
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-
