[EL] Citizens United as precedent

Wed Dec 7 06:21:19 PST 2011

"Corporations are unnatural business entities created by and sustained by law,"

Here we see a fundamental difference in the idea of the role of law.  While the beliefs don't fall neatly along ideological lines, to a substantial extent they do and I'll use such a shortcut. Modern liberals tend to see corporations as having been created by law. Conservatives tend to see corporations as created by people, and recognized by law. The corporations division of the Secretary of State's office has never, ever, in any meaningful sense of the word, "created" a corporation; and the corporations that it registers were not created by the state legislature, either (although many state legislatures have actually created a few corporations). The government no more "creates" corporations by registering them than it "creates" houses by recording the deeds.

In this conservative view, epitomized in the scholarship of Larry Ribstein and Steve Bainbridge (to which I will not do justice - blame me, not them), corporations are simply how people do business. There is certainly nothing "unnatural" about two or more people getting together, and pooling their talent and capital, to do business. In many cases, those people would want to do business without risking all of their worldly belongings. Those would be the contractual terms they would offer to customers - limited liability. (That's why I've always preferred the British designation, "Ltd." to our "Inc.") Many potential customers - I would venture to say the overwhelming majority - would be happy to do business on these terms, gaining lower cost while limiting their potential recovery if something goes extremely wrong.

This is a huge boon for the economy, and hence, for the people, for the governed. The same is true of the other signature elements of corporations - ongoing lifespans and easy entry and departure from the group. The law, in this conservative view, is merely doing what the law ought to do - recognizing how people do and wish to transact business (both buyers and sellers), and providing an efficient enforcement mechanism that reduces what would otherwise be high transaction cost. That is merely good lawmaking. It is similar to recording property deeds. Certainly the government could not - or at least as a matter of good policy would not (but given our constitution, probably could not) - condition recording a deed on giving up one's right to political participation in any way.

Thus, the modern liberal sees the corporation flowing from the state, to serve the state's interest in economic growth and prosperity. As such, conditioning those rights on giving up certain forms of political participation seems perfectly legitimate. The conservative sees the corporation existing outside the state, serving the interest of individuals, with the state serving its properly limited role to protect life, liberty, and property by providing a legal regime to enforce the rights that people have and choose to exercise. A properly restrained state cannot condition its legal protection of contractual and property rights on people acquiescing to tyranny, however mild (and this is, granted, quite mild).

Now, of course, some disagree on the scope of contractual and property rights. But even taking a strong positivist approach, the problem is that at root most people would agree with the property and contractual rights of corporations when they are broken down. That is, there is not widespread or even majority opposition to the idea of the corporation in American society - quite the opposite, when the component parts are broken down, there is broad support for the freedom of contract that forms the basis of the corporation.

Meanwhile, those who would try to delineate speech and association rights by the form of organization chosen by groups of people have not been able to show a good fit: that is, why are corporate expenditures more dangerous than expenditures by wealthy individuals; why is it a justification for limiting speech that a corporation has limited liability but not that Warren Buffet's wealth has come from corporations with limited liability; why is it egalitarian to limit corporate expenditures, which may represent millions of shareholders, but expenditures by wealthy individuals are not limited; why should foundations, such as Carnegie, Joyce, and Pew, be able to make large expenditures to influence public policy; and so on?

There are, I think, answers to all of these questions, in the sense that one can argue (and many do) that wealthy individuals should not be able to contribute large sums, or even that foundations should be more limited in trying to influence public policy. One might even argue that inheritances cannot be used for public policy discussion (perpetual life and all that). But none of these arguments really turn on the corporate form as the basis for making a distinction.

In summary, the Court is quite correct that corporate speech deserves protection as does individual speech. Regulatory advocates might argue that this form of advancing speech does not generally deserve the protection the Court has given it, but that's different from arguing that corporations are in some way uniquely worthy of muzzling.

And that would, of course, be a different argument from one about foreign contributors. There, as Mark notes, the argument turns more on a Lockean concept of body politic.

Brad Smith

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of David A. Holtzman [David at HoltzmanLaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:58 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Citizens United as precedent

1. I was also wondering  why Fred inserted “non-voting” here.  Yes, that suggests extending the logic to minors, many felons (of all stripes -- violence, moral turpitude, pharmacology, etc.), and non-citizen residents including the Bluman plaintiffs.  And how about citizens who have not registered to vote?  Or people who are registered to vote but do not actually vote in the election at issue?  Like, Mark, I don’t think regulation of one’s political contributions or expenditures has to be tied to one’s status as a voter.

2. I think Mark’s remark further below about “combinations of ... persons such as corporations” contains an error.  Corporations are combinations of capital more than of people.  The people who put up the capital are protected from personal liability, or accountability (to use a term from democracy), beyond the loss of their investments, for losses incurred or harms that may be caused by the corporations.  I thought that was the main feature distinguishing corporations from other associations.  (People are never all-in.)

Corporations are unnatural business entities created by and sustained by law, and I see no good reason why law shouldn’t be able to saddle them with a birth defect or later-acquired disease that limits their ability to influence their creator.

Optional additional reading:

3. I was thinking today that the nonrecourse mortgage serves a similar loss-limiting function for home“owners”.  (Imagine how much more careful lenders and borrowers would have been if mortgage borrowers actually had to pay off their entire debt even when mortgages go “underwater.”)  A mortgage’s nonrecourse provision is a lot like a corporation’s personal liability shield.

[People from Occupy LA were at City Hall today to advocate a “Constitutional amendment ... ensuring that only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with constitutional rights.”  And some of them were saying that poor (liability-limited, interest-deducting) mortgage borrowers deserve more protection from being evicted by corporations.]

Now I’m thinking that since the government subsidizes home mortgages, it would be fair, and perhaps a prudent protection against conflict of interest (and the appearance of kickbacks or corruption), to prohibit using home mortgage money to influence elections.  (Hey that would protect candidates from the sad common practice of mortgaging their own homes for their campaigns!)

Or for that matter, a ban on political contributions and expenditures could, and perhaps should, encumber the proceeds of any government subsidy (including tax deductions for charity, and even the revered and wonderful earned-income tax credit), no?

  - dah

On 12/6/2011 9:49 PM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:
Fred,

With regard to “non-voting corporations”:

PACs can’t vote. The NY Times can’t vote either (but it spends money endorsing candidates). Ditto the Washington Times. Political parties can’t vote; neither can the Log Cabin Republicans organization. Neither can seventeen year olds. Neither, in many jurisdictions, can felons. Is a rich felon not entitled to spend money on political advocacy? A book publishing company can’t vote, but presumably it has the right to publish a book that advocates for or against a candidate even if the publishing company expects to lose money on the book.

The right to vote is probably not a good marker for those who have the right to engage in political advocacy.

With regard to the interest in self-governance:

To the extent corporations are controlled by and owned by US citizens, they may channel or represent the self-governance wishes of the US citizens. (Yes, I know that some corporation law scholars deny that shareholders own corporations.) To the extent that corporations are controlled or owned by others, the corporations’ participation raises much more serious self-governance concerns for me; the persons who own or control them are not part of our political community, have no reason to be loyal to the US, and are not entitled to participate in our self-governance.

I do think that some of my views are in serious tension with others, and I’m trying to work my way through them. I’m particularly troubled by the conclusion that my views seem to push me to, that a foreign-controlled but U.S.-based newspaper corporation or publishing house could be prohibited from engaging in political advocacy. The Washington Times? A US subsidiary (if there is one) of Oxford University Press?

A final note for list members who disagree with Citizens United: Would you prohibit the NY Times from publishing a special supplement that it would insert in its newspapers, listing candidates that it endorses and giving reasons for the endorsements? Such a special supplement clearly would involve an expenditure (whereas I think some people have argued that a mere editorial endorsement does not cost a newspaper anything extra beyond what it would have spent anyway to publish the paper).

Best,
Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
Malibu, CA 90263
(310) 506-4667

From: Fredric Woocher [mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 5:51 PM
To: Scarberry, Mark; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: RE: [EL] Citizens United as precedent

Mark, you asked:

"Isn’t there a compelling interest in self-government that entitles us to take steps to prevent excessive influence by foreigners on US elections?"

I'm curious why you think that the answer to this question is so clearly "yes," when the answer to the same question, substituting "non-voting corporations" for "foreigners" is "no," according to Citizens United?

Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024
fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
(310) 576-1233

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 4:46 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Citizens United as precedent
A question about the scope of a prohibition on foreign spending to influence US elections: Suppose a foreign national places an ad in a foreign magazine that is published outside the US and mailed to subscribers in the US. The ad urges readers to vote to re-elect President Obama. Would list members favor interception of all copies of that issue of the magazine to prevent them from being read in the United States? What about confiscation of copies of the magazine from the shelves of stores in the US? Would we try to prevent Americans from viewing such an ad on BBC Television (in the US via cable TV) that was paid for a British subject? (Is the proper term still “subject” rather than “citizen”?) Should we have an Internet firewall to intercept Internet ads from other countries? Would we want to arrest someone who paid for such an ad if the person then came to the US? I think these questions suggest that it would be difficult (or unwise) to try to prevent such expenditures outside the US. It makes sense that the focus of such regulation should be on expenditures in the US or expenditures by foreign nationals present in the US.

On the interest point: Isn’t there a compelling interest in self-government that entitles us to take steps to prevent excessive influence by foreigners on US elections? We might expel a foreign diplomat who tried to influence our elections, right? Independent expenditures by US persons (including combinations of US persons such as corporations with little or no foreign stock ownership) of course influence US elections; that’s the purpose of such expenditures, and it’s a perfectly legitimate purpose, unless you accept a leveling of the playing field rationale for limiting independent expenditures, which the Court has rejected. The analysis then focuses on notions of self-government, allowing Citizens United to be distinguished persuasively, in my view.

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
Malibu, CA 90263
(310)506-4667

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 3:17 PM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Citizens United as precedent

Ah, now I see.  I think you are correct on this point Jim.  The word should not have been "precedent" but "logic" or "rational consequences."

It is not much of a defense, but those words got introduced in the editing process.  (My original draft began: "Next week Supreme Court justices will meet in a private conference to consider whether to hear an appeal challenging the federal law which bars most foreign individuals, entities, and governments from spending money to influence U.S. elections.  Whether or not the Court sets the case for a full hearing, it is likely to conclude that the law does not violate the First Amendment rights of foreigners to participate in our elections.  That’s the right result, but it is one that demonstrates the illogic and incoherence of the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United v. FEC decision upholding similar rights for corporations.  The case before the Court, Bluman v. FEC, concerns the rights of foreign non-citizens living in the U.S. to spend money in federal elections, but if it is successful it would open the door to spending by non-citizens living outside the U.S., foreign corporations, and even foreign governments.  There are many good reasons for federal law to bar such election-related spending by foreigners, but each runs headlong into the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United case.  ")

Would you care to opine on the issue for the Court to decide?  And how that rationale might differ from the logic or rational consequences of Citizens United.

Rick

On 12/6/11 3:09 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
Well, that is an issue for the Court now to decide, but to say that CU decided it somehow that for the Court to uphold the foreigner ban it must "ignore the precedent of Citizens United" is just flat wrong, as your question seems to assume.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 12/6/2011 5:34:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> writes:
What's the compelling interest Jim?  I contend in my piece that "national security" and excluding foreigners from devices of democratic decisionmaking both boil down in the campaign finance context to one of the rejected compelling interests (corruption, antidistortion) rejected as a limitation on corporate independent expenditures in CU.

On 12/6/11 12:10 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
Rich's comment could not be more wrong:

Whether or not the Court sets the case for a full hearing, it is likely to conclude that our current law does not violate the First Amendment rights of foreigners. That would be the right result. But it would require ignoring the precedent of Citizens United v. FEC<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html>, which upheld similar rights for corporations

The analysis of CU requires (1) is the speech protected by the First Amendment, (2) if so is there a compelling governmental interest sufficient to abridge it.   Regarding CU's (1), yes speech by foreigners, aliens, and the Red Chinese Army is speech protected by the First Amendment.  However, re CU's (2) CU did not decide if there is a compelling governmental interest sufficient to abridge the speech of foreigners.  That would be the question before the court not addressed in CU.

So CU applies and use of its analysis is perfectly consistent with a holding that the speech of the Red Chinese Army may be banned.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 12/6/2011 12:21:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> writes:
“Will Foreigners Decide the 2012 Election? The Extreme Unintended Consequences of Citizens United.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26137>
Posted on December 5, 2011 9:18 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26137> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I have written this commentary<http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98162/citizens-united-foreign-money> for The New Republic.  It begins:

Let’s say that the leader of a foreign country, one with military or economic interests adverse to the United States, took a look at our 2012 elections and decided to spend millions of dollars in hopes of determining which party held control over the House, the Senate, or the White House. Most of us would consider that scenario highly distressing, to say the least. And current federal law does indeed bar most foreign individuals, entities, and governments from spending money to influence U.S. elections and contributing to candidates.

This isn’t a law that inspires much opposition in Washington: Neither party asserts that foreigners have a First Amendment right to participate in our elections. But according to the twisted logic of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html>, the law’s constitutionality has been called into question.

Fortunately, the Court may be wise enough not to use its own flawed decision as a future roadmap. On Friday, Supreme Court justices will meet in a private conference to consider<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-275.htm> whether to hear Bluman v. FEC<https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1766-37>, a case that concerns the rights of foreign non-citizens living in the U.S to spend money in U.S. elections. Whether or not the Court sets the case for a full hearing, it is likely to conclude that our current law does not violate the First Amendment rights of foreigners. That would be the right result. But it would require ignoring the precedent of Citizens United v. FEC<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html>, which upheld similar rights for corporations.

it concludes:

In their<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/bluman-js.pdf> briefs<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Bluman-Opp-to-Motion-to-Dismiss-or-Affirm.pdf> before the Supreme Court, the Bluman plaintiffs point to some of my earlier writing<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1620576> noting the contradiction between the logic of Citizens United and the government’s position in this case. They—though not most of the campaign finance deregulation lobby, which (aside from the Institute for Justice<http://www.scribd.com/doc/67591387/Bluman-v-FEC-amicus-brief>) has sat out the case—urge the Court to hear the case, rather than simply affirm the lower court, to bring additional coherence to the law. But what the current challenge makes clear is that the Supreme Court has erred—not in its failure to extend election spending rights to foreign nationals, but in the faulty reasoning behind its decision in Citizens United.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26137&title=%E2%80%9CWill%20Foreigners%20Decide%20the%202012%20Election%3F%20The%20Extreme%20Unintended%20Consequences%20of%20Citizens%20United.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“The Broken System of Campaign Finance”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26134>
Posted on December 5, 2011 9:02 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26134> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The San Diego Union Tribune offers this editorial<http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/05/the-broken-system-of-campaign-finance/>.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26134&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Broken%20System%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“Mapping the Future: Chandler’s seat is focus of redistricting in Kentucky, but Democrats may want more”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26131>
Posted on December 5, 2011 8:39 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26131> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Fix reports<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/chandlers-seat-is-focus-of-redistricting-in-kentucky-but-democrats-may-want-more/2011/12/05/gIQAlskvWO_blog.html>.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26131&title=%E2%80%9CMapping%20the%20Future%3A%20Chandler%E2%80%99s%20seat%20is%20focus%20of%20redistricting%20in%20Kentucky%2C%20but%20Democrats%20may%20want%20more%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments Off
Redistricting Back Before the California Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26126>
Posted on December 5, 2011 8:00 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26126> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Horvitz and Levy’s “At the Lectern” blog reports<http://www.atthelectern.com/redistricting-back-before-supreme-court/>.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26126&title=Redistricting%20Back%20Before%20the%20California%20Supreme%20Court&description=>
Posted in citizen commissions<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>, redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments Off
“AlterNet: Bullies, Liars and Impostors: How Facebook and Go Daddy Shield Scott Walker’s Online Guerillas”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26124>
Posted on December 5, 2011 7:57 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26124> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AlterNet<http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/153306> on chicanery in the Wisconsin recall and false information spread over the Internet.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26124&title=%E2%80%9CAlterNet%3A%20Bullies%2C%20Liars%20and%20Impostors%3A%20How%20Facebook%20and%20Go%20Daddy%20Shield%20Scott%20Walker%E2%80%99s%20Online%20Guerillas%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, recall elections<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11> | Comments Off
“Gingrich’s Health Care Consultancy: Is It Lobbying?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26121>
Posted on December 5, 2011 7:54 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26121> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NPR reports<http://www.npr.org/2011/12/05/143146399/gingrichs-health-care-consultancy-is-it-lobbying>.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26121&title=%E2%80%9CGingrich%E2%80%99s%20Health%20Care%20Consultancy%3A%20Is%20It%20Lobbying%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off
“LA’s Civic Action Against Dark Money”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26119>
Posted on December 5, 2011 7:52 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26119> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Mother Jones reports<http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/la-civic-action-against-dark-money>.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26119&title=%E2%80%9CLA%E2%80%99s%20Civic%20Action%20Against%20Dark%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“Justice Kennedy Dissents: What Campaign Finance And The Sixth Amendment Have In Common.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26116>
Posted on December 5, 2011 7:40 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26116> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

HuffPo reports<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/justice-kennedy-dissents-campaign-finance-sixth-amendment_n_1126493.html>.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26116&title=%E2%80%9CJustice%20Kennedy%20Dissents%3A%20What%20Campaign%20Finance%20And%20The%20Sixth%20Amendment%20Have%20In%20Common.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
“Maryland Case May Discourage Political Dirty Tricks”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26113>
Posted on December 5, 2011 7:36 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26113> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NPR offers this report<http://www.npr.org/2011/12/05/143142090/maryland-case-may-dissuade-political-dirty-tricks> on the robocall case. The case has now gone to the jury.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/jury-begins-deliberations-in-maryland-robocall-case/2011/12/05/gIQAN73nXO_story.html>
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26113&title=%E2%80%9CMaryland%20Case%20May%20Discourage%20Political%20Dirty%20Tricks%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off
“Democrats win fight over Colorado Congressional boundaries”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26111>
Posted on December 5, 2011 9:07 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26111> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Denver Post<http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19473229>: “Democrats have won this decade’s congressional redistricting battle. The Colorado Supreme Court this morning affirmed the ruling of a Denver’ chief district court judge, who selected the Democrats’ map after an October trial. The Supreme Court said in its ruling that a written opinion would be issued later.”  You can find the apparently unanimous court order here<http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2011/11SC842-%20Order%20and%20Mandate.pdf>.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26111&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20win%20fight%20over%20Colorado%20Congressional%20boundaries%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments Off
Read the Oppositions to Texas Congressional Redistricting Stay Request<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26106>
Posted on December 5, 2011 9:04 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26106> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/pls-cong-opp.pdf> and here<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/malc-cong-opp.pdf>. The briefing now appears complete, unless Texas files an optional reply.  Justice Scalia, or the Court, could rule at any time.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26106&title=Read%20the%20Oppositions%20to%20Texas%20Congressional%20Redistricting%20Stay%20Request&description=>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
A Repeat of Mid-Decade Redistricting Coming to Texas?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26103>
Posted on December 5, 2011 8:47 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26103> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Could be.<http://txredistricting.org/post/13782484051/gop-state-chair-promises-to-push-to-have-legislature>
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26103&title=A%20Repeat%20of%20Mid-Decade%20Redistricting%20Coming%20to%20Texas%3F&description=>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments Off
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>

--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

--
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com<mailto:david at holtzmanlaw.com>

Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111207/16b0d96d/attachment.html>