32 Case 3:22-cv-00211-SDD-SDJ Document 173 06/06/22 Page 33 of 152 enacted plan, that the Legislature prioritized the elimination of VTD splits – the enacted plan splits none of them. Fairfax’s plans likewise split none.

Regardless, she stated, none of the enacted plan districts perform to allow Black voters an opportunity to elect their preferred candidate except for CD 2.

... he explained, preclearance does not mean that a map is not violative of the Voting Rights Act; it only means that the plan is not retrogressive with respect to the previous plan; that is, it did not go from one majority- minority district to none, ...

KYLE ARDOIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for Louisiana consolidated with EDWARD GALMON, SR., et al versus

Merrill v. Milligan,5 the Attorney General asserts, is “likely to substantially affect or be fully dispositive over the issues presented in this case,”6 and the Purcell doctrine suggests that it is already “too close to critical statutory deadlines for the 2022 congressional elections”7 for this Court to grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief.

The Galmon Plaintiffs oppose the arguments proffered by the Attorney General, calling his Motion “an eleventh-hour, last-ditch attempt to forestall adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims.”8 Though the Plaintiffs do not dispute that Merrill v. Milligan is relevant to the instant cases, they note that, for now, “neither Gingles nor any other controlling authority has been overruled, expressly or by implication,”9 and putting this case on hold for what amounts to “jurisprudential divination”10 is not appropriate.

To stay this matter on the eve of the hearing on the premise that Merrill v. Milligan and Purcell constitute an “emergency” would in fact create, not avoid, the “clear risk of wasted time and resources”18 that Attorney General Landry describes.

The idea that a stay is necessary to allow for “a proper and robust defense” is likewise baffling in light of the fact that Defendants have already filed thorough and well-researched opposition briefs, not to mention offered nine expert reports and a slew of other exhibits.

24 Bush v. Viterna, 740 F.2d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1984) Case 3:22-cv-00211-SDD-SDJ Document 64 04/19/22 Page 7 of 11 Legislators’ assertion that their interest in defending House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 5 is not adequately represented by the Secretary, since his ultimate objective is “administering whatever election rules may apply by law, not in administering the specific plans challenged in this case.”25 Although the Secretary’s interest in “orderly elections” may, in this case, mean that he disfavors any attempt to defeat the already-existing maps, the Legislators point out that ultimately, the Secretary may be disinterested in the merits as long as any remedy “were to occur in time to administer the next scheduled legislative elections.”26 This divergence of interests is evidence of inadequate representation.

As to adequacy of representation, the Attorney General claims that he does not share the same ultimate objective as Secretary of State Ardoin, because Ardoin’s objective is “the orderly implementation of whatever election rules are in force,” while the Attorney General is “tasked specifically with defending the laws and sovereign interests of the State of Louisiana.”36 This argument seems to elide that “whatever election rules are in force” are, of course, set forth in those very state laws that the Attorney General is bound to defend, but the Court credits the distinction that the Secretary of State’s focus is the implementation of laws, not defending their legality.

Case 3:22-cv-00211-SDD-SDJ Document 64 04/19/22 Page 10 of 11 prevented from “providing a defense to Plaintiffs’ challenge to the method of electing members to Congress.”38 But, as Plaintiffs point out, Attorney General Landry is fully empowered to represent Secretary of State Ardoin;39 Landry never articulates why he must mount a defense by becoming party to the suit himself instead of, in his capacity as “chief legal officer,” representing the existing state Defendants.

But, in light of Cameron, the Court will allow permissive intervention for the Attorney General to defend the enforceability of Louisiana law, here, the existing maps.

There is no doubt that Landry’s Motion is timely or that his proposed defense shares questions of law or fact in common with the claims in the underlying litigation.