituency, some portion of which may sympathize with Helgeland's position in the present action.93
¶ 108. These arguments founder on much the same ground as the municipalities' attack on Attorney *53General Lautenschlager. In a declaratory action to determine the constitutionality of a statute, it is the duty of the "public officers charged with the enforcement of the challenged statute or ordinance ... [to] act in a representative capacity in behalf of all persons having an interest in upholding the validity of the statute or ordinance under attack."94 Moreover, DETF's counsel, the Department of Justice, is charged by statute with the responsibility to "appear for the state and prosecute or defend all actions... in which the state is interested or a party... ."95 The obligation of both the Department of Justice and public officers charged with the enforcement of state statutes is clear: they must defend the statute regardless of whether they have diverse constituencies with diverse views. DETF and the Department of Justice are composed of professionals, and absent some showing to the contrary, we presume that they will fulfill their duties under the law.96
¶ 109. The municipalities next argue that DETF cannot adequately represent the municipalities in any potential remedy phase of the action because DETF is incapable of advising the court on issues such as "collective bargaining agreements, duly adopted budgets, revenue limitations, [and] vested employee rights... ."97 Even assuming that DETF is in fact incapable of grappling with issues such as these, this argument fails because the municipalities do not explain how information about these issues may assist in *54deciding the constitutional issue involved in the Helge-land action or in crafting any remedy to which Helge-land might be entitled.
¶ 110. The municipalities merely state in conclu-sory fashion that the issues in which the municipalities claim expertise are relevant to the state constitutional question presented, that is, whether the state constitution requires DETF to provide the same benefits to employees' same-sex domestic partners as provided to employees' spouses. The municipalities cannot call the adequacy of DETF's representation into question merely by vaguely positing that information they possess will somehow be useful to the court. Statutory revenue and levy limits imposed upon municipalities do not necessarily implicate a different evidentiary record for constitutional law purposes than the record that the state makes on the constitutional issue. The municipalities do not explain what this "different" evidentiary record might look like and why information the municipalities wish to present may be relevant to the question whether the state constitution requires DETF to provide the same benefits to state employees' same-sex domestic partners as those provided to employees' spouses.
¶ 111. We turn next to the municipalities' argument regarding DETF's failure to raise a long list of defenses favored by the municipalities. This assertion amounts to little more than a difference over trial strategy. We cannot declare as a matter of law that DETF's defense against Helgeland's action is inadequate simply because the municipalities disagree with DETF about which defenses should be presented before the circuit court. Reasonable lawyers and litigants often disagree about trial strategy.
*55¶ 112. We agree with the court of appeals that mere disagreements over trial strategy such as the one apparent here are not sufficient to demonstrate inadequacy of representation.98 Moreover, the municipalities do not show any weakness in the legal position DETF has taken in the case. As we have already explained, the municipalities flatly predict that both the circuit court and the court of appeals will be persuaded by DETF's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
¶ 113. The municipalities may supplement DETF's defenses simply by accepting the circuit court's invitation to file an amicus curiae brief.
¶ 114. Finally, we reject the municipalities' argument that because DETF asserts that the municipalities' interests do not support intervention as of right, DETF's representation of the municipalities' interests is, as the municipalities' counsel put it at oral arguments, inadequate "per se." DETF's position that it adequately represents the municipalities' interests is wholly consistent with its additional position that the municipalities' interests do not satisfy the requirements *56of Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1). DETF's construal of Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1) does not amount to a denial that the municipalities have no interests that DETF might represent.
E. Summary
¶ 115. For the reasons set forth, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in denying the municipalities' motion to intervene as a matter of right under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1). Although it is arguable that the municipalities may claim a financial interest related to the DETF plans that are the subject of Helgoland's action and that disposition of the Helgeland action may, under the effect of stare decisis, as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect their stated interests, the municipalities make no showing that the financial interest is sufficient, direct, immediate, or special and that DETF inadequately represents their interests, much less a showing that could overcome the presumptions of adequacy applicable in this case.
¶ 116. The court weighs all the factors, including the nature of the municipalities' alleged interests, against the adequacy of representation by existing parties. Municipalities (or other entities or persons) will always have something at stake when the constitutionality of a statute affecting municipalities (or other entities or persons) is at issue, and there will always be potential movants that disagree at some level with decisions made by state agency defendants or their counsel. The municipalities have shown no special, personal, or unique interest in the present case. Were the municipalities granted a right to intervene upon such grounds, virtually any declaratory action for constitutional review of a statute would present a case in which at least some persons or entities may intervene as of right, as Justice Butler's concurrence demon*57strates. To construe Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1) and intervention as of right so broadly would unduly hamper the rights of parties to a declaratory action such as the present case to conduct and conclude their own lawsuit.99
¶ 117. The municipalities' generalized interest in the constitutionality of distinguishing between a spouse and a same-sex domestic partner requires a greater showing of inadequate representation by DETF. The municipalities do not demonstrate that their generalized interest is adverse to, or more powerful than, DETF's interest.100 The municipalities further do not show that DETF has inadequately worked to realize the municipalities' and DETF's mutually-shared objective in the action, namely to defeat Helgeland's lawsuit. They do not allege collusion between the parties. They fail to demonstrate that DETF or its counsel has in any way failed in its duty to defend the action.
*58¶ 118. For the reasons set forth, we conclude that the municipalities have no right of intervention under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1).
III. The Circuit Court Did Not Err in Denying Permissive Intervention
¶ 119. We turn now to the question whether the circuit court erred in denying the municipalities' motion for permissive intervention. Wisconsin Stat. § 803.09(2) provides in relevant part:
Upon timely motion anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action when a movant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.... In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
Wisconsin Stat. § 803.09(2) is based on Rule 24(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.101
¶ 120. As the text of Wis. Stat. § 803.09(2) itself makes clear, the circuit court has discretion to decide whether a movant may be permitted to intervene when the movant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.102 This court will not disturb a circuit court's discretionary decision so long as the record reflects "the circuit court's reasoned application of the appropriate legal standard to the relevant facts in the case."103
*59¶ 121. The municipalities assert that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by denying the municipalities' motion for permissive intervention on the sole ground that the municipalities' suggestion that the action be converted into a class action indicated that the municipalities were likely to unduly delay adjudication of Helgoland's and DETF's rights.
¶ 122. The municipalities provide three arguments in support of their position that the circuit court erred in relying upon this single concern in denying the municipalities' motion: (1) The municipalities did not raise the issue of class certification in the context of their argument for permissive intervention under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(2) but instead suggested class certification as an alternative to joining all municipalities in the state under Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11); (2) The circuit court had power to prevent undue delay by denying any motion the municipalities would have brought for class certification; and (3) The municipalities are willing to withdraw their suggestion of class certification.
¶ 123. The municipalities' arguments are unpersuasive. The circuit court was free to consider the municipalities' suggestion of class certification regardless of whether the municipalities made this suggestion specifically in the context of discussing permissive intervention. The circuit court's concern about delay was also reasonable despite its authority to deny any motion for class certification. Indeed, consideration of a motion for class certification could itself substantially delay the action.
¶ 124. That the municipalities are now willing to withdraw their suggestion also has no bearing upon whether the circuit court erred in considering the suggestion before the municipalities made known their willingness to withdraw it.
*60¶ 125. Finally, though the circuit court addressed only the municipalities' suggestion of class certification, the municipalities' opposition to DETF's motion for judgment on the pleadings and their desire to introduce evidence supports the circuit court's conclusion that the municipalities' intervention would unduly delay adjudication of the parties' lawsuit.
¶ 126. The circuit court based its decision whether to grant permissive intervention on reasonable consideration of delay, a factor explicitly specified in Wis. Stat. § 803.09(2). Thus, no grounds exist on which to hold that the circuit court failed to apply the appropriate legal standard in a reasoned manner to the relevant facts of the case.
¶ 127. Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the municipalities' motion for permissive intervention under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(2).
IV Joinder Is Not Required
¶ 128. We turn lastly to the municipalities' argument that the circuit court erred in refusing to join the municipalities sua sponte under either Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. or Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11). This issue requires us to apply Wis. Stat. §§ 803.03(1)(b)l. and 806.04(11) to the undisputed facts of this case. As such, the issue presents a question of law that this court determines independently of the circuit court and court of appeals, benefiting from the analyses provided by these courts.104
*61A. Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l.
¶ 129. Wisconsin Stat. § 803.03(1) provides in full:
A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if:
(a) In the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties; or
(b) The person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may:
1. As a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest; or
2. Leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his or her claimed interest.
This provision is based on Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.105
¶ 130. Wisconsin Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. contains language essentially identical to the second and third *62requirements of intervention as of right under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1), namely the requirements that the movant claim an interest sufficiently related to the subject of the action and that disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect that interest. Wisconsin Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. does not list the first and fourth requirements of intervention as of right under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1), namely timeliness of the motion and inadequacy of representation by the existing parties.
¶ 131. Nevertheless, the court of appeals declared in the present case that
[t]he inquiry of whether a movant is a necessary party under § 803.03(l)(b)l. is in all significant respects the same inquiry under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1) as to whether a movant is entitled to intervene in an action as a matter of right, including the factor of whether the interest of a movant is adequately represented by existing parties.106
In so holding, the court of appeals relied on its own precedent interpreting City of Madison v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 2000 WI 39, ¶ 11 *63n.8, 234 Wis. 2d 550, 610 N.W.2d 94.107 In City of Madison the court declared that "[intervention as a matter of right may... be compared to 'joinder of persons needed for just and complete adjudication' under Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l."108
¶ 132. The municipalities object to the court of appeals' interpretation on grounds that it ignores the textual difference between the two provisions. They argue that we should interpret Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. to impose only the second and third requirements of Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1) and not the requirement of inadequate representation.
¶ 133. We agree with the court of appeals. The court of appeals advanced an interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. that is substantially supported by federal court decisions construing Fed. R. Civ. E 19(a), the federal analogue to Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. Furthermore, by applying our ordinary principles of statutory construction, we independently determine that the court of appeals' interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. is correct.
¶ 134. "Despite the distinction in the language" of Rules 19(a) and 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "some courts have held that joinder will not be compelled under the 'impair or impede' provision of Rule 19(a) if the absentee's interest is adequately represented by an existing party."109 The reasoning behind *64this interpretation appears to be that "[a]s a practical matter, an absent party's ability to protect its interest will not'be impaired by its absence from the suit where its interest will be adequately represented by existing parties to the suit."110 The court of appeals' interpreta tion of Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. is in line with this view of Federal Rule 19(a).
¶ 135. More importantly, this interpretation is also dictated by recognized principles of statutory interpretation. In construing any provision we begin with its text and give appropriate consideration to related provisions. We give effect to every word so as to not render , any part of the statute superfluous.
¶ 136. The municipalities' interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. cannot be correct because it would render Wis. Stat. § 803.09(l)(b)l. superfluous. Under the municipalities' interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l., a movant who fails to meet the fourth requirement of intervention as of right under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1) may simply turn around and force its way into the action by arguing that the court must join the movant, sua sponte, as a necessary party under Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. The municipalities would thus have this court read Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. in a *65manner rendering the fourth requirement of Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1) entirely optional. This interpretation undermines both § 803.09(1) and § 803.03(l)(b)l.
¶ 137. Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court did not err as a matter of law in refusing to join the municipalities as necessary parties under Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. If a person has no right of intervention under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1), the courts have no duty to join that person sua sponte as a necessary party under Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l.
B. Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11)
¶ 138. The relevant portion of Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11), a subsection of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, states that "[w]hen declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration may prejudice the right of persons not parties to the proceeding...."
¶ 139. The municipalities assert that they qualify for joinder under Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11) because the same "substantial legal, contractual, economic and policy interests"111 that the municipalities propose as interests warranting a right of intervention will be affected by judgment in Helgeland's declaratory action. We disagree with the municipalities.
¶ 140. This court has determined that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not require "the joinder as parties, in a declaratory action to determine the validity of a statute or ordinance, of any persons other than the *66public officers charged with the enforcement of the challenged statute or ordinance."112 We have not construed Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11) to require "that where a declaratory judgment as to the validity of a statute or ordinance is sought, every person whose interests are affected by the statute or ordinance must be made a party to the action."113 If the statute "were so construed, the valuable remedy of declaratory judgment would be rendered impractical and indeed often worthless for determining the validity of legislative enactments, either state or local, since such enactments commonly affect the interests of large numbers of people."114
¶ 141. Applying this court's established interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11) to the instant case,115 we *67determine that this subsection does not require joinder of the municipalities. The municipalities are not "public officers charged with the enforcement of' Wis. Stat. § 40.02(20), the statute that Helgeland challenges.116
¶ 142. The municipalities mistakenly adduce cases in support of the position that in a declaratory action to determine rights under an agreement, Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11) requires joinder of all parties to the agreement.117 These cases are inapposite because Hel-geland has not brought an action to declare her rights under any agreement, much less an agreement to which the municipalities are party. Helgeland seeks a declaration of her rights under state statutes and the state constitution, not rights under the interpretation of a contract. Helgeland is not a party to any contract asserted by the municipalities.
¶ 143. For the reasons set forth, we determine that the circuit court did not err in refusing to join the municipalities under Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11).
‡ ‡ ‡
¶ 144. We conclude (1) that the municipalities have no right of intervention under Wis. Stat. *68§ 803.09(1); (2) that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the municipalities permissive intervention under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(2); and (3) that the circuit court did not err in refusing to join the municipalities under either Wis. Stat. § 803.03(l)(b)l. or § 806.04(11). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's order denying intervention or joinder.
¶ 145. By the Court. — The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

 The parties referred to herein as "the municipalities" are the Town of Caledonia, the Town of Cottage Grove, the City of Green Bay, the City of Watertown, the Village of Hobart, the Village of Oostburg, the School Board of New Berlin, and Raymond School District #14.

 Helgeland v. Wis. Municipalities, 2006 WI App 216, 296 Wis. 2d 880, 724 N.W.2d 208.

 The Wisconsin State Senate and Assembly (the legislature) also moved to intervene in the plaintiffs' action. The circuit court denied the legislature's motion in the same order that the municipalities now challenge. This court denied the legislature's petition for review of the court of appeals decision affirming the circuit court's order.

 Dissent, ¶¶ 185-86, 193.

 Id., ¶ 154.

 Id.

 Id., ¶ 3.

 Id.

 The Presidential Debate; Transcript of the First TV Debate Between Bush and Dukakis, N.Y. Times, Sept. 26, 1988, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fiillpage.html7res=940DEFD9113 EF935A1575AC0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 (last visited Jan. 29, 2008).

 Dissent, ¶ 191.

 Id., ¶¶ 155, 190.

 Id., ¶¶ 155, 190-91.
In contrast, the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, SCR 60.04(l)(b), explains that "[a] judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge may not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism."

 Dissent, ¶ 155.

 In an attempt to arouse the "homer" sentiments of a Wisconsin reader, the dissent complains about the state employees' perfectly lawful decision to retain out-of-state counsel, inexplicably suggesting that the question whether the state employees' counsel may appear before the Wisconsin courts somehow has bearing upon the question whether the municipalities have a right of intervention under Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1). Dissent, ¶ 212.
The dissent also raises other wedge issues: state government versus local government, taxes, statutory revenue and levy limits, and increased costs of local government. Dissent, ¶¶ 189, 190, 205.

 Roberts: "My job is to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat", CNN.com, Sept. 12, 2005, http://www.cnn.com/ 2005/POLITICS/09/12/roberts.statement/index.html (last visited Jan. 29, 2008).

 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise indicated.

 Helgeland also challenges the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 103.10, which defines those family members with a serious health condition for whom an employee may take family leave. This aspect of Helgoland's action is not relevant to the municipalities' motion.

 Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides in full: "All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

 The School District of New Berlin states in its affidavit that it also offers vision insurance to its employees.

 Amicus curiae (friend of the court) refers to a procedure whereby a court "may be informed by persons not parties to a legal action, who are nonetheless particularly informed or interested in the outcome (or at least in the law being declared)." Arthur Allen Leif, The Leff Dictionary of Law: A Fragment, 94 Yale L. J. 1855, 2012 (1985). Briefs by amicus curiae can provide assistance to a court by presenting an argument or citing authority not found in the parties' briefs or by providing important technical or background information which the parties have not supplied. See Joseph D. Kearney et al., The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court, 148 U. Penn. L. Rev. 743, 745 (2000). For a discussion of amicus briefs, see Neal Nettesheim et al., Friend of the Court Briefs: What the Curiae Wants in an Amicus, Wis. Lawyer, May 2007, at 11.

 Fox v. DHSS, 112 Wis. 2d 514, 536, 334 N.W.2d 532 (1983).

 The word "sufficiently" has been a part of our interest test since at least 1983. State ex rel. Bilder v. Township of Delavan, 112 Wis. 2d 539, 547, 334 N.W.2d 252 (1983) ("The question remains whether the [movant's] legally protected interest is sufficiently related to the transaction which is the subject of the action to justify the [movant's] intervention in this cáse as a matter of right."). See also Armada Broad., Inc. v. Stirn, 183 Wis. 2d 463, 472, 516 N.W.2d 357 (1994) ("In determining whether [the movant] claims an interest relating to the transaction which is the subject of the action, we must determine whether [the movant] has an interest 'sufficiently related' to Armada's mandamus action.") (citing and quoting Bilder, 112 Wis. 2d at 547).
The word "sufficient" is also part of the federal rule. See 7C Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1908.1 at 300 (2007) (entitled "Intervention ... What Constitutes a Sufficient Interest").
For a different phrasing of the rule, see City of Madison v. WERC, 2000 WI 39, ¶ 11 n.9, 234 Wis. 2d 550, 610 N.W.2d 94 ("The interest which entitles one to intervene in a suit between other parties must be an interest of such direct and immediate *21character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct operation of the judgment.") (quotation marks and citation omitted).

 See City of Madison, 234 Wis. 2d 550, ¶ 11 (footnotes and quotation marks omitted) (citing Armada Broad., 183 Wis. 2d at 471. See also Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 700 (7th Cir. 2003).

 See Armada Broad., 183 Wis. 2d at 471-76 ("setting forth the four requirements for intervention as of right... ," declaring that the movant would have a right of intervention "if he meets each, of the requirements,” and considering the four requirements seriatim). See also 6 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 24.03[l][a], at 24-23 (3d ed. 2002) ("In the absence of statutory authority granting a right to intervene, an applicant must make a timely application and satisfy all three of the [other] criteria in order to qualify for intervention of right" under Fed. R. Civ. E 24(a)(2) (cross-references omitted); "[flailure to satisfy any one of the criteria justifies denial of the application to intervene.").

 For example, the nature of the interest claimed by a movant may be important to the question whether an existing party can adequately represent that interest. See, e.g., Armada Broad., 183 Wis. 2d at 471-76 (considering the intensely "personal nature of the interests" demonstrated by the movant as one factor establishing that the movant's interests were not represented by existing parties). As a further example, the nature of the relationship between a movant's interests and the subject of the action into which the movant seeks to intervene may have bearing upon whether the movant is able to meet the "impairment" prong of the test for intervention as of right.

 See 6 Moore, supra note 24, § 24.03[l][b], at 24-25 ("[A] lesser showing of impairment may be required by the court if the applicant's interest is very strong. Likewise, intervention of right may be granted if the applicant's claimed interest may be significantly impaired by the action, even if some uncertainty exists regarding the sufficiency of that interest.") (footnote omitted).

 See 6 Moore, supra note 24, § 24.03[l][b], at 24-25; 7C Wright et al., supra note 22, § 1908, at 297.

 Wolff v. Town of Jamestown, 229 Wis. 2d 738, 742, 601 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1999). See also 6 Moore, supra note 24, § 24.03[l][b], at 24-25 ("The inquiry under Ride 24(a)(2) must focus on the particular facts and procedural posture of each application.") (footnote omitted); 7C Wright et al., supra note 22, § 1908.1, at 300; Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964, 970 (3d Cir. 1998) (concluding that no fact "pattern.. . will easily support or defeat intervention in all circumstances" and that "the variety of factual situations and their resolution demonstrate [the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's] adherence to the elasticity that Rule 24 contemplates ....").

 Daggett v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 172 F.3d 104, 113-14 (1st Cir. 1999).

 Citing and quoting City of Madison, 234 Wis. 2d 550, ¶ 11 n.ll, the court of appeals concluded that it should "allow intervention as a matter of right only where the intervenor is *23'necessary to the adjudication of the action.'" Helgeland, 296 Wis. 2d 880, ¶ 6. At the municipalities' urging, we clarify that a rigid test for intervention as of right was not established in City of Madison, 234 Wis. 2d 550, ¶ 11, n.11 (citation omitted), in which the court stated that intervention as a matter of right requires that a person be in some sense "necessary to the adjudication of the action." City of Madison should not be interpreted to indicate a departure from our flexible and pragmatic approach to intervention as of right, nor to contradict the text of Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1), which provides that a right of intervention can exist even where the movant shows that disposition of the action "may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability" to protect some interest, as opposed to showing that impairment or impediment will necessarily occur.

 Bilder, 112 Wis. 2d at 549.

 Id. at 548.

 Id.

 Id.

 Armada Broad., 183 Wis. 2d at 470 (citing Bilder, 112 Wis. 2d at 549.

 Daggett, 172 F.3d at 113.

 City of Madison, 234 Wis. 2d 550, ¶ 11 n.10.

 Bilder, 112 Wis. 2d at 547. See also Security Ins. Co. v. Schipporeit, Inc., 69 F.3d 1377, 1380 (7th Cir. 1995) ("The 'interest' required by Rule 24(a)(2) has never been defined with particular precision."); 6 Moore, supra note 24, § 24.03[2][a], at 24-28 ("[T]here is no authoritative definition of precisely what kinds of interest satisfy the requirements of' Rule 24(a)(2).).

 Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 596-97 (3d Cir. 1987).

 Bilder, 112 Wis. 2d at 548. Bilder may, however, be interpreted to require that an interest at least be "legally protected." See id. at 546-47.

 Bilder, 112 Wis. 2d at 548.

 Id. at 548-49 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

 See 6 Moore, supra note 24, § 24.03[2][b], at 24r-29 ("[I]n-terests that are remote from the subject matter of the proceeding plainly do not satisfy the interest requirement of Rule 24(a).").

 City of Madison, 234 Wis. 2d 550, ¶ 11 n.9 (quoting Lodge 78, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. Nickel, 20 Wis. 2d 42, 46, 121 N.W.2d 297 (1963)).

 City of Madison, 234 Wis. 2d 550, ¶ 11 n.8 (quoting White House Milk Co. v. Thomson, 275 Wis. 243, 249, 81 N.W.2d 725 (1957)).

 In Wolff v. Town of Jamestown, 229 Wis. 2d 738, 601 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1999), the court of appeals concluded that the movant need not demonstrate it has a judicially enforceable right to challenge a decision in order to intervene in the action.

 According to the affidavits, however, all six employees of the Village of Oostburg are already enrolled in a DETF plan offering family coverage, and the Village appears not to be affected by the instant action.
The affidavits for Cottage Grove, Watertown, and Oostburg each indicate that employees eligible to enroll in DETF plans have only two coverage options: "family" and "single." The affidavits further indicate that the price of the "family" coverage plans does not vary depending on the number of persons other than the employee who are covered by the plan.

 The municipalities assert that should Helgeland prevail, DETF would be required to amend the very plans in which employees of Cottage Grove, Watertown, and Oostburg are enrolled.

 Helgeland, 296 Wis. 2d 880, ¶ 19.

 Id.

 Id., ¶ 19 n.13.
The municipalities disagree with the court of appeals' limited interpretation of the complaint; they assert that the remedies Helgeland seeks apply to all DETF plans (including pension and deferred compensation plans in which all eight municipalities are enrolled) and that all the municipalities therefore have an interest in Helgeland's action.
We address the municipalities' arguments regarding DETF-administered pension and deferred compensation plans below.

 Contra Zabel v. Zabel, 210 Wis. 2d 336, 565 N.W.2d 240 (Ct. App. 1997), in which the court of appeals, in a joinder case, concluded that the joinder of a husband's mother as a third-party defendant in a divorce action was necessary for a just and complete adjudication of the parties' material property rights when the wife alleged that certain real property titled in her mother-in-law's name was marital property and therefore subject to division as part of the divorce.

 U.S. Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977) (considering whether a state's statutory repeal of its covenant with another state was void under the Art. I, § 10, cl.l, Contract Clause of the United States Constitution); United States v. City of Hialeah, 140 F.3d 968 (11th Cir. 1998) (affirming the district court's refusal to approve a consent decree over an intervenor's objection but not reviewing the district court's decision to permit intervention); Linton v. Comm'r of Health & Env't, 30 F.3d 55 (6th Cir. 1994) (considering whether an intervenor had standing to appeal the district court's decision but not reviewing the grant of intervention); In re Allied Supermarkets, Inc., 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13500 (E.D. Mich. 1980) (interpreting the bankruptcy code to permit a debtor to disaffirm a collective bargaining agreement).

 Cox Cable Commc'ns, Inc. v. United States, 699 F. Supp. 917 (M.D. Ga. 1988).

 Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Elizabethtown, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 696 F. Supp. 57, 96 (D. Del. 1988).

 EEOC is further distinguishable from the instant case in that the consent decree at issue in EEOC threatened directly to modify or invalidate parts of a collective bargaining agreement that the movant union had negotiated with a party defendant that would be hound by judgment in the action. EEOC v. AT&T, 506 F.2d 735, 741 (3d Cir. 1974). In this case, the municipalities do not claim contractual rights against DETF or any other party to the action.

 Helgeland, 296 Wis. 2d 880, ¶ 18.

 In support of this position, the municipalities cite Wis. Stat. §§ 40.02(48m) and 40.24(7)(a), as well as Wis. Admin. Code ETF § 20.055 (Jan. 2004).

 Petr.'s Br. 42 (quoting Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint at 31).

 See I.R.S. Priv. Ltr. Rul. 200524016 (June 17, 2005), available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0524016.pdf; I.R.S. Priv. Ltr. Rul. 200524017 (June 17, 2005), available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0524017.pdf.

 See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 40.02(8)(a).

 1.R.S. Priv. Ltr. Rul. 200524016, at 10; I.R.S. Priv. Ltr. Rul. 200524017, at 9.

 I.R.S. Priv. Ltr. Rui. 2005240Í6, at 10; I.R.S. Priv. Ltr. Rul. 200524017, at 9.

 The home rule amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(1), provides in relevant part that "[cjities and villages organized pursuant to state law may determine their local affairs and government, subject only to this constitution and to such enactments of the legislature of statewide concern as with uniformity shall affect every city or every village....").
Wisconsin's home rule statute further provides that
[e]xcept as elsewhere in the statutes specifically provided, the [municipal] council shall have the management and control of the city property, finances, highways, navigable waters, and the public service, and shall have power to act for the government and good order of the city, for its commercial benefit, and for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and may carry out its powers by license, regulation, suppression, borrowing of money, tax levy, appropriation, fine, imprisonment, confiscation, and other necessary or convenient means....
Wis. Stat. § 62.11(5).

 See Wis. Const, art. XI, § 3(1) (granting home rule powers "subject only to this constitution and to such enactments of the legislature of statewide concern as with uniformity shall affect every city or every village"); Wis. Stat. § 62.11(5) (granting home rule powers "[ejxcept as elsewhere in the statutes specifically provided").

 Cf. Armada Broad., 183 Wis. 2d at 474, 476 (movant had a "unique" and "personal" interest in persuading the court that a report containing speculative and uncorroborated information about the movant should remain closed to the public); Wolff, 229 Wis. 2d at 746 (movant town's unique statutory responsibility to provide fire protection services to plaintiff and plaintiffs property was implicated in plaintiffs action to develop a rugged and difficult-to-reach tract of land for residential use). .

 See, e.g., Armada Broad., 183 Wis. 2d at 471-76 (considering the intensely "personal nature of the interests" demonstrated by the movant as one factor establishing that the movant's interests were not represented by existing parties).

 7C Wright et al., supra note 22, § 1908.2, at 368 (determining whether disposition of the action will impede or impair a movant's ability to protect its interest must he put in practical terms).

 See, e.g., United States v. Oregon, 839 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) ("[A] stare decisis effect is an important consideration in determining the extent to which an applicant's interest may be impaired.").

 See 6 Moore, supra note 24, § 24.03[3][a], at 24-42 ("The practical impairment test is flexible, and its application depends on a pragmatic analysis of the circumstances of a given case ....").

 See 6 Moore, supra note 24, § 24.03[3][b], at 24-42.2 ("Recurring common law actions such as breach of contract and negligence are unlikely to achieve the practical stare decisis impairment necessary to satisfy Rule 24(a)."); Worlds v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 929 F.2d 591, 594 (11th Cir. 1991) (concluding that there was "little likelihood that stare decisis would leave [the potential intervenor] in a worse posi*42tion if he [were] not allowed to intervene" because the potential intervenor would have use of factual evidence in the future action he contemplated that was excluded from the action into which he sought to intervene).

 See 6 Moore, supra note 24, § 24.03[3[b], at 24^42.2 ("Stare decisis is not a relevant concern if the case does not involve the resolution of new legal issues."); Int'l Paper Co. v. Town of Jay, 887 F.2d 338, 344 (1st Cir. 1989) (recognizing that the adverse impact of stare decisis is especially important "where a court is deciding questions of first impression").

 Def.-Respt.'s Br. 9.

 In contrast, DETF argues that Helgeland’s action presents a question of law already decided against Helgeland in Phillips v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 167 Wis. 2d 205, 482 N.W.2d 121 (Ct. App. 1992). DETF's brief quotes Phillips as follows:
But whether to allow or disallow same sex-marriages — or even whether to allow extension of state employee health insurance benefits to companions of unmarried state employees of whatever gender or sexual orientation — is a legislative decision, not one for the courts.... "Creation" of verification and registration systems designed to facilitate the extension of state employee benefits to the employees' unmarried companions — and an enforcement mechanism to ensure that only stable and committed same-sex couples are eligible for such benefits — is precisely the type of action committed to the legislature, as the policymaking branch of government. It is beyond all powers of this or any other court. Def.-Respt.'s Br. 19 n.6.

 Armada Broad., 183 Wis. 2d at 476 (quoting Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972)).

 Bush v. Viterna, 740 F.2d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1984). See also Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 956 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Although the burden of establishing inadequacy of representation may be minimal, the requirement is not without teeth ....").

 7C Wright et al., supra note 22, § 1908, at 394—95 (in contrast, if the movant's interest is similar to a party's a discriminating judgment is required on the circumstances of the particular case).

 See 7C Wright et al., supra note 22, § 1909, at 394 ("[I]f the absentee's interest is identical to that of one of the present parties, or if there is a party charged by law with representing the absentee's interest, then a compelling showing should be required to demonstrate why this representation is not adequate.") (footnote omitted).

 See Armada Broad., 183 Wis. 2d at 476 (citations omitted). See also Sewerage Comm'n of Milwaukee v. DNR, 104 Wis. 2d 182, 189, 311 N.W.2d 677 (Ct. App. 1981) (citing United States v. Board of Sch. Comm'rs, 466 F.2d 573, 575 (7th Cir. 1972)) ("Ordinarily a party's representation is deemed adequate to protect the proposed intervenor's interest if there is no showing of collusion between the representative and the opposing party; if the representative does not represent an interest adverse to that of the movant; and if the representative does not fail in the fulfillment of its duty.").
See Wolff, 229 Wis. 2d at 748 (movant's interests "need not be wholly adverse" to existing parties'; significant "differences" between movant's position and that of existing party sufficient).

 See, e.g., Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 956 (9th Cir. 2006) ("When an applicant for intervention and an existing party have the same ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation arises.") (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003); Wade v. Goldschmidt, 673 F.2d 182, 186 n.7 (7th Cir. 1982) ("[Alpplicants have not overcome the presumption of adequacy of representation that arises when the proposed intervenor and a party to the suit (especially if it is the state) have the same ultimate objective.") (citation omitted); Daggett, 172 F.3d at 111 ("[Ajdequate representation is presumed where the goals of the applicants are the same as those of the plaintiff or defendant....") (citations omitted).

 Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 1005 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). See also Curry v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 167 F.3d 420, 423 (8th Cir. 1999) (”[W]hen a government entity is a party and the case concerns a matter of sovereign interest, the government is presumed adequately to represent the interests of the public . ..." (citation omitted); Wade, 673 F.2d at 186 ("[Alpplicants have not overcome the presumption of adequacy of representation that arises when the proposed intervenor and a party to the suit (especially if it is the *47state) have the same ultimate objective.") (citation omitted); Prete, 438 F.3d at 956 (There is "an assumption of adequacy when the government is acting on behalf of a constituency that it represents. In the absence of a very compelling showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that a state adequately represents its citizens when the applicant shares the same interest.") (quotation marks and citation omitted); Daggett, 172 F.3d at 111 ("[T]he government in defending the validity of the statute is presumed to be representing adequately the interests of all citizens who support the statute.") (citation omitted).

 See Helgeland, 296 Wis. 2d 880, ¶¶ 26-29.

 See White House Milk Co. v. Thomson, 275 Wis. 243, 249 (1957) ("Public officers are always presumed, in the absence of any showing to -the contrary, to be ready and willing to perform their duty...."). The municipalities object to the court of appeals' reliance on White House Milk, because at the time of White House Milk Wisconsin's right of intervention statute *49differed substantially from Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1). However, like the court of appeals, we do not rely on White House Milk in construing Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1). The presumption that public officers will perform their duties does not depend upon Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1) or any former statute governing intervention as of right.

 State v. City of Oak Creek, 2000 WI 9, ¶ 23 n.14, 232 Wis. 2d 612, 605 N.W.2d 526 ("[0]nce legislation is enacted it becomes the affirmative duty of the Attorney General to defend its constitutionality.") (citation omitted). For a general discussion of the office of Wisconsin Attorney General, see Arlen C. Chris-tenson, The State Attorney General, 1970 Wis. L. Rev. 298 (1970).

 City of Oak Creek, 232 Wis. 2d 612, ¶ 35 (citation omitted).

 See Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11) (providing that "[i]f a statute, ordinance or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general shall... be served with a copy of the proceeding and be entitled to be heard").
See Seitzinger v. Cmty. Health Network, 2004 WI 28, ¶ 1 n.3, 270 Wis. 2d 1, 676 N.W.2d 426 (holding that the court had no jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of a state statute when the attorney general had not been given notice as required by Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11)).

 Whether the municipalities had a right of intervention at some point in the past is not determinative. Wisconsin Stat. § 803.06(1) provides that "[pjarties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. ..."
The municipalities suggest that Lautenschlager's conduct is still relevant to our Wis. Stat. § 803.09(1) inquiry given that the court of appeals did not address this question of relevance despite receiving notice that Lautenschlager was defeated in a primary election 10 days before the court of appeals released its opinion. This court determines a movant's right to intervention independently of the court of appeals.

 Petr.'s Br. 59.

 Petr.'s Br. 60.

 Id.

 Id.

 Id. at 60-61.

 Is it not possible that the municipalities too may have diverse constituencies, some portion of which may sympathize with Helgeland's position in the present action?

 White House Milk, 275 Wis. at 249.

 Wis. Stat. § 165.25(1).

 See White House Milk, 275 Wis. at 249.

 Petr.'s Br. 57-58.

 See 7C Wright et al, supra note 22, § 1909, at 431-33 (a mere difference of opinion concerning litigation tactics or dislike of the representative party's lawyer does not constitute inadequate representation); Stadin v. Union Elec. Co., 309 F.2d 912, 919 (8th Cir. 1962), quoted in Helgeland, 296 Wis. 2d 880, ¶ 33 ("Mere difference of opinion among attorneys is not of itself inadequate representation within the meaning of [Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]. If it were, intervention of right would become almost automatic."); Daggett, 172 F.3d at 112 ("[T]he use of different arguments as a matter of litigation judgment is not inadequate representation per se," though "one can imagine cases where ... a refusal to present obvious arguments could be so extreme as to justify a finding that representation by the existing party was inadequate.").

 Cf. Town of Blooming Grove v. City of Madison, 275 Wis. 328, 334, 81 N.W.2d 713 (1957) (citation omitted) (refusing to construe Wisconsin's Declaratory Judgment Act "as requiring that where a declaratory judgment as to the validity of a statute or ordinance is sought, every person whose interests are affected by the statute or ordinance must be made a party to the action. If it were so construed, the valuable remedy of declaratory judgment would be rendered impractical and indeed often worthless for determining the validity of legislative enactments, either state or local, since such enactments commonly affect the interests of large numbers of people.").

 Cf. Armada Broad:, 183 Wis. 2d at 476 (movant's "personal" interest in the particular document at issue in the action unshared by party defendant, which had only a general interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its personnel files); Wolff, 229 Wis. 2d at 746 (movant town "may have more at stake than" defendant county due to movant town's statutory duties not shared by defendant county).

 See Sewerage Comm'n of Milwaukee, 104 Wis. 2d at 186.

 See City of Madison, 234 Wis. 2d 550, ¶ 11 n.11.

 State v. Delgado, 223 Wis. 2d 270, 281, 588 N.W.2d 1 (1999).

 Fire Ins. Exch. v. Basten, 202 Wis. 2d 74, 81-82, 549 N.W.2d 690 (1996) (application of Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11) to a set *61of undisputed facts presents a question of law); Glaeske v. Shaw, 2003 WI App 71, ¶ 44, 261 Wis. 2d 549, 661 N.W.2d 420 ("Whether a party is a necessary party [under Wis. Stat. § 803.03(1)] is a question of law" the court of appeals decides de novo) (citing Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. McCallum, 2002 WI App 259, ¶ 10, 258 Wis. 2d 210, 655 N.W.2d 474).

 In its current form, Rule 19(a) provides in relevant part as follows:
(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible.
(1) Required Party. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:
*62(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties, or
(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may:
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or
(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

 Helgeland, 296 Wis. 2d 880, ¶ 46 (citing Dairy land Greyhound Park, 258 Wis. 2d 210, ¶ 10).

 See Dairyland Greyhound Park, 258 Wis. 2d 210, ¶ 10 (citing City of Madison, 234 Wis. 2d 550, ¶ 11 n.6).

 City of Madison, 234 Wis. 2d 550, ¶ 11 n.8.

 4 Moore, supra note 24, § 19.03[3][f][ii], at 19-56. See also, e.g., Ohio Valley Envt'l Coalition v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 504-05 (4th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court's holding "that joinder was not required because the parties are capable of *64representing the interests of' absent parties); Gwartz v. Jefferson Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, 23 F.3d 1426, 1429 (8th Cir. 1994) (disposition of action "will not as a practical matter impair or impede [absentee's] ability to protect its interest because [one party to the action] has the same interest establishing the facts that [absentee] does").

 Washington v. Daley, 173 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that absentee tribes were not necessary parties to an action challenging fishing regulations because the United States adequately represented their interests).

 Petr's Br. 70.

 White House Milk, 275 Wis. at 249. See also North Side Bank v. Gentile, 129 Wis. 2d 208, 215, 385 N.W.2d 133 (1986) (citation omitted) (Declaratory Judgment Act "should not be construed to require that all interested parties must be joined in a declaratory judgment action seeking to adjudge the validity of a statute."); Bence v. Milwaukee, 84 Wis. 2d 224, 234-35, 267 N.W.2d 25 (1978) (citing this court's assertion in White House Milk that it "was sufficient where a public law was involved to have the interest of other parties represented by the public officer who has the duty of upholding the constitutionality of the statute.").

 Blooming Grove, 275 Wis. at 334.

 Id. (citation omitted). See also North Side Bank, 129 Wis. 2d at 215 ("Strict application of [Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11) to require that all interested parties must be joined in a declaratory judgment action] would make the statute unworkable with respect to determining the validity of a statute or ordinance.") (citation omitted).

 Besides citing a single foreign state opinion holding that a declaratory action to review the constitutionality of a statute could not proceed without joinder of 16 highway construction firms whose contracts with the state depended for their validity upon the challenged statute, Haynes v. Anderson, 77 N.W.2d 674 *67(Neb. 1956), the municipalities offer no reason that we should not interpret Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11) as we have in our prior cases.

 See White House Milk, 275 Wis. at 249.

 In their brief, the municipalities rely on Lozoff v. Kaisershot, 11 Wis. 2d 485, 105 N.W.2d 783 (1960) (considering an action for declaration of rights under deed restrictions); Rudolph v. Indian Hills Estates, Inc., 68 Wis. 2d 768, 229 N.W.2d 671 (1975) (considering an action in which individual members of a corporation sought to dissolve the corporation by declaratory relief); and Ambassador Oil Corp. v. Robertson, 384 S.W.2d 752 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1964) (considering an action to declare rights under various contracts).