03-3536 King v. Illinois State Board of Elections

Listen to this article

“Due to the unusual procedural history of this case, we think it simply is not realistic to view the intervenors as defendants opposing a civil rights claim. Unlike the intervening defendant in LULAC, who ‘participated in all ways as one defending against a civil rights claim and not as one seeking to establish and rectify a violation of civil rights,’ id. at 368, the intervenors’ position can be analogized to that of co-plaintiffs asserting their own rights, especially given their involvement in the Hastert litigation.”

“The State submits that the intervenors should not be ‘realign[ed] . . as plaintiffs‘ in this voting rights case simply because they are members of ‘minority group[s].’ Appellant’s Rep. Br. at 17-18. We agree. The intervenors’ race is not operative in our analysis; what matters is that they successfully protected rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution of the United States and the Voting Rights Act. It is for this reason that we think their position in this case can be analogized to that of traditional civil rights plaintiffs.”

“Awarding attorneys’ fees to the intervenors promotes the underlying goals of the fee-shifting statutes. The efforts of the intervenors furthered the rights that Congress sought to protect in the civil rights statutes. See Wilder, 965 F.2d at 1205 (’[W]hen . . . intervenors effectuate the civil rights at issue they are entitled to an award because such a result furthers the civil rights statutes in a fashion envisioned by Congress.’).”

“We agree, however, with the District of Columbia Circuit’s statement in Donnell that Congress did not ‘intend[ ] that . . . an award [of attorneys’ fees] be as nearly automatic [for defendant-intervenors] as it is for a party prevailing in its own right.’ 682 F.2d at 246. Like our sister circuits, we think that it is appropriate to ask whether the efforts of an intervenor were duplicative of those of the named defendant in a case. See id. at 249 (’[A]n award of attorneys’ fees would be inappropriate . . . if the intervenor’s submissions and arguments were mostly redundant of the Government’s or were otherwise unhelpful.’); see also Wilder, 965 F.2d at 1205. However, we think the intervenors’ efforts were not duplicative of the State’s efforts in any way in this case. The district court’s findings that ‘the intervenors carried the weight of the defense while the State passively awaited the outcome,’ R.204 at 7, are supported amply by the record.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Coar, J., Ripple, J.