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-