Thorsted v. Munro
| Decision Date | 30 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | 94-35267,Nos. 94-35222,94-35287 and 94-35289,94-35223,94-35285,s. 94-35222 |
| Citation | 75 F.3d 454 |
| Parties | 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 643 Susan THORSTED, a registered voter of the State of Washington; William First; Timothy S. Zenk; Margaret Colony; League of Women Voters of Washington; George Cheek; John Clute; Thomas Foley, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. Ralph MUNRO; Christine O. Gregoire, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, Limit, Sponsor of Initiative 573; Sherry Bochwinkel, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, and U.S. Term Limits; Alan M. Gottlieb; Lee Gill; Wilbur B. McPherson, Defendants-Intervenors. Susan THORSTED, a registered voter of the State of Washington; William First; Timothy S. Zenk; Margaret Colony; League of Women Voters of Washington; George Cheek; John Clute; Thomas Foley, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ralph MUNRO; Christine O. Gregoire, Defendants, Limit, Sponsor of Initiative 573; Sherry Bochwinkel; U.S. Term Limits; Alan M. Gottlieb; Lee Gill; Wilbur B. McPherson, Defendants-Intervenors, and Citizens for Term Limits, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. Susan THORSTED, a registered voter of the State of Washington; William First; Timothy S. Zenk; Margaret Colony; League of Women Voters of Washington; George Cheek; John Clute; Thomas Foley, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ralph MUNRO; Christine O. Gregoire, Defendants-Appellants, and Limit, Sponsor of Initiative 573; Sherry Bochwinkel; U.S. Term Limits; Alan M. Gottlieb; Lee Gill; Wilbur B. McPherson, Defendants-Intervenors. Susan THORSTED, a registered voter of the State of Washington; William First; Timothy S. Zenk, Plaintiffs, and Margaret Colony; League of Women Voters of Washington; George Cheek; John Clute; Thomas Foley, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ralph MUNRO; Christine Gregoire, Defendants-Appellees, and Limit, Sponsor of Initiative 573; Sherry Bochwinkel; U.S. Term Limits; Alan M. Gottlieb; Lee Gill; Wilbur B. McPherson, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees. Susan THORSTED, a registered voter of the State of Washington; Timothy S. Zenk; William First, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Margaret |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Polly J. Price, Griffin B. Bell, James D. Miller, King & Spalding, Washington, D.C.; Cleta Deatherage Mitchell, Term Limits Legal Institute, Washington, D.C., Shawn T. Newman, Olympia, Washington, for appellants Limit and Sherry Bochwinkel.
Ronald A. Zumbrum, Anthony T. Caso, Deborah J. LaFetra, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California; John M. Groen, Pacific Legal Foundation, Bellevue, Washington, for defendants-intervenors-appellants, Citizens for Term Limits, et al.
John G. Kester, Terrence O'Donnell, Timothy D. Zick, Williams & Connolly, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellants U.S. Term Limits, Inc., et al.
James K. Pharris and Jeffrey T. Even, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, Washington for defendants-appellants-cross-appellees Munro and Gregoire.
Glen K. Thorsted, Bellevue, Washington, for plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants, Thorsted, Zenk and First.
Frederic C. Tausend, Stephen A. Smith, Herbert E. Wilgis, III, Preston, Gates & Ellis, Seattle, Washington, for plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants Colony, League of Women Voters of Washington, Cheek, Clute, Foley.
Raymond D. Battocchi, McLean, Virginia, for the Amicus Citizens United Foundation.
Kevin J. Hamilton and Thomas More Kellenberg, Perkins Coie, Seattle, Washington, for the Amicus American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.
Timothy E. Flanigan and Eric Grant, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, D.C., and Daniel J. Popeo and Paul D. Kamenar, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, D.C., for the Amicus Washington Legal Foundation, et al.
Louis R. Cohen, Patrick J. Carome, W. Hardy Callcott, Robert F. Hoyt, Erik H. Corwin, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C., for the Amicus, Henry J. Hyde.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Before: WRIGHT, POOLE, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
The dispositive order filed January 4, 1996, is ordered published.
The district court in this case held unconstitutional Washington's Initiative Measure 573, which is codified at Wash.Rev.Code ch. 29. Thorsted v. Gregoire, 841 F.Supp. 1068 (W.D.Wash.1994). The Washington statute is, in effect, a term-limits provision. In light of the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995), we affirm the district court's finding of unconstitutionality. Because Thornton was decided on the basis of the Qualifications Clauses of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const., art. I, §§ 2 & 3, we affirm the district court solely on that ground. We do not reach the district court's alternative holding, that the state statute is also unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
We also affirm the district court's denial of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court concluded that a combination of seven circumstances present in this case justified a denial of fees to plaintiffs, although they were "prevailing parties" on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. 841 F.Supp. at 1084; see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1937, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashmus v. Calderon
...U.S. 418, 431-32, 107 S.Ct. 766, 774-74, 93 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987). Thorsted v. Gregoire, 841 F.Supp. 1068, 1083 (W.D.Wa.1994), aff'd, 75 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the Court believes that the mere fact that another actor — whether it's the state court in the threatened prosecution ......
-
Laroque v. Holder
...congressman who intended to seek re-election when his term expired in four years), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Thorsted v. Munro, 75 F.3d 454 (9th Cir.1996); but see McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 226, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003) (noting that U.S. Senator's alleged injury was ......
-
We Are America v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
...that one plaintiff has standing. Thorsted v. Gregoire, 841 F.Supp. 1068 (W.D.Wash.1994), aff'd other grounds subnom. Thorsted v. Munro, 75 F.3d 454 (9th Cir.1996), is illustrative. The district court in Thorsted found that the first of eight plaintiffs had standing. Id. at 1072–1073. Despit......
-
Jones v. Bates, 97-15914
...purposes merely by alleging their desire to run in a particular election for a fourth term in the Assembly. See Thorsted v. Munro, 75 F.3d 454, 456 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that congressman's challenges to federal term limits were not rendered moot by his defeat in an intervening election, i......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...(denial of attorney’s fees warranted considering Endangered Species Act’s purpose and defendant’s inability to pay); Thorsted v. Munro, 75 F.3d 454, 456 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of attorney’s fees warranted by “a combination of [7] circumstances,” despite several of circumstances being insuf......