[EL] What a Shock!
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Wed Apr 9 10:48:09 PDT 2014
Fair enough. I have no interest in long debates either but it is also
true that these fundamentally different world views continue to be advocated
for and currently debated.
I thought I raised a new twist on it in my post, in response to yours,
which is the fact that reformers regularly make dire predictions that almost
never come true. Your post wants to hold the "deregulators" into account
for their predictions and I was simply holding "reformers" to the same.
Their predictions about CU were wrong, they should be held in account for it
and as a result their current predictions should be viewed with more
skepticism.
But of course you and anyone is free not to defend their opinions if
they choose. But that won't discourage me from commenting on them, which
honestly is what I think you are trying to do. Jim Bopp
PS And I seriously doubt that anyone would think that you would agree with
even my non-outlandish and non-snarky statements.
In a message dated 4/9/2014 1:16:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
Jim,
We have fundamentally different world views as well as assessments of the
empirical evidence. We have had a number of exchanges on the list and
elsewhere over the years about these conflicting normative views and views of
the evidence, and I don't think that repeating that debate on the listserv
would be a good use of anyone's time. It is not that I don't think you are
unworthy of debate. It is that it all has been said before. I am not sure if
our CATO live debate from a few years ago is still on the Internet. I'd
be happy to reprise that debate at some point in the future. But back and
forth sniping on the listserv seems a waste of time.
The fullest explication of my views on campaign finance appears in my 2003
book, The Supreme Court and Election Law. You can read the chapter on
campaign finance if you want to understand my full views---though they have
evolved in some significant ways since then. I am planning likely another
book length treatment to make my full case for a political equality view of
the First Amendment---one which differs, by the way, from Justice Breyer's
dissent in some important ways. I hope when I can make my sustained argument
it will convince many people who might be on the fence on these issues. I
certainly don't expect it to convince you even in a book length treatment
(much less in a short listserv response).
Of course my views expressed on the blog or elsewhere are fair targets for
you, and you can respond however you wish. The reason I posted a short
note in response to you was that I did not want to leave anyone new to the
list with the impression that I agreed with your outlandish and snarky
statements. Beyond that, you have new lawsuits to bring (and many to win,
unfortunately in my view) and I have a book to write.
Rick
On 4/9/14, 10:03 AM, _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) wrote:
Well then I will await your much larger work anxiously. I can raise
questions about your posts and you defend yourself by citing "larger works."
You have said repeatedly, when you occasionally respond to one of my
posts, that "I'm not going to get into another long debate with you on the
internet." I don't know if you think I am just not worthy of debating you or
you don't want to debate in public so others can evaluate your arguments. Or
perhaps you prefer just to express your opinions everyday but are above
defending them. The Oracles of Delphi felt the same way. Either way it is an
odd brush off by someone with so many opinions and one who so aggressively
puts them out to the public. But I guess some are just too good to be
soiled by debate with us commoners.
Oh, and by the way, just because I responded I am still "not going to get
into another long debate with you on the internet." How about a short
debate instead? I have more lawsuits to work on. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 4/9/2014 11:18:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) writes:
Jim,
I'm not going to get into another long debate with you on the internet.
But depending upon how one defines the problem, the sky actually is already
falling, and the election of Obama does not prove that the system is
working. I've made a number of points about the problem of legislative skew in
this piece
(http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/lobbying-rent-seeking-and-constitution) and I've begun work on a much larger work which will
eventually respond to these points.
Rick
On 4/9/14, 5:55 AM, _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) wrote:
Regarding Rick's comment under "What a Shock!:"
P.S. Someone should collect all the statements from the deregulationists
who said getting rid of aggregate limits is no big deal and it wouldn’t lead
to multi-million dollar checks and the emergence of soft money.
I would but my hard drive is already full of all the Chicken Little claims
of imminent doom by the campaign finance "reformers" after almost every
Court decision since Buckley.
Just to mention one, Citizens United was decided in 2010. The Chicken
Littles said that corporations would own all the politicians. Obama was
reelected in 2012. Was he owned by corporations? Opps. And the Chicken
Littles have not even apologized to Obama. They just press on with more dire
predictions. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 4/8/2014 11:47:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) writes:
_Tom Edsall on McCutcheon_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 8:27 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Important NYT opinion column_
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/the-high-cost-of-free-speech.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) .
Tom links to my SCOTUSBlog post, “_Does the Chief Justice not Understand
Politics, or Does He Understand it all too Well?_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-does-the-chief-justice-not-understand-politics-or-does-he-u
nderstand-it-all-too-well/) “
It’s not every day I’m called more cynical than Richard Posner.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_“Miss. preparing to use new voter ID law”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60247)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 8:00 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60247)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Gannett reports._
(http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20140408/NEWS01/304080033/Miss-preparing-use-new-voter-ID-law)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60247&title=“Miss.%20preparing%20to%20use%20new%20voter%20ID%20law”
&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) ,
_The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60)
_“Blacks and Early Voting, in Ohio and Wisconsin”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60245)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 7:56 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60245)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_NYT letter to the editor_
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/blacks-and-early-voting-in-ohio-and-wisconsin.html?ref=opinion) from NAACP Ohio
and Wisconsin leaders.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60245&title=“Blacks%20and%20Early%20Voting,%20in%20Ohio%20and%20Wisconsin”
&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) ,
_The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) , _voter
registration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37)
_NYT Letters to the Editor on David Brooks McCutcheon Column_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60243)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 7:55 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60243)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Here._
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/money-politics-and-the-justices.html?ref=opinion)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60243&title=NYT%20Letters%20to%20the%20Editor%20on%20David%20Brooks%20McCutcheon%
20Column&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_How Low Will Dick Morris Go?_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60241)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 7:53 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60241)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_This low._
(http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/203019-dick-morris-investigate-2012-vote-fraud)
Didn’t realize he was a member of the fraudulent fraud squad.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60241&title=How%20Low%20Will%20Dick%20Morris%20Go?&description=)
Posted in _fraudulent fraud squad_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8) ,
_The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60)
_What a Shock!: “John Roberts Gets the Parties Started”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60239)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 7:43 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60239)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Politico reports:_
(http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/john-roberts-supreme-court-mccutcheon-republican-party-105503.html)
Insiders are dreaming up how to maximize a recent Supreme Court ruling
that frees up some big donors to give even more.
A prominent idea: create a new class of donors who contribute a total of
six- or seven-figures to each of three party committees and spread cash to
endangered lawmakers. In exchange, the big-money givers would get something
of an “all access pass” that comes with perks from the big three national
committees, like face time with top officials.
Of course Roberts told us that this wouldn’t happen, or that the FEC or
Congress would easily fix it.
_Yeah right._
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-does-the-chief-justice-not-understand-politics-or-does-he-understand-it-all-too-well/)
And don’t delude yourselves. Many Democratic party operatives are
delighted with McCutcheon.
P.S. Someone should collect all the statements from the deregulationists
who said getting rid of aggregate limits is no big deal and it wouldn’t lead
to multi-million dollar checks and the emergence of soft money.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60239&title=What%20a%20Shock!:%20“John%20Roberts%20Gets%20the%20Parties%20Started
”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_Two Panels on Voting Rights May 2 at LA Law Library as Part of Law Week_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60236)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 7:00 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60236)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Looking forward to participating in this:
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Law_Week_Flyer_Friday.png)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60236&title=Two%20Panels%20on%20Voting%20Rights%20May%202%20at%20LA%20Law%20Libra
ry%20as%20Part%20of%20Law%20Week&description=)
Posted in _voting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31) , _Voting Rights
Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)
_“Government Brief Cites McCutcheon Case In Defending FEC’s Requirements
for PACs”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60234)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 6:51 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60234)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Bloomberg BNA_ (http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_di
splay.adp?fedfid=44415475&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0e8w1u4z2&split=0) : “Supreme Court
precedents, including the court’s most recent campaign finance ruling in
McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n, consistently have supported requirements for
public disclosure of campaign money, government attorneys argued in a
_brief_ (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/freespeech_fec_opp_brief.pdf) filed
with the high court (Free Speech v. FEC, U.S., No. 13-772, brief filed
4/4/14).”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60234&title=“
Government%20Brief%20Cites%20McCutcheon%20Case%20In%20Defending%20FEC’s%20Requirements%20for%20PACs”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_“How to Clean Up American Elections”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60232)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 6:46 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60232)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Ganesh Sitaraman writes_
(http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/clean-up-elections-with-peoples-pledge-105492.html#.U0SlbMeT6N8) for
Politico.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60232&title=“How%20to%20Clean%20Up%20American%20Elections”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_“RNC chairman: Strike down all contribution limits”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60230)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 6:44 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60230)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_That’s _
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/08/rnc-chairman-strike-down-all-contribution-limits/) more like it.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60230&title=“RNC%20chairman:%20Strike%20down%20all%20contribution%20limits”
&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_“Stay issued on subpoenas in NC election law case “_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60228)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 1:31 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60228)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_AP reports._
(http://www.news-record.com/news/north_carolina_ap/article_451dc9df-0dcb-58c2-9fb5-8b87ed1d86b9.html)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60228&title=“Stay%20issued%20on%20subpoenas%20in%20NC%20election%20law%20case%20“
&description=)
Posted in _The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60)
_“The Hounding of Brendan Eich Gives New Cover to Defenders of Dark Money”
_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60226)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 1:30 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60226)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Important piece_
(http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117307/brendan-eichs-resignation-mozilla-gives-new-cover-dark-money) from Alec MacGillis.
(http://www.addtoany
.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60226&title=“
The%20Hounding%20of%20Brendan%20Eich%20Gives%20New%20Cover%20to%20Defenders%20of%20Dark%20Money”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_“McConnell Doubts Individual Campaign Finance Limits Will Go Away”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60224)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 1:20 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60224)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Roll Call reports_
(http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/mcconnell-doubts-individual-campaign-finance-limits-will-go-away/) . I don’t think he’s the only
one calling the shots on this though.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60224&title=“
McConnell%20Doubts%20Individual%20Campaign%20Finance%20Limits%20Will%20Go%20Away”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_Demos Explainer on McCutcheon_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60222)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 1:03 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60222)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Guide for the Perplexed._
(http://www.demos.org/publication/what-mccutcheon-v-fec)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60222&title=Demos%20Explainer%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_“Judge Rules Delaware Disclosure Law Unconstitutional”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60220)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 12:58 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60220)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_CCP: _
(http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2014/04/08/judge-rules-delaware-disclosure-law-unconstitutional/) “A federal court today _issued an order_
(http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SLR-Order-08apr20141.p
df) _barring enforcement_
(http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Order-Granting-MPI.pdf) of a recently adopted Delaware law that
would have forced a group that publishes non-partisan voter guides to
violate its members’ privacy.”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60220&title=“Judge%20Rules%20Delaware%20Disclosure%20Law%20Unconstitutional”
&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)
_“Rich People Will Always Beat Campaign Finance Restrictions”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60218)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 12:55 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60218)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Steve Chapman _
(http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/07/rich-people-will-always-beat-campaign-fi) writes for Reason.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60218&title=“
Rich%20People%20Will%20Always%20Beat%20Campaign%20Finance%20Restrictions”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_“Shelby and Section 3: Pulling the Voting Rights Act’s Pocket Trigger to
Protect Voting Rights after Shelby County v. Holder”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60216)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 12:51 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60216)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Paul Wiley has posted_ this draft student note_
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2421605) on SSRN (forthcoming, Washington and Lee
Law Review). Here is the abstract:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder presents voting
rights advocates with a difficult challenge: finding an effective substitute
for the preclearance regime struck down by the Court. The best possible
alternative may live within the Voting Rights Act itself in Section 3(c)’s “
pocket trigger.” Section 3(c) permits a federal court to retain jurisdiction
and preclear a jurisdiction’s changes to its voting procedures upon a
finding of a constitutional violation. By relating more closely to current
conditions in a specific locality, Section 3(c) preclearance avoids many of
the problems the Court identified in NAMUDNO and Shelby County.
This Note analyzes the history of Voting Rights Act litigation and
suggests a more expansive use of Section 3(c) preclearance to continue federal
oversight of election procedures.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60216&title=“Shelby%20and%20Section%203:%20Pulling%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act’
s%20Pocket%20Trigger%20to%20Protect%20Voting%20Rights%20after%20Shelby%20Cou
nty%20v.%20Holder”&description=)
Posted in _Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) , _Voting
Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15) , _VRAA_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81)
_All My McCutcheon Commentary in One Place_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60214)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 10:47 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60214)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Courtesy_ (http://www.law.uci.edu/news/faculty/hasen_040214.html) of
@UCILaw:
* _The Guardian_
(http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/supreme-court-fight-for-voting-rights)
* _Daily Journal (PDF)_
(http://www.law.uci.edu/news/in-the-news/2014/djournal_hasen_040814.pdf)
* _Reuters_
(http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/04/07/opening-the-political-money-chutes/)
* _SCOTUSBlog_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-does-the-chief-justice-not-understand-politics-or-does-he-understand-it-all-too-well/)
* _Slate_ (http://slate.me/1oqLlN0)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60214&title=All%20My%20McCutcheon%20Commentary%20in%20One%20Place&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_“McCutcheon and Corruption in America”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60212)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 9:13 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60212)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Harvard University Press blog_
(http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2014/04/mccutcheon-and-corruption-in-america-zephyr-teachout.html) :
In _Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens
United_ (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674050402) ,
Teachout reminds us that the particularly demanding notion of corruption
represented by that early gifts rule is central to American law and democracy.
This notion of corruption, she explains, is not limited to the blatant bribes
and explicit quid pro quo to which Chief Justice Roberts referred in this
week’s _McCutcheon v. FEC_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/) ruling, and Justice Kennedy in
_Citizens United_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/) before that. The foundational American
understanding of corruption encompassed emotional, internal, psychological
relationships in an effort to protect the morality of interactions between
official representatives of government and private parties, foreign parties, or
other politicians.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60212&title=“McCutcheon%20and%20Corruption%20in%20America”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
_Marty Lederman Goes Into the Weeds on Standing and Ripeness Issues in
Susan B. Anthony False Speech SCOTUS Case_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60210)
Posted on _April 8, 2014 9:00 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60210)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_A very helpful primer_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/dewine-v-dewine-with-the-united-states-somewhere-in-between/) , at SCOTUSBlog.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60210&title=Marty%20Lederman%20Goes%20Into%20the%20Weeds%20on%20Standing%20and%20
Ripeness%20Issues%20in%20Susan%20B.%20Anthony%20False%20Speech%20SCOTUS%20Ca
se&description=)
Posted in _campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59) , _Supreme
Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)
--
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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
_______________________________________________
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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
--
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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140409/6db63eda/attachment.html>
View list directory