ORDER

F. KEITH BALL, Magistrate Judge.

This cause is before the Court on Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann's motion to consolidate [20]. Secretary Hosemann requests that the Court consolidate Hopkins, et al. v. Hosemann, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-188-CWR-LRA, with this case. For the reasons described below, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.

Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may consolidate multiple pending actions "involving a common question of law or fact . . . [and] may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). In exercising their broad discretion in determining whether to consolidate actions, federal courts consider many factors, including:

In re Camp Arrowhead, Ltd., No. CIVA SA-10-cv-170-XR, 2010 WL 841340, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2010); see also Crest Audio, Inc. v. QSC Audio Prod., Inc., No. 3:12-cv-755-CWR-FKB, 2016 WL 3249217, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 4, 2016).

The two cases are substantially similar to one another. They are both before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division. Both cases have been brought by a group of plaintiffs who are convicted felons, who have served their sentences, and who now challenge the felon disenfranchisement provisions of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. [19] at 1, 4, [20-1] at 4-6. Both specifically contend that Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause under the United States Constitution. [19] at 19-20; [20-1] at 11-13, 42. And both cases name Secretary Hosemann as the sole defendant and seek injunctive relief which would specifically prohibit him from enforcing Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution. [19] at 21; [20-1] at 47. Factors (1), (2), and (3) each favor consolidation.

The Hopkins plaintiffs identify no specific prejudice that would result from consolidation. See [29]. The Harness plaintiffs contend that their case would take longer to resolve should the two be consolidated, jeopardizing their chances of being permitted to vote in the 2019 state elections. [27]. Both cases will require the Court to examine the same provision of the Mississippi Constitution and the same claims of racially discriminatory intent and impact. Both cases will also require the Court to determine whether Secretary Hosemann should be enjoined from enforcing the same provision of the Mississippi Constitution. Consequently, there is an inherent risk of inconsistent adjudications of factual and legal issues if the cases are tried separately. This risk outweighs any prejudice that consolidation would cause any party. Factor (4) weighs in favor of consolidation.

Combining the cases will conserve judicial resources, and no party has alleged that their consolidation will grant anyone an unfair advantage. Factors (5) and (6) therefore weigh in favor of consolidation.

Consolidating the cases should reduce the total amount of time necessary to conclude both cases. And because the cases are so similar, trying them together would be the more efficient option. Accordingly, Factors (7) and (8) also weigh in favor of consolidation.

As all eight factors favor consolidation, the Court finds that the motion should be granted and that these two cases should be consolidated.

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ordered:

SO ORDERED.