Miller filed suit last week over the write-in count in the race, arguing that it was against the law for the state to count misspelled ballots in Murkowski's favor.
In the latest motion, filed on Friday, Miller's attorney Thomas Van Flein argues that since the suit is over state law, the state is the only relevant party in the suit. Murkowski would have to show "collusion, adversity of interest, possible nonfeasance, or incompetence" by the state in order to intervene, which the motion contends she has not done.
Murkowski cited Alaska's Civil Rule 24(a) in her motion last Wednesday, which states:
Anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
Miller's motion contends that the last part of the statue disqualifies Murkowski from intervening, since "the Defendants already are protecting her interests vigorously, zealously and completely." They both have the same interest, the motion argues -- "upholding the Defendants' current tally of the results of the Election."