[EL] Truth to power?

Tue Feb 21 15:58:28 PST 2012

True enough Barnaby, good point.  I had the impression that DOJ would have much preferred the Court to similarly require a factual record suitable to a facial challenge to 441b, once the Court un-stipulated that issue in CU itself, but I also think I see the reasoning behind idea that the Supreme Court isn’t precluded from revisiting an issue “passed upon” by a lower court if the Supremes feel that issue is the one that should properly decide the case.  

But that said, I just think that state of affairs poses an excruciating problem for government lawyers – do they have to develop (and convince a district court judge to allow them to develop) a factual record sufficient to answer every conceivable constitutional argument in every case, even where the defendant/other litigant is willing to stipulate those issues away?  Just seems like they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

From: BZall at aol.com [mailto:BZall at aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:39 PM
To: Joseph Birkenstock
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Truth to power?

True, Joe, and don't forget, also, the fact that the concurrence about "huge sums" rests on evidence not in the record of the original Montana district court in this case. Given the requirements in recent cases for specific factual assertions demonstrating actual effect on First Amendment rights (e.g., Phelps, and Doe v Reed), how is that kind of reference helpful? It's great to jaw about titanic clashes, but most of the Justices probably want to see some actual record. So, if anything, RBG is asking to be flooded with Brandeis briefs; not a pleasant prospect for most of the Court in these days of multi-dozen amici filings, and probably exactly the opposite of what she thought she was asking for. 

Barnaby Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
Please note our new address:
10411 Motor City Dr., Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-231-6943 (direct dial)
www.wjlaw.com <http://www.wj/> 
bzall at aol.com

_____________________________________________________________
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice

Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
tax-related matter addressed herein.
_____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is 
intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally 
privileged. It is not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon 
or used as legal advice. Nor does this communication establish an attorney 
client relationship between us. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, 
please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original 
message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.
______________________________________________________________  

In a message dated 2/21/2012 6:23:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jbirkenstock at capdale.com writes:

	I’m curious about a different aspect of the statement from Justices Ginsburg and Breyer in the Montana stay order.  Specifically, wasn’t it a mistake for those justices to frame their concerns with reference to the “huge sums” being spent in this cycle via superPACs and other independent expenditure efforts?  

	Maybe that was meant as an allusion to Caperton, but either way it still seems to me that, at least in Justice Kennedy’s eyes, the door to using the *hugeness* of the sums, per se, as a basis for regulation has been pretty thoroughly slammed shut and triple-deadbolted.  Whereas the question of the “independence” of functionally single-candidate IE committees for which the candidate him- or herself directly solicits funds (while conspicuously not anointing any other IE efforts with similar solicitations) seems still relatively open for discussion.  

	Not open as a matter of a Part 109 analysis, necessarily, but more in the sense that this does not appear to be the kind of “independence” reflected in the facts of the actual case before the Court in Citizens United, nor in the section of Justice Kennedy’s opinion in which the Court “conclude[s] that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”  (Nor in Buckley’s holding on the FECA IE limit, nor in Colorado Republican’s holding on IE’s by party committees, nor in any other holding I’m aware of.)

	Point being that, in my opinion, Ginsburg and Breyer seem to have picked a strange basis for their observation if the subtext of it was meant to invite Justice Kennedy to candidly evaluate whether the premises he offered for that conclusion have borne out in reality.  Thoughts/agree/disagree?

	________________________________
	Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
	Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.
	One Thomas Circle, NW
	Washington, DC 20005
	(202) 862-7836
	www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock
	*also admitted to practice in CA

	From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
	Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:16 PM
	To: law-election at uci.edu
	Subject: [EL] Truth to power?

	“Justice Ginsburg is ready to speak truth to power, I argue in this Slate commentary published on President’s Day”

	Umm, Justice Ginsburg is a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. She is power. Truth? What truth was there in her little Western Tradition Partnership concurrence? Didn’t she just offer an opinion, slandering both donors and candidates, without any facts at all? Traditionally, when we say one is speaking truth to power, we think of one taking a courageous stand that will impose on them real personal costs. What courage is there in sheepishly following conventional wisdom, with no examination of the facts, on campaign finance, to align oneself with the New York Times and the Washington Post and all the organs of power that will sing your accolades? And what would Justice Ginsburg’s position do, if adopted? It would increase the power of her employer, the Federal government, and decrease the First Amendment freedoms of American citizens. 

	If that’s called speaking truth to power, give me some lies. 

	Bradley A. Smith

	Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault 

	  Designated Professor of Law

	Capital University Law School

	303 East Broad Street

	Columbus, OH 43215

	(614) 236-6317

	bsmith at law.capital.edu

	http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp

	From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
	Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:05 AM
	To: law-election at uci.edu
	Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/21/12

	ICYMI: Dems May Exaggerate Voter ID Effects, But Laws Should Still Be Opposed <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30264>  

	Posted on February 21, 2012 7:59 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30264>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	Last week, Yale University Press released a sneak preview from my forthcoming book, The Voting Wars <http://amzn.to/y22ZTv> .  The preview is The Fraudulent Fraud Squad: Understanding the Battle Over Voter ID <http://www.amazon.com/Fraudulent-Fraud-Squad-Understanding-ebook/dp/B00795X5XI/ref=zg_bs_157417011_9> .

	In connection with the release, I wrote two blog posts:

	How many voters actually deterred by new Republican voting laws? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29665> 

	and

	Why Tough State Voter ID Laws Should Be Opposed—Even If Effects of Law on Turnout May Be Small and Claims Exaggerated <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30177> .

	Jonathan Adler discussed <http://volokh.com/2012/02/18/for-and-against-voter-id-exaggeration-all-around/>  the chapter on Volokh, and there are now 178 comments posted—many of which illustrate the intensity of partisan feeling in The Voting Wars.  Similarly, there are 78 strong comments to Eric Black’s MinnPost article <http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/02/whos-and-against-voter-photo-id-and-why> on my chapter.

	  <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30264&title=ICYMI%3A%20Dems%20May%20Exaggerate%20Voter%20ID%20Effects%2C%20But%20Laws%20Should%20Still%20Be%20Opposed&description=> 

	Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> , fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8> , The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> , voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>  | Comments Off 

	ICYMI: Occupy the Super PACs <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30262>  

	Posted on February 21, 2012 7:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30262>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	Justice Ginsburg is ready to speak truth to power, I argue in this Slate commentary <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/02/justice_ruth_bader_ginsburg_is_ready_to_speak_out_on_the_danger_of_super_pacs_.html?wpisrc=slate_river>  published on President’s Day.

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30262&title=ICYMI%3A%20Occupy%20the%20Super%20PACs&description=> 

	Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off 

	“Voter ID coming to North Carolina?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30260>  

	Posted on February 21, 2012 7:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30260>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	The latest <http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/02/voter-id-coming-to-north-carolina.html>  from Facing South.

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30260&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20ID%20coming%20to%20North%20Carolina%3F%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> , The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> , voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>  | Comments Off 

	“WISCONSIN SUED OVER RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY VOTER LAW” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30258>  

	Posted on February 21, 2012 7:45 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30258>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	The following press release arrived via email:

		WISCONSIN SUED OVER RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY VOTER LAW

		FIRST SUIT TO SPECIFICALLY CHARGE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

		 78 PERCENT OF YOUNG BLACK MEN COULD BE BARRED FROM THE POLLS

		 Milwaukee, WI –   Advancement Project, joined by the League of Young Voters and the Milwaukee Area Labor Council, will file the first lawsuit based on a claim of racial discrimination against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and members of the Government Accountability Board charging that a newly enacted restrictive voter identification law specifically discriminates against African American and Latino voters.

		 The lawsuit, to be filed Thursday February 23, challenges Wisconsin Act 23 under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits the institution of any electoral procedures that deny or abridge the rights of citizens to vote on account of race or color.

		 “This law is a part of the largest legislative effort to turn back the clock on voting rights in our nation in over a century and shows how essential the Voting Rights Act is to allow all Americans their right to vote,” states Advancement Project co director Judith Browne Dianis, one of the nation’s leading civil rights litigators. “If this bill is allowed to stand it will undermine the basic fabric of our nation’s democracy.”

		Studies in Wisconsin have confirmed that racial minorities, especially African American and Latino voters, are far less likely to have a Wisconsin-issued ID, finding that roughly half of the state’s African Americans and Latinos lack a valid driver’s license.  Specifically, a 2005 study determined that 55% of Black males and 46% of Hispanic males – as compared with only 16% of white males – lack a driver’s license.  Among females, 49% of African Americans and 59% of Latinas lacked a driver’s license as compared to 17% of Whites.

		 When age and race are considered together, the disparities become far more pronounced: an astounding 78% of African-American males (as compared with 36% of White males) aged 18-24 lack a driver’s license, and 66% of African-American females (as compared with 25% of White females) aged 18-24 lack a driver’s license.  The study also found a disparate impact on Latino voters:  57% of young Latino males age 18-24 lack a driver’s license, as compared to 36% of White males age 18-24.

		 One of the lead plaintiffs is Bettye Jones, 77, who was born at home in Tennessee and had no birth certificate filed of her birth. She has voted in every election since 1956 and advocated as a civil rights activist for the Voting Rights Act.  Despite being a registered voter, and having a valid and current ID from another state, she will not be allowed to vote. She has tried in vain to get a voter ID and will be disenfranchised in April’s primary elections as a result.

		 Wisconsin’s law, the strictest voter identification law in the nation, requires citizens to present limited forms of current, government-issued photo identification before receiving a ballot.  Commonly held forms of identification like state or federal employee IDs, veterans’ cards, most college and university identification cards, and out-of-state or expired driver’s licenses are not allowed. 

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30258&title=%E2%80%9CWISCONSIN%20SUED%20OVER%20RACIALLY%20DISCRIMINATORY%20VOTER%20LAW%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> , voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> , Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>  | Comments Off 

	“Ending secret money in politics” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30255>  

	Posted on February 21, 2012 7:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30255>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	A WaPo editorial. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ending-secret-money-in-politics/2012/02/16/gIQAOIq5NR_story.html> 

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30255&title=%E2%80%9CEnding%20secret%20money%20in%20politics%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off 

	“The Other Side of Inaccuracy: More Than 50 Million Unregistered” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30253>  

	Posted on February 21, 2012 7:40 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30253>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	A ChapinBlog. <http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/peea/2012/02/the_other_side_of_inaccuracy_m.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HHHElections+%28Program+for+Excellence+in+Election+Administration%29> 

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30253&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Other%20Side%20of%20Inaccuracy%3A%20More%20Than%2050%20Million%20Unregistered%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> , voter registration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>  | Comments Off 

	“Romney Benefits From Campaign, SuperPAC Funds” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30249>  

	Posted on February 21, 2012 7:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30249>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	Peter Overby reports <http://www.npr.org/2012/02/21/147176912/romney-outspends-gop-field-combined-in-january>  for NPR.

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30249&title=%E2%80%9CRomney%20Benefits%20From%20Campaign%2C%20SuperPAC%20Funds%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off 

	“Billionaire Sheldon Adelson Says He Might Give $100M To Newt Gingrich Or Other Republican” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30247>  

	Posted on February 21, 2012 7:31 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30247>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	Wow. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/02/21/billionaire-sheldon-adelson-says-he-might-give-100m-to-newt-gingrich-or-other-republican/> 

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30247&title=%E2%80%9CBillionaire%20Sheldon%20Adelson%20Says%20He%20Might%20Give%20%24100M%20To%20Newt%20Gingrich%20Or%20Other%20Republican%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off 

	Santorum Gets a Second Super PAC Angel <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30244>  

	Posted on February 20, 2012 8:35 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30244>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	Politico reports <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73095.html> .  Thought experiment: what would the Republican campaign look like if we could still enforce the $5,000 individual contribution limit on PACS, if corporate and labor union treasury funds could not go into PACs, and if contributions to 527s remained under a legal cloud?

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30244&title=Santorum%20Gets%20a%20Second%20Super%20PAC%20Angel&description=> 

	Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off 

	“Super PACs dominating Republican presidential race” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30237>  

	Posted on February 20, 2012 8:27 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30237>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	Okay, I’m overusing “must-read” today, but you must read Dan Eggen <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/super-pacs-dominating-republican-presidential-race/2012/02/20/gIQANOaGQR_story.html> : “Super PACs and other groups dominated the race for the Republican presidential nomination last month, raising and spending tens of millions of dollars outside the traditional campaign system and playing a key role in extending an already tumultuous contest, according to new disclosures filed Monday.”

	And more Eggen <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/2012/02/20/gIQAGxoJQR_blog.html> :”Now we know why some Obama supporters may have been so panicked: Priorities USA Action, the main pro-Obama super PAC, raised just $58,815.83 in January, according to a report filed late Monday <http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00495861/767177/> with the Federal Election Commission.”

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30237&title=%E2%80%9CSuper%20PACs%20dominating%20Republican%20presidential%20race%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off 

	“Financial disclosures show power of super PACs” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30235>  

	Posted on February 20, 2012 8:25 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30235>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	Great USA Today piece <http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-20/filings-presidential-race-money/53180872/1> by Fredreka Schouten.  Clearly, the campaign finance beat reporters did not take President’s Day off.

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30235&title=%E2%80%9CFinancial%20disclosures%20show%20power%20of%20super%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off 

	“Conservatives push a ‘legal assault’ on the Voting Rights Act” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30232>  

	Posted on February 20, 2012 8:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30232>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	This item <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/20/1063208/-Conservatives-push-a-legal-assault-on-the-Voting-Rights-nbsp-Act-> appears at Daily Kos.

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30232&title=%E2%80%9CConservatives%20push%20a%20%E2%80%98legal%20assault%E2%80%99%20on%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> , Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>  | Comments Off 

	“Study: Negative campaign ads much more frequent, vicious than in primaries past” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30229>  

	Posted on February 20, 2012 8:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30229>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	Must read Farnam analysis <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/study-negative-campaign-ads-much-more-frequent-vicious-than-in-primaries-past/2012/02/14/gIQAR7ifPR_story.html>  in WaPo.  And the evidence bears out the anecdotal reporting that Super PACs go more negative because they are unaccountable: “Data show that super PACs, which have run more advertising than the campaigns themselves, have spent 72 percent of their money on negative ads. The figure for campaigns is 27 percent, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from Kantar Media/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks television advertising across the country. (For this article, ads were considered negative if they mentioned another GOP candidate.)”

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30229&title=%E2%80%9CStudy%3A%20Negative%20campaign%20ads%20much%20more%20frequent%2C%20vicious%20than%20in%20primaries%20past%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off 

	“G.O.P. Campaigns Grow More Dependent on ‘Super PAC’ Aid” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30227>  

	Posted on February 20, 2012 8:16 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30227>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	Must read Nick Confessore analysis <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/us/politics/super-pac-role-grows-for-republican-campaigns.html?_r=1&hp>  in the NYT.

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30227&title=%E2%80%9CG.O.P.%20Campaigns%20Grow%20More%20Dependent%20on%20%E2%80%98Super%20PAC%E2%80%99%20Aid%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off 

	“The (Non-)Effects of Campaign Finance Spending Bans on Macro Political Outcomes: Evidence From the States” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30222>  

	Posted on February 20, 2012 12:25 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30222>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	Ray La Raja and Brian Schaffner have uploaded this important draft paper <http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/laraja_schaffner_spendingbans.pdf> .  Here is the abstract:

		This paper seeks to understand the effect of campaign finance laws on electoral and policy Spurred by the recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which bans on corporate and union political spending, the study focuses on whether such bans generate consequences notably different from an electoral system that lacks such bans. We observe three key outcomes: partisan control of government, incumbent reelection rates and corporate tax burdens. Using historical data on regulations in 49 American states between 1935 and 2009 we test alternative models for evaluating the impact of corporate and union spending bans put in place during this period. The results indicate that spending bans appear to have limited, if any, effect on these outcomes.

	I very much look forward to reading this paper!  Note that the paper attempts to measure the effects of spending on electoral outcomes, not legislative outcomes (and the latter in my view is a bigger problem).

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30222&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20%28Non-%29Effects%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Spending%20Bans%20on%20Macro%20Political%20Outcomes%3A%20Evidence%20From%20the%20States%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off 

	“Racism alleged in voter ID campaign” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30220>  

	Posted on February 20, 2012 12:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30220>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

	MPR reports <http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2012/02/racism_alleged.shtml> .

	 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30220&title=%E2%80%9CRacism%20alleged%20in%20voter%20ID%20campaign%E2%80%9D&description=> 

	Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> , The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> , voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>  | Comments Off 

	-- 
	Rick Hasen
	Chancellor's 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
	http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
	http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/> 

	<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document. <--> 

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

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein. 

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<-->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120221/2a4c3110/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120221/2a4c3110/attachment.png>