[EL] Oh Eliza

Mon Jul 9 09:10:16 PDT 2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-independent-ads-for-2012-election-are-from-groups-that-dont-disclose-donors/2012/04/24/gIQACKkpfT_print.html

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

>   Re Eliza's column: as Rick notes, the money quote is:
>
>  "it’s time to set the record straight. No matter how you slice it,
> corporations are spending unprecedented sums in this campaign.”
>
>  Unfortunately, Eliza's column proves no such thing. See
> http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2012/07/09/are-corporations-spending-unprecedented-sums-setting-the-record-straight/. But
> I was most pleased to see her also admit that “There’s plenty of room for
> disagreement over whether unrestricted political money helps or hurts
> campaigns... ." I'm not sure I've ever seen that concession from Eliza
> before.
>
>  In any case, the goal of *Citizens United* was to allow greater
> spending, specifically by corporations. We would be shocked if that were
> not occur (especially if we only talk express advocacy to the general
> public, because, after all, that was illegal from 1947-2010). What I think
> is equally clear is that the bogeymen of the reform community - large,
> Fortune 500 companies - have been bit players. Which is also what we
> thought.
>
>  *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> *   Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx*
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen [
> rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 09, 2012 10:31 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/9/12
>
>   “Florida’s System Failure; The state’s effort to purge its voting rolls
> of noncitizens is still in chaos.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36657>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 7:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36657> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Important Dave Wiegel *Slate
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/07/florida_looks_ready_to_repeat_many_of_the_same_mistakes_in_how_it_conducts_its_elections.html>
> *column.<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/07/florida_looks_ready_to_repeat_many_of_the_same_mistakes_in_how_it_conducts_its_elections.html>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36657&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%E2%80%99s%20System%20Failure%3B%20The%20state%E2%80%99s%20effort%20to%20purge%20its%20voting%20rolls%20of%20noncitizens%20is%20still%20in%20chaos.%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>  Jeffrey Rosen on Blogification of the Judiciary<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36654>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 7:19 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36654> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Rosen <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78205.html>. “It’s not
> just lower court judges on the right who now ridicule Supreme Court
> precedents ― judges on the left are equally assertive. Consider the recent
> Montana campaign finance case, which the Supreme Court reversed.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36654&title=Jeffrey%20Rosen%20on%20Blogification%20of%20the%20Judiciary&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
>  “Rules of the Game: Debate Over Corporate Spending Spans Parallel
> Universes” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36651>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 7:14 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36651> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Eliza<http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_1/Rules-of-the-Game-Debate-Over-Corporate-Spending-Spans-Parallel-Universes-215927-1.html?pos=hftxt>:
> “There’s plenty of room for disagreement over whether unrestricted
> political money helps or hurts campaigns and whether fixes such as full
> disclosure would work. But when starting points differ so wildly, it’s time
> to set the record straight. No matter how you slice it, corporations are
> spending unprecedented sums in this campaign.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36651&title=%E2%80%9CRules%20of%20the%20Game%3A%20Debate%20Over%20Corporate%20Spending%20Spans%20Parallel%20Universes%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>  “Making Sense of Chief Justice Roberts’ Opinion”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36648>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 7:08 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36648> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jonathan Adler<http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/09/making-sense-of-chief-justice-roberts-opinion/>makes a lot of sense: “I can’t speak to how the Chief Justice interacted
> with his colleagues on the Court during the deliberations in *NFIB v.
> Sebelius*, or to whether he truly flip-flopped on the mandate or (as Mark
> Tushnet suggests) he had been the “least persuaded”<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/07/my-view-on-drafting-nfib.html>of the anti-mandate arguments at the initial conference and eventually
> concluded<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/07/reasons-for-thinking-that-law-mattered.html>that it could be upheld. I do, however, think many of the Chief Justice’s
> critics have failed to recognize how this opinion fits with what we’ve seen
> from the Chief in his first several years of the Court. Specifically, I
> believe we can explain Roberts’ vote in a way that is quite consistent with
> his behavior in other cases and that does not require ascribing political
> motives to him. While I am not persuaded by Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion,
> I believe it squares with his overall jurisprudential approach for reasons
> I first noted here<http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/lose-the-battle-win-the-war/>and
> here<http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/05/the-unprecedented-uniqueness-of-chief-justice-roberts-opinion/#comment-577410074>,
> and will elaborate upon in this post….A second example can be found in Jeff
> Toobin’s behind-the-scenes account<http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/14/jeffrey-toobin-on-citizens-united/>of
> *Citizens United*. There, Toobin reports, the Chief drafted an opinion
> that would have stretched the statute to exclude covering CU’s video,
> thereby avoiding the larger First Amendment question. While some academics
> and attorneys had advocated this result, few tried to argue that this
> outcome was dictated by the statutory text. In *CU*, as in *NFIB*, it
> turned out Roberts was the only one willing to accept this approach. The
> other conservatives were persuaded by Justice Kennedy to swing for the
> fences, and the Court’s liberals thought a saving construction was
> unnecessary to uphold the statute. After reargument, Roberts joined the
> Kennedy’s opinion invalidating the restrictions, but it appears not to have
> been his preferred course of action.”
>
> Jonathan also mentions the Chief’s opinion in WRTL II.  I’d add NAMUDNO,
> and this makes me think that it was Roberts, not Kennedy, who pushed for
> avoiding the constitutional issue in NAMUDNO as to whether section 5 of the
> Voting Rights Act would stand.
>
> But for reasons I’ve expressed here,<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1436669>I don’t expect the Chief to continue to take that position when the issue
> returns to SCOTUS next term.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36648&title=%E2%80%9CMaking%20Sense%20of%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%E2%80%99%20Opinion%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
>  “Protesters raise cloud of sand as Romney raises $3 million in N.Y.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36646>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 7:05 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36646> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Well worth the read<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-protests-20120709,0,5308609.story>for the choice quotes.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36646&title=%E2%80%9CProtesters%20raise%20cloud%20of%20sand%20as%20Romney%20raises%20%243%20million%20in%20N.Y.%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments
> Off
>  “States’ voter ID laws could disenfranchise thousands in 2012″<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36643>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 6:59 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36643> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports.<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-voter-id-laws-20120709,0,2415732.story>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36643&title=%E2%80%9CStates%E2%80%99%20voter%20ID%20laws%20could%20disenfranchise%20thousands%20in%202012%E2%80%B3&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
>  “Urgency Reigns At Vote-Focused NAACP Convention”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36640>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 6:56 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36640> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Root
> <http://www.theroot.com/buzz/voter-id-laws-take-centerstage-naacp-convention?wpisrc=root_more_news>comments
> on this NPR repor<http://www.npr.org/2012/07/08/156443668/urgency-reigns-at-vote-focused-naacp-convention>
> t.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36640&title=%E2%80%9CUrgency%20Reigns%20At%20Vote-Focused%20NAACP%20Convention%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
>  “Report on Anchorage Ballot Problems Highlights Importance of Turnout to
> Election Planning” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36637>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 6:50 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36637> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> A Chapinblog<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2012/07/report_on_anchorage_ballot_pro.php>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36637&title=%E2%80%9CReport%20on%20Anchorage%20Ballot%20Problems%20Highlights%20Importance%20of%20Turnout%20to%20Election%20Planning%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments
> Off
>  Important Campaign Finance Story in *The Hill* with Misleading Lede<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36635>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 6:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36635> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The article,<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/236569-outside-groups-switch-election-tactics-to-keep-donors-secret>“Outside groups switch election tactics to keep their donors secret,”
> begins: “Outside groups are going to extra lengths to keep their donors
> secret, worrying that public disclosure could open up their supporters to
> harassment.”
>
> The Hill has bought into the unsupported harassment nonsense<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76919.html>.
> Better lede would have said “publicly claiming to worry that public
> disclosure could open up their supporters to harassment.”
>
> Still, the article is worth reading to look at the lengths corporations
> and others will go to to have speech, but no accountability.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36635&title=Important%20Campaign%20Finance%20Story%20in%20%3Ci%3EThe%20Hill%3C%2Fi%3E%20with%20Misleading%20Lede&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>  Redistricting Resource: Maps, Maps, Maps<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36633>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 11:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36633> by Justin
> Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Also, another redistricting-related announcement.  PDFs, ESRI shapefiles,
> and Google maps of all of the new federal and state redistricting lines,
> along with links to state pages with more data about the new districts, are
> now available here <http://redistricting.lls.edu/2010districts.php>.
> (All, that is, except the states that aren’t yet done, and Rhode Island,
> which hasn’t yet made shapefiles publicly available.)  For those looking to
> do research on the new lines before the Census turns around new data
> products, this collection of files should help.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36633&title=Redistricting%20Resource%3A%20Maps%2C%20Maps%2C%20Maps&description=>
>  Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments
> Off
>  175th (and 176th) Redistricting Lawsuit Filed<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36631>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 11:14 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36631> by Justin
> Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> That’s right ― 40 states have now seen 176 lawsuits affecting
> redistricting this cycle … so far.  Numbers 173-176 were filed challenging
> the newest Pennsylvania state maps<http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases-PA.php#PA>late last week.  Details on all of the litigation so far,
> here <http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases.php>.
>
> Last cycle <http://redistricting.lls.edu/index.php#2012recap>, there were 149
> cases filed<http://www.senate.mn/departments/scr/redist/redsum2000/redsum2000.htm>,
> and 150 cases <http://www.senate.mn/departments/scr/redist/redout.htm>the cycle before … which makes this cycle the most litigious in at least
> the last 30 years.  And we’re not done yet.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36631&title=175th%20%28and%20176th%29%20Redistricting%20Lawsuit%20Filed&description=>
>  Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments
> Off
>  “Texas Photo-ID Law Vetted for Voter Bias in U.S. Trial”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36627>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 9:35 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36627> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg Businessweek reports<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-09/texas-photo-id-law-vetted-for-voter-bias-in-u-dot-s-dot-trial>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36627&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Photo-ID%20Law%20Vetted%20for%20Voter%20Bias%20in%20U.S.%20Trial%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,
> voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
>  “Editorial: Walking a fine line on voter ID issue”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36623>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 8:39 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36623> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Star-Tribune editorial<http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/161624685.html>:
> “The much-debated voter ID amendment is a potential minefield for
> Minnesota’s top elections official. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s
> opposition to the proposed changes in election law has been well-known for
> years. Yet now that the Legislature has put the issue on the ballot for
> voters, his office must be sure that the referendum is carried out fairly
> and impartially.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36623&title=%E2%80%9CEditorial%3A%20Walking%20a%20fine%20line%20on%20voter%20ID%20issue%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
>  The Second Jan Crawford Inside Dirt on SCOTUS is More Shocking than the
> First <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36620>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 8:28 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36620> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> It was surprising enough to read Jan Crawford’s article<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/>last week detailing how the Chief Justice switched his vote in the health
> care case, much to the dismay of his Republican colleagues.  The article
> set off a a firestorm of sorts among Court watchers about the rare leak of
> internal Court deliberations in real time.
>
> It was clear from the first article that the other conservative Justices
> were angry with Roberts.  But what explains the new story from Crawford?
> Entitled Discord at Supreme Court is Deep, and Personal,
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57468202/discord-at-supreme-court-is-deep-and-personal/>the
> sole point of the additional leaks to Crawford appears to be to emphasize
> the nature of the anger of the other Supreme Court Justices at Roberts.  Is
> the point to intimidate?  As I‘ve said<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76919.html>,
> I find it hard to believe that the Chief Justice could be intimidated by
> anyone to do anything but vote his conscience.  If the point is to signal
> to the Chief that he had better get into line if he wants future
> cooperation from the other Justices, that seems like an idle threat―they
> need his vote to get anything done.
>
> Instead it looks like one or more Justices who remain emotional, and
> cannot move on―at least not yet.  Or else, why talk to Crawford yet again?
>
> UPDATE: More thoughts from Orin Kerr.<http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/08/the-supreme-court-leaks-continue/>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36620&title=The%20Second%20Jan%20Crawford%20Inside%20Dirt%20on%20SCOTUS%20is%20More%20Shocking%20than%20the%20First&description=>
>  Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments
> Off
>  “Democrats to ask for curbs on donor-shielding groups”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36617>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 8:14 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36617> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/politics/democrats-want-fec-to-restrict-donor-shielding-groups.html>:
> “The Democratic Party’s Senate campaign arm will file a formal complaint
> Monday, July 9, with the Federal Election Commission against three of the
> Republicans’ biggest campaign groups, accusing them of willful violations
> of federal election law and asking that their electioneering be stopped.
> The complaint by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee against
> Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, Americans for Prosperity and the
> 60 Plus Association begins a new phase in the Democrats’ struggle to keep
> pace with Republicans since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United
> ruling. That decision cleared the way for unlimited campaign donations to a
> new breed of super PACs from corporations, unions and wealthy contributors.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36617&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20to%20ask%20for%20curbs%20on%20donor-shielding%20groups%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>  Hunter Case Finally Over in Hamilton County, Ohio<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36614>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 8:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36614> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Good news<http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/02/appeal-dropped-in-juvenile-judge-race/>for the parties that it is over. But there are some great uncertainties
> over how wrong precinct ballots cast in Ohio because of pollworker error
> should be counted.  Ohio Sec. of State Husted faces conflicting edicts from
> the state Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit.  An appeal might have helped
> to sort this out.
>
> This is the case Ned Foley had called<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=17829>the “most significant application” of
> *Bush v. Gore*.
>
> I talk about this litigation in some detail in Chapter 5 of The Voting
> Wars.<http://www.amazon.com/Voting-Wars-Florida-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1329286945&sr=1-2-catcorr>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36614&title=Hunter%20Case%20Finally%20Over%20in%20Hamilton%20County%2C%20Ohio&description=>
>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>  “Foes of Voter ID Laws Find Ways to Mute Their Impact”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36611>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 11:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36611> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> National Journal reports.<http://nationaljournal.com/politics/foes-of-voter-id-laws-find-ways-to-mute-their-impact-20120708>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36611&title=%E2%80%9CFoes%20of%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%20Find%20Ways%20to%20Mute%20Their%20Impact%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
>  “Meet the hanging chad of 2012″ <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36608>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 11:15 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36608> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Nate Persily nominates<http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/meet-hanging-chad-2012-article-1.1109962>absentee ballots.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36608&title=%E2%80%9CMeet%20the%20hanging%20chad%20of%202012%E2%80%B3&description=>
>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>  A Great Overview of the Marks-Aspen Battle over Ballot Transparency<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36605>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 11:09 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36605> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here <http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/columnist/153846>, in the
> Aspen Daily News.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36605&title=A%20Great%20Overview%20of%20the%20Marks-Aspen%20Battle%20over%20Ballot%20Transparency&description=>
>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | 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 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
> Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTvwww.thevotingwars.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/409cb4a1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/409cb4a1/attachment.png>