## Facts

- Texas enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), which amended multiple provisions of the Texas Election Code affecting voting procedures, election administration, and poll-watcher activity.
- Multiple private plaintiffs and the United States sued Texas and various state and local officials, seeking to enjoin enforcement of parts or all of SB 1.
- Several Republican Party–affiliated committees sought to intervene as defendants, asserting they spend significant resources on voter outreach and on training and deploying poll watchers and other election volunteers in Texas.
- The committees contended SB 1 directly affected their operations and that invalidation of SB 1 would impair their organizational and electoral interests.
- The district court denied intervention (timeliness was not disputed), concluding Texas and other governmental defendants adequately represented the committees’ interests, and also declined permissive intervention.
- The committees appealed the denial of intervention.

## Issues

1. Whether the Republican Party committees satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and were entitled to intervene as of right, particularly whether Texas adequately represented their interests.
2. Whether the district court erred in denying permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the order denying intervention and remanded with instructions to allow the committees to intervene as defendants.
- The court held the committees met Rule 24(a)(2)’s requirements for intervention as of right.
- Timeliness was undisputed, and the committees had protectable interests tied to SB 1’s operation that could be impaired by the litigation.
- The court held Texas may not adequately represent the committees’ interests because the committees’ partisan and organizational interests were narrower and distinct from the State’s broader sovereign and administrative interests.
- Because intervention as of right was warranted, the court did not need to resolve permissive intervention in detail.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 24(a)(2), intervention as of right requires: timely application; a protectable interest related to the action; potential impairment of that interest; and inadequate representation by existing parties.
- When an intervenor and an existing party share an ultimate objective, a presumption of adequate representation may apply, but it can be rebutted.
- A proposed intervenor’s burden to show inadequate representation is minimal; it is enough to show representation may be inadequate.
- Governmental defense of a statute does not automatically preclude intervention where the applicant’s interests differ in scope or focus from the government’s interests, including differences affecting litigation choices and priorities.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit required the district court to permit Republican Party committees to intervene as of right in the SB 1 litigation, holding that their concrete, partisan-organizational interests could be impaired and were not necessarily adequately represented by Texas’s broader interests in defending and administering election law.


La Unión del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 29 F.4th 299 (5th Cir. 2022)