League of Women v. Diamond

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: May 1, 1996
• Docket: 96-1350
• Status: Published

Opinion

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-