Whether the motion to intervene was timely

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Democratic National Committee (the “DNC”) sued Katie Hobbs, the Arizona Secretary of State, asserting that Arizona’s ballot order statute was unconstitutional. Finding that the DNC lacked Article III standing and that the claim raised a nonjusticiable political question, the district court dismissed the action. In a published opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded. By then, Secretary Hobbs had announced she was running as a Democratic candidate for Governor, and she would not commit to seeking further appellate review of the case. Within the 14-day period to seek rehearing, the State of Arizona thus moved to intervene and also moved for rehearing en banc. The DNC and Secretary Hobbs then filed a stipulated dismissal of the district court action. On the same day, they also filed oppositions to the State’s motion to intervene, arguing that the court should deny the State’s motion as both untimely and moot. The State then filed an alternative motion to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s opinion under U.S. v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950). By a 2-1 vote, the Ninth Circuit denied the State’s motion for intervention as untimely. The court also denied the alternative motion for vacatur. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the motion to intervene was timely. 2. Whether the opinion below should be vacated as moot under Munsingwear.