[EL] The Federalist Papers and Anonymity
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Tue Jun 5 18:19:31 PDT 2012
I'd forgotten your point about "government-on-citizen retribution." But
there's no evidence of that, either. All Strassel's got is the fact that
some donor names were mentioned on a /campaign/ website. Of course if
disclosure information has any value to voters, we have to expect that
/campaigns/ (including campaigns for incumbents) will be among those
that push the information out. Ordinary voters aren't just going to
stumble across it, browsing at Open Secrets.
But that's totally unrelated to using instruments of government to
retaliate against donors. As I noted in my TNR piece this week, using
the IRS etc to retaliate against political enemies is a straight-up
"high crime and misdemeanor." Of the articles of impeachment against
Richard Nixon, the one that got the largest bipartisan vote was the one
involving such retaliation. And an administration that would do that
kind of thing doesn't need disclosure to find its targets.
Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.newdeal20.org>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
@mschmitt9 <https://twitter.com/#%21/mschmitt9>
On 6/5/2012 6:26 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
> That's not /quite/ the argument, Mark.
>
> Your first paragraph is off base. What is new in the retaliation
> front is that officeholders appear to be getting into the act. We are
> seeing government-on-citizen retribution. This is what Kim Strassel
> is writing about.
>
> Whether that retaliation will rise to the level of warranting an
> exemption to disclosure of independent speech is a matter for several
> district courts to determine upon the application of several John Does
> with the civic courage to file for an exemption -- and then a matter
> for few appellate courts and, with any luck, a matter for the Supreme
> Court again.
>
> You know, let me stop there: It is incumbent upon me to make the best
> description of this theory I can -- whether I can fund the work, or
> not. Let me get about the business of doing that: I need to put up or
> shut up. (If you can find a donor to pay me the several thousand
> dollars to develop the theory, I would be much obliged. I'll send you
> or anyone else the forwarding information).
>
> But there is no denying: this theory needs to be tested in the
> courts. That is where the rubber meets the road -- and is the only
> place the failure to grant the exemption can trigger review of the
> underlying informational interest for non-corrupting, independent speech.
>
> If some on the list are are okay with officeholders jumping on the
> "accountability" crusade, that is one thing. But I have to believe
> you won't find a uniformity of opinion in the district courts.
> Government-on-citizen intimidation may be a difference in kind.
>
> As to why the courts, think of it this way: It was the failure to
> respect the issue-advocacy safety-valve to the electioneering
> communications provisions authored by the Court in /WRTL v. FEC/, and
> ignored in the two-part, eleven factor exemption test promulgated by
> the Commission. That failure led to a repeal of the electioneering
> communications funding restrictions in /Citizens United. /You see,//no
> one ever got the electioneering exemption provided under /WRTL./
>
> No one is getting the disclosure exemption under /Socialist Workers. /
>
> More people need to ask it, and cite the latest evidence.
>
> If no one gets the exemption then, what's a reviewing court to do?
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com
> <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> So the argument against disclosure goes as follows:
>
> First, there are no actual victims of serious retaliation as a
> result of disclosed political spending. So
> Smith/Hoersting/Strassel etc combine some unrelated things, such
> as a psychopath who appears to have called the police to a
> blogger-enemy's house, or someone requesting (but not getting) a
> Super-PAC donor's divorce records, to suggest that there /could/
> in the future be such retaliation and that people subject to it
> need to be exempt from disclosure.
>
> When it's pointed out that that sort of case-by-case exemption
> doesn't really make sense in the case of donors/spenders on behalf
> of mainstream political candidates, the answer is, yes, that's
> exactly right -- the exemption needs to be total.
>
> And so we go in two logical leaps from solving a totally
> non-existent narrow problem to a categorical argument against all
> disclosure. Very impressive!
>
>
>
> Mark Schmitt
> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.newdeal20.org>
> 202/246-2350 <tel:202%2F246-2350>
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> @mschmitt9 <https://twitter.com/#%21/mschmitt9>
> On 6/5/2012 4:12 PM, Bill Maurer wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> I think you understand the issue perfectly, which is why we
>> believe that the norm or default should be anonymity, not
>> anonymity only if you can show that you are subject to
>> harassment. That is why I argue that the burden should be on the
>> government to explain why anonymity is not necessary, not on the
>> citizen to explain why they should be able to remain anonymous.
>> Asking people to predict the future in order to exercise their
>> First Amendment rights is not really much of a protection.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf
>> Of *Mark Schmitt
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 05, 2012 12:51 PM
>> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] The Federalist Papers and Anonymity
>>
>> Here's what I don't understand: If there is a possibility of
>> severe retaliation based solely on a contributor's political
>> spending/speech, then wouldn't the same possibility of
>> retaliation exist for each and every person expressing the same
>> viewpoint? In other words, if we truly believe that someone is
>> going to get "SWATed" or something, or targeted for an IRS audit,
>> because they supported a pro-Romney SuperPAC, then wouldn't every
>> Romney contributor or outside funder have the same claim? If not,
>> then there's obviously something unrelated to the political
>> speech that causes certain spenders to fear this retaliation
>> while others don't.
>>
>>
>> Socialist Workers holds this protection because everyone who
>> affliates with SWP, whether as a donor or party member, is far
>> outside of the mainstream of American politics and categorically
>> subject to harassment. (Or so it seems, from their FEC filing.)
>> The same is not true of supporters of Mitt Romney.
>>
>> Of course, all of this is entirely a thought-experiment until
>> there's some evidence that people are actually facing this kind
>> of violent retaliation (as opposed to boycotts) because of their
>> political spending.
>>
>> Mark Schmitt
>> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.newdeal20.org>
>> 202/246-2350 <tel:202%2F246-2350>
>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
>> @mschmitt9 <https://twitter.com/#%21/mschmitt9>
>>
>> On 6/5/2012 9:56 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>>
>> Here, generally, must be the answer to Bill's question, else
>> he is entirely correct that the standard is unworkable.
>>
>> A person seeking the exemption would:
>>
>> 1) first file an affidavit saying, a) "these groups or
>> politicians have [as Bill puts it] 'burned other people's
>> houses down' who have opposed them in the past. b) These
>> people have the means of meaningful retaliation. c) These
>> people have demonstrated a motive to retaliate.
>>
>> Then say, 2) "I want to speak in a way opposing these groups,
>> and I do not want my 'house burned down' next."
>>
>> And most importantly, one must 3) trust the judicial process
>> enough to file as a John Doe or Jane Doe until such time as
>> the judge determines whether or not the applicant will get
>> the exemption.
>>
>> If the exemption is denied, John Doe or Jane Doe will then
>> decide whether they want to go ahead and oppose the "house
>> burners" with their identities disclosed or seek review of
>> the court's denial of the exemption.
>>
>> Steve Hoersting
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org
>> <mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry I’m late to the game on this, but doesn’t Rick’s
>> position create a significant proof problem? How does a
>> speaker know that their speech will create severe
>> retaliation? I’ve asked this before, but how does one show
>> that there’s a reasonable probability that someone will burn
>> your house down if you take a public stand on an issue until
>> your house gets burned down? Then the judge could say, “you
>> know, you were right—your information should have been kept
>> private. By the way, you’re getting soot all over the
>> courtroom.”
>>
>> Thus, in reality, this standard is unworkable—you’re either
>> too early to get protection and so you don’t speak or you’re
>> too late and the harm is done. Welcome aboard the “Kobayashi
>> Maru.” The only logical choice is to not play the game as it
>> is currently constituted, thus creating a significant harm to
>> the speaker, political discourse, and leaving the political
>> playing field to only those who are rich enough or powerful
>> enough to not care about potential blowback. I think a
>> better standard would be that a speaker’s anonymity should be
>> the default position and that the government should have to
>> burden to prove (i) why the speaker’s information should be
>> released to the public, and (ii) that the release of the
>> information is unlikely to cause harassment and coercion.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 01, 2012 8:52 AM
>> *To:* JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
>> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] The Federalist Papers and Anonymity
>>
>> If you think that I want people to suffer severe retaliation
>> for their political beliefs you have not read my work closely.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have said repeatedly that when there is credible evidence
>> people will face severe retaliation, then they should be
>> exempt from disclosure. In recent cases involving gay
>> marriage ballot measures in which you have been involved, two
>> federal district courts evaluated these claims in detail and
>> found no credible evidence of harassment of people who merely
>> gave campaign contributions or collected signatures for a
>> ballot measure. Doe v. Reed, 823 F.Supp.2d 1195 (W.D.Wash.
>> Oct. 17, 2011); ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, No.
>> 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DA, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2011 WL 5507204
>> (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2011). See Richard L. Hasen, Chill Out: A
>> Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance Disclosure in the
>> Internet Era, Journal of Law and Politics (forthcoming 2012),
>> draft available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
>> papers.cfm?abstract_id=1948313.
>>
>>
>> On 6/1/12 8:44 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Regarding: "The Federalist Papers were written in 1788,
>> well after the American Revolution victory over King George
>> III’s government." Yes, I knew that, but I liked the
>> rhetorical flourish!
>>
>> In any event, my point was that Rick might want them
>> strung up for speaking out against the Articles of
>> Confederation, since his point is that anonymous speech is
>> wrong since people don't get to punish them for it.
>>
>> And I believe that nearly all of the signers of the
>> Declaration of Independence did indeed suffer severe
>> retaliation for doing so, which seems to be a result
>> that might please Rick.
>>
>> Jim Bopp
>>
>> In a message dated 6/1/2012 10:58:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight
>> Time, mmcdon at gmu.edu <mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu> writes:
>>
>> The Federalist Papers were written in 1788, well after
>> the American Revolution victory over King George III’s
>> government. The phrase “sign your John Hancock” is
>> associated with the non-anonymous speech of signing the
>> Declaration of Independence, which was more likely to
>> result in retaliation by King George III.
>>
>> The Federalists were arguing for a stronger government
>> than what existed under the failed Articles of
>> Confederation, America’s first constitutional government,
>> a weak government incapable of performing its necessary
>> functions. So, the Federalists were in some measure
>> proponents of greater federal government power, hence
>> their name, Federalists. It was the Anti-Federalists who
>> were those that were more distrustful of federal power
>> and favored more power in the hands of the states and the
>> people. Our original constitution did not have a First
>> Amendment protecting free speech. The Bill of Rights was
>> adopted in conciliation to the Anti-Federalists. The
>> authors of the Federalists Papers did not believe that
>> the provisions in what would become the Bill of Rights
>> were necessary, including the First Amendment Freedom of
>> Speech.
>>
>> The authors of the Federalists Papers were not in fear of
>> reprisal for authoring the essays. The three were well
>> known for their support of the proposed constitution;
>> Madison was its author. The authors of the Federalist
>> Papers used anonymity so that Anti-Federalists could not
>> make a connection to the personal interests of the
>> authors when rebutting the essays. Still, at the time,
>> many people correctly guessed who the authors were.
>> Ironically, in light of Jim's impassioned defense of
>> anonymity, we might have had a federal government with
>> weaker powers if the authors had not written anonymously
>> under Publius.
>>
>> There is a cogent argument that one can draw from the
>> Federalist Papers example about the value of anonymous
>> speech to protect against ad hominem arguments, but there
>> is no basis to argue that the three authors feared
>> retribution from King George III.
>>
>> ============
>> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
>> Associate Professor, George Mason University
>> Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
>>
>> Mailing address:
>> (o) 703-993-4191 <tel:703-993-4191> George
>> Mason University
>> (f) 703-993-1399 <tel:703-993-1399> Dept. of
>> Public and International Affairs
>> mmcdon at gmu.edu <mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu> 4400
>> University Drive - 3F4
>> http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>>
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On
>> Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 9:38 AM
>> To: rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>;
>> law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/1/12
>>
>> Things have certainly changed. The First Amendment
>> contemplates that the citizens are free to participate in
>> their government and that the government is thereby to be
>> held accountable to the citizens.
>>
>> Now, it is the government holding the citizens
>> accountable for participating in their government, as
>> Rick says: "Those with power want to wield it without
>> being accountable for their actions." He wants speech
>> only if there are consequences to the speaker. I guess he
>> wants the Founders strung up for publishing the
>> Federalist and Anti-Federalist anonymously. Well at least
>> King George III certainly did. And how about Mrs
>> McIntyre, who not even Justice Stevens wanted to be
>> punished by the school board.
>>
>> As this debate goes on, at least we now know plainly
>> what the "reformers" have in mind for those who dare to
>> speak. Nothing about voter information. No bogus claim
>> that there will be no retaliation. But a celebration of
>> retaliation. And then what a great democracy we would have!
>>
>> Only the rich and powerful, whose allies hold the
>> levers of government power, would dare speak. It would be
>> helpful too if your allies control the media. Humm, am I
>> describing current America where liberals hold sway? Is
>> that why some liberals are all fired up to bring it on!
>> Is this their last desperate attempt to hold power --
>> threaten punishment of their "enemies" for daring to
>> speak out?
>>
>> At least now, all the false facade has been stripped
>> away and the brave new world they contemplate has been
>> revealed to all.
>>
>> Actually, it is a brave old world -- see Gangs of New
>> York if you want to see a window to our future
>> democracy. Jim Bopp
>>
>> In a message dated 6/1/2012 2:21:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight
>> Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> writes:
>> “Citizens: Speech, no consequences”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 11:20 pm by Rick Hasen
>> I have just written this oped for Politico. It begins:
>> You’ve got to feel bad for the rich and powerful in
>> America. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a variety of
>> big business groups say if Congress goes back to letting
>> the American people know who is behind campaign attack
>> ads, businesses will face the “palpable” threat of
>> “retaliation” and “reprisals.”
>> Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith
>> warns in The Wall Street Journal that boycotts based on
>> political beliefs — made possible by the public
>> disclosure of campaign finance data — “endanger the very
>> commerce that enriches us all.” Even the chief justice of
>> the United States, John Roberts, apparently is being
>> “intimidated” (Kathleen Parker), “pressured” (George
>> Will) and “threatened” (Rick Garnett) by that most
>> powerful force in America (law professor and New Republic
>> legal editor) Jeffrey Rosen.
>> On the right these days, the rhetoric is all about a
>> liberal siege. Despite Republicans’ majority in the
>> House, its filibuster power in the Senate, a sympathetic
>> Supreme Court and the great power of business groups —
>> the language of threats is pervasive. But look beyond the
>> rhetoric and you can see what’s really going on: Those
>> with power want to wield it without being accountable for
>> their actions.
>>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court | Comments Off
>> “FEC Deadlocks on Candidate’s Request To Rule on His
>> Plumbing Company’s Ads”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 11:16 pm by Rick Hasen
>> Bloomberg BNA: “The Federal Election Commission
>> deadlocked late May 30 on an advisory opinion request
>> asking whether FEC reporting and disclaimer rules
>> regarding “electioneering communications” apply to ads
>> for a congressional candidate’s plumbing company….The
>> deadlock over the Mullin AO indicated that the FEC may
>> have trouble providing guidance to the regulated
>> political community following the recent court actions
>> that beefed up reporting requirements for electioneering
>> communications.”
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
>> “The Corporate Disclosure Ruse”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 11:14 pm by Rick Hasen
>> Kimberly Strassel takes on Bruce Free’s Center for
>> Political Accountability. This is apparently the second
>> attack in two days and the fifth in five months. Sensing
>> a pattern here?
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
>> Will Tuesday’s Recall Results in Wisconsin Be an “Omen”
>> for President Obama in November?
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 11:12 pm by Rick Hasen
>> NYT explores.
>>
>> Posted in campaigns, recall elections | Comments Off
>> “Runoff Draws Big Money and Heated Words”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 11:08 pm by Rick Hasen
>> NYT reports on Dewhurst-Cruz in Texas.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance, campaigns | Comments Off
>> “U.S. judge blocks key parts of Fla. law regulating voter
>> registration”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 11:05 pm by Rick Hasen
>> WaPo reports. MORE from NYT.
>>
>> Posted in NVRA (motor voter), The Voting Wars, voter
>> registration | Comments Off
>> “DOJ eyes Florida voter roll purge of non-U.S. citizens”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 11:02 pm by Rick Hasen
>> Politico reports.
>>
>> Posted in Department of Justice, voter registration,
>> voting, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off
>> “Candidates use lawyers for early battles’
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 11:00 pm by Rick Hasen
>> TribLive: “Pennsylvania candidates are increasingly
>> turning to the courts to settle election disputes — and
>> vanquish opponents. State court administrators reported
>> on Thursday that Commonwealth Court, which deals with
>> election disputes involving candidates for a state office
>> or higher, has handled a record 131 election cases this
>> year.”
>>
>> Posted in campaigns | Comments Off
>> “Coalition challenges voter ID amendment”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 10:58 pm by Rick Hasen
>> AP: “Four groups petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court
>> on Wednesday to remove from the November ballot a
>> proposed constitutional amendment requiring voters to
>> present photo IDs at the polls, saying the language that
>> voters will see doesn’t accurately describe the amendment.”
>>
>> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter
>> id | Comments Off
>> “Holder’s Chutzpah; Voter-ID laws are not about denying
>> access to blacks.”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 10:57 pm by Rick Hasen
>> Thomas Sowell has written this article for National
>> Review Online.
>>
>> Posted in election administration, fraudulent fraud
>> squad, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off
>> WaPo on Edwards
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 7:45 pm by Rick Hasen
>> Here.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
>> Comments Off
>> NYT on Edwards Verdict
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 6:16 pm by Rick Hasen
>> Here.
>> MORE: Another High-Profile Failure for a Justice Dept.
>> Watchdog
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
>> Comments Off
>> “Edwards case may have little effect on campaign finance”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 6:14 pm by Rick Hasen
>> The News and Observer reports.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
>> Comments Off
>> “Justice Department Demands Florida Stop Purging Voter
>> Rolls”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 6:10 pm by Rick Hasen
>> TPM: “The Justice Department sent a letter to Florida
>> Secretary of State Ken Detzner Thursday evening demanding
>> the state cease purging its voting rolls because the
>> process it is using has not been cleared under the Voting
>> Rights Act, TPM has learned.”
>>
>> Posted in Department of Justice, election administration,
>> The Voting Wars, voting, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off
>> “Is John Edwards verdict the last straw for campaign
>> finance?”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 4:45 pm by Rick Hasen
>> The CS Monitor reports.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
>> Comments Off
>> Both Sides Seem to Claim Victory in Florida Voter
>> Registration Case
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 4:40 pm by Rick Hasen
>> See this AP report. But the fact that the state may
>> appeal is a good sign that this was more of a win for
>> plaintiffs.
>>
>> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars |
>> Comments Off
>> Gerstein on the Edwards Case
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 4:38 pm by Rick Hasen
>> Here.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
>> Comments Off
>> WSJ on Edwards Case
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 4:35 pm by Rick Hasen
>> Here.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
>> Comments Off
>> “John Edwards’ Might’ve Walked But Trial Still A Warning
>> For Politicians”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 4:33 pm by Rick Hasen
>> NPR reports.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
>> Comments Off
>> “A Cad Gets His Due; The world knows that John Edwards is
>> loathsome. That’s enough.”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 3:34 pm by Rick Hasen
>> Must-read Emily Bazelon on John Edwards.
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
>> Comments Off
>> “‘Bad Kemo’ riles the Sunshine State: Pre-emptive vote
>> tampering threatens majority rule”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 3:17 pm by Rick Hasen
>> Hugh Carter Donohue has written this oped for the
>> Tallahassee News.
>>
>> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars |
>> Comments Off
>> “Buddy Roemer quits 2012 race”
>> Posted on May 31, 2012 3:16 pm by Rick Hasen
>> Politico reports.
>> The underreported story so far of the presidential
>> campaign: (Where) might Gary Johnson make a difference?
>>
>>
>> Posted in ballot access, campaigns, third parties |
>> 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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>> 949.824.0495 <tel: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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>> 949.824.0495 <tel: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
>> <http://amzn.to/y22ZTv>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This body part will be downloaded on demand.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120605/0be4b64e/attachment.html>
View list directory