Court Opinion

ID: 2964048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:36.876495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:33:14.080263
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            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-