Nos. 20-542, 20-574

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

 __________________ R

EPUBLICAN

P

 ARTY OF

P

ENNSYLVANIA 

,

 Petitioner 

,v.K 

 ATHY

B

OOCKVAR

,

 IN

H

ER

O

FFICIAL

C

 APACITY AS

P

ENNSYLVANIA

S

ECRETARY OF

S

TATE

,

 ET AL

.,

Respondents.

 __________________ J

OSEPH

B.

 

S

CARNATI

,

 

III,

 ET AL

.,

 Petitioners

,v.P

ENNSYLVANIA

D

EMOCRATIC

P

 ARTY 

,

 ET AL

.,

Respondents.

 __________________ 

On Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to thePennsylvania Supreme Court

 __________________ 

MOTION OF DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT,INC. FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS PETITIONER

 __________________ 

Patrick StrawbridgeC

ONSOVOY

M

C

C

 ARTHY

PLLCTen Post Office Square8th Floor South PMB #706Boston, MA 02109(617) 227-0548William S. ConsovoyThomas R. McCarthyTyler R. GreenCameron T. Norris C

ONSOVOY

M

C

C

 ARTHY

PLLC1600 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700 Arlington, VA 22209(703) 243-9423Jay Alan Sekulow 

Counsel of Record

Stuart J. RothJordan Sekulow C

ONSTITUTIONAL

L

ITIGATION

 A 

ND

 A 

DVOCACY

G

ROUP

, P.C.1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,Suite 200Washington, D.C. 20006(202) 546-8890 jsekulow@claglaw.com

Counsel for Movant

 

i

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Per Supreme Court Rule 29, Movant, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., states that it has no parent company or publicly held company with a 10% or greater ownership interest in it.

 

ii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................. ii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES .......................... iii INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION ............ 2 I. The Court should grant intervention as of right.. ................................................................. 2  A. Timeliness ................................................... 2 B. Cognizable Interest ..................................... 3 C. Impairment .................................................. 4 D. Inadequate Representation ........................ 5 II. Alternatively, the Court should grant permissive intervention. .................................. 7 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 10