[EL] Possible Causes of Long Lines

[Doug Hess]

Thank you. I thought it would be odd if there weren't attempts at such
research.  I'll look those over. I suspect, just gut instinct, that delays
at the "what's your name" point are a prime culprit. If only a small
percentage of those in line face some confusion over their registration at
that point it would add many minutes to the lines (i.e., several minutes
for each person facing a minor delay).

The ballot security issues, to my mind, are another vein of concern. I
sense much of the auditing work being done tends to focus on the point of
view of procedures and process from the election officials' side of things
and the  important concerns re:  property security and correct
tabulations.

I saw Justin also sent a report and note, but I couldn't read that email
yet in digest mode on a smartphone. (I can get it later.) So thanks to him
for that, too.

Doug
On Feb 8, 2013 7:58 PM, "Doug Spencer" <dspencer at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Doug,
>
> There has indeed been some "operations research" on long lines at polling
> stations. As you can imagine, there is quite a bit of research that applies
> queuing theory to real-world bottlenecks (e.g. long lines at Wal-Mart<http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/ECON/QS.html>,
> the airline check-in process<http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pal/01605682/2000/00000051/00000004/2600888>,
> the airport screening process<http://interfaces.journal.informs.org/content/9/4/117.abstract>,
> etc. etc.) using models that simulate various outcomes based on changing
> parameters.
>
> This kind of research has recently leaked into the realm election
> administration. Notably, Ted Allen<http://www.ise.osu.edu/ISEFaculty/allen/allen.html#top>(an industrial and systems engineering professor at Ohio State) and Bill
> Edelstein <http://www.mri.jhu.edu/~edelstei/> (a physicist and professor
> of radiology at Johns Hopkins, though more importantly an experienced poll
> worker) have published articles and short reports on the topic. Allen
> provides the best overview of the approach in his analysis of long lines
> in Ohio <http://www.amstat.org/publications/chance/2006/CHANCE%2019_4.pdf>during the 2004 presidential election (p. 25) and has even created
> a software program <http://www.orms-today.org/orms-12-07/voting.html> for
> those election officials that want to run simulations on their own.
> Edelstein proposes a "queue stop rule"<http://static.usenix.org/events/evtwote10/tech/full_papers/Edelstein.pdf>to estimate the number of voters that can be serviced by each voting
> station (and, as a result, discourages jurisdictions from using DREs.<http://static.usenix.org/events/evtwote10/tech/full_papers/Edelstein.pdf>)
> Charles Stewart used this "queue stop rule" to estimate the effect of
> long lines in the 2012 election<http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2012/11/14/a-back-of-the-envelope-calculation-of-floridas-capacity-to-handle-election-day-turnout-without-lines/>.
> There is additional<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0740817X.2012.721947>
> research<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5429279&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5429279>if you're really serious about digging into this topic.
>
> While I think all of this research is illuminating, note that it is
> universally focused on the act of casting a ballot; all of the simulations
> manipulate either the number of voting machines or the length of the
> ballot. The research misses a key component of the voting process: the
> check-in process. As Zach Markovits and I point out in this article<http://dougspencer.org/publications/Spencer-Markovits-ELJ.pdf>,
> there is actually more variance in voters' interactions with poll workers
> than there is for casting a ballot.
>
> I'm actually in favor of more operations research that targets election
> administration. Long lines are just one issue. What about the efficient
> number and location of polling stations<http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8239866>?
> How many ballots should be printed? What is the most efficient and secure
> chain of custody for ballots <http://electionaudits.org/bp-accounting>?
> The tools of operations research seem perfectly suited for these and many
> other questions.
>
> Best,
> Doug
>
> -----
> Douglas M. Spencer
> Jurisprudence and Social Policy Ph.D. Program
> University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
> 2240 Piedmont Avenue
> Berkeley, CA 94720-2150
> (415) 335-9698
> http://works.bepress.com/dspencer/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Doug Hess <douglasrhess at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Your latest email doesn't explain or even address why lines vary in
>> length in the same year and if something can be done about it. The
>> suggestion that the only solution is to spend more ignores the original
>> question (i.e., operations research).
>>
>> The question regarding IF  something should be done about the issue is a
>> separate one. I assume it reduces turnout (see FL articles on this a couple
>> of  weeks back).
>>
>> And thank you for the suggestion that I "get over" my flu soon. I'll
>> assume that's what your shouting meant. :)
>>
>> Doug
>>  On Feb 8, 2013 5:34 PM, "Frank Strickland" <fbs at sbllaw.net> wrote:
>>
>>>  Rob:****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Thanks for your note. I don’t find my 2006 testimony to be inconsistent
>>> with today’s comments. There have always been lines to vote. The length of
>>> lines varies based on the type of election (presidential elections have a
>>> much greater voter turnout; gubernatorial somewhat less). Adding early
>>> voting didn’t eliminate lines. Some polling places have no lines at all.
>>> Early voting is only available at a limited number of locations, so lines
>>> are more likely to be long.  Governments responsible for paying for
>>> elections are willing to devote reasonable budgets to the election process.
>>> As I recall, the cost to Fulton County taxpayers to staff and run a general
>>> election (with 330 or more polling places) was at least $500,000 for one
>>> day. I don’t think the Fulton County Commission would double that amount to
>>> reduce the length of lines. Our voting system is certainly not perfect, but
>>> I think it works well.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Frank****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Frank B. Strickland
>>> Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP
>>> Midtown Proscenium Suite 2200
>>> 1170 Peachtree Street NE
>>> Atlanta, GA 30309
>>> 678.347.2211 direct
>>> 678.347.2210 fax
>>> FBS at sbllaw.net
>>> www.sbllaw.net ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Confidentiality Notice:  This communication constitutes an electronic
>>> communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy
>>> Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the
>>> recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission and any
>>> attachments may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information
>>> and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any
>>> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information
>>> contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited.
>>> Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 678-347-2200, and
>>> destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
>>> saving in any manner.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* Rob Richie [mailto:rr at fairvote.org]
>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 08, 2013 5:22 PM
>>> *To:* Frank Strickland
>>> *Cc:* Doug Hess; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Possible Causes of Long Lines****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Frank,****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> It's late on a Friday and perhaps we're all a bit expectant about the
>>> weekend, but.... I have to say yours is quite an observation to make for an
>>> influential political figure with a long history of service in his state.
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> As I assume you know, a survey of wait times in 2008 found that Georgia
>>> had the second longest lines in the country -- nearly 40 minutes, as
>>> reported in the new Pew report on election administration around the
>>> country. Although I could be wrong, I'm guessing that your county of Fulton
>>> would have been higher in its average that some other parts of the state.
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> In 2006, when you served on the Fulton County election board, you
>>> testified to Congress that decisions of Fulton County election officials at
>>> this point should be beyond oversight. (See below). Yet today you suggest
>>> that people should just accept long lines and just get over it. To me
>>> that's rather flippant when you think about people having responsibilities
>>> like jobs and children to take care of.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> I'd like to think that it's a nonpartisan issue to ensure voting is
>>> efficient, secure and widespread. Treating the issue of long lines as a
>>> serious one seems like a good place to start.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Have a good weekend,****
>>>
>>> Rob Richie****
>>>
>>>
>>> ###########****
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da113c84e&wit_id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da113c84e-2-2
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ..... TThese preclearance requirements exist because the VRA presumes
>>> that decisions on such matters by the Election Board are suspect and must
>>> be approved by a Justice Department official before being implemented.
>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. Frankly, it is insulting to the
>>> integrity of the members of the Election Board and the entire staff of the
>>> election department, as well as to the government and citizens of Fulton
>>> County, to be told by Congress that another 25 years of supervision by the
>>> Justice Department is required based on a presumption that our policies and
>>> procedures are suspect. In my service on the Election Board in the 1970s
>>> and during my current tenure since 2004, I am not aware of a single
>>> instance of improper relocation of a polling place, adjustment of precinct
>>> boundary lines or any issue with the date of a special election, yet the
>>> VRA, if renewed without modification or elimination of the application of
>>> Section 5 to the State of Georgia or Fulton County, will continue the
>>> fiction that all such decisions are suspect and require submission to the
>>> Department of Justice."****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Frank Strickland <fbs at sbllaw.net> wrote:
>>> ****
>>>
>>> There have always been lines for voting, with or without early voting.
>>>  Get over it!****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Frank B. Strickland
>>> Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP
>>> Midtown Proscenium Suite 2200
>>> 1170 Peachtree Street NE
>>> Atlanta, GA 30309
>>> 678.347.2211 direct
>>> 678.347.2210 fax
>>> FBS at sbllaw.net
>>> www.sbllaw.net ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Confidentiality Notice:  This communication constitutes an electronic
>>> communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy
>>> Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the
>>> recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission and any
>>> attachments may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information
>>> and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any
>>> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information
>>> contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited.
>>> Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 678-347-2200, and
>>> destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
>>> saving in any manner.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Doug Hess
>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 08, 2013 4:36 PM
>>> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> *Subject:* [EL] Possible Causes of Long Lines****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>
>>> As I sit here in bed on day five of the world's worst flu (not a fun way
>>> to lose weight), I'm wondering what cuases (possible or known) exist for
>>> long lines. ****
>>>
>>> Have analysts ever conducted some sort of Taylorism study of voting
>>> precincts? I've always wondered what "operations research" courses that
>>> some policy schools offer were about, but if that field is about placing
>>> resources and flow of clients, can or has that been applied to this issue?
>>> ****
>>>
>>> More immediately, I can imagine that almost any steps in the process of
>>> voting in person can contribute to bottlenecks at various places, but which
>>> steps are the largest or most likely culprits?****
>>>
>>> Doug ****
>>>
>>> On Feb 8, 2013 3:00 PM, <law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>> wrote:****
>>>
>>> Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
>>>         law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>         http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>         law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>         law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>    1. Re: OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World? (JBoppjr at aol.com)
>>>    2. Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,     people.
>>>       Move along. (Joe La Rue)
>>>    3. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
>>>       people. Move along. (Rick Hasen)
>>>    4. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
>>>       people. Move along. (Tova Wang)
>>>    5. ELB News and Commentary 2/8/13 (Rick Hasen)
>>>    6. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
>>>       people. Move along. (Frank Askin)
>>>    7. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see       here,
>>>       people. Move along. (Frank Askin)
>>>    8. How strange. I've written about and called for reform of
>>>       absentee ballots for years (John Fund)
>>>    9. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
>>>       people. Move along. (Salvador Peralta)
>>>   10. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
>>>       people. Move along. (dasmith)
>>>   11. Re: How strange. I've written about and called for reform of
>>>       absentee ballots for years (Ryan J. Reilly)
>>>   12. Re: How strange. I've written about and called for reform of
>>>       absentee ballots for years (Rick Hasen)
>>>   13. Re: OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World? (Steve Hoersting)
>>>   14. Absentee ballots and voter ID (Jon Roland)
>>>   15. Re: How strange. I've written about and called for reform of
>>>       absentee ballots for years (Sean Parnell)
>>>   16. Re: Absentee ballots and voter ID (Greenberg, Kevin)
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: JBoppjr at aol.com
>>> To: sean at impactpolicymanagement.com, schmitt.mark at gmail.com,
>>> PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org, law-election at uci.edu
>>> Cc:
>>> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:45:40 -0500 (EST)
>>> Subject: Re: [EL] OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World?****
>>>
>>> Sean is right.  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> In addition, it is already quite common and clearly legal for Members of
>>> Congress to work with advocacy groups regarding grass roots lobbying in
>>> favor of legislation which the Congressman favors or opposes.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> It is also not unprecedented for a Presidential campaign to morph into
>>> an advocacy group -- Pat Robertson's campaign in 1988 became the basis for
>>> the Christian Coalition.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> So I see nothing remarkable or illegal about OFA, aside from the
>>> remarkable hypocrisy of it all. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> But even the hypocrisy of it is not that remarkable.  The campaign
>>> finance "reform"  industry works with Members of Congress on their grass
>>> roots lobbying and also the groups benefit from the fundraising that some
>>> Congressmen do for them. And these groups also provide direct benefits to
>>> various Congressmen -- featuring them and praising them in public relations
>>> campaigns and paying for their litigation expenses.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> And of course they accept unlimited corporate contributions of "dark
>>> money," too, to fund it all.  Jim Bopp****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> In a message dated 2/7/2013 1:45:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com writes:****
>>>
>>>  I’m not sure about 501c3 and c4 groups that are used by officeholders
>>> to keep family and campaign staff employed, but I do know it’s pretty
>>> common for officeholders to sign letters on behalf of a wide variety of c3
>>> and c4 groups urging people to donate to them, and there is typically not
>>> much of a connection between the officeholder and the entity other than
>>> they like the group’s work. Some of these groups are fairly ideological –
>>> lots of Congressman have signed letters on behalf of Heritage over the
>>> years, for example – while others are not, such as the charity that sent
>>> oral surgeons to Central America to do cleft lip and cleft palate surgery
>>> on children that the Congressman I used to work for signed a letter for
>>> (actually, used his fundraising list to send it to as well).****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> I only throw this out there because it seems worth recognizing these
>>> things in a discussion of officeholders raising funds for c3 and c4 groups.
>>> ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Sean Parnell****
>>>
>>> President****
>>>
>>> Impact Policy Management, LLC****
>>>
>>> 6411 Caleb Court****
>>>
>>> Alexandria, VA  22315****
>>>
>>> 571-289-1374 (c)****
>>>
>>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mark
>>> Schmitt
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:59 AM
>>> *To:* Paul Ryan; law-election at uci.edu
>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World?****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Good points, Paul, and you're right that the idea of "shutting down" OFA
>>> is a bit of a straw-man. I think we agree that the issues around
>>> office-holder fundraising for OFA or similar organizations are in a
>>> somewhat different zone, having to do with activities of elected officials,
>>> than the zone of campaign-finance regulation that Steve connects them to.
>>>
>>> I believe, by the way, that a lot of elected officials already have
>>> 501(c)4's and 501(c)3's that they raise money for, and often they use them
>>> not so much for issue advocacy as to keep their spouses, family members,
>>> and campaign staffers employed, and as a platform for fundraising. Rep.
>>> Steve Buyer's golf charity was, I suspect, the tip of a very big iceberg.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/7/2013 10:58 AM, Paul Ryan wrote:****
>>>
>>> I appreciate your thoughtful post, Mark.  I think there’s a lot to be
>>> said for “public official exceptionalism,” not just “electoral
>>> exceptionalism.”  You note that “there are all sorts of regulations on the
>>> time and activity of public officials, as opposed to ordinary citizens,
>>> such as revolving-door regulations on later employment, financial
>>> disclosure requirements, public meetings laws, etc.”  I would add to your
>>> list important restrictions on gifts to public officials, anti-bribery
>>> laws, restrictions on outside employment, restrictions on profiting from
>>> information obtained in the exercise of official duties, etc..  I believe
>>> that these sorts of restrictions on public official involvement in
>>> financial transactions, together with election-specific fundraising
>>> restrictions, are vital to a well-functioning democracy.  Our campaign
>>> finance fundraising restrictions are supported by the governmental interest
>>> in preventing actual and apparent corruption of officeholders—the same
>>> governmental interest that supports the rest of the money-related ethics
>>> rules/restrictions listed above.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> And that’s really what I’m talking/writing about when it comes to
>>> President Obama and OFA.  You wrote that “as a matter of policy, shutting
>>> down operations that are intended to organize the public on particular
>>> issue priorities, but don't intervene in elections, doesn't seem to me like
>>> a very high priority.  And it's certainly not essential to making other
>>> campaign finance reforms work.”  I haven’t advocated “shutting down
>>> operations that are intended to organize the public on particular issue
>>> priorities.”  This is a straw man.  My concern is with an officeholder
>>> raising big contributions for such an operation.  “Operations that are
>>> intended to organize the public on particular issue priorities” are free to
>>> raise and spend unlimited funds and such organizations have been around a
>>> long time doing so.  What’s new here—and troubling to me—is an
>>> officeholder’s direct involvement in this activity.  Why must such an
>>> organization involve an officeholder when doing so raises the threat of
>>> corruption?  If donors support the group’s work, won’t they give generously
>>> even if doing so won’t result in access to an officeholder?****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> As for your assertion that restricting an officeholder’s fundraising for
>>> such a group is “certainly not essential to making other campaign finance
>>> reforms work,” I suppose that depends on the goal of the campaign finance
>>> reforms.  If the goal is for such campaign finance reforms to work in
>>> tandem with other officeholder financial activity restrictions like those
>>> listed above, in order to prevent actual and apparent corruption, then
>>> limiting officeholder fundraising for such a group does seem essential to
>>> me.  You note the “challenge is in finding the real borders of the
>>> election.”  Your “electoral exceptionalism” theory exponentially increases
>>> the importance of doing so.  (By contrast, my theory of “public official
>>> exceptionalism” requires only that we identify those public officials whose
>>> financial activity we deem appropriate to regulate.)  If the President’s
>>> operation of OFA isn’t checked, I have no doubt that other Members of
>>> Congress will soon set up their own (c)(4)s for unlimited fundraising, with
>>> sharp lawyers ready to defend the activities as “intended to organize the
>>> public on particular issue priorities.”  The borders will be pushed hard.
>>> Existing campaign contribution limits will be severely undermined.  Those
>>> who oppose existing contribution limits will take great delight in this
>>> development.  The rest of us might reasonably be concerned by the precedent
>>> likely to be set by President Obama and OFA.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Best,****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Paul Seamus Ryan****
>>>
>>> Senior Counsel****
>>>
>>> The Campaign Legal Center****
>>>
>>> 215 E Street NE****
>>>
>>> Washington, DC 20002****
>>>
>>> Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 214****
>>>
>>> Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315****
>>>
>>> Fax (202) 736-2222****
>>>
>>> Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/****
>>>
>>> Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/****
>>>
>>> To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
>>> http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Itemid=63
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal <http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg> ****
>>>
>>> Become a fan on Facebook <http://on.fb.me/jroDv2>****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *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>]
>>> *On Behalf Of *Mark Schmitt
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:34 AM
>>> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World?****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> There's a lot to be said for "electoral exceptionalism." Money and
>>> economic inequality influence politics and policy outcomes in millions of
>>> ways, but elections are a protected space in which the potential for
>>> corruption is much higher (since elections have a direct, winner-take-all
>>> effect on who holds power) and in which we necessarily impose some rules in
>>> the interest of orderly and balanced participation. (No campaigning within
>>> 75 feet of a polling place, for example, is a restriction on expression but
>>> one that we generally accept as common sense and in the interest of an
>>> orderly, fair election.) Elections are a structured process, and the rules
>>> governing them will always be, and should be, somewhat different from the
>>> rules governing more freewheeling debate about policies and ideas.
>>>
>>> The challenge is in finding the real borders of the election. Sometimes
>>> ads that say "call your member of Congress" really mean, "call your member
>>> of Congress." And sometimes, as we know, they mean, "vote against that
>>> tax-raising jerk," and should be considered a de facto campaign
>>> contribution. (In the case of gun safety, the example you used in an
>>> earlier piece, Steve, "Call your member of Congress" 20 months before the
>>> next election, probably means exactly that, because elected officials are
>>> unsure where their constituents stand right now on that issue.) Getting
>>> that line right can be a challenge, but the complexity and occasional
>>> idiosyncratic outcome doesn't invalidate the basic distinction.
>>>
>>> It's not great to have elected officials involved in raising money to
>>> try to help them achieve their substantive goals, which may create a
>>> relationship of dependency similar to that of campaign contributions. But
>>> it's not the same kind of problem, and not as pervasive. Paul may well be
>>> right that the Court would accept some regulation of public officials
>>> raising money for such organizations  -- there are all sorts of regulations
>>> on the time and activity of public officials, as opposed to ordinary
>>> citizens, such as revolving-door regulations on later employment, financial
>>> disclosure requirements, public meetings laws, etc. But as a matter of
>>> policy, shutting down operations that are intended to organize the public
>>> on particular issue priorities, but don't intervene in elections, doesn't
>>> seem to me like a very high priority. And it's certainly not essential to
>>> making other campaign finance reforms work.
>>>
>>> Another interesting dimension of this is the question of when an
>>> organization is considered to be aligned with a political party, or
>>> pursuing the aims of that party. Twenty years ago, for example, an
>>> environmental organization wouldn't have been seen as "aligned" with the
>>> Democratic Party; now it might be. The same is true on guns or health
>>> reform or any number of issues. It seems difficult to develop a robust
>>> legal theory about when an organization is "partisan" when an issue can go
>>> from bipartisan to partisan, or vice versa, in days. Organizing to push
>>> "the president's agenda" might be partisan on some issues, but not on
>>> immigration, probably.
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> On 2/6/2013 1:04 PM, Doug Hess wrote:****
>>>
>>> Not sure I can agree on the "no matter to what ends" language (by agree,
>>> I mean thinking through my own views, not what this or that court has
>>> said). Surely there is some line, where if the fundraiser is not taking
>>> money for their own office or own campaign, they are raising money for
>>> mobilization and public organizing that is not candidate focused. I guess
>>> the area in between is when they are raising money that then supports
>>> another candidate. I.e., three scenarios: ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> 1) donor --> official --> official's election campaign****
>>>
>>> 2) donor --> official --> another person's election campaign****
>>>
>>> 3) donor --> official --> organizing the public on issues****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> The first seems bad, the second I'd be concerned about as it quickly
>>> could equal the first, but the third one doesn't strike me as necessarily
>>> corrupt or appearing corrupt (although it could need regulating to keep it
>>> "clean") . Presumably wealthy donors, in the end, have plenty of ways of
>>> "buying off" the fundraiser or organization's board/staff through other
>>> donations nowadays.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Doug****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Paul Ryan <
>>> PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org> wrote:****
>>>
>>> Doug,****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> You wonder, in your email, whether President Obama plans to help raise
>>> funds for OFA while in office.  The President “announced the relaunch of
>>> his remaining campaign apparatus as a new tax-exempt group called
>>> Organizing for Action . . . .”  (
>>> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-campaign-to-relaunch-as-tax-exempt-group-86375.html)
>>> If press accounts are accurate, the President and his political team will
>>> be very involved in all aspects of running OFA and this presumably includes
>>> fundraising for the group.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> My concern/objection is that an officeholder will be soliciting very
>>> large (i.e., unlimited) contributions from unlimited sources (e.g.,
>>> individuals, corporations, unions, foreign nationals—quite possibly with
>>> business before the officeholder) and that the law doesn’t even require
>>> public disclosure of these contributions/sources.   (Though OFA is
>>> apparently planning to voluntarily disclose some degree of information
>>> about its donors, other officeholders may emulate this strategy without the
>>> voluntary disclosure.)****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> As I explained in my email to the listserv yesterday, the Supreme Court
>>> has recognized, in upholding limits on candidate/officeholder fundraising
>>> and related disclosure requirements, that unlimited officeholder
>>> fundraising gives rise to “corruption or the appearance of corruption”
>>> “regardless of the ends to which those funds are ultimately put.”  I agree
>>> with the Court on this point.  In my view, officeholder fundraising for a
>>> 501(c)(4) dedicated to promoting that officeholder’s political agenda gives
>>> rise to precisely the same threat of corruption as officeholder fundraising
>>> for his/her reelection campaign.  The threat of corruption exists
>>> “regardless of the ends to which those funds are ultimately put.”****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Best,****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Paul Seamus Ryan****
>>>
>>> Senior Counsel****
>>>
>>> The Campaign Legal Center****
>>>
>>> 215 E Street NE****
>>>
>>> Washington, DC 20002****
>>>
>>> Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 214****
>>>
>>> Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315****
>>>
>>> Fax (202) 736-2222****
>>>
>>> Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/****
>>>
>>> Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/****
>>>
>>> To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
>>> http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Itemid=63
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal <http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg> ****
>>>
>>> Become a fan on Facebook <http://on.fb.me/jroDv2>****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Doug Hess
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:54 AM
>>> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> *Subject:* [EL] OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World?****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> I don't understand the objection to an organization (the new OFA) that
>>> promotes mobilization around community and national issues receiving
>>> donations. If the members don't like who funds the group, they won't fund
>>> it (i.e., donate or join it) either. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> I guess for appearances, Obama's involvement raises questions, but there
>>> are ways to limit that involvement in reality and in appearance. It will be
>>> interesting to see if he plans to help raise funds for it while in office.
>>> If it endorses, then things are trickier, I guess. But a 501(c)4
>>> organization (I think that is what it is) can only inform members of its
>>> endorsement, right? And it would be odd for a sitting president to endorse
>>> many people in a primary fight in a systematic way (FDR learned that) and
>>> even odder that he would endorse members of the opposite party. So, what is
>>> the concern? That people may organize and a president encourage it?****
>>>
>>>
>>> On another topic: It is interesting to note that an extra-party
>>> organization is needed to do more creative political organizing in American
>>> politics. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> -Doug ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________****
>>>
>>> Law-election mailing list****
>>>
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu****
>>>
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>>>
>>>   ****
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Schmitt
>>> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.nextnewdeal.net/>
>>> 202/246-2350
>>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark twitter: mschmitt9 ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
>>> To: law-election at uci.edu
>>> Cc:
>>> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:35:48 -0700
>>> Subject: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
>>> people. Move along.
>>> This is not directed at Rick, who has candidly acknowledged that voter
>>> fraud does, sometimes, happen.  But there are others who say that "voter
>>> fraud" is nothing but an invention of those who want to suppress voters by
>>> requiring photo ID.  Worse, some say that it is an invention to keep
>>> minorities from voting.  Well, for all who say that voter fraud never,
>>> ever, happens, here's another example of that "non-existent" phenomenon.
>>> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
>>> ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Joe
>>> ___________________
>>> *Joseph E. La Rue*****
>>>
>>> cell: 480.272.2715
>>> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
>>> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
>>> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
>>> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
>>> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
>>> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>>> To: Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
>>> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:44:23 -0800
>>> Subject: Re: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
>>> people. Move along.****
>>>
>>> I don't know any serious person studying this issue who says there is no
>>> election fraud.  The vast majority of the relatively small number of cases
>>> involve either election officials committing fraud, or voters, candidates,
>>> and others committing absentee ballot fraud.
>>> The problem is that the supposed cure---voter id---does not stop these
>>> main types of fraud.
>>> If John Fund and others started a serious push to eliminate the use of
>>> absentee ballots, then I would take their concerns about voter fraud much
>>> more seriously. But it is not a part of the antifraud measures proposed and
>>> adopted by those who claim this is a major problem.****
>>>
>>> On 2/8/13 7:35 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:****
>>>
>>> This is not directed at Rick, who has candidly acknowledged that voter
>>> fraud does, sometimes, happen.  But there are others who say that "voter
>>> fraud" is nothing but an invention of those who want to suppress voters by
>>> requiring photo ID.  Worse, some say that it is an invention to keep
>>> minorities from voting.  Well, for all who say that voter fraud never,
>>> ever, happens, here's another example of that "non-existent" phenomenon.
>>> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
>>> ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Joe
>>> ___________________
>>> *Joseph E. La Rue*****
>>>
>>> cell: 480.272.2715
>>> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
>>> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
>>> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
>>> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
>>> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
>>> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________****
>>>
>>> Law-election mailing list****
>>>
>>> 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****
>>>
>>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html****
>>>
>>> http://electionlawblog.org****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Tova Wang <twang at demos.org>
>>> To: Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>, "law-election at uci.edu" <
>>> law-election at uci.edu>
>>> Cc:
>>> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:41:59 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
>>> people. Move along.****
>>>
>>> I believe people argue that there is very little fraud perpetrated by
>>> voters at the polling place.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t these
>>> cases mostly involve absentee ballots and the actions of an election
>>> official?  In the one case where a voter says it appeared that someone else
>>> had voted in her name, I would say to stand by to see if there is a
>>> clerical error, as is often the case. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Possible-Ohio-voter-fraud-investigation-heats-up-4256259.php
>>> ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Joe La Rue
>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 08, 2013 4:36 PM
>>> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
>>> *Subject:* [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
>>> people. Move along.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> This is not directed at Rick, who has candidly acknowledged that voter
>>> fraud does, sometimes, happen.  But there are others who say that "voter
>>> fraud" is nothing but an invention of those who want to suppress voters by
>>> requiring photo ID.  Worse, some say that it is an invention to keep
>>> minorities from voting.  Well, for all who say that voter fraud never,
>>> ever, happens, here's another example of that "non-existent" phenomenon.
>>> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
>>> ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Joe
>>> ___________________
>>> *Joseph E. La Rue*****
>>>
>>> cell: 480.272.2715
>>> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
>>> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
>>> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
>>> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
>>> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
>>> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>>> To: "law-election at UCI.edu" <law-election at UCI.edu>
>>> Cc:
>>> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:03:07 -0800
>>> Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/8/13****
>>>  Forum on “The Voting Wars” at Cardozo law Feb. 11<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46018>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted on February 8, 2013 8:00 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46018>by Rick
>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>>>
>>> [Moving to top, and looking forward to attending this event
>>> Monday--assuming the weather cooperates.]****
>>>
>>> Cardozo Law School’s Foersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy is
>>> putting on this event<http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10374&contentid=25758&folderid=340>Feb. 11 at noon:
>>> ****
>>>
>>>  The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown, a
>>> discussion with the author ****
>>>
>>> 2/11/2013****
>>>
>>> 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm****
>>>
>>> Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at
>>> the University of California, Irvine, will discuss and respond to
>>> commentary about his recent book, *The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000
>>> to the Next Election Meltdown*. Professor Hasen is a well-known expert
>>> in the field of election law, having co-founded the *Election Law
>>> Journal* and published more than eighty articles in the field.****
>>>
>>> Commenting on Professor Hasen’s book will be election law Professors
>>> Janai S. Nelson, from St. John’s University School of Law; Richard
>>> Briffault, from Columbia Law School; and Mark C. Alexander, from Seton Hall
>>> Law School. Professor Alexander is currently running for the New Jersey
>>> Senate.****
>>>
>>> The panel will be moderated by Professor Michelle Adams.****
>>>
>>>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46018&title=Forum%20on%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Wars%E2%80%9D%20at%20Cardozo%20law%20Feb.%2011&description=>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
>>> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off ****
>>>   A Quick Reminder on Voter Fraud <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47061>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted on February 8, 2013 7:52 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47061>by Rick
>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>>>
>>> With news<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/02/08/ohio_poll_worker_admits_to_voting_twice.html>of possible fraud claims coming out of Hamilton County, Ohio, it is worth
>>> remembering that vast majority of the relatively small number of cases
>>> involve either election officials committing fraud, or voters, candidates,
>>> and others committing absentee ballot fraud.
>>> The problem is that the supposed cure—voter id—does not stop these main
>>> types of fraud.
>>> If John Fund and others started a serious push to eliminate the use of
>>> absentee ballots, then I would take their concerns about voter fraud much
>>> more seriously. But it is not a part of the antifraud measures proposed and
>>> adopted by those who claim this is a major problem.****
>>>
>>> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47061&title=A%20Quick%20Reminder%20on%20Voter%20Fraud&description=>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election
>>> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, fraudulent fraud
>>> squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,
>>> voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off ****
>>>   “Democrats Cite Long Lines in Bid to Shift Voting Rights Debate”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47058>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted on February 8, 2013 7:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47058>by Rick
>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>>>
>>> Bloomberg reports<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-08/democrats-cite-long-lines-in-bid-to-shift-voting-rights-debate.html?alcmpid=politics>
>>> .****
>>>
>>> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47058&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20Cite%20Long%20Lines%20in%20Bid%20to%20Shift%20Voting%20Rights%20Debate%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
>>> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>| Comments Off
>>> ****
>>>   “Online symposium announcement: Shelby County v. Holder”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47055>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:31 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47055>by Rick
>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>>>
>>> SCOTUSBlog symposium on Shelby County is coming<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/online-symposium-announcement-shelby-county-v-holder/>
>>> .****
>>>
>>> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47055&title=%E2%80%9COnline%20symposium%20announcement%3A%20Shelby%20County%20v.%20Holder%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
>>> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off ****
>>>   “Watch Out in the Covered Jurisdictions”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47052>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47052>by Rick
>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>>>
>>> Mike Pitts has written this contribution<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/07/watch-out-in-the-covered-jurisdictions/>to the Reuters
>>> voting rights symposium <http://www.reuters.com/subjects/voting-rights>on the Shelby County case.  A snippet: “In contrast, on the local level,
>>> there could be widespread retrogression. This could come from redistricting
>>> plans that eliminate ‘safe’ districts, switches to at-large elections or
>>> annexations of white population by cities and towns that would reduce
>>> minority voters’ influence. The key reason these changes are likely is that
>>> if you look at the Justice Department’s pre-clearance enforcement over the
>>> past 30 years, what stands out is that a disproportionate number of
>>> pre-clearance denials involved vote dilution on the local level. If local
>>> jurisdictions are most likely to violate Section 5 now, they are far more
>>> likely to be emboldened when it’s killed.”****
>>>
>>> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47052&title=%E2%80%9CWatch%20Out%20in%20the%20Covered%20Jurisdictions%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
>>> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off ****
>>>   Crossroad GPS’s Tax Status Still in Limbo<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47049>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47049>by Rick
>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>>>
>>> Ken Vogel tweets<https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/299646127370813445>
>>> .****
>>>
>>> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47049&title=Crossroad%20GPS%E2%80%99s%20Tax%20Status%20Still%20in%20Limbo&description=>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
>>> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments
>>> Off ****
>>>   “Pro-Obama group says it’s not partisan, but has wide latitude”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47046>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:10 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47046>by Rick
>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>>>
>>> The *LA Times* reports.<http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-organizing-for-action-partisan-issues-20130207,0,6239594.story>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47046&title=%E2%80%9CPro-Obama%20group%20says%20it%E2%80%99s%20not%20partisan%2C%20but%20has%20wide%20latitude%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 ****
>>>   “Shareholders question corporate political spending”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47043>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:08 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47043>by Rick
>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>>>
>>> Darrell Delamaide column<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/shareholders-question-corporate-political-spending-2013-02-07>for Marketwatch.
>>> ****
>>>
>>> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47043&title=%E2%80%9CShareholders%20question%20corporate%20political%20spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
>>> Comments Off ****
>>>   “Non-political nonprofit’s spending spikes in election years”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47040>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47040>by Rick
>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>>>
>>> CPI reports<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/07/12160/non-political-nonprofits-spending-spikes-election-years?utm_source=publicintegrity&utm_medium=social_media&utm_campaign=twitter>
>>> .****
>>>
>>> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47040&title=%E2%80%9CNon-political%20nonprofit%E2%80%99s%20spending%20spikes%20in%20election%20years%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 ****
>>>   Extensive Ari Berman Cover Story for Nation on Shelby County Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47037>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted on February 7, 2013 4:51 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47037>by Rick
>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>>>
>>> The piece<http://www.thenation.com/article/172685/why-are-conservatives-trying-destroy-voting-rights-act?page=full>includes quotes from Rep. Sensenbrenner, and also this tidbit:
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Many of the states and donors who have supported discriminatory voting
>>> laws are also backing Blum. His Project on Fair Representation is
>>> exclusively funded by Donors Trust, a consortium of conservative funders
>>> that might be the most influential organization you’ve never heard of.
>>> Donors Trust doled out $22 million to a Who’s Who of influential
>>> conservative groups in 2010, including the American Legislative Exchange
>>> Council (ALEC), which drafted mock voter ID laws and a raft of
>>> controversial state-based legislation; the Americans for Prosperity
>>> Foundation, the Koch brothers’ main public policy arm; as well as Grover
>>> Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform Foundation. Donors Trust has received
>>> seven-figure donations from virtually every top conservative donor,
>>> including $5.2 million since 2005 from Charles Koch’s Knowledge and
>>> Progress Fund. (The structure of Donors Trust allows wealthy conservative
>>> donors like Koch to disguise much of their giving.)****
>>>
>>> From 2006 to 2011, Blum received $1.2 million from Donors Trust, which
>>> allowed him to retain the services of Wiley Rein, the firm that
>>> unsuccessfully defended Ohio’s and Florida’s attempts to restrict early
>>> voting in federal court last year. As a “special program fund” of the
>>> tax-exempt Donors Trust, Blum’s group does not have to disclose which
>>> funders of Donors Trust are giving him money, but he has identified two of
>>> them: the Bradley Foundation and the Searle Freedom Trust. The
>>> Wisconsin-based Bradley Foundation paid for billboards in minority
>>> communities in Milwaukee during the 2010 election with the ominous message
>>> “Voter Fraud Is a Felony!”, which voting rights groups denounced as voter
>>> suppression. Both Bradley and Searle have given six-figure donations to
>>> ALEC in recent years, and Bradley funded a think tank in Wisconsin, the
>>> MacIver Institute, that hyped discredited claims of voter fraud to justify
>>> the state’s voter ID law, currently blocked in state court.****
>>>
>>>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47037&title=Extensive%20Ari%20Berman%20Cover%20Story%20for%20Nation%20on%20Shelby%20County%20Case&description=>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
>>> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off ****
>>>   “Voting Rights Act at Risk” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47034> ****
>>>
>>> Posted on February 7, 2013 4:41 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47034>by Rick
>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>>>
>>> That important CQ story<http://public.cq.com/docs/weeklyreport/weeklyreport-000004214386.html>is now free, out from the paywall.
>>> ****
>>>
>>> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47034&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20Act%20at%20Risk%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
>>> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off ****
>>>
>>> -- ****
>>>
>>> Rick Hasen****
>>>
>>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science****
>>>
>>> UC Irvine School of Law****
>>>
>>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000****
>>>
>>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000****
>>>
>>> 949.824.3072 - office****
>>>
>>> 949.824.0495 - fax****
>>>
>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu****
>>>
>>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html****
>>>
>>> http://electionlawblog.org****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Frank Askin" <faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu>
>>> To: "Joe La Rue" <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>, <law-election at uci.edu>
>>> Cc:
>>> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:09:56 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
>>> people. Move along.
>>> If this is the best National Review can come up with, I would agree that
>>> there is virtually no in-person voter fraud.
>>> ...
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130208/e9dff63c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130208/e9dff63c/attachment.png>