[EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions

Mon Jul 9 09:52:14 PDT 2012

It mainly went to 527s pre-2004. 527 and c4/c6 spending appears to have topped $400 million in both 2004 and 2008. C4 and c6 organizations spent in excess of $200 million in 2008.

I don't think anybody really disputes that there is more corporate spending - it would be quite surprising if there was not, given Citizens United. I think the question is over the level of increase, and in particular the extent to which it is funded by large, publicly traded corporations, as regularly predicted by the reform community and its allies after CU. This appears not to be the case.

In any case, to "set the record straight," the largest source of funds in 2012, by far, will be money from individuals. Meanwhile, it appears likely that spending by c4 and c6 organizations will dramatically equalize overall spending this year between the two major parties.

Meanwhile, as in every election, one party or the other devotes substantial resources to trying to silence its opposition. Which is another reason why CU was correct.

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 12:32 PM
To: Kelner, Robert
Cc: 'law-election at uci.edu'
Subject: Re: [EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions

As I understand it---and please correct me if I'm wrong because you are much closer to how these groups actually operate---before CU, you did not see c4s engaging in much election-related activity, so money going into c4s from corporations did not fund such ads.

See this chart from the Center for Responsive Politics:

[crp data]
On 7/9/12 9:26 AM, Kelner, Robert wrote:
Yes, but the whole line of discussion, to which I was responding, was about how much of this new spending is from Fortune 500 companies. It would be a fallacy to assume that overall increased spending means a significant surge in Fortune 500 spending. There was lots of election year Fortune 500 and corporate spending on c4s and c6s before CU.

From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:18 PM
To: Kelner, Robert
Cc: 'law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>' <law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions

Agreed that it is hard to measure the extent to which it is corporate because of bad disclosure laws, but there is no question that outside spending is going way up this election, both relative to candidate/party spending and in absolute, inflation, adjusted numbers.

On 7/9/12 9:08 AM, Kelner, Robert wrote:
I would add that a critical threshold question here is how different (if at all) corporate donation patterns are during this election cycle as compared to prior cycles. It is almost impossible to analyze this question empirically because of the lack of publicly available data. And BCRA made that challenge even harder by forcing so much corporate money outside the disclosed world of the political parties. But it is certainly the case that Fortune 500 companies spent large sums on undisclosed election year donations to c4s and c6s prior to CU. Just as they do after CU. It is still far from clear that CU has fundamentally changed that dynamic or the scale of such spending.

From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 11:59 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu> <law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions

On Fortune 500 contributions, I predicted soon after CU that it would only blossom if it could be done through committees without full disclosure.  We don't have a picture of how much of this corporate money for election-related activities is going through c4s, c6s (such as the Chamber), and the like, but the recent inadvertent revelations by Aetna suggest the amount of corporate funding is significant.

On 7/9/12 8:45 AM, Smith, Brad 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<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 10:31 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu<mailto: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>

[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.”

[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.”

[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.

[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.

[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>

[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.

[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>.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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>.

[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.”

[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/>

[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.”

[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>

[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>

[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.

[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.

[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 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
www.thevotingwars.com<http://www.thevotingwars.com>

_______________________________________________
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
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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv

--
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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv

--
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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/0efca443/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: outside.png
Type: image/png
Size: 232932 bytes
Desc: outside.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/0efca443/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: ATT00001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/0efca443/attachment-0001.png>