LARRY ROE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, JAMES BENNETT,

 Alabama Secretary of State, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants,

    CLARENCE T. HELLUMS, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly

                situated, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

                                  No. 95-6814

        IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

                               October 13, 1995
 

     Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
 District of Alabama.

     (District Court No. CV-94-0885-AH-S)

     Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Cooper, Mitch, Crawford, Kuykendall & Whatley,
 Birmingham, AL, for appellants.

     Albert Jordan, Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff, Byers & Brandt, Birmingham,
 AL, William Pryor, Deputy Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for appellees.

     Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and BARKETT, Circuit
 Judges.

     PER CURIAM:

 [1] In this case, Larry Roe, on behalf of himself and others who
 voted in Alabama's November 8, 1994, general election (the "Roe Class"),
 claims that the State of Alabama is attempting to dilute the votes that
 the Roe Class cast in that election, in violation of the Due Process
 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  This dilution will occur, the Roe
 Class contends, if Alabama's election officials comply with the order of
 a state trial court, issued in Odom v. Bennett, No. 94-2434-R
 (Montgomery County Cir. Ct. 1994), requiring them to include in their
 vote totals absentee ballots (the "contested ballots") that do not
 conform to Ala. Code Section(s) 17-10-7 in that they were not enclosed
 in an envelope bearing the signatures of the voter and either a notary
 public or two witnesses.  Instead, these ballots were enclosed in
 envelopes bearing only the voters' signatures.

 [2] On December 5, 1994, the district court, concluding that the
 Odom court's order, if implemented, would retroactively amend the
 State's election code and "dilute the ballot box," entered a preliminary
 injunction ordering the Alabama Secretary of State (defendant James
 Bennett) to certify the election results without counting the contested
 ballots.  The Secretary of State (and the other state defendants in the
 case) and John Davis, who had cast a contested ballot and was a
 plaintiff in Odom v. Bennett, immediately appealed the injunction.
 Following oral argument, we affirmed the preliminary injunction in part
 (including the district court's conclusion that the plaintiffs were
 likely to prevail on the merits of their constitutional claim), vacated
 it in part, and certified to the Supreme Court of Alabama the question
 whether an absentee ballot enclosed in an envelope that does not bear
 the signature of either a notary public or two witnesses meets the
 requirement of Ala. Code Section(s) 17-10-7.  Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574
 (11th Cir. 1995) (Roe I).  In effect, our decision permitted those
 elected to all offices except the offices of Chief Justice of the
 Supreme Court of Alabama and Treasurer of Alabama to be sworn in.  Thus,
 the elections to those two offices are the ones involved in this
 case.[fn1]

 [3] On March 14, 1995, the Alabama Supreme Court answered the
 question in the affirmative; the signature of the voter alone, if
 accompanied by the voter's residence address and reason for voting
 absentee, satisfies the statute's requirements.  Roe v. Mobile County
 Appointment Bd., No. 1940461, 1995 WL 121871 (Ala. March 14, 1995).  In
 addition to answering the certified question, the court indicated that,
 in the past, the election officials in some of Alabama's sixty-seven
 counties had counted ballots such as those that are contested in this
 case.

 [4] After receiving the Alabama Supreme Court's response to our
 question, we remanded the case to the district court and instructed it
 to determine whether, prior to and at the time of the November 8, 1994,
 general election, the practice in Alabama had been to reject or,
 conversely, to count absentee ballots whose envelope did not include the
 signature of either a notary public or two witnesses.[fn2]  Roe v.
 Alabama, 52 F.3d 300 (11th Cir. 1995) (Roe II), cert. denied, ___ U.S.
 ___ (Oct. 2, 1995).

 [5] Following the receipt of our mandate, and after extensive
 discovery, the district court and the parties met in pretrial conference
 and narrowed the issues to be tried.  The court, with the consent of all
 parties, also certified the Roe Class and, after Clarence T. Hellums was
 substituted for the deceased John Davis, the court certified the Hellums
 Class (consisting of voters who had cast contested ballots).  The
 Hellums Class then filed two cross claims against the state defendants.
 The first claim alleged that, by not counting the contested ballots, the
 state defendants would disenfranchise the Hellums Class in violation of
 the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; the second claim
 alleged that the State defendants would deny the Class the equal
 protection of the laws if they counted contested ballots in some
 counties but not in others (where the Class members had voted).  The
 claims of the Roe and Hellums classes thus turned on the same question:
 whether it had been the practice in Alabama prior to and in the November
 8 election to count ballots such as the contested ballots.   If the
 practice had been not to count such ballots, the Roe Class would
 prevail; if the practice had been to count them, the Hellums Class would
 prevail.

 [6] The trial of the case took three days.  Introduced into
 evidence, in addition to the stipulated facts, were the answers to
 interrogatories that had been propounded, in a format agreed to by the
 parties, to the election officials in all of Alabama's sixty-seven
 counties, and the testimony of forty-eight witnesses (thirty-eight of
 whom testified in person, ten by deposition), including the Secretary of
 State and a former Attorney General (who had issued the definitive
 opinion concerning the proper interpretation of Ala. Code Section(s)
 17-10-7).[fn3]  On the basis of that evidence, the district court found
 that the practice in Alabama prior to the November 8, 1994 election, had
 been uniformly to exclude ballots enclosed in envelopes that did not
 bear the signature of either a notary public or two witnesses as
 required by a literal reading of Ala. Code Section(s) 17-10-7.[fn4]

 [7] Given this finding of fact, which the state defendants did not
 contest, the district court concluded that the Roe Class and plaintiff
 Hooper were entitled to relief; to include the contested ballots in the
 vote totals would depreciate the votes of the members of the Roe Class
 and deprive plaintiff Hooper of the office of Chief Justice of Alabama.
 The same finding of fact also required the court to reject the claims of
 the Hellums Class; eliminating the contested ballots from the vote
 totals would not operate to deny the members of that class due process
 or the equal protection of the laws.  Accordingly, the district court
 entered a final judgment that, among other things, ordered the Secretary
 of State to certify the results of the elections of chief justice and
 treasurer.

 [8] The Hellums Class now appeals the district court's final
 judgment. It also moves this court to stay the district court's judgment
 pending the disposition of its appeal.  We granted a temporary stay of
 the final judgment to enable the parties to brief the motion to stay.
 Because the granting of a stay would turn on the likelihood of the
 Hellums Class prevailing on the merits of its appeal, see Garcia-Mir v.
 Meese, 781 F.2d 1450 (11th Cir. 1986); 11th Cir. R. 27-1(b)(1), we
 directed the parties to brief the merits as well.  They have done so,
 and we have heard argument thereon.

 [9] For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Hellums Class
 cannot prevail on appeal.  Accordingly, we deny its motion to stay and
 affirm the judgment of the district court.

 [10] First, the district court's findings of fact are not clearly
 erroneous; rather, its findings are supported overwhelmingly by the
 evidence.  With the exception of Washington County, there has been no
 practice to count ballots that bear only the signature of the voter.
 Indeed, the practice has been to require, in the words of Ala. Code
 17-10-7, in addition to the voter's signature, the signature of either a
 notary public or two witnesses.[fn5]  Given this practice, we fail to see
 how the State's refusal to count the contested ballots could deny the
 Hellums Class due process of law, the Class' first cross claim.  The
 Class' second cross claim fails because refusing to count the contested
 ballots could not deny them equal protection of the law.  The fact that
 a small number of contested ballots (forty-nine) slipped through is of
 no consequence.

 [11] The Hellums Class' fall-back position, as outlined to us in oral
 argument, is that neither class states a claim cognizable under the
 United States Constitution.  In other words, we should revisit Roe I and
 Roe II, which, in affirming the district court's preliminary injunction,
 held that Roe had presented a claim under the Constitution.[fn6]

 [12] Roe I and Roe II establish law which is binding upon this panel.
 Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
 Although the law established by the prior panel was announced in a
 preliminary injunction posture, nevertheless the principle of law
 adopted was clear.  The facts establish on remand in the district court
 were stronger in favor of the Roe Class than the prior panel could have
 expected.  We therefore adhere to our prior conclusion that Roe has
 presented a claim for relief.

 [13] Assuming that to be true, the Hellums Class contends that, as a
 matter of comity, we should decline to exercise our jurisdiction so as
 not to interfere with Alabama's election process.  If we dismissed the
 case, the Hellums Class represents, the Class would immediately move the
 Montgomery County Circuit Court, once again, to order the county
 election officials to amend their vote totals to include the contested
 ballots and the Secretary of State to include them in the election
 results for the office of chief justice.

 [14] Whether the Montgomery County Circuit Court has jurisdiction to
 grant the Hellums Class such relief is, as we noted in Roe I, highly
 doubtful.  Roe I, 43 F.3d at 582.  See Ala. Code Section(s) 17-15-6.[fn7]
 The Alabama Attorney General, appearing on behalf of the Secretary of
 State and the election officials of the State's sixty-seven counties
 (the Odom defendants), citing section 17-15-6, has moved the Montgomery
 County Circuit Court to dismiss Odom v. Bennett for want of subject
 matter jurisdiction.  But, putting this issue aside, directing the
 district court to dismiss this case would, as we observed in Roe I,
 leave the Roe Class without an adequate forum for the vindication of its
 federal constitutional claims.  Roe I, 43 F.3d at 582.

 [15] Finally, the Hellums Class urges us to give effect to the
 Supreme Court of Alabama's answer to the question we certified in Roe I:
 that the envelopes enclosing absentee ballots need not bear the
 signature of either a notary public or two witnesses.  What the Hellums
 Class ignores is that the Alabama Supreme Court, in answering our
 question, construed an Alabama statute; the court did not, and was not
 called upon to, decide whether the counting of the contested ballots
 cast in the November 8, 1994, general election - in the face of Ala.
 Code Section(s) 17-10-4 and in the face of a uniform state-wide practice
 of excluding such ballots[fn8] - infringed the Roe Class'
 constitutional rights.  See Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065 (1st Cir.
 1978).

 [16] In conclusion, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 The State defendants, who have not appealed and who stand ready to
 comply with the district court's injunction, are directed to comply with
 that injunction forthwith.

 [17] Because this litigation is now at an end, we direct the Clerk to
 issue the mandate instanter.

 [fn1] The Republican candidates for chief justice and
 treasurer, Perry O. Hooper, Sr., and James D. Martin, are plaintiffs in
 this case; the Democratic candidate for treasurer, Lucille Baxley, is
 an intervenor.

 [fn2] In remanding the case for this determination, we
 instructed the district court to make findings of fact on 17 issues.  We
 did not, however, limit the court's authority to try other relevant
 issues.

 [fn3] Some of these 48 witnesses testified at the December 5,
 1994 hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; the
 testimony they gave at that hearing was incorporated into the record of
 the trial.

 [fn4] The court found this to be the practice in all of
 Alabama's 67 counties except Washington County.  In Washington County,
 ballots such as the contested ballots were regularly counted and
 included in the county's vote totals.  In the November 8, 1994,
 election, Washington County's vote totals included 14 contested ballots.
 In three other counties - where the practice was to exclude such
 ballots - a total of 35 contested ballots "slipped through" and were
 counted.  The 49 contested ballots (from these three counties and
 Washington County) do not affect the outcome of the two elections at
 issue.  Plaintiff Perry O. Hooper, Sr., prevails in the election for
 chief justice by a total of 262 votes; intervenor Lucille Baxley
 prevails in the election for state treasurer by a total of 1,032 votes.

 [fn5] The Hellums Class contends that the district court
 precluded the Class from engaging in discovery that might have undercut
 the evidence of "past practice" on which the district court relied.
 Specifically, the Class argues that the district court abused its
 discretion in not permitting it to count the absentee ballot envelopes
 (in each of Alabama's 67 counties) from past elections (as well as the
 November 8, 1994, election); among these envelopes, the Class contends,
 there may be a significant number that, like the contested ballot
 envelopes, are without the signature of either a notary public or two
 witnesses.  Such envelopes would presumably establish that the practice
 the district court found to be uniform was, in fact, not uniform.  If
 not uniform, the argument concludes, then not counting the contested
 ballots would deny the Hellums Class' right to due process and equal
 protection (the Class' two cross claims).

     The district court barred the requested discovery because (as
 the court stated in the addendum to its final judgment) to permit the
 Hellums Class to inspect the approximately 100,000 envelopes would
 prolong the proceedings and delay interminably the disposition of the
 case.  The Hellums Class made no showing that it was likely that a
 significant number of nonconforming envelopes would be uncovered;
 moreover, the testimony of the election officials before the court,
 considered as a whole, demonstrated no likelihood that a significant
 number of nonconforming ballots existed.

     Finally, we note that John Davis, in the complaint he and
 Michael Odom filed in Odom v. Bennett, alleged that the election
 officials in all of Alabama's 67 counties were rejecting the contested
 ballots on the instructions of the Secretary of State.  The Secretary's
 instructions were in keeping with the opinion the Alabama Attorney
 General issued in 1980 (which emphasized that absentee ballots must bear
 the signature of either a notary public or two witnesses) and the
 Alabama Election Handbook (written by the Alabama Law Institute) and the
 Alabama Voter's Guide, both of which were issued by every Secretary of
 State thereafter.

     In sum, we find no merit in the Hellums Class' argument that the
 district court abused its discretion in denying the Class the discovery
 in question.

 [fn6] The Hellums Class argues that the Roe Class claim fails
 because that Class did not establish an essential element of its claim:
 that without the burden of the notary/two witness requirement, persons
 who did not vote would have voted in the November 8, 1994, general
 election. According to the Hellums Class, the Roe I panel erred, in
 footnote 15 of its opinion, in taking "judicial notice of the fact that
 reducing the inconvenience of voting absentee - by eliminating the
 necessity of obtaining the signature of a notary or two witnesses -
 would increase the number of absentee ballots."

     We doubt that this point is an essential element of the Roe
 Class' claim.  The Roe Class included those who voted (as well as those
 who would have voted but for the burden of executing a proper
 affidavit); their claim is that their votes would be diluted if the
 contested ballots were counted.  Assuming, however, that the element in
 question is essential to the Roe Class' claim, we conclude that the
 Hellums Class effectively stipulated that the element had been
 established.  At the pretrial conference, in submitting the issues to be
 tried, counsel for the Hellums Class said nothing that would indicate
 that the Roe Class had to produce a witness who would say that he would
 have voted absentee but for the burden of finding a notary or two
 witnesses.  This silence must be viewed against the background fact that
 this court in its footnote 15 had taken judicial notice of the fact.
 None of the triable issues delineated at the pretrial conference
 concerned this point. Moreover, at trial, the Hellums Class said nothing
 when the Roe Class did not present the testimony it now claims is
 missing.  When, at the conclusion of the trial, the court invited
 counsel to submit oral argument or memoranda addressing the findings of
 fact and conclusions of law the court should reach, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
 52(a), the Hellums Class stood silent.  Under the circumstances, we
 conclude that the Hellums Class waived any argument they may have had
 that the Roe Class had to establish the element in question.

 [fn7] Section 17-15-6 provides:

     No jurisdiction exists in or shall be exercised by any
     judge, court or officer exercising chancery powers to
     entertain any proceeding for ascertaining the legality,
     conduct or results of any election, except so far as
     authority to do so shall be specially and specifically
     enumerated and set down by statute; and any injunction,
     process or order from any judge, court or officer in the
     exercise of chancery powers, whereby the results of any
     election are sought to be inquired into, questioned, or
     affected . . . save as may be specially and specifically
     enumerated and set down by statute, shall be null and void
     and shall not be enforced by any officer or obeyed by any
     officer or obeyed by any person . . . .

 [fn8] As noted supra, the Alabama Supreme Court, in answering
 our certified question, stated that, in the past, election officials in
 some counties included in their vote totals ballots such as those
 contested in this case.  In making this statement, the Alabama Supreme
 Court relied upon some affidavits the Odom plaintiffs attached to their
 motion for summary judgment in that case.  However, these affiants were
 not subjected to cross examination in Odom, nor did the opposing party
 have an opportunity to oppose or otherwise contest same.  After we
 remanded the instant case for trial, these affiants were examined under
 oath in the district court.  Their testimony in the district court -
 whether given in answer to interrogatories, on deposition, or at trial
 - was, contrary to their affidavits in Odom, that their counties never
 counted absentee ballots such as those at issue here or that they had no
 knowledge of how such ballots were treated.  Thus, the factual predicate
 for the Alabama Supreme Court's observations with respect to past
 practice was demonstrated in the district court to have been erroneous.