[EL] election crimes, registration fraud and voter fraud -- moral equivalence?
Marty Lederman
lederman.marty at gmail.com
Sat Oct 13 08:44:54 PDT 2012
Thanks for those links, Rick. You're right that some of the claims in the
reports appear to be hyperbolic.
The Advancement Project Report asserts that "[t]here are 22 states in which
citizenship-based purges, registration barriers, and/or photo ID
restrictions are in effect or could be in effect by the 2012 elections.
There are more than 10 million eligible Latino voters in these states
who *could
be *deterred or prevented from voting in the 2012 elections due to these
barriers."
While that hedged assertion ("could be" deterred) might literally be true
-- especially taking into account the laws other than Voter ID that the
report focuses upon -- it is almost surely not the case that more than 10
million eligible Latino voters will in fact fail to vote (or have their
votes counted) as a result of those laws. The number is almost certainly
smaller than that -- perhaps it's "only" on the order of tens or hundreds
of thousands of Latino voters.
The claim in the CAP Report (p.5) is that because over 21 million eligible
voters currently lack the required IDs, "it's clear that such laws *could
have* a disastrous effect," and "have *the potential *to exclude millions
of Americans." Again, these hedged claims are literally true . . . but of
course the relevant subset is the percentage of those 21 million who (i)
live in states with a voter ID law; (ii) who would have voted anyway; but
(iii) who will not vote (or have their votes counted) as a result of the
laws. That number *might be* more than a million; but the study doesn't
demonstrate that it would be; and it seems much more likely that the number
would be in five or six figures, not seven.
Fair enough. So these reports are guilty of hyperbole, or at least
sloppiness.
But how is that remotely comparable to what the proponents of voter ID laws
are doing?
On the one hand, we have people working to enact and defend laws that they
know will eliminate, at best, a handful of cases of voter impersonation (and
there's not even evidence of that), none of which could possibly have an
effect on the outcome of an election, but that will result in tens or
hundreds of thousands of eligible voters not voting or not having their
votes counted. From all that appears, such laws are in fact designed to
change the outcome of elections by lowering that vote, as the Pennsylvania
GOP leader acknowledged. (And regardless of motive, such laws clearly have
the potential to effect outcomes.) Moreover, most such proponents are not
taking steps (as Rick described) to ameliorate the *actual* voter fraud
that occurs in registration and absentee balloting.
On the other hand, we have organizations dedicated to *preserving* the
effective franchise of those eligible voters, but in doing so exaggerate
the effect of the Voter ID laws by using the word "millions" when they
should have referred to tens or hundreds of thousands.
An equal pox on both their houses?
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
> Here's an example suggesting that Republican supported laws could
> disenfranchise 10 million Hispanic voters:
>
>
> http://themoderatevoice.com/161344/report-voting-laws-may-disenfranchise-10-million-hispanic-u-s-citizens-study/
>
> Here's a report from Think Progress: Voter Suppression 101: How
> Conservatives Are Conspiring to Disenfranchise Millions of Americans<https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Qfc8Q7rwAD0J:www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/04/pdf/voter_supression.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiydHbM1GA4xbmC1GpkpUZL3rJTiCZwqHgzczR2Ku-TOw8kGFmcyZo5dSlru6Gu7CbWBEFEm6DZvYeqdKd9tnV3mf70ByAWZdpxHGIcpZ0FZ3B2IUkrMvSMcmb99lUKlRqxJ9BG&sig=AHIEtbRNcsRxBc3KgtommeujMEAaX-2fWQ>
>
>
>
> On 10/12/12 12:21 PM, Lowenstein, Daniel wrote:
>
> Marty, do you believe all or most of the Democrats and progessives who have claimed millions of voters are disfranchised by photo ID laws really believe that claim? Do you believe most ordinary Democrats who profess to believe those claims are speaking insincerely? If your answer to both those questions is no, then (a) I don't see any disagreement between us, and (b) I don't see what is left of your argument against moral equivalence.
>
> Best,
>
> Daniel H. Lowenstein
> Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
> UCLA Law School
> 405 Hilgard
> Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
> 310-825-5148
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marty Lederman [lederman.marty at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:03 PM
> To: Lowenstein, Daniel
> Cc: Rick Hasen; JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] election crimes, registration fraud and voter fraud
>
> Dan: Of course there are many "ordinary" Republicans -- Dems and Independents, too! -- who sincerely believe there is a high incidence of the sort of voter fraud that a Voter ID law purports to address. They have such a belief, in large measure, because they have been told repeatedly that there is such an epidemic of fraud by people who know better; because they are unaware that there is no evidence to support such a view; and because they haven't had any occasion to think through (as Rick has) the fact that if one were going to try to influence the outcome of an election, it'd be nuts to try to do so through voter impersonation.
>
> Those aren't the people who are acting in bad faith, Dan. It's the sponsors, promoters, drafters and legal/public defenders of such laws to which I'm referring.
>
> Some of those, like Joe La Rue, repeatedly purport to believe that such fraud exists (even though he now acknowledges it must be "rare"), and claim not to want to prevent any eligible voter from voting. I don't know Joe, and so would be reluctant to accuse him of posting here in bad faith. But I think it is very fair to say that the vast majority of Voter ID sponsors, etc., know full well that the vanishingly small if not nonexistent number of unlawful "votes" that will be prevented by Voter ID laws pale in comparison to the number of votes that will not be cast or counted by virtue of such laws.
>
> Ultimately, of course, I'm not very much concerned with the motives and good-or-bad faith of the Voter ID proponents on this listserv. I care instead about making sure that every eligible voter who wishes to cast a ballot will do so, and that all such votes are counted. And one way to try to realize that result is to convince judges, and public officials, and Republicans with a conscience who truly do not wish any such votes to not be counted, and "ordinary" citizens who have been confused into thinking that there is a raft of voter impersonation to be addressed, that in fact there is no such problem and that the cure is far, far worse than the alleged disease.
>
> In that context, what I find deeply unhelpful, and regrettable, are those who would suggest that the motives of the disputants here are in any sense equivalent, and who opine that although there is no problem that needs addressing here, we really should not worry about Voter ID laws because the number of citizens who will not vote as a result of such laws is insufficiently "significant."
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Lowenstein, Daniel <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu<mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu> <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>> wrote:
> I do not believe in moral equivalence as a general principle, but there are situations to which it is apt, none more so, in my opinion, than the controversy over photo ID. Marty's post is the exact counterpart to the one earlier today by Jim Bopp. (By the way, I have a high degree of respect for both of them and appreciation for what they have contributed to this listserv over the years.)
>
> Marty's premise is that "the supporters of ID laws know" that impersonation fraud is a negligible problem. In my earlier post I agreed in part, saying that no doubt some people whom I referred to as demagogues know that. Just as their are some people on the other side whom I also referred to as demagogues who no doubt know that photo ID laws are not civil rights disasters that will disfranchise millions of voters. But most "supporters of ID laws" are not demagogues. Perhaps inside the Beltway Marty does not have many discussions with ordinary Republican voters who are interested in politics but do not have any special knowledge of election law. I meet many such people and based on my conversations with them I am convinced that very many of them sincerely believe voter fraud is a major benefit to Democratic candidates, which is why Democrats oppose such laws. I also meet many Democrats of the same description and I am similarly convinced that they are equally sincere. As
> I see it, there is cynicism among a few and sincere delusion among many in both parties. I do not believe the parties differ much in the ratio between the two.
>
> Best,
>
> Daniel H. Lowenstein
> Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
> UCLA Law School
> 405 Hilgard
> Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
> 310-825-5148<tel:310-825-5148> <310-825-5148>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marty Lederman [lederman.marty at gmail.com<mailto:lederman.marty at gmail.com> <lederman.marty at gmail.com>]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:17 AM
> To: Rick Hasen
> Cc: Lowenstein, Daniel; JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> <JBoppjr at aol.com>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu> <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] election crimes, registration fraud and voter fraud
>
> Rick: I don’t think the “there’s no problem on either end” meme holds up. It’s a case of false equivalence.
>
> As you note, there is virtually no evidence of any impersonation fraud that would be remedied by a voter ID law -- and the supporters of ID laws know this. That strongly suggests that they support such laws not in order to eliminate any voter fraud, but instead for the (wholly illegitimate) purpose of trying to prevent eligible voters from voting--a conclusion bolstered by the fact, which you emphasize, that they have done virtually nothing to address the sources of actual voter fraud.
>
> OK, but Dan says: Even if that is their motive, they’re not getting any bang for their buck -- don’t sweat it, because such voter ID laws will not prevent “significant numbers from voting.” And you add that it’s difficult for challengers of such laws to identify "real eligible voters who (1) lack id; (2) would have trouble getting the id; and (3) want to vote.”
>
> That may be true -- it might be difficult to identify particular willing voters who “would have trouble getting the id” -- in part because once we identify such a person, it might not be especially difficult to guide them through the steps they’d need to take to obtain the ID.
>
> But even so, there will in fact be some number of voters -- overwhelmingly less-well-to-do voters, who tend to vote Democratic -- who will not in fact obtain the ID, however “troublesome” we might consider it to be to do so. And thus they won’t be able to vote -- and their franchise will have been lost without any resulting gain in preventing voter fraud (or any other legitimate state interest).
>
> Is that number of voters “significant”? Well, since I think the franchise is very precious, I’d tend to say “yes,” no matter what the number is. But in any event, I think it’s safe to say that the proponents of the laws sure think the number would be significant -- in the sense of having a possible affect on the outcome of some races, perhaps even the presidential electoral votes in a particular state -- or else they wouldn’t go to the trouble of making such efforts to push through these laws.
>
> Is there any reason to think these very astute and dedicated political operatives are wrong -- that in fact virtually the same number of votes will be cast and counted with ID laws?
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> <rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu <rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>> wrote:
> I think Dan is right on this, and I think the overheated rhetoric in many of the posts which have come through this morning (please take a breath and think before you hit send) is a sad illustration of his point.
>
> Here's what we know about in-person, impersonation fraud. Almost all the fraud that occurs in relation to election falls into three categories: election crimes committed by election officials (Cudahy<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/cudahy-corruption-election-fraud.html> <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/cudahy-corruption-election-fraud.html> is a recent colorful example), voter registration fraud (a la ACORN workers and now apparently Sproul workers---though there is still an investigation of those), and absentee ballot fraud. This usually occurs through vote buying and there are examples of such fraud in every election. See Adam Liptak's recent piece<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html>. The Justice Dept. under Bush spent five years going after election crimes and voter fraud, and almost all the cases it found (I believe it was reported first as 86 and then as 120) fell into these categories. There were no cases of in person, impersonation fraud---the primary type of fraud which a state voter id law can prevent.
>
> For my book, I tried to find a single example of impersonation fraud at the polls, done without the cooperation of election officials (because a voter id law would not prevent that), in the last generation, where the results could arguably have been called into question by such fraud. I could not find one. Nor can those who tout the voter fraud claims find one. Von Spakovsky pointed to what he called "extensive impersonation fraud" in a Heritage report (and related FOX News oped) based upon a 1984 grand jury report<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=23572> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=23572> from Brooklyn. He stonewalled on giving me the report and when UCI librarians tracked it down it did not support his claim: the crimes were almost all by election officials and party officials. (Note that crimes committed in the 1970s are particularly relevant to what is going on today in any case....).
>
> News21 <http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/11/13236464-new-database-of-us-voter-fraud-finds-no-evidence-that-photo-id-laws-are-needed> <http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/11/13236464-new-database-of-us-voter-fraud-finds-no-evidence-that-photo-id-laws-are-needed> did a recent comprehensive study of all reports by prosecutors of election crimes since 2000. They found only 10 prosecutions for impersonation fraud across the country (leading to what looks like 7 convictions), with none of them tied to any kind of conspiracy to steal the vote. This compares to 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of registration fraud. There is no reason to believe that impersonation fraud would be harder to detect than these other kinds of fraud. Instead, because it would involve a conspiracy among a number of individuals going to the polls and claiming to be someone else listed on the polls (someone out of the area, or dea
> d, or false registered---though we don't see case of that), it should be easier to detect. The reason this kind of fraud doesn't happen except in very rare circumstances is that it is an exceedingly dumb way to steal an election. Election official fraud and absentee ballot fraud are easier and therefore more prevalent.
>
> There are cases of double voting across states, but state id laws are not the best way to catch that. The best way is with a national id, which is something I'd support if it were coupled with universal voter registration done by the federal government.
>
> I've written too about how it is very hard for plaintiffs in the voter id challenges (putting aside Pa., which did not have its act together in time) to find real eligible voters who (1) lack id; (2) would have trouble getting the id; and (3) want to vote. There are some, and the question is one of cost and benefits: state voter id laws inconvenience a lot of people without much anti-fraud payoff. And compare that to cutting back on absentee ballots to prevent that kind of fraud. As I recently wrote<http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/a-dtente-before-the-election/?ref=opinion> <http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/a-dtente-before-the-election/?ref=opinion>:
>
>
> Recently, officials<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/cudahy-corruption-election-fraud.html> <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/cudahy-corruption-election-fraud.html> in Cudahy, Calif., admitted intercepting absentee ballots and throwing out ballots not cast for incumbents. Every year we see convictions for absentee ballot fraud. Not a lot, but enough to know it’s a problem.
>
> So you might think that Republicans, newly obsessed with voter fraud, would call for eliminating absentee ballots, or at least requiring that voters who use them show some need, like a medical condition. But Republicans don’t talk much about reining in absentee ballots. Eliminating them would inconvenience some voters and would likely cut back on voting by loyal Republican voters, especially elderly and military voters.
>
> If only Republicans would apply that same logic to voter-identification laws. The only kind of fraud such ID laws prevent is impersonation: a person registered under a false name or claiming to be someone else on the voter rolls.
>
> I have not found a single election over the last few decades in which impersonation fraud had the slightest chance of changing an election outcome — unlike absentee-ballot fraud, which changes election outcomes regularly. (Let’s face it: impersonation fraud is an exceedingly dumb way<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=23053> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=23053> to try to steal an election.)
>
> Pointing to a few isolated cases<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=33751> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=33751> of impersonation fraud does not prove that a state identification requirement makes sense. As with restrictions on absentee ballots, we need to weigh the costs of imposing barriers on the right to vote against the benefits of fraud protection.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/12/12 7:43 AM, Lowenstein, Daniel wrote:
>
> Jim's second point illustrates the only aspect of the photo ID controversy that interests me. So far as I can tell, the opposing concerns that animate the opposing sides are utterly unfounded. Republicans are wrong that photo ID will prevent significant voter fraud and Democrats are wrong that the requirement will prevent significant numbers from voting. There are no doubt some demagogues on both sides who are whipping up these two forms of hysteria for partisan reasons, but I have spoken to many ordinary voters on both sides and I am convinced that they are utterly sincere in their belief in their own party's form of hysteria. But while each side believes what it believes, neither is willing to credit the other side for sincere belief. Thus, each side demonizes the other--Republicans believe Democrats are trying to steal elections with fraud, Democrats believe Republicans are trying to suppress voting by preponderantly Democratic groups.
>
> Best,
>
> Daniel H. Lowenstein
> Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
> UCLA Law School
> 405 Hilgard
> Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
> 310-825-5148<tel:310-825-5148> <310-825-5148><tel:310-825-5148 <310-825-5148><tel:310-825-5148> <310-825-5148>>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> <JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com <JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> <JBoppjr at aol.com>> [JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> <JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com <JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> <JBoppjr at aol.com>>]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 7:32 AM
> To: Lowenstein, Daniel; rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> <rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu <rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu> <law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu <law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu> <law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught helping a...
>
> Before the controversy over the Voter ID, I thought the same thing -- that absentee voter fraud was the problem. But I have changed my mind for two reasons: (1) if someone, like these Obama campaign workers, would so willing commit voter fraud through the absentee process, why wouldn't they also do it on election day, if there were opportunities to do so without getting caught. A person is either a crook or isn't. So, for instance, if you have instant registration and then voting on election day, without a voter ID law, then in precincts dominated by one party this seems like a prime opportunity. (2) Has been the reaction of the opponents, particular the Democrats. I first thought that voter ID was a modest proposal all the way around: it was dealing with a modest threat of voter fraud, but also without a serious impediment to voting. What happened is that Democrat politician flipped out, calling it racist, claiming thousands would be disenfranchised, etc, without reason. In othe
>
> r words, they "protest too much." I figured we were on to something -- in person voter fraud -- that was more serious than I thought.
>
> In person voter fraud in such cases as I have mentioned is very hard to prove, but that does not mean that it does not happen. From time to time, however, we see people like these Obama operatives who clearly are prepared to commit voter fraud and it is just reasonable to suggest that they would do it in person if they had a chance -- which voter ID laws, in large measure, prevent. Jim Bopp
>
> In a message dated 10/12/2012 10:08:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lowenstein at law.ucla.edu<mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu> <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu><mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu><mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu> <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>> writes:
> I think the more sensible Democrats have claimed there is no or virtually no voter fraud that can be avoided by a photo ID requirement, not that there is no significant voter fraud at all. I very much agree with Rick and others who have said the biggest concern about voter fraud arises from the widespread use of voting by mail, which gives rise not only to potential fraud problems but, I believe, even worse problems of intimidation and bribery. Indeed, the reporter in the video is representing to vote, fraudulently, in Florida by mail, not be impersonation.
>
> Best,
>
> Daniel H. Lowenstein
> Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
> UCLA Law School
> 405 Hilgard
> Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
> 310-825-5148<tel:310-825-5148> <310-825-5148><tel:310-825-5148 <310-825-5148><tel:310-825-5148> <310-825-5148>>
>
>
> ______________________________
> __
> 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 <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>> [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 <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>>] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> <JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com <JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> <JBoppjr at aol.com>> [JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> <JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com <JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com&
> gt; <JBoppjr at aol.com>>]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 6:44 AM
> To: rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> <rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu <rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu> <law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu <law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu> <law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: [EL] Check out New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught helping activist v
>
> Click here: New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught helping activist vote twice | The Daily Caller<http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/new-okeefe-video-obama-campaign-staffer-caught-helping-activist-vote-twice/#ixzz293I3dEts> <http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/new-okeefe-video-obama-campaign-staffer-caught-helping-activist-vote-twice/#ixzz293I3dEts><http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/new-okeefe-video-obama-campaign-staffer-caught-helping-activist-vote-twice/#ixzz293I3dEts> <http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/new-okeefe-video-obama-campaign-staffer-caught-helping-activist-vote-twice/#ixzz293I3dEts>
>
>
> Obama campaign caught red handed participating in voter fraud by helping voters vote in two different states in this election. And some say there is no voter fraud! Jim Bopp
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072<tel:949.824.3072> <949.824.3072><tel:949.824.3072 <949.824.3072><tel:949.824.3072> <949.824.3072>> - office949.824.0495<tel:949.824.0495> <949.824.0495><tel:949.824.0495 <949.824.0495><tel:949.824.0495> <949.824.0495>> - faxrhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> <rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu <rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
> Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> <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 - office949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
> Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121013/25cdf079/attachment.html>
View list directory