Intervenors seek to dismiss the lawsuit Wisconsin Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson filed in federal court...

... to retain her position as chief after the voters of Wisconsin amended the state constitution to make the position depend not on seniority but a vote taken among the 7 justices. I wrote about the lawsuit in a post called "The puzzling argument that Shirley Abrahamson was elected to the position of Chief Justice and has a federal right to keep it."

Here's the PDF of the motion to dismiss. There are numerous arguments for dismissal � well worth reading � but I'll highlight one:

All of plaintiffs� federal-law arguments turn on the premise that an interpretation of the Amendment that allows the justices to elect their Chief Justice after the April 7 election results are certified is �retroactive.� But that is not what �retroactive� actually means. Plaintiffs� arguments are premised entirely on prospective conduct: the selection and service of the next Chief Justice after certification of the election. This defect is fatal.

UPDATE: The federal judge has denied the motion to intervene, so that's the end of the motion to dismiss. The arguments in support of the motion to dismiss are as good as they ever were, and the defendants who are already parties in the case will be able to raise them:

... U.S. District Judge James Peterson said in his order Tuesday that the voters' interests will be adequately represented by those already named in the lawsuit.