[EL] CLC Head in the Sand
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Wed Mar 27 07:00:43 PDT 2013
And then there is inflation, et cetera, et cetera. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 3/27/2013 9:59:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com writes:
Probably worth also noting that there are more voters/constituents in each
Congressional district and state, and the media markets are more
fragmented to reach different voter segments, so even if contribution limits had
truly kept pace with inflation a maximum contribution would still be worth
less relatively speaking than in 1974.
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 Ray La Raja
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:09 AM
To: Paul Ryan
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] CLC Head in the Sand
One more note about contribution limits. If BCRA had adjusted the
individual limit of $1000 to simply reflect inflation since 1974, that limit would
now be $4,700 per election in 2012. "Raising" the contribution limit to
$2000 under BCRA actually reflects a much tighter limit than what reformers
settled on in 1974.
Similarly, for individual contributions to parties. A $20,000 limit in
1974 would now be equivalent to $94,000 (or $188,000 per cycle). That's much
lower than the BCRA "increase" to just $25,000 for parties (which is the
equivalent of setting an individual limit on party contributions of $5,300 in
1974 instead of $20,000).
Ray
On Mar 27, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Ray La Raja <_laraja at polsci.umass.edu_
(mailto:laraja at polsci.umass.edu) > wrote:
Paul,
Regarding the data on party money, my understanding from the Center for
Responsive Politics is that the figures you referred to in your original post
inflate party fundraising significantly because they don't exclude the
transfers between party committees. When these are backed out party financing
has declined in presidential cycles (though not precipitously) from a
high of $1.8 billion in 2004 to just under $1.6 billion in 2012 (adjusted for
2012 dollars). The percentage decline has been deeper in midterm elections
going from a high of $1.5 billion in 2002 to $1.2 billion in 2010. The
latter is especially surprising since it was a year in which control over
Congress was in play. Party fundraising was also down in 2006 when Democrats
took over compared to 2002. Non-party fundraising has gone up throughout
this period, although I don't have the numbers in front of me.
Ray
Ray La Raja
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
_http://polsci.umass.edu/profiles/la-raja_ray/home_
(http://polsci.umass.edu/profiles/la-raja_ray/home)
On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Paul Ryan <_PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org_
(mailto:PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org) > wrote:
Thanks, Jim. I have a few thoughts and questions in response.
First, what’s the basis for your assertion that the CLC “opposed raising
the contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 for candidates in
McCain-Feingold”? The McCain-Feingold law was enacted in March 2002. The CLC wasn’t
incorporated until January 2002 and took a few months to get up and
running. As far as I know, the CLC didn’t do any advocacy work with respect to
the McCain-Feingold law and didn’t oppose the contribution limit increase.
On the contrary, once CLC was up and running, it served as part of the
legal team representing the law’s principal Congressional sponsors (McCain,
Feingold, Shays, Meehan, Snowe, Jeffords) as defendant-intervenors in
McConnell v. FEC, defending the law in its entirety—including the increased
contribution limit. For example, here’s a _link_
(http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/attachments/BCRA_MCCAIN_FEINGOLD/McConnell_v_FEC_District_Court/341.pdf)
to the section of our district court brief defending the increased
contribution limit (beginning on p. 208). Is there some CLC history that I’m
unaware of?
Second, regarding national party fundraising, I relied on data reported by
the parties to the FEC for the piece I wrote for the CLC blog. You
dismiss the fact that parties have continually raised more and more money
post-McCain-Feingold, asserting that these data don’t matter because even though “
national political parties ‘raised more money,’ they had less money to
spend on politics.” I’m open to this possibility; will you point me to the
data you’re relying on for your analysis? You lament the cost of prospect
mail, other direct mail and telemarketing—old-school forms of fundraising—
while the RNC’s report describes “direct mail prospecting” as “low cost.”
What does your data show about the use of even less expensive
Internet-based fundraising techniques? Does your data show differences in fundraising
strategies and costs between parties? Is Internet-based fundraising on
the rise? How does the RNC’s plan to “significantly work to grow its
digital fundraising efforts” impact your analysis?
Third, I’m happy to read your acknowledgement that “relative influence”
matters when it comes to money in politics. For years I’ve thought you
objected to any public interest in a level campaign finance playing field, but
in your email today you explain that what matters is “the total spending in
each [election] and the national parties share.” You complain that the “
national political parties are not keeping pace so their relative influence
has declined.” Shouldn’t we also be concerned about the total spending
in each election and the average person’s share, because the average person
is not keeping pace with wealthy donors and the average person’s relative
influence has declined? Of course, the average person can’t afford to make
a contribution anywhere close to the current $32,400 limit on
contributions to national party committees, so it’s difficult to imagine how repealing
the limit would increase the “relative influence” of the average person.
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/_
(http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/)
Blog: _http://www.clcblog.org/_ (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_
(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)
[mailto:law-_election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] On
Behalf Of _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com)
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:48 AM
To: _rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) ;
_law-election at uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election at uci.edu)
Subject: [EL] CLC Head in the Sand
Regarding the recent press release from the CLC, which should have be
entitled "CLC Keeps its Head in the Sand, no matter what":
_“GOP Heading Back to the Future”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48718)
Posted on _March 25, 2013 1:06 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48718)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Paul Ryan_
(http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=513:gop-heading-back-to-the-future) of CLC:
Last week the Republican National Committee published its _Growth &
Opportunity Project report_ (http://growthopp.gop.com/default.aspx) “provid[ing]
an honest review of the 2012 election cycle and a path forward for the
Republican Party to ensure success in winning more elections.” When it comes
to campaign finance policy, the RNC apparently believes that the path
forward is a journey back in time to the pre-McCain-Feingold era, claiming that “
the free speech rights of political parties and federal candidates remain
smothered by McCain-Feingold” and recommending that a variety of
contribution limits applicable to political party committees and federal candidates
be repealed or increased.
Contrary to the RNC’s claim that the party’s free speech rights have been
“smothered by McCain-Feingold,” the party raised more money during the
2012 election cycle than ever before. According to the Center for Responsive
Politics, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party _each raised more
than $1 billion during the 2012 cycle_
(http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php?cmte=&cycle=2012) , shattering previous fundraising totals both
pre- and post-McCain Feingold. With regard to fundraising, the parties seem to
be doing just fine under existing limits.
There are so many errors and so little time:
(1) CLC compares apples and oranges. The cost of fundraising is much less
for high dollar than low dollar fundraising. What is important is the net.
Prospect mail generally does not pay for itself but it is expensive and
runs up the total expenses by the group with no net money to spend.
Raising money from small donors by direct mail and telemarketing is also
expensive. So while national political parties "raised more money," they had less
money to spend on politics.
(2) The proper comparison is not with the national party spending from
election cycle to election cycle but the total spending in each and the
national parties share. Of course, this amount is skyrocketing, mainly as a
result of Super PAC (see other CLC press releases). The national political
parties are not keeping pace so their relative influence has declined. Same
with candidates.
(3) Of course, it would be worse if the CLC got its way. They opposed
raising the contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 for candidates in
McCain-Feingold screaming that we would be awash in candidates selling their
votes. Of course that has not happened, just like in states without any
contribution limits at all. After all, you cannot even buy a Democrat Congressman
for $2,500 these days. The anecdotal evidence is $99,000 in cold hard cash
(Congressman Jefferson) to $140,000 (Duke Cunningham) to at least buy one.
(4) Finally, CLC also says that large contributions to Super PACs are
corrupting so in their universe there is corruption either way. But voters
cannot vote against Super PACs but can vote against candidates or candidates of
a particular political party. So at least if we raise candidate and
political party contribution limits, if CLC is right, then voters can at least
vote against them.
Jim Bopp
In a message dated 3/26/2013 11:06:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) writes:
_“Same-sex marriage: Court on the couch”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48742)
Posted on _March 26, 2013 8:05 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48742)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
I have written _this piece_
(http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/26/same-sex-marriage-court-on-the-couch/) for Reuters Opinion. It
begins:
Will Justice Anthony Kennedy’s support for a constitutional right to gay
marriage doom the constitutionality of affirmative action and a key
provision of the Voting Rights Act? To answer this question, legal scholars need
to know less about constitutional law and more about human psychology.
Consider last year, when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, for
example, surprisingly sided with the court’s four liberal members _in
upholding President Barack Obama’s healthcare law_
(http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Natl_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v_Sebelius_No_Nos_1139
3_1) against constitutional challenge. It was a stunning choice for the
conservative jurist. The reaction of _Nate Persily_
(http://www.law.columbia.edu/fac/Nathaniel_Persily) , a leading U.S. election law scholar, was: “
There goes the Voting Rights Act.”
At first, the connection between the two cases may seem tenuous. They don’
t involve the same issues. The healthcare case was based on Congress’s
power to regulate commerce and to tax. In _Shelby County v. Holder_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shelby-county-v-holder/?wpmp_switcher=deskt
op) , heard last month and expected to be decided in June, the court is
considering whether Congress’s power to enforce equal rights, especially in
voting, includes the power to continue federal oversight of elections in
certain states that have a history of racial discrimination.
But Persily’s observation seems correct, and it illustrates how Supreme
Court watchers often use amateur psychoanalysis of the justices. For example,
a chief justice, feeling constrained by public opinion or concerned about
the court’s legacy, may give in on one case in order to gain more
political capital to spend on another controversial case.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48742&title=“Same-sex%20marriage:%20Court%20on%20the%20couch”
&description=)
Posted in _Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) , _Voting
Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15) | Comments Off
_“Split Senate backs bill reining in ‘dark money’”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48739)
Posted on _March 26, 2013 7:31 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48739)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_The latest_
(http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/state_government/legislature/article_62d85030-95c5-11e2-bd38-001a4bcf887a.html) from Montana.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48739&title=“Split%20Senate%20backs%20bill%20reining%20in%20‘
dark%20money’”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“McDonnell signs bill requiring photo ID for voting”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48736)
Posted on _March 26, 2013 7:27 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48736)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Richmond Times Dispatch: “_
(http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/mcdonnell-signs-bill-requiring-photo-id-for-voting/article_03e9445c-9611-11e
2-b05d-0019bb30f31a.html) Gov. Bob McDonnell has signed legislation
requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls.”
The law now requires approval from DOJ or a court under section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48736&title=“
McDonnell%20signs%20bill%20requiring%20photo%20ID%20for%20voting”&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) ,
_The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) , _voter id_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9) , _Voting Rights Act_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15) | Comments Off
_“Ex-lawmakers go to lobbying-related jobs”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48733)
Posted on _March 26, 2013 7:23 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48733)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_USA Today reports_
(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/25/former-lawmakers-lobbying-jobs/2011325/) .
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48733&title=“Ex-lawmakers%20go%20to%20lobbying-related%20jobs”
&description=)
Posted in _legislation and legislatures_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27) , _lobbying_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28) | Comments Off
_“Public Citizen Applauds 70 Members of Congress Who Urge the SEC to
Require Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48730)
Posted on _March 25, 2013 4:50 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48730)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
The following statement from Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen arrived via
email:
Public Citizen applauds the 70 members of the U.S. House of
Representatives, led by Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), who
sent _a letter_
(http://www.citizen.org/documents/sec-corporate-political-disclosure-letter.pdf) to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
today urging it to follow through on its stated agenda and require disclosure
of political spending by corporations.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission decision, corporations have been able to spend money freely on
elections, and often do so by giving funds to “dark money” organizations not
required to disclose the identities of their donors. But investors have a right
to know how their money – a corporation’s profits –– is being spent. The
trouble is, there is no requirement that companies share this information.
The letter stated:
“Some companies have taken the initiative to publicly disclose their
political spending which illustrates not only the ease with which it can be
accomplished but also the acceptance of many prominent and large corporations.
Unfortunately, however, other companies have kept their shareholders in
the dark and unaware that their money could be funding political activities,
or even political attack ads. The rights of shareholders must be protected.”
The SEC has received a record-breaking deluge of 490,000 comments urging
disclosure of political spending. In addition, a Zogby International poll
commissioned by the Center for Economic Development found that 77 percent of
business leaders said that corporations should disclose all of their
direct and indirect political expenditures. The SEC has taken the public and
investor demand for greater disclosure into account and has begun to consider
a rulemaking in response.
These members of Congress have it right; the SEC can and should move this
rule forward. It is critical both for democracy and the rights of the
marketplace investor.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48730&title=“
Public%20Citizen%20Applauds%2070%20Members%20of%20Congress%20Who%20Urge%20the%20SEC%20to%20Require%20Disclosure%20of%20Corporate
%20Political%20Spending”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“‘Battleground Texas’ Still Many Years Away”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48727)
Posted on _March 25, 2013 4:44 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48727)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_This item_
(http://www.fairvote.org/battleground-texas-still-many-years-away#.UVDhCxm9azs) appears at the FairVote blog.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48727&title=“‘Battleground%20Texas’
%20Still%20Many%20Years%20Away”&description=)
Posted in _political parties_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25) ,
_political polarization_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68) | Comments Off
_“3 things Beavers’ trial revealed about Illinois political cash”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48723)
Posted on _March 25, 2013 1:10 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48723)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_WBEZ reports_
(http://www.wbez.org/3-things-beavers-trial-revealed-about-illinois-political-cash-106264) .
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48723&title=“3%20things%20Beavers’
%20trial%20revealed%20about%20Illinois%20political%20cash”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“Arkansas governor vetoes bill requiring voters to show photo
identification at polls”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48721)
Posted on _March 25, 2013 1:09 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48721)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_AP reports_
(http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/9b7706356bfd46d5b3b166a668ad58ae/AR--Arkansas-Voter-ID) .
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48721&title=“
Arkansas%20governor%20vetoes%20bill%20requiring%20voters%20to%20show%20photo%20identification%20at%20polls”&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) ,
_The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) , _voter id_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9) | Comments Off
_“GOP Heading Back to the Future”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48718)
Posted on _March 25, 2013 1:06 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48718)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Paul Ryan_
(http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=513:gop-heading-back-to-the-future) of CLC:
Last week the Republican National Committee published its _Growth &
Opportunity Project report_ (http://growthopp.gop.com/default.aspx) “provid[ing]
an honest review of the 2012 election cycle and a path forward for the
Republican Party to ensure success in winning more elections.” When it comes
to campaign finance policy, the RNC apparently believes that the path
forward is a journey back in time to the pre-McCain-Feingold era, claiming that “
the free speech rights of political parties and federal candidates remain
smothered by McCain-Feingold” and recommending that a variety of
contribution limits applicable to political party committees and federal candidates
be repealed or increased.
Contrary to the RNC’s claim that the party’s free speech rights have been
“smothered by McCain-Feingold,” the party raised more money during the
2012 election cycle than ever before. According to the Center for Responsive
Politics, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party _each raised more
than $1 billion during the 2012 cycle_
(http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php?cmte=&cycle=2012) , shattering previous fundraising totals both
pre- and post-McCain Feingold. With regard to fundraising, the parties seem
to be doing just fine under existing limits.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48718&title=“GOP%20Heading%20Back%20to%20the%20Future”
&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_political parties_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25) | Comments Off
_“Hiroshima Court Rules Election Invalid”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48716)
Posted on _March 25, 2013 1:05 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48716)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_WSJ_
(http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2013/03/25/hiroshima-court-rules-election-invalid/) : “In a landmark ruling Monday, a Hiroshima court ruled
the results of the December lower-house election invalid in two districts
due to the disproportionate weighting of votes in those districts.”
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48716&title=“Hiroshima%20Court%20Rules%20Election%20Invalid”
&description=)
Posted in _redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6) | Comments
Off
_“Equal Protection Challenge to Virginia’s Felony Disenfranchisement
Provision Survives Summary Judgment”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48714)
Posted on _March 25, 2013 1:04 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48714)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_State of Elections_
(http://electls.blogs.wm.edu/2013/03/25/equal-protection-challenge-to-virginias-felony-disenfranchisement-survives-summary-judgment
/) : “The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Friday
_granted_ (http://electls.blogs.wm.edu/files/2013/03/El-Amin-Opinion-2.pdf)
the State’s summary judgment motion on substantive and procedural due
process challenges to Virginia’s voter reinstatement process for convicted
felons, as well as an Eight Amendment challenge to the disenfranchisement of
felons as cruel and unusual punishment. The court did, however, deny summary
judgment on El-Amin’s Equal Protection challenge of lifetime felon
disenfranchisement in Virginia.”
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48714&title=“Equal%20Protection%20Challenge%20to%20Virginia’
s%20Felony%20Disenfranchisement%20Provision%20Survives%20Summary%20Judgment”
&description=)
Posted in _felon voting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66) | Comments
Off
_“What secret e-mails from Enron teach us about influencing politicians”
_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48712)
Posted on _March 25, 2013 1:02 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48712)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Interesting post_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/24/what-secret-e-mails-from-enron-teach-us-about-influencing-politicians/?hp
id=z4) at WonkBlog by Dan Hopkins.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48712&title=“
What%20secret%20e-mails%20from%20Enron%20teach%20us%20about%20influencing%20politicians”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_legislation and legislatures_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27) , _lobbying_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28) | Comments Off
_“The Voting Rights Act should be left alone”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48710)
Posted on _March 25, 2013 1:00 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48710)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Gregory Craig has written _this WaPo oped_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gregory-b-craig-the-voting-rights-act-should-be-left-alone/2013/03/2
2/ee5fc8a4-8bf2-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html) .
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48710&title=“
The%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20should%20be%20left%20alone”&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_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu)
_http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html_
(http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html)
_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_
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
_______________________________________________
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/20130327/dc6f424e/attachment.html>
View list directory