[EL] Illinois Eliminates Contribution Limits when Super PACs spend
Dan Johnson
dan at kchrlaw.com
Thu Jul 12 13:53:08 PDT 2012
These contribution limits in Illinois were implemented after then-Governor
Blagojevich was indicted, impeached and convicted for, among other things,
allegedly shaking down hospital executives and owners of road construction
companies for five- and six-figure contributions as an inducement for
official government action (payment to a children's hospital and a large
tollway expansion project, respectively).
The legislators who imposed these contribution limits from contractors to
elected officials who personally procure these contracts then reluctantly
reversed them universally blamed the Supreme Court 5 for the unfortunate
and clear result of an easier opportunity for corruption to occur in the
relationship between large contributions and official government action.
I wonder whether, if the dominos do fall and other states are compelled by
the Supreme Court's action to eliminate anti-corruption measures like the
post-Blagojevich contribution limits will put any pressure on the finding
that -- as a matter of law -- the government's anti-corruption rationale is
not appropriately applied towards limits on independent expenditures.
More than one Illinois legislator said when witnesses asked then not to
roll back these laws with a clear anti-corruption rationale: "Bring it up
with John Roberts."
Dan
P.S. Query for better First Amendment lawyers than I: can state legislative
history changing state laws as a direct result of Citizens United be used
in future litigation to demonstrate a potentially unintended consequence of
CU? In other words, is it appropriate for a future Supreme Court (or lower
court) to reconsider whether the anti-corruption argument for limiting
independent expenditures can be resurrected, given the
directly-attributable rollback of laws that are clearly based and
constitutionally-authorized on an anti-corruption rationale?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:14 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
> **
> Click here: Illinois Issues blog: New law could roll back some limits on
> campaign money<http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/new-law-could-roll-back-some-limits-on.html>
>
> This is just the first domino to fall. Low contribution limits have
> distorted the system, maded it less transparent and accountable, and
> rendered candidates increasingly irrelevant. The only solution is to fix
> the cause of the problem by raising or eliminating contribution limits. It
> is interesting that it is a solid blue state that is the first one to do
> it. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 7/12/2012 1:03:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
> Was Chief Justice Roberts Most Unprincipled in Applying the Doctrine of
> Constitutional Avoidance in the Health Care Case, in NAMUDNO (the Voting
> Rights Act Case) or in Citizens United?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36823>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 9:57 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36823> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> In my initial post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36309>on the health
> care decision, I stated “Once again, the Chief has manipulated the
> doctrine of constitutional avoidance<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1436669>to do what he wanted to do in a high profile, important case.”
>
> I hadn’t had a chance to go back and expand on this issue since I wrote
> that, but Nicholas Rosenkranz’s very smart post<http://electionlawblog.org/cotusreport.com/2012/07/11/roberts-was-wrong-to-apply-the-canon-of-constitutional-avoidance-to-the-mandate/>has prompted me to do so. Rosenkranz persuasively argues that Roberts’ use
> of the avoidance canon in the health care case is not your typical
> application of the canon: rather than apply it, as is typically done, to a
> textual ambiguity (such as to the question whether a ban on “vehicles” in
> the park covers bicycles), the Chief applies to to alternative
> “constitutional characterizations” of an unambiguous law (the health care
> mandate is either an unconstitutional “penalty” or a constitutional “tax”).
>
> As poor as this analysis is as an application of the avoidance canon, CJ
> Roberts engaged in two worse applications of the canon in recent years. In
> the NAMUDNO <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_322>case,
> considering the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,
> the Court read the Voting Rights Act to allow for a utility district to
> “bail out” from coverage under the Act, an interpretation that the Chief
> Justice advanced to avoid the constitutional question whether section 5 was
> unconstitutional. Unlike the health care case, in *NAMUDNO *the Court
> did confront a question about textual meaning (did the Voting Rights Act
> give the utility district a chance to “bail out” from coverage of the
> act?). But the unprincipled part of the decision was that the textual
> meaning advanced by the Chief Justice was wholly unsupported by the text or
> the legislative history of the Act. I devote about half of my article, *Constitutional
> Avoidance and Anti-Avoidance by the Roberts Court<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1436669>
> *, 2009 Supreme Court Review 181, to demonstrating the truth of this
> assertion. Below the fold, I’ve included an excerpt from my article
> explaining why the district court so thoroughly rejected the argument that
> it should avoid the constitutional question by interpreting the Act to
> allow the utility district to bail out.
>
> As with the taxing power analysis by the Chief in the health care case,
> the bailout analysis in *NAMUDNO *was a total surprise. See Heather
> Gerken, *The Supreme Court Punts on Section 5*,<http://%20balkin.blogspot.com/2009/06/supreme-court-punts-on-section-5.html>Balkinization (June 22, 2009) (“the statutory argument is one that almost
> no one (save Greg Coleman, the lawyer who argued the case and who is now
> entitled to be described as a mad genius) thought was particularly tenable
> because of prior Court opinions.”); Richard L. Hasen, *Sordid Business:
> Will the Supreme Court Kill the Voting Rights Act?* Slate (Apr 27, 2009),
> online at http://www.slate.com/id/2216888/ (“Since there’s no good
> statutory loophole, the larger constitutional question seems unavoidable.”).
>
> And then there’s *Citizens United<http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205>
> *, the well known case in which the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote struck
> down the limits on independent corporate spending in elections.
> Constitutional avoidance was an issue there too. As I explain in my
> article, a week after *NAMUDNO* was issued, the Court announced it would
> not be deciding *Citizens United* by the Court’s summer break as
> scheduled. Instead, the Court set the case for reargument in September
> (before the start of the new Court Term), expressly asking the parties to
> brief the question whether the Court should overturn two of its precedents
> upholding the constitutionality of corporate spending limits in candidate
> elections. The constitutional issue had been abandoned by the law’s
> challengers in the court below and was not even mentioned in the
> challengers’ jurisdictional statement. Moreover, the constitutional
> question could easily be avoided through a plausible interpretation of the
> applicable campaign finance statute. Among other things, the the Court
> could have held that video-on-demand, which requires a cable subscriber to
> choose to download video for viewing, is not a “*broadcast, cable or
> satellite communication* that refers to a candidate for federal office” as
> defined by BCRA.
>
> When the Court finally issued *Citizens United*, Chief Justice Roberts
> issued a separate concurring opinion, the main thrust of which appeared to
> be to justify *not* applying the doctrine of constitutional avoidance.
> He said that the interpretation offered to avoid the constitutional issue
> simply was not a plausible one. “This approach [of the dissent to apply
> avoidance] is based on a false premise: that our practice of avoiding
> unnecessary (and unnecessarily broad) constitutional holdings somehow
> trumps our obligation faithfully to interpret the law. It should go without
> saying, however, that we cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision simply
> because it is narrow; it must also be right.”
>
> In my earlier article, I tried to explain why the Court applied a canon of
> avoidance in NAMUDNO but of anti-avoidance (reach out and decide a
> difficult constitutional question even if there is a plausible statutory
> construction to avoid it) in *Citizens United*. I came up with three
> possible theories: First, the *fruitful dialogue* explanation posits that
> the Court will use constitutional avoidance only when doing so would
> further a dialogue with Congress that has a realistic chance of actually
> avoiding constitutional problems through redrafting. On this reading, the
> Voting Rights Act got “remanded” to Congress because Congress may fix it in
> ways that do not violate the Constitution, but the corporate spending
> limits provision of federal campaign finance law perhaps does not deserve
> remand because the campaign finance laws are not constitutionally fixable.
> Second, the *political legitimacy* explanation posits that the Court uses
> the constitutional avoidance doctrine when it fears that a fullblown
> constitutional pronouncement would harm its legitimacy. Some evidence
> supports this understanding. In the same Term that the Court avoided the
> constitutional question in *NAMUDNO*, it used the same avoidance canon to
> narrowly construe a different provision of the Voting Rights Act in *Bartlett
> v Strickland*, and it applied constitutional avoidance (in deed if not in
> name) to narrowly construe Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in *Ricci
> v DeStefano*, the controversial New Haven firefighters case. Each of
> these cases involved tough questions of race relations whose resolution
> could harm the Court’s legitimacy. In contrast, campaign finance issues are
> much lower salience to the public, and are less likely to arouse the
> passion of interest groups and perhaps the ire of Congress. Third, the *political
> calculus* explanation posits that the Court uses constitutional avoidance
> to soften public and Congressional resistance to the Court’s movement of
> the law in a direction that the Court prefers as a matter of policy.
>
> The Chief Justice’s application of the constitutional avoidance canon in
> the health care case fits with the second and third rationales. The Chief
> could have engaged in the questionable act of avoidance to preserve the
> Court’s legitimacy. Alternatively, as others have suggested he may be
> playing the long game, sacrificing a chance to strike down the health care
> law in order to set new markers on issues including the commerce clause and
> the spending power.
>
> But what these three opinions have in common is the Chief Justice’s
> selective manipulation of the constitutional avoidance doctrine for legal
> and political ends. This does not make the Chief Justice unique as a
> Supreme Court Justice—far from it. But it hardly makes him the neutral
> umpire he fancies himself.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Continue reading → <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36823#more-36823>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36823&title=Was
> Chief Justice Roberts Most Unprincipled in Applying the Doctrine of
> Constitutional Avoidance in the Health Care Case, in NAMUDNO (the Voting
> Rights Act Case) or in Citizens United?&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36823&title=Was%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%20Most%20Unprincipled%20in%20Applying%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Constitutional%20Avoidance%20in%20the%20Health%20Care%20Case%2C%20in%20NAMUDNO%20%28the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Case%29%20or%20in%20Citizens%20United%3F&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, statutory
> interpretation <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
> “Money gap may not matter so much in November”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36820>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 8:55 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36820> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> An important piece,<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-surpasses-obama-in-june-fundraising/2012/07/09/gJQA6RMZYW_story.html>which reaffirms my conviction that the more important role of Super PACs
> and c4s in this election will be about control of the Senate (and
> potentially, though less likely, the House).
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36820&title=“Money
> gap may not matter so much in November†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36820&title=%E2%80%9CMoney%20gap%20may%20not%20matter%20so%20much%20in%20November%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “New Court Challenge Filed Against FEC Restrictions on Corporate PACs”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36817>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 8:49 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36817> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg BNA<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=27295083&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0d3m6w5m2&split=0>:
> “A new court challenge to Federal Election Commission rules for corporate
> political action committees was filed July 10 in federal district court in
> Washington (Stop This Insanity Inc. Employee Leadership Fund v. FEC,
> D.D.C., Civil No. 12-1140, filed 7/10/12). The court filing came after FEC
> deadlocked in March on an advisory opinion request asking whether a
> corporate political action committee (PAC) may solicit unlimited
> contributions to pay for independent campaign expenditures.”
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36817&title=“New
> Court Challenge Filed Against FEC Restrictions on Corporate PACsâ€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36817&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Court%20Challenge%20Filed%20Against%20FEC%20Restrictions%20on%20Corporate%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “Senate Expected to Hold Cloture Vote On Bill to Disclose Political Ad
> Funding” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36815>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 8:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36815> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg BNA<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=27295082&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0d3m6t0v8&split=0>:
> “Reformers say they do not know yet whether they will pick up enough
> Republican votes needed to reach the 60-vote margin for cloture on the
> so-called DISCLOSE Act—or any GOP votes. Every Republican senator who voted
> when it last came up in 2010, voted to block the disclosure legislation.”
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36815&title=“Senate
> Expected to Hold Cloture Vote On Bill to Disclose Political Ad Fundingâ€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36815&title=%E2%80%9CSenate%20Expected%20to%20Hold%20Cloture%20Vote%20On%20Bill%20to%20Disclose%20Political%20Ad%20Funding%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> Breaking News: Senate Will Vote on Cloture for Disclose Act on July 16<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36812>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 11:50 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36812> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> So reports subscription-only Bloomberg BNA’s Money and Politics report, in
> an email alert.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36812&title=Breaking
> News: Senate Will Vote on Cloture for Disclose Act on July 16&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36812&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20Senate%20Will%20Vote%20on%20Cloture%20for%20Disclose%20Act%20on%20July%2016&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “NRSC to Nevada SOS: What happens if Berkley withdraws from the U.S.
> Senate race?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36809>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 11:42 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36809> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jon Ralston reports<http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2012/jul/11/nrsc-nevada-sos-what-happens-if-berkley-withdraws-/>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36809&title=“NRSC
> to Nevada SOS: What happens if Berkley withdraws from the U.S. Senate
> race?†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36809&title=%E2%80%9CNRSC%20to%20Nevada%20SOS%3A%20What%20happens%20if%20Berkley%20withdraws%20from%20the%20U.S.%20Senate%20race%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> | Comments Off
> Understanding Election Fraud Allegations in the Recent Mexican Election<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36807>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 11:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36807> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This post<http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/07/11/post-election-report-ii-revisiting-fraud-and-the-2012-mexican-presidential-election/>at the Monkey Cage is well worth reading.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36807&title=Understanding
> Election Fraud Allegations in the Recent Mexican Election&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36807&title=Understanding%20Election%20Fraud%20Allegations%20in%20the%20Recent%20Mexican%20Election&description=>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments Off
> “Txt 4 Ur Candidate” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36804>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 11:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36804> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ann Ravel, Jared Demarnis and Hyla Wagner have this piece
> <http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/text-donations-to-2012/>at
> NYT’s “Campaign Stops” blog.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36804&title=“Txt
> 4 Ur Candidate†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36804&title=%E2%80%9CTxt%204%20Ur%20Candidate%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “Broadcasters Make Emergency Motion to Block Transparency Rule”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36801>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 11:15 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36801> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> ProPublica reports<http://www.propublica.org/article/broadcasters-make-emergency-motion-to-block-transparency-rule>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36801&title=“Broadcasters
> Make Emergency Motion to Block Transparency Rule†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36801&title=%E2%80%9CBroadcasters%20Make%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Block%20Transparency%20Rule%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “Misleading Data on Outside Spending”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36798>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 11:11 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36798> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jonathan Backer blogs<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-backer/misleading-data-on-outsid_b_1664562.html>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36798&title=“Misleading
> Data on Outside Spending†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36798&title=%E2%80%9CMisleading%20Data%20on%20Outside%20Spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “The ‘CBO Canon’ and the Debate Over Tax Credits on Federally Operated
> Health Insurance Exchanges” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36795>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 10:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36795> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The following is a guest post from Abbe Gluck [cross-posted from
> Balkinization<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/07/cbo-canon-and-debate-over-tax-credits.htmlhttp://>
> ]:
>
> Abbe Gluck
>
> The latest fracas over health reform—the challenge to subsidies for the
> federal exchanges—offers a long-overdue opportunity to think about how
> particular features of modern lawmaking might lead to new interpretive
> presumptions for statutory interpretation. This is the first of series of
> posts in which I will flesh out that idea. Here, I will focus on the role
> of the Congressional Budget Office, and how the “budget score” (the
> budgetary estimate of the effects of legislation) might be a useful tool of
> modern statutory interpretation, and how it sheds light on the current
> debate over the federal exchanges.
>
> In a forthcoming article based on an empirical study of congressional
> drafting (co-authored with Lisa Bressman), we have argued for a new “CBO
> canon”: An interpretive presumption that ambiguities in legislation should
> be construed in the way most consistent with the assumptions underlying the
> congressional budget score on which the initial legislation was based. Both
> our empirical study and numerous articles in the political science and
> popular literature substantiate the notion that Congress now drafts in the
> shadow of the score. In the context of health reform, there was widespread
> reporting to this effect. As just one of many examples, the New York Times
> reported in March 2010: “Democrats have spent more than a year working with
> the nonpartisan budget office… Whenever the budget office judged some
> element or elements of the bill would cause a problem meeting the cost and
> deficit-reduction targets, Democrats just adjusted the underlying
> legislation to make sure it would hit their goal.”
>
> Indeed, I would suggest that the budget score offers better evidence of
> congressional “intent” than other commonly consulted non-textual tools,
> including legislative history. This is because, unlike some types of
> legislative history, the budget score is produced by a nonpartisan office,
> widely publicized, often debated and usually the focus of many members and
> staffers. This gives it indicia of reliability that critics of legislative
> history have often thought lacking for that tool, and yet to my knowledge
> the Court has never used the score to help resolve statutory ambiguities.
>
> This brings us to the most recent ACA-related scuffle. The ACA’s opponents
> have raised a challenge to the IRS’s interpretation that the Act allows
> subsidies not only for those who buy insurance on state-operated exchanges,
> but also for those who live in states with federally-operated exchanges.
> The dispute stems from what was most certainly sloppy drafting in the
> statute—in particular, the separation into two different sections of those
> provisions concerning the state exchanges and those provisions allowing the
> federal government to operate an exchange if states are unwilling or unable
> to do so. (This issue of how courts should construe such hastily-enacted
> and lengthy statutes is another one that we take up in our forthcoming
> article and to which I will return in a future post).
>
> In my view, the overall structure of the Act and its legislative history,
> plus the confirmatory language in the health reform reconciliation bill,
> amply support the IRS’s position. If more is wanting, however, the CBO
> evidence makes it a slam dunk. Throughout the debates and reporting over
> health reform, legislators, the Administration and the media repeatedly
> discussed and debated the ACA’s CBO score, and at all times that score was
> based on the provision of subsidies to all qualifying purchasers on the
> exchanges, regardless of whether those exchanges were operated by the
> states or the federal government. The “CBO canon” clearly supports the
> agency’s interpretation.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36795&title=“The
> ‘CBO Canon’ and the Debate Over Tax Credits on Federally Operated
> Health Insurance Exchanges†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36795&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20%E2%80%98CBO%20Canon%E2%80%99%20and%20the%20Debate%20Over%20Tax%20Credits%20on%20Federally%20Operated%20Health%20Insurance%20Exchanges%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in legislation and legislatures<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,
> statutory interpretation <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21> | Comments
> Off
> Politifact Rates as “Mostly True”: Eric Holder says recent studies show
> 25 percent of African Americans, 8 percent of whites lack government-issued
> photo IDs <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36792>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 9:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36792> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here<http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jul/11/eric-holder/eric-holder-says-recent-studies-show-25-percent-af/>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36792&title=Politifact
> Rates as “Mostly True†: Eric Holder says recent studies show 25 percent
> of African Americans, 8 percent of whites lack government-issued photo
> IDs&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36792&title=Politifact%20Rates%20as%20%E2%80%9CMostly%20True%E2%80%9D%3A%20Eric%20Holder%20says%20recent%20studies%20show%2025%20percent%20of%20African%20Americans%2C%208%20percent%20of%20whites%20lack%20government-issued%20photo%20IDs&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>,
> Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
> Updated Book Tour Information for The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36789>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 8:25 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36789> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here’s the latest version of the schedule<http://thevotingwars.com/book-tour/>(more about the imminent release ofthe book<http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342020278&sr=8-1&keywords=the+voting+wars>at
> thevotingwars.com) <http://thevotingwars.com/>:
> The Voting Wars <http://thevotingwars.com/>
>
> - front page <http://thevotingwars.com/>
> - About the Author <http://thevotingwars.com/about-the-author/>
> - About the Book <http://thevotingwars.com/>
> - Book Tour <http://thevotingwars.com/book-tour/>
> - Endorsements <http://thevotingwars.com/reviews/>
> - Media Coverage <http://thevotingwars.com/media-appearances/>
> - Pre-Order the Book <http://thevotingwars.com/pre-order-the-book/>
> - Reviews <http://thevotingwars.com/reviewsmedia/>
>
> Book Tour
>
> Times/dates are subject to change
>
> *July 2, 630 PM London* (H.S. Chapman Society) (details<http://www.hschapman.org.uk/html/future_programme.html>
> )
>
> *September 10, 12 PM New York City* (Brennan Center for Justice) (details
> to come)
>
> *September 10, 7 PM Washington D.C. *(University of California D.C.
> Center) (details to come)
>
> *September 11, 12 pm Boston *(Harvard Law School – American Constitution
> Society) (details to come)
>
> *September 12, 12 pm Chicago *(Northwestern University Law School –
> American Constitution Society) (details to come)
>
> *September 20, 7 pm Los Angeles *(details to come–part of panel program
> for LA ALOUD)
>
> *October 1, 12 pm, Stanford *(Stanford Law School – American Constitution
> Society) (details to come)
>
> *October 1, 5 pm, UC Berkeley* (UC Berekely Law School – American
> Constitution Society) (details to come)
>
> *October 2, 12 pm, Sacramento* (American Constitution Society (details to
> come)
>
> *October 8, 12 pm, Williamsburg, VA *(William & Mary Law School) (details
> to come)
>
> *October 10, 12 pm, Lexington, KY *(University of Kentucky Law School)
> (details to come)
>
> *October 18, time TBA, Bakersfield, CA* (part of Zocalo panel program)
> (details to come)
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36789&title=Updated
> Book Tour Information for The Voting Wars&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36789&title=Updated%20Book%20Tour%20Information%20for%20The%20Voting%20Wars&description=>
> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments
> Off
> Marilyn Marks Oped on Her Battle With the City of Aspen<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36786>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 8:19 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36786> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here<http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20120711/COLUMN/120719981/1021&parentprofile=1061>.
> More news on the battle here<http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20120711/NEWS/120719984/1077&ParentProfile=1058>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36786&title=Marilyn
> Marks Oped on Her Battle With the City of Aspen&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36786&title=Marilyn%20Marks%20Oped%20on%20Her%20Battle%20With%20the%20City%20of%20Aspen&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments
> Off
> “Romney surging, but Obama well ahead in campaign cash”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36784>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 8:17 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36784> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Sunlight reports.<http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/fundraising-analysis/>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36784&title=“Romney
> surging, but Obama well ahead in campaign cash†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36784&title=%E2%80%9CRomney%20surging%2C%20but%20Obama%20well%20ahead%20in%20campaign%20cash%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> Is Eric Holder Right on Voter ID? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36781>
> Posted on July 11, 2012 8:16 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36781> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I’ve posted some thoughts<http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Richard_Hasen_D882E526-3599-4C82-9A7D-21A65E2C8281.html>over at Politico’s Arena.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36781&title=Is
> Eric Holder Right on Voter ID?&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D36781&title=Is%20Eric%20Holder%20Right%20on%20Voter%20ID%3F&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, fraudulent
> fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, 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
> --
> 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
> Pre-order *The Voting Wars*: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
Dan Johnson
Partner
Korey Cotter Heather Richardson LLC
Two First National Plaza
20 South Clark, Suite 500
Chicago, Illinois 60602
312.867.5377 (office)
312.933.4890 (mobile)
312.794.7064 (fax)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0004.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0005.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0006.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0007.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0008.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cropped-thevotingwars_1000x288.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23307 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0009.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0010.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0011.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0012.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0013.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0014.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/96a5b6ad/attachment-0015.bin>
View list directory