League of Women Voters v. Diamond

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 96-1350

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MAINE, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

G. WILLIAM DIAMOND, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.

Stephen E.F. Langsdorf, Anne Skopp, and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau

& Pachios on brief for appellants.

Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Thomas D. Warren,

Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees G. William Diamond
and Andrew Ketterer.
John H. Rich, III, William J. Sheils, and Perkins, Thompson,

Hinckley & Keddy on brief for intervenor-appellee Committee for

Governmental Reform.
Samuel W. Lanham, Jr., Cuddy & Lanham, and Stephen J. Safranek on

brief for intervenor-appellee U.S. Term Limits, Inc.

April 30, 1996

Per Curiam. This is an appeal from the denial of a

motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiffs, who

include two incumbent state legislators and four of their

supporters, challenge the validity of the Maine Term

Limitation Act of 1993. 21-A Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 551-54.

On April 10, 1996, the date their notice of appeal was filed,

plaintiffs moved for an expedited briefing schedule and

requested that a decision from this court issue by "the end

of April"--a circumstance prompted by the need to prepare

absentee ballots in time for the June 11 state primary.

Comprehensive briefs have been submitted by the parties on an

expedited basis. Having considered the matter in full, we

now dispense with oral argument, see Loc. R. 34.1(a)(2)(iii),

and affirm substantially for the reasons recited by the

district court in its discussion of plaintiffs' failure to

show a likelihood of success on the merits.

We find nothing in plaintiffs' arguments that calls the

lower court's reasoning into serious question. In

particular, given the rationale of such cases as Clements v.

Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982), and given the uniform holdings

of the various state court decisions that have addressed

analogous arguments, we agree that plaintiffs have

established something less than a probability of success on

the merits of their federal claims. We reach the same

conclusion with regard to plaintiffs' contention that the

-2-

decision in Opinion of the Justices, 623 A.2d 1258 (Me.

1993), will likely be revised in light of U.S. Term Limits,

Inc. v. Thornton, 115 S. Ct. 1842 (1995).

Given this failure to show a likelihood of success on

the merits, there is certainly nothing in the plaintiffs'

showing as to the equities that would warrant a contrary

result. If anything, the arguments based on the equities

tend to support the denial of a preliminary injunction, as

indicated in the district court's decision. See also Bates

v. Jones, 904 F. Supp. 1080 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (where the court

denied a preliminary injunction against state term limits on

equitable grounds). Since the law and the equities both

favor the defendants, there was certainly no error of law or

abuse of discretion in the denial of the preliminary

injunction.

Affirmed.

-3-