[EL] "Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality"
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sun Aug 4 04:32:05 PDT 2013
It is ironic that, having spent several decades saying that issue ads are
just like express advocacy ads and convincing the Supreme Court through
"studies" that this is so for broadcast ads that only name a candidate in
proximity to an election, that now we find out that this is actually not so.
Did all the "experts" who so testified in McConnell for the "reformers"
perjure themselves? Or is a new revelation? Jim Bopp
In a message dated 8/3/2013 3:11:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tpotter at capdale.com writes:
Of course, political consultants will tell us that a "thank you" "issue
ad" is not as effective as a full- throated negative express advocacy
commercial-- which is no doubt why we see more of the latter post- Citizens United
in states that prohibited corporate funded IEs-- like Montana.
Trevor Potter
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3, 2013, at 12:38 PM, "Adam Bonin" <_adam at boninlaw.com_
(mailto:adam at boninlaw.com) > wrote:
Perhaps my favorite such example: $1.2M in corporate-funded ads aired in
the final week of Pennsylvania’s 2007 election cycle encouraging voters to “
thank” Judge Maureen Lally-Green, who happened to be on the ballot for the
Supreme Court. (Pre-CU, and PA did not allow corporate contributions or
independent expenditures at the time.) Not only did efforts to enjoin the
ads fail (because the ads contained no express advocacy), but the
Commonwealth was ordered to reimburse the sponsor for its legal fees, and the sponsor
was not required to register as a political committee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnifj2A7Has
http://articles.philly.com/2008-05-07/news/24989915_1_corbett-spokesman-kevi
n-harley-ads-political-expenditures
Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
1900 Market Street, 4th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8002 (w)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
(267) 242-5014 (c)
_adam at boninlaw.com_ (mailto:adam at boninlaw.com)
_http://www.boninlaw.com_ (http://www.boninlaw.com/)
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 Smith, Brad
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 2:19 PM
To: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] “Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality
”
What I always find odd when I read such commentary as that of Justice
Nelson (1st item below) is the sense that this is somehow new. Is Justice
Nelson unaware that prior to 2010 a majority of states, many of which have an
elected judiciary, allowed unlimited corporate expenditures? That even in
other states and federally, corporations could fund "issue ads," in some
states right up until the election, in a few only more than some days out?
I can understand arguments against Citizens United, and why people
disagree with the decision, but I am constantly baffled by what seems to be the
sheer unwillingness to consider the probable consequences of Citizens United
in light of the law prior to 2010.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
____________________________________
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] on
behalf of Rick Hasen [_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) ]
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 1:56 PM
To: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/3/13
_“Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53956)
Posted on _August 3, 2013 10:50 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53956)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Former Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson, Supreme who
dissented (and was ultimately vindicated) by the United States Supreme Court in
ATP v. Bullock, has written _this oped f_
(http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/citizens-united-poised-to-destroy-judicial-impartiality/article_2d
25e012-fab8-11e2-833b-001a4bcf887a.html) or the Missoulian.
[A}ccording to the Supreme Court, while contributions directly to a
candidate breed corruption, corporate expenditures on behalf of a candidate do
not have any such corruptive effect.
For those living in a parallel universe that nuance may make sense, but,
in reality it is a dichotomy grounded in utter fiction. Worse, this canard
presents a clear and present danger for the majority of states, like
Montana, where voters elect their judges and justices. Citizens United applies to
judicial elections, too. Make no mistake; its effects will dominate
judicial elections.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53956&title=“
Citizens%20United%20poised%20to%20destroy%20judicial%20impartiality”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_judicial elections_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19) | Comments Off
_“D.C. group not happy with how Indiana handling complaint”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53953)
Posted on _August 3, 2013 10:46 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53953)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_TribStar_
(http://tribstar.com/news/x1664876769/D-C-group-not-happy-with-how-Indiana-handling-complaint) : “The Washington D.C. watchdog group that
accused Terre Haute attorney Jim Bopp Jr. of improperly benefiting from a
not-for-profit organization has gotten its first official response to one of
its complaints — and it’s not happy.”
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53953&title=“
D.C.%20group%20not%20happy%20with%20how%20Indiana%20handling%20complaint”&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) | Comments
Off
_“Congress: Divided, discourteous _ taking a break”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53950)
Posted on _August 3, 2013 10:43 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53950)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
AP’s _David Espo_
(http://bigstory.ap.org/article/congress-divided-discourteous-taking-break-0) : “The accomplishments are few, the chaos plentiful in
the 113th Congress, a discourteous model of divided government now
beginning a five-week break.”
More:
Legislation linking interest rates on student loans to the marketplace
passed, and, too, a bill to strengthen the government’s response to crimes
against women. Two more measures sent recovery funds to the victims of
Superstorm Sandy.
Among the 18 other measures signed into law so far: one named a new span
over the Mississippi River as the Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge,
after the late baseball legend. Another renamed a section of the tax code after
former Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.
A third clarified the size of metal blanks to be used by the Baseball Hall
of Fame in minting gold and silver commemoratives: a diameter of .85
inches in the case of $5 gold coins, and 1.5 inches for $1 silvers.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53950&title=“
Congress:%20Divided,%20discourteous%20_%20taking%20a%20break”&description=)
Posted in _legislation and legislatures_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27) , _political parties_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25) , _political
polarization_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68) | Comments Off
_Slate Gabfest Tackles Holder’s Voting Rights Gambit_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53948)
Posted on _August 3, 2013 10:40 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53948)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Here_
(http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/gabfest/2013/08/the_gabfest_bradley_manning_s_verdict_texas_and_the_future_of_the_voting.html) .
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53948&title=Slate%20Gabfest%20Tackles%20Holder’
s%20Voting%20Rights%20Gambit&description=)
Posted in _Voting Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15) |
Comments Off
_“Judging the (un)productivity of the 113th Congress”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53945)
Posted on _August 2, 2013 8:09 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53945)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_WaPo reports_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/08/02/judging-the-unproductivity-of-the-113th-congress/) .
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53945&title=“
Judging%20the%20(un)productivity%20of%20the%20113th%20Congress”&description=)
Posted in _legislation and legislatures_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27) , _political parties_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25) , _political
polarization_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68) | Comments Off
_Two from CLC_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53942)
Posted on _August 2, 2013 1:28 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53942)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Reform Groups Urge FEC Chair to Buck Partisan Political Pressure to
Undermine Enforcement_
(http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2207:august-2-2013-reform-groups-urge-fec-chair-to-buc
k-partisan-political-pressure-to-undermine-enforcement-&catid=63:legal-cente
r-press-releases&Itemid=61)
and
_Watchdogs Urge FEC to Reject Democratic & Republican Parties’ Request to
Use “Recount Funds” as Slush Funds_
(http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2208:august-2-2013-watchdogs-urge
-fec-to-reject-democratic-a-republican-parties-request-to-use-recount-funds-
as-slush-funds&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61)
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53942&title=Two%20from%20CLC&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_Can Democracies Ban “Anti-Democratic” Political Parties?_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53915)
Posted on _August 2, 2013 12:08 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53915)
by _Richard Pildes_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7)
Though this blog usually focuses only on U.S. issues, I wanted to flag a
story in today’s Wall Street Journal that might provoke the interest of many
readers (since the WSJ is behind a paywall, see _here_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com
/world/asia_pacific/bangladesh-court-disqualifies-largest-islamic-party-from-election/2013/08/01/1a405bfa-fa93-11e2-89f7-8599e3f77a67_story.ht
ml) ). In Bangladesh, a court has barred the country’s largest Islamist
political party from participating in upcoming elections later this year or
early next. Although the party, Jamaat-e-Islam (JI), is relatively small,
it could well be the tipping force in the struggle for control of the
govern between the two major political parties; JI aligns with the opposition.
The court banned JI on the ground that the party’s charter acknowledges
the “absolute power” of God and does not acknowledge the sovereignty of the
people of Bangladesh. This judicial action is a timely illustration of two
central issues in the post-World War II struggles over what “democracy”
means and entails. The first is the idea of “militant democracy,” which is
the view that democracies can and should be militant in taking measures to
ensure the continued democratic nature of the state and to ban or contain
anti-democratic forces, including political parties. Though coined in 1937
by Karl Loewenstein, the idea caught on powerfully in Europe in the
aftermath of WWII. The second issue this recent court decision raises, of
course, is what role religiously-based political parties should be permitted to
play in democracies — an issue particularly acute right now in working out
the appropriate relationship between Islam and democracy, surely among the
most significant political issues of our era. The decision sounds similar
to earlier decisions of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European
Court of Human Rights, which upheld bans on Islamist parties that were
judged to be anti-democratic. For a survey of these decisions, see _here._
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=935395)
Violent protests have been going on in the country since February, after
the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh sentenced leading figures in JI
to death or long sentences for their role in the country’s 1971 war for
independence (see_ here_
(http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/08/bangladesh-court-rules-jamaat-e-islami-is-illegal-political-party.php) ), when JI aligned
with Pakistan in resisting the move for Bangladesh’s independence. The
country became a democracy in 1991.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53915&title=Can%20Democracies%20Ban%20“Anti-Democratic”
%20Political%20Parties?&description=)
Posted in _political parties_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25) |
Comments Off
_Justice Scalia Ties Supreme Court Prisoner Release Decision to Gay Rights
Overreach: “Power of the Black Robe”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53933)
Posted on _August 2, 2013 12:06 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53933)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
>From _today’s dissent_
(http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Calif-prison-release-order-8-2-13.pdf) on the _denial of a stay _
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/08/no-delay-of-prisoner-release/) in the
California prisoner release case:
It appears to have become a standard ploy, when this Court vastly expands
the Power of the Black Robe, to hint at limitations that make it seem not
so bad. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas (Scalia J. dissenting); United States
v. Windsor (Scalia, J., dissenting). Comes the moment of truth, the
hinted-at limitation proves a sham. As for me, I adhere to my original view of this
terrible injunction. It goes beyond what the Prison Litigation Reform Act
allows, and beyond the power of the courts. I would grant the stay and
dissolve the injunction.
UPDATE: Interesting _double entrendre_
(https://twitter.com/JoshMBlackman/status/363380501253341184) in Scalia dissent.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53933&title=Justice%20Scalia%20Ties%20Supreme%20Court%20Prisoner%
20Release%20Decision%20to%20Gay%20Rights%20Overreach:%20“
Power%20of%20the%20Black%20Robe”&description=)
Posted in _Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) | Comments
Off
_“House Committee Subpoenas Treasury for Tax-Exempt Application Documents”
_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53929)
Posted on _August 2, 2013 11:29 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53929)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Bloomberg BNA Breaking News: “House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) issued a subpoena Aug. 2 to Treasury
Secretary Jacob Lew to compel the production of various documents the
committee wants for its investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s
treatment of groups applying for tax-exempt status.”
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53929&title=“
House%20Committee%20Subpoenas%20Treasury%20for%20Tax-Exempt%20Application%20Documents”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) , _tax
law and election law_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22) | Comments Off
_“Leahy Eyes ‘Nuclear Option’ Threat to Confirm Judges”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53926)
Posted on _August 2, 2013 11:13 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53926)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Roll Call_
(http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/leahy-nuclear-option-could-return-over-judges/) _ reports._
(http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/leahy-nuclear-option-could-return-over-judges/)
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53926&title=“Leahy%20Eyes%20‘Nuclear%20Option’
%20Threat%20to%20Confirm%20Judges”&description=)
Posted in _legislation and legislatures_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27) , _political parties_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25) , _political
polarization_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68) | Comments Off
_“North Carolina Voter ID Law Could Lead To Increased Voter Intimidation,
Harassment, Election Officials Fear”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53920)
Posted on _August 2, 2013 10:54 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53920)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_HuffPo reports_
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/north-carolina-voter-intimidation_n_3695657.html) .
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53920&title=“
North%20Carolina%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Could%20Lead%20To%20Increased%20Voter%20Intimidation,%20Harass
ment,%20Election%20Officials%20Fear”&description=)
Posted in _The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) , _Voting
Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15) | Comments Off
_Stewart Baker Mea Culpa_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53917)
Posted on _August 2, 2013 10:49 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53917)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Wow_
(http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/01/did-the-president-win-re-election-by-violating-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/) . Stewart Baker crosses out
most of his post yesterday (about _which I_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53843) and _others_
(http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/01/obama-probably-did-not-win-the-2012-election-by-violating-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/) were
_critical_
(http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/01/no-the-obama-campaign-didnt-violate-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/) ) and adds the following:
CORRECTION/UPDATE: Having talked in some detail with folks at Facebook, I’
ve concluded that this post was just wrong, and I owe an apology to both
Facebook and the Obama campaign, not to mention the co-bloggers and readers
who joined the fray. Facebook’s terms of service do say all the things that
I and Michael Vatis’s post quoted – they prohibit password sharing and the
soliciting of password sharing and so on. But it turns out that Facebook
also maintains Facebook Platform, whose rules permit users to grant app
developers access to their user data, including a user’s list of friends. The
Obama campaign created an app that adapted this platform to its turnout
goals, and it did so within the rules set by Facebook. Because the program was
authorized by Facebook, it was also authorized under the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act. I’ve deleted the bulk of the post but left it up so that any
links to the original post will come to this correction.
Maybe next time he should be more careful not to insinuate without some
evidence that a presidential candidate was colluding with the Justice
Department to engage in illegal activity to get the candidate illegally elected.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53917&title=Stewart%20Baker%20Mea%20Culpa&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) | Comments
Off
_“The slow deaths of presidential super PACs”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53912)
Posted on _August 2, 2013 9:21 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53912)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_CPI reports_
(http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/08/02/13119/slow-deaths-presidential-super-pacs) .
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53912&title=“
The%20slow%20deaths%20of%20presidential%20super%20PACs”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“The Obligation of Members of Congress to Consider Constitutionality
While Deliberating and Voting: The Deficiencies of House Rule XII and a
Proposed Rule for the United States Senate”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53905)
Posted on _August 2, 2013 9:01 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53905)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Former Senator Russ Feingold has posted _this draft_
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2296716) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Most scholarly attention on constitutional interpretation is focused on
the judicial branch and the role of the judiciary in our system of separation
of powers. Nonetheless constitutional interpretation should not take place
solely in the courts. Rather, history suggests our Framers envisioned that
members of Congress, as well as the President and the Courts, would have
an independent and important role to play in interpreting our Constitution.
Yet this obligation has eroded such that House Speaker John Boehner, with
the support of the Tea Party and his House colleagues, called for a “sea
change” in the way the House of Representatives operates, with “a closer
adherence to the U.S. Constitution,” and amended House Rule XII to require
members of Congress who introduce bills or joint resolutions to provide a
Constitutional Authority Statement (CAS) outlining Congress’s authority to
adopt the bill or joint resolution.
This Essay identifies, explains, and critically explores four key
deficiencies in House’s Rule in light of the history of constitutional
interpretation in Congress, the incentives of members of Congress, and the realities of
the legislative process. While the House’s Rule represents an important
step in improving the quality of constitutional deliberation in Congress, it
is unnecessarily bureaucratic, underinclusive, fails to capture the
importance of constitutional interpretation for all members of Congress, not just
the introducers of legislation; and most importantly, reflects a severely
limited notion of what constitutional issues need to be considered in voting
on legislation by completely ignoring constitutional infirmities involving
individual rights, civil liberties, and any other potential constitutional
issue aside from merely Congress’s authority.
To address these concerns, the Essay offers a proposed rule for adoption
in the United States Senate. The Proposed Rule requires a Constitutional
Authority Statement for all legislation — not just bills or joint resolutions —
but only when that legislation will actually receive a vote. Furthermore,
the Proposed Rule makes it clear that all members of Congress — not just
the introducer — have an individual obligation to consider the
constitutionality of legislation on which they vote. Finally, the Proposed Senate Rule
requires a CAS include not just information about Congress’s Article I
authority to enact a bill, but also address other possible countervailing
constitutional issues like individual liberties.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53905&title=“
The%20Obligation%20of%20Members%20of%20Congress%20to%20Consider%20Constitutionality%20While%20Deliberating%20and%20Voting:%20The
%20Deficiencies%20of%20House%20Rule%20XII%20and%20a%20Prop)
Posted in _legislation and legislatures_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27) | Comments Off
_The Law of Democracy: 2013 Supplement_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53886)
Posted on _August 2, 2013 8:54 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53886)
by _Richard Pildes_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7)
How many books thank both Barack Obama and John Yoo? I know of one — and
it might well be the only one: _The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of
the Political Process. _
(http://www.westacademic.com/Professors/ProductDetails.aspx?productid=178125&tab=1) Back in the mid-1990s, when we were
working on the first edition, Barack Obama was a mere state senator and law
professor at the University of Chicago Law School; John Yoo was a professor at
the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Both taught from the
materials and provided us significant substantive analysis and commentary.
Some others thanked in the First Edition (1998), who were not well known
at the time – indeed, many were law students – but have since gone on to
became major academic or public-policy figures include Lani Guinier (Harvard
Law); Sherrilyn Ifill (now President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP
LDF); Daryl Levinson (NYU Law); Nate Persily (Stanford Law); Jeff Fisher
(Co-Director, Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic); Tom Goldstein (the
lawyer who created and runs SCOTUS Blog). If I left anyone out, assume it’s
because I considered you already well known back in 1998. . .or you worked on
later editions.
I thought of all this when I looked through the book while getting ready
to post a notice about the 2013 Supplement to last year’s Fourth Edition now
being available. One of the most gratifying aspects of creating this
casebook has been the amazing people we have had a chance to work with along
the way. As for the 2013 Supplement, suffice it to say it covers all the
important developments that need to be covered, and more, and that it’s
available from Foundation Press for immediate _download here._
(https://updateweb.thomsonwest.com/pub/cc?_ri_=X0Gzc2X=WQpglLjHJlTQGi4TsB7RfuEmtOmlrEzaYpg3wfNp
fzbfqrza1tTBuHs7RVXtpKX=SRRDUSDWS&_ei_=ErnqQQciIpy-rHXQoqyVvZNYTlsza9wGQvzEb
XsSlL0VPhwvaNvc2kN-LKZ3B56c00jViGVHVf5ucdiOL345z-KhgOxK4MbijufSbm3D9TYbiFJFU
U9WNkQ66bXGuUNh2MQB.)
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53886&title=The%20Law%20of%20Democracy:%20%202013%20Supplement&de
scription=)
Posted in _election law and constitutional law_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55) , _pedagogy_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23) ,
_Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) | 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)
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
_______________________________________________
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
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To
ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that,
unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this
communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This
message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or
use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received
this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the
document. <-->
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130804/38468b44/attachment.html>
View list directory