Jones

In this case involving the constitutionality of California’s initiative (Proposition 140) imposing . lifetime legislative term limits, the court has before it two motions for intervention. 1 In the first motion, twenty state legislators and voters request leave to intervene on the side of plaintiffs-appellees Tom Bates, et al. 2 In the second motion, one state legis *872 lator, Curt Pringle, and U.S. Term Limits, a non-profit organization that promotes legislation regarding term limits and already enjoys amicus status, seek to intervene on the side of defendants-appellants Bill Jones, et al. The state opposes both motions. We grant the first motion and deny the second.

The controlling principle for our decision is the need for uniformity in the November, 1998 election. The state in its briefs to this court, and to the Supreme Court, has repeatedly expressed its legitimate desire to avoid to the greatest extent possible any unnecessary inequities and delay in the upcoming election cycle. We agree. Unlike the state, however, we believe that the most effective way to- achieve this objective is to allow as many parties as possible who seek to run for office contrary to the term…