S. Ct. Civ. No. 2016-0036

In a case involving the Supervisor of Elections and other parties, relating to the decision to remove plaintiffs from the list of electors for the Election District of St. Thomas and St. John for purportedly not complying with residency requirements under 18 V.I.C. § 262, and specifically a 90-day waiting period prior to qualifying for registration as an elector, the Superior Court's ruling denying leave to file a superseding amended answer solely due to the movant's status as an intervenor misinterpreted prior case law. A party granted intervention is treated as if it were an original party and has equal standing with the original parties. While not permitted to enlarge the proceedings beyond what the original defendant would have been permitted, an intervenor may assert other claims that remain available. In this case the intervenor did not attempt to raise a defense personal to original defendant, or resurrect a claims-processing rule that had already been waived. Consequently, the Superior Court erred when it denied the intervenor's motion to amend her answer solely based on her status as an intervenor to the litigation. Accordingly, the April 25, 2016 order is reversed and this matter is remanded to the Superior Court so that it may grant the motion to amend and conduct other proceedings.