[EL] nonprofit sham political committees

[Jim Lamb]

I'm not sure that just settling the case is an admission of anything other than ... it's cheaper to just pay something than to fight the government. Did ACT or Swiftboats admit they were political committees under the vague laws restricting independent speech at the time? And after Speechunited, everything these groups did was perfectly legal. I wonder if the government will give them a refund of the unfair penalty?

From: Roy Schotland [mailto:schotlan at law.georgetown.edu]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 02:39 PM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; JBoppjr at aol.com <JBoppjr at aol.com>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] nonprofit sham political committees

Tiny question of fact:
Rick valuably notes the 2-3 years needed in the below matters.  If anyone has easily at hand-- For How Much Spending, in $$, was each of the three fined?                    Roy
(If that's already been noted in the exchange, pls forgive this email.)

Jim,
I was referring to political committees which try to use nonprofit tax code provisions to pretend they are not really political committees.  Consider these groups which were determined by the FEC to have violated federal law during the 2004 cycle.  ACT paid a $775,000 fine (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/20070829act.shtml).  SwiftVets paid a $299,500 fine (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20061213murs.html).  Club for Growth paid a $350,000 fine (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/20070905cfg.shtml).

Note that these fines were all paid in 2006 and 2007 for political activity in 2004.

Just a cost of doing business.




On 7/29/2012 7:46 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
Rick comments in article below:

Nonprofits could always gamble that the slow-moving IRS and gridlocked FEC won’t target them even if they flout the law. And if they’re caught, the blowback would be relatively minimal when compared with the potential for political gain, says Rick Hasen,

It is apparent by this statement that Rick has no real contact with people who run nonprofits.  My experience with nonprofits is that the people who run them bend over backwards to make sure they comply with the law. And when the line is vague -- which the IRS insists on and the reformers try to create in campaign finance -- nonprofits stay even further from the line.  This includes both conservative nonprofits that I represent and liberal ones that I have observed.  There are many good reasons for this, if anyone doubts it.

In cases like this, when someone is so willing to ascribe evil motives to people that don't even know and have no real familiarity with, I wonder if the observer (Rick) is just engaging in projection,
Click here: Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection> , which actually reveals much more about the observer that the observed.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 7/27/2012 12:26:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> writes:


“Karl Rove’s Catch-22″<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37629>
Posted on July 27, 2012 9:24 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37629> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Must-read<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/karl-rove-crossroads-gps-dark-money-disclosure> Andy Kroll on the effects of the Van Hollen<http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20120727_VanHollen_v_FEC.shtml> ruling:

Crossroads GPS spokesman Jonathan Collegio declined to say if and how his group’s strategy would change. “Crossroads is aware of the key dates, and closely follows all law and regulations that govern the process,” he said in an email.

An official at Americans for Prosperity, the conservative nonprofit founded<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer> by David Koch, says AFP brass have met multiple times to discuss how to tweak the group’s ad strategy. One option that’s been discussed is ramping up the group’s online advertising, which isn’t affected by the beefed-up disclosure rule. The staffer stressed that any option forcing AFP to name its donors is off the table. The staffer added, however, that AFP would not go dark on the airwaves in the run-up to the November elections: “We’re going to continue to be on the air and continue to follow the law, and we’re gonna protect the identity of our donors.”

Nonprofits could always gamble that the slow-moving IRS and gridlocked FEC won’t target them even if they flout the law. And if they’re caught, the blowback would be relatively minimal when compared with the potential for political gain, says Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine. It’s unlikely that the IRS or FEC would crack down on lawbreakers before Election Day. And if a group got slapped with a six- or seven-figure fine after the election, or had to shut down, that’s hardly the end of the world, Hasen says. “If a nonprofit has to sacrifice its name and pay a fee,” he says, “and it helps keep the House, win back the Senate, and take back the White House, that’s a small price to pay.”

For more background, see my Slate piece from May, Is Campaign Disclosure Heading Back to the Supreme Court? Don’t expect to see Karl Rove’s Rolodex just yet.<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/05/don_t_get_too_excited_about_promises_of_imminent_campaign_finance_disclosure__1.html>

[X.MA1.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37629&title=%E2%80%9CKarl%20Rove%E2%80%99s%20Catch-22%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law and election law<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
“Election official could be pivotal in battleground Colorado”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37626>
Posted on July 27, 2012 9:18 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37626> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Must-read<http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/27/12991424-election-official-could-be-pivotal-in-battleground-colorado#.UBK3Tifzldo.twitter> Tom Curry story for NBC News: “Scott Gessler isn’t a household name in national politics, but could become famous in a hurry, just as Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris did during the 2000 presidential recount.”

[X.MA2.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37626&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20official%20could%20be%20pivotal%20in%20battleground%20Colorado%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in conflict of interest laws<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
“Thanks, Citizens United, for This Campaign Finance Mess We’re In”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37621>
Posted on July 27, 2012 9:14 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37621> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Adam Skaggs writes<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/thanks-citizens-united-for-this-campaign-finance-mess-were-in/260389/> for The Atlantic.

[X.MA3.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37621&title=%E2%80%9CThanks%2C%20Citizens%20United%2C%20for%20This%20Campaign%20Finance%20Mess%20We%E2%80%99re%20In%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“FEC Statement on Van Hollen v. FEC”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37618>
Posted on July 27, 2012 9:11 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37618> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

FEC Press Release<http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20120727_VanHollen_v_FEC.shtml>

On March 30, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in Van Hollen v. FEC, Civ. No. 11-0766 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2012), found that the Commission regulation at 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9) is invalid.  That regulation, which was adopted in 2007 and governed electioneering communications by corporations and labor organizations, required that their donors be disclosed only if their donations were “made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.”  The district court found that this limitation on disclosure contravened Congress’s intent and noted that the Commission’s pre-2007 regulation “did not add an intent requirement.”  Van Hollen, No. 11-0766, slip. op. at 25 n.8 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2012).  On April 27, 2012, the district court vacated the regulation at 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9) and reinstated the Commission’s prior regulation at 104.20(c), which was promulgated on December 17, 2002 and was in effect until December 25, 2007.  Van Hollen, Civ. No. 11-0766 (D.D.C. Apr. 27, 2012).

Both the district court, in its April 27 ruling, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Van Hollen, No. 12-5117 (D.C. Cir. May 14, 2012), denied motions by defendant-intervenors Center for Individual Freedom and Hispanic Leadership Fund to stay the district court’s order pending appeal.<http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20120727_VanHollen_v_FEC.shtml#_ftn1>1

The Commission is providing this public statement outlining how it will comply with the district court’s opinion and order pending the appeal of the case:…

:

[X.MA4.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37618&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Statement%20on%20Van%20Hollen%20v.%20FEC%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
“Texas Senate race attracts $13 million in super PAC spending”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37616>
Posted on July 27, 2012 9:09 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37616> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

iWatch<http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/07/27/10321/texas-senate-race-attracts-13-million-super-pac-spending>: “Tuesday’s Republican runoff for U.S. Senate in Texas is the most expensive congressional race this election, thanks largely to super PACs supporting the underdog tea party candidate over the far-better funded favorite.”

[X.MA5.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37616&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Senate%20race%20attracts%20%2413%20million%20in%20super%20PAC%20spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“Obama raises millions for 2012 campaign within spitting distance of White House”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37614>
Posted on July 27, 2012 9:08 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37614> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo reports<http://www.washingtonpost.com/obama-raises-millions-for-2012-campaign-within-spitting-distance-of-white-house/2012/07/26/gJQAbkdeBX_story.html>.

[X.MA6.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37614&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20raises%20millions%20for%202012%20campaign%20within%20spitting%20distance%20of%20White%20House%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“Kris Kobach Credits ACORN Hysteria With GOP-Led Voter ID Renaissance (VIDEO)”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37609>
Posted on July 26, 2012 4:03 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37609> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

TPM reports<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/kris_kobach_credits_acorn_coverage_for_voter_id_push_video.php>.

[X.MA7.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37609&title=%E2%80%9CKris%20Kobach%20Credits%20ACORN%20Hysteria%20With%20GOP-Led%20Voter%20ID%20Renaissance%20%28VIDEO%29%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
The Problem of Pollworker Discretion in Implementing PA’s Voter ID Law<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37605>
Posted on July 26, 2012 3:13 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37605> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

One of the themes 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> is that it is dangerous when we give people charged with running our election lots of discretion for interpreting rules for who can vote, etc., because inevitably subconscious biases and ideas can sneak in.  I talk about that a lot when it comes to my recounting of the Florida 2000 debacle.  It happened when county canvassing boards were deciding whether or not to count votes for Gore, Bush or neither. It happened when local election officials decided whether or not to use a faulty voter purge list prepared by the state by DBT.  (It also happened when the Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, and the Democratic Attorney General, Bob Butterworth, gave conflicting interpretations of Florida statutory provisions governing the election protest period.)

I was reminded of that when I read this portion of the ACLU-PA’s recap <http://www.aclupa.blogspot.com/2012/07/voter-id-day-two-statistically-speaking.html> of today’s testimony in the voter id trial, raising an issue wholly apart from the question of how many people don’t have the right i.d. or the right documents to get that i.d.:

A buzz-word of the day, “substantial conformity” is the term PA’s voter ID statue applies to the similarity between a voter’s name on his or her photo ID and the name that appears on state election rolls. The legislature included no definition nor criteria for this term, and Ms. Oyler testified that, while the Department of State may issue recommendations to the county boards of election, those recommendations would be non-binding. Ultimately, the question of substantial conformity, and the decision as to whether two names match – say, for example “James Smith” and “Jim Smith” – will be left to those individual boards of elections, and ultimately to the individual poll workers.

Leaving such a subjective determination in the hands of so many individuals raises significant questions. Substantive differences in name are not uncommon – particularly for recently-married women, who are likely to have obtained a new driver’s license, but highly unlikely to have updated the election rolls. Voters whose ID is rejected would have the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot, but as they will have only six days to order and obtain a corrected ID card, the odds that their vote will be counted are slim. In his testimony, Baretto remarked that any voter who has an ID with a name that is not an exact match with his or her name on the voting rolls is “at risk” come election day.
A similar problem confronts the voter ID law’s provision for “indigent” voters. According to the law, voters who are “indigent” are permitted to bypass ID requirements and instead complete a special form, which must be submitted to the county board of elections to accompany their provisional ballot. Once again, however, lawmakers failed to define “indigent,” and so it is left to the county boards of elections, and ultimately to the discretion of individual poll workers, to decide who is indigent and who is not – as well as to decide whether to provide the indigent voter form on-site at the polling place, or to require the voter to visit county election headquarters to obtain the form.
In short, under PA’s new laws you’re not only handing that poll worker your photo ID card – you’re also handing over unprecedented authority over whether or not you can vote. Try to smile.
 This alone raises some serious federal constitutional questions about vagueness, due process, and impermissible discretion, issues which were not addressed in the U.S. supreme Court’s Crawford case.
[X.MA8.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37605&title=The%20Problem%20of%20Pollworker%20Discretion%20in%20Implementing%20PA%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20ID%20Law&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
“Embattled postal service faces challenge on Election Day”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37602>
Posted on July 26, 2012 2:38 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37602> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NBC News reports<http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/26/12973525-embattled-postal-service-faces-challenge-on-election-day#.UBG4QEJh9rw.twitter>.

[X.MA9.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37602&title=%E2%80%9CEmbattled%20postal%20service%20faces%20challenge%20on%20Election%20Day%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments Off
“Electoral College tie possible in Obama-Romney race”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37599>
Posted on July 26, 2012 2:29 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37599> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CNN reports<http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/politics/electoral-college-tie/index.html>.

[X.MA10.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37599&title=%E2%80%9CElectoral%20College%20tie%20possible%20in%20Obama-Romney%20race%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, electoral college<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44> | Comments Off
“Gessler’s proposed changes to election rules draw heated objections; Democratic legislators say Gessler has gone too far, is writing law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37595>
Posted on July 26, 2012 2:25 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37595> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Colorado Independent<http://coloradoindependent.com/124016/gesslers-proposed-changes-to-election-rules-draw-heated-objections>: “Over the course of a five-hour rulemaking hearing Monday, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler probably got the message that a lot of people are unhappy with proposed rules that would stop county clerks from mailing ballots to inactive voters in some elections, change the way canvass boards are selected and give county clerks more power to determine how much access election watchers have.”

[X.MA11.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37595&title=%E2%80%9CGessler%E2%80%99s%20proposed%20changes%20to%20election%20rules%20draw%20heated%20objections%3B%20Democratic%20legislators%20say%20Gessler%20has%20gone%20too%20far%2C%20is%20writing%20law%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
Bundlers<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37592>
Posted on July 26, 2012 2:23 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37592> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Public Citizen Releases Updated ‘White House For Sale’ Website to Track Bundlers<http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=3676>

More Romney Bundlers are Identified <http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/07/more-romney-bundlers-are-identified.html> (Open Secrets)

Clinton Allies, Politicians, Among Obama’s New Bundlers<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/07/obama-campaign-releases-new-bundler.html> (Open Secrets)

[X.MA12.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37592&title=Bundlers&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“‘The Debate is Over’: FL’s ‘Non-Citizen’ Voter Purge Has Been a Spectacular, Disenfranchising Failure”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37590>
Posted on July 26, 2012 2:20 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37590> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

If you can get past the hyperbole and breathlessness, this Brad Blog post<http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9412> offers some important factual correctives (many from sunshine act requests) about the Florida voter purge.  Bottom line: very few non-citizens removed from rolls and very little proof of non-citizen voting in Florida, despite claims<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37015> to the contrary.

[X.MA13.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37590&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98The%20Debate%20is%20Over%E2%80%99%3A%20FL%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98Non-Citizen%E2%80%99%20Voter%20Purge%20Has%20Been%20a%20Spectacular%2C%20Disenfranchising%20Failure%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>, voter registration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37> | Comments Off
“Scalia Defends ‘Citizens United,’ Arizona Immigration Decision”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37588>
Posted on July 26, 2012 2:13 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37588> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Tony Mauro reports<http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/07/scalia-defends-citizens-united-arizona-immigration-decision.html> for BLT.

[X.MA14.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37588&title=%E2%80%9CScalia%20Defends%20%E2%80%98Citizens%20United%2C%E2%80%99%20Arizona%20Immigration%20Decision%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
“State ballot measures — the name game”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37586>
Posted on July 26, 2012 2:13 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37586> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bill McGeveran and Myron Orfield have written this oped<http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/163781496.html?refer=y> in the Star-Tribune.

[X.MA15.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37586&title=%E2%80%9CState%20ballot%20measures%20%E2%80%94%20the%20name%20game%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in direct democracy<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments Off
“Washington State partners with Microsoft and Facebook; Facebook voter registration app set to launch soon”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37583>
Posted on July 26, 2012 10:29 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37583> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

That’s the lead story in this week’s Electionline Weekly.<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>

[X.MA16.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37583&title=%E2%80%9CWashington%20State%20partners%20with%20Microsoft%20and%20Facebook%3B%20Facebook%20voter%20registration%20app%20set%20to%20launch%20soon%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voter registration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>, voting technology<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40> | Comments Off
“Pennsylvania Governor Can’t Recall Requirements Of Voter ID Law He Signed”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37580>
Posted on July 26, 2012 10:22 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37580> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

TPM reports<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/pennsylvania_voter_id_law_tom_corbett.php?ref=fpnewsfeed>.

[X.MA17.1343573184 at aol.com]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37580&title=%E2%80%9CPennsylvania%20Governor%20Can%E2%80%99t%20Recall%20Requirements%20Of%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20He%20Signed%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org<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<http://electionlawblog.org/>
Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
www.thevotingwars.com<http://www.thevotingwars.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120729/9e4ecc38/attachment.html>