MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION ...

Rapoport Decl. at 15. Notably, the house at that time had 72 single-town districts and79 multi-town districts. Id. at 3. The Senate, on the other hand, where every member butone was protected by the multi-town district rules, refused to consider the house bill andpassed a minor amendment to the law instead. Id. at 15.Again, just last session, the House, with its many members in single-towndistricts, passed by a vote of 102-46 another bill providing access to the ballot by petitionfor all multi-town districts. See Session Transcript of Connecticut House ofRepresentatives (April 25, 2001) (“4/25/01 House Session Transcript”) (available athttp://prdbasis.cga.state.ct.us). The Senate, with all but one of its members in multi-towndistricts, defeated the bill by a vote of 19-16. Session Transcript of Connecticut Senate(May 17, 2001) (“5/17/01 Senate Session Transcript”) (available athttp://prdbasis.cga.state.ct.us).ARGUMENTTo obtain a preliminary injunction on a First Amendment claim, the party seekingsuch relief must demonstrate “irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction and alikelihood of success on the merits.” Latino Officers Ass’n v. City of New York, 196 F.3d458, 462 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Rockefeller v. Powers, 74 F.3d 1367, 1376-77 (2d Cir.1996) (applying this standard of preliminary relief in the context of candidate ballotaccess in a primary election). In addition, under the established law of the SecondCircuit, preliminary relief is also available to the plaintiff where the plaintiffdemonstrates irreparable harm and “sufficiently serious questions going to the merits anda balance of hardships tipping decidedly” in favor of the plaintiff. Rockefeller, 74 F.3dat 1377.20