[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/3/14
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Jul 2 22:24:36 PDT 2014
"Court: Super PAC not independent enough"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62990>
Posted on July 2, 2014 10:15 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62990>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Byron Tau reports
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/07/court-super-pac-not-independent-enough-191488.html?hp=l11>
for Politico.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62990&title=%E2%80%9CCourt%3A%20Super%20PAC%20not%20independent%20enough%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62988>
Posted on July 2, 2014 7:48 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62988>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brian Fung writes
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/02/how-to-use-a-superpac-to-kill-superpacs/>
for WaPo.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62988&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20use%20a%20super%20PAC%20to%20kill%20super%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Here's How We Can End Gerrymandering Once and for All"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62986>
Posted on July 2, 2014 7:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62986>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nick Stephanopoulos
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118534/gerrymandering-efficiency-gap-better-way-measure-gerrymandering>
in TNR:
If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a
different result, then litigants who challenge gerrymandering must
be mad. Last month
<http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/06/18/Rick%20Perry.pdf>, a
federal court threw out the Texas Democratic Party's claim that the
state's new congressional and state house districts are unlawful.
This was the twelfth time in a row that this sort of claim has
failed in the current cycle. Plaintiffs' record of futility now
spans at least three dozen cases over four decades.
It doesn't have to be this way. Litigants keep losing these lawsuits
because they keep proposing standards the courts have already
rejected (such as partisan intent). They're failing to capitalize on
encouraging comments by the Supreme Court, which show that it's open
to a test based on /partisan symmetry/---the idea that district
plans should treat the parties equally. In a forthcoming law review
article
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2457468>, Eric
McGhee and I lay out just such a test. If plaintiffs were to use it
in litigation, they'd have a fighting chance at winning. And if they
/were/ to win, then the whole landscape of redistricting in America
would be transformed.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62986&title=%E2%80%9CHere%E2%80%99s%20How%20We%20Can%20End%20Gerrymandering%20Once%20and%20for%20All%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Assigning a Dollar Value to Being the Incumbent"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62984>
Posted on July 2, 2014 4:15 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62984>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The UpShot:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/upshot/assigning-a-dollar-value-to-being-the-incumbent.html?_r=0>
What is an incumbency worth? About half a million dollars, mostly
from business political action committees who know cementing ties to
established politicians is a top priority.
That incumbent politicians have a financial advantage over their
challengers is not news, but Alexander Fouirnaies, a doctoral
candidate at the London School of Economics and Andrew B. Hall, a
doctoral candidate at Harvard University, set out to define just how
much of an advantage in a paper
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11481940/Fouirnaies_Hall_fin_inc.pdf>
being published this month in The Journal of Politics.
Using elections for the House of Representatives from 1980 to 2006
and for state legislatures from 1990 to 2010, the authors focused on
races where either a Republican or a Democrat very narrowly won
election. They then looked at the winner's fund-raising in the next
election. On average, a candidate for national office would get a
boost of $500,000 in contributions in the next election. (The
$500,000 figure is in 2014 dollars
<http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=275%2C000.00&year1=1990&year2=2014>;
the paper uses constant 1990 dollars, which puts the advantage at
$275,000).
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62984&title=%E2%80%9CAssigning%20a%20Dollar%20Value%20to%20Being%20the%20Incumbent%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"Emanuel super PAC gets nearly $1 million in one day"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62982>
Posted on July 2, 2014 4:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62982>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Chicago Tribune
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-emanuel-super-pac-gets-nearly-1-million-in-one-day-20140702,0,977380.story>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62982&title=%E2%80%9CEmanuel%20super%20PAC%20gets%20nearly%20%241%20million%20in%20one%20day%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"Cochran presser: Most entertaining conference call ever"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62980>
Posted on July 2, 2014 4:02 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62980>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Break out the popcorn
<http://www.clarionledger.com/story/dailyledes/2014/07/02/cochran-conference-call/12105085/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62980&title=%E2%80%9CCochran%20presser%3A%20Most%20entertaining%20conference%20call%20ever%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"Is Unlimited Spending On Political Speech A Protected Right?"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62978>
Posted on July 2, 2014 3:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62978>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NPR posts the audio <http://t.co/LcWQm2tg7q> of the debate on political
spending with Floyd Abrams, Nadine Strossen, Burt Neuborne, and Zephyr
Teachout.
In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people
by the end of the debate is declared the winner. One side took the
position that political advocacy is exactly the kind of speech that
the First Amendment is designed to protect, and that limiting
spending means inhibiting expression. The other argued that spending
is not the same as speech, and allowing unlimited spending gives
some voices more power than others.
Before the debate, the audience at the National Constitution Center
in Philadelphia voted 33 percent in favor of the motion and 49
percent against, with 18 percent undecided. After the debate, 33
percent agreed with the motion, while 65 percent were against,
making the team arguing against the motion the winner of this
particular debate.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62978&title=%E2%80%9CIs%20Unlimited%20Spending%20On%20Political%20Speech%20A%20Protected%20Right%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Tea Party should divorce the Republicans: Why America needs more
political parties" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62976>
Posted on July 2, 2014 3:08 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62976>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Lind writes
<http://www.salon.com/2014/07/02/tea_party_should_divorce_the_republicans_why_america_needs_more_political_parties/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62976&title=%E2%80%9CTea%20Party%20should%20divorce%20the%20Republicans%3A%20Why%20America%20needs%20more%20political%20parties%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in alternative voting systems <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>
Vermont Right to Life Will Seek #SCOTUS Review in 2d Circuit
Campaign Finance Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62973>
Posted on July 2, 2014 2:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62973>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Following up on this post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62960>, VRTL
attorney Jim Bopp told the election law listserv (and reprinted with
Jim's permission): "The 2nd Circuit has very restrictive rules on
granting rehearing so they never do (to my knowledge). They did not
even grant rehearing in Randall v Sorrell. So off to the Supreme Court
with a big Circuit split on both the PAC and IEPAC issues. Jim"
I give this a reasonable chance of a cert. grant, given the circuit
split (though not on the disclosure issues, but on the
coordination/enmeshment issue).
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62973&title=Vermont%20Right%20to%20Life%20Will%20Seek%20%23SCOTUS%20Review%20in%202d%20Circuit%20Campaign%20Finance%20Case&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"WyLiberty Attorneys File for Preliminary Injunction in Wyoming Free
Speech Case" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62971>
Posted on July 2, 2014 1:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62971>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release.
<http://wyliberty.org/feature/wyliberty-attorneys-file-for-preliminary-injunction-in-wyoming-free-speech-case/#ff_s=fA9Ie>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62971&title=%E2%80%9CWyLiberty%20Attorneys%20File%20for%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20in%20Wyoming%20Free%20Speech%20Case%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
In #MSSEN, True the Vote Appears to Have Weak Statutory Argument for
Poll Book Review Request <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62967>
Posted on July 2, 2014 11:10 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62967>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In True the Vote's complaint
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/232166906/True-the-Vote-v-Mississippi-Complaint>,
it asks for review of the poll books (looking apparently for voters who
both voting in the Democratic primary a few weeks earlier and the
Republican primary). I agree that if the campaign (or True the Vote or
someone else) could show that more than 6,700 people voted in both
primaries, that could be grounds for a court to order a new election in
the #MSSEN Cochran-McDaniel case. (So far I have not seen public
evidence of the alleged thousands of such voters already uncovered.)
But I don't see that True the Vote's argument is likely to succeed for
examination of poll books under the NVRA (motor voter). Here is the
relevant provision:
Section 8(i)(1) of the NVRA provides:
Each State shall maintain for at least 2 years and shall make
available for
public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable
cost, all
records concerning the implementation of programs and activities
conducted
for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official
lists of
eligible voters, except to the extent that such records relate to a
declination to
register to vote or to the identity of a voter registration agency
through which any
particular voter is registered.
42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(i)
Here's True the Vote's argument that poll books count under this statute:
34. Poll books---the records at issue in this case---mirror the
state's voter registration rolls. They are records "concerning the
implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose
of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible
voters." 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(i)(1); see Project Vote/Voting for
Am., Inc., 682 F.3d at 335. Meanwhile, the process of reviewing
completed voter materials, such as poll books, constitutes a
"program" or "activity" evaluating voter records "for the purpose of
ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists
of eligible voters." See Project Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long,
682 F.3d 331, 335 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the records made the
basis of this case are subject to the NVRA.
I don't see this as a strong argument. To begin with, textually, poll
books are not records of voter /registration /or "programs and
activities" for insuring the accuracy of registration; they are records
of /voting/. Further, examination of the poll books under True the
Vote's theory of double voting would not show if people were properly
/registered/; it could show that people /voted/ improperly.
Finally, the sole case that True the Vote relies on here, ironically a
/Project Vote/ case (it is ironic because Project Vote had a
relationship with ACORN, a True the Vote Satan), does not contain any
support for the idea that poll books are covered by this section of the
NVRA. The /Project Vote/ case concerned that group's attempt to examine
rejected voter registration applications. Here is the specific
discussion from the case that True the Vote cites in its complaint:
Finally, as explained above, Section 8(i)(1) of the NVRA mandates
public disclosure of voter registration activities. /Id./ §
1973gg--6(i)(1)
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS1973GG-6&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29#co_pp_2d8d0000f3311>.
It generally requires states to "make available for public
inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost,
all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities
conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of
official lists of eligible voters." /Id./ This language embodies
Congress's conviction that Americans *335 who are eligible under
law to vote have every right to exercise their franchise, a right
that must not be sacrificed to administrative chicanery, oversights,
or inefficiencies. Under the district court's interpretation, this
provision mandates disclosure of the records requested by Project Vote.
III.
A.
1
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I54af52e0b72311e1b60ab297d3d07bc5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29&userEnteredCitation=682+F.3d+at+335.#co_anchor_F12027908812>
We begin by considering the Commonwealth's argument that the text of
Section 8(i)(1) does not require public disclosure of completed
voter registration applications. This issue of statutory
interpretation is one that we review de novo. /United States v.
Ide,/ 624 F.3d 666, 668 (4th Cir.2010)
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2023725624&pubNum=506&fi=co_pp_sp_506_668&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29#co_pp_sp_506_668>.
The starting point for any issue of statutory interpretation is of
course the language of the statute itself. /United States v. Bly,/
510 F.3d 453, 460 (4th Cir.2007)
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2014367771&pubNum=506&fi=co_pp_sp_506_460&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29#co_pp_sp_506_460>.
"[W]hen the words of a statute are unambiguous, ... this first canon
is also the last [and] judicial inquiry is complete." /Willenbring
v. United States,/ 559 F.3d 225, 235 (4th Cir.2009)
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2018292711&pubNum=506&fi=co_pp_sp_506_235&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29#co_pp_sp_506_235>
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Appellants assert that "[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of [Section
8(i)(1) ] does not encompass voter applications, much less the
rejected applications initially sought." Appellants' Br. at 10.
Instead, they claim, the " 'programs and activities' referred to in
Section 8(i)(1) of the NVRA are programs and activities related to
the purging of voters from the list of registered voters." /Id./ at 11.
Contrary to appellants' insistence, the plain language of Section
8(i)(1) does not allow us to treat its disclosure requirement as
limited to voter removal records. As the district court concluded,
completed voter registration applications are clearly "records
concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted
for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official
lists of eligible voters." 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg--6(i)(1)
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS1973GG-6&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29#co_pp_2d8d0000f3311>.
First, the process of reviewing voter registration applications is a
"program" and "activity." Under Virginia law, election officials
must examine completed voter registration applications and register
applicants that possess the necessary qualifications. /See/ Va.Code
§ 24.2--417
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000040&cite=VASTS24.2-417&originatingDoc=I54af52e0b72311e1b60ab297d3d07bc5&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29>.
This process of review is a "program" because it is carried out in
the service of a specified end---maintenance of voter rolls---and it
is an "activity" because it is a particular task and deed of
Virginia election employees.
Moreover, the "program" and "activity" of evaluating voter
registration applications is plainly "conducted for the purpose of
ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible
voters." 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg--6(i)(1)
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS1973GG-6&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29#co_pp_2d8d0000f3311>.
It is unclear what other purpose it would serve. As the district
court reasoned, the process of reviewing voter registration
applications keeps official voter lists both "accurate"---free from
error---and "current"---most recent. /See //Project Vote,/ 752
F.Supp.2d at 706.
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2023627861&pubNum=4637&fi=co_pp_sp_4637_706&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29#co_pp_sp_4637_706>
Indeed, voter lists are not "accurate" or "current" if eligible
voters have been improperly denied registration or if ineligible
persons have been added to the rolls. /Id./
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2023627861&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29>
By registering eligible applicants and rejecting ineligible
applicants, state officials "ensure that the state is keeping a
'most recent' and errorless account of which persons are qualified
or entitled to vote within the state." /Id./
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2023627861&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29>
Accordingly, the process of assessing voter registration
applications is a "program[ ] and activit[y] conducted for the
purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of
eligible voters." 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg--6(i)(1)
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS1973GG-6&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29#co_pp_2d8d0000f3311>.
Furthermore, the registration applications requested by Project Vote
are clearly "records concerning the implementation *336 of" this
"program[ ] and activit[y]." /Id./
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2023627861&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29>
The requested applications are relevant to carrying out voter
registration activities because they are "the means by which an
individual provides the information necessary for the Commonwealth
to determine his eligibility to vote." /Project Vote,/ 752 F.Supp.2d
at 707.
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2023627861&pubNum=4637&fi=co_pp_sp_4637_707&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29#co_pp_sp_4637_707>
Without verification of an applicant's citizenship, age, and other
necessary information provided by registration applications, state
officials would be unable to determine whether that applicant meets
the statutory requirements for inclusion in official voting lists.
Thus, completed applications not only "concern[ ] the implementation
of" the voter registration process, but are also integral to its
execution.
Finally, "the fact that [Section 8(i)(1) ] very clearly requires
that '/all/ records' be disclosed brings voter registration
applications within its reach." /Id./ at 707--08
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2023627861&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29>
(emphasis added). As this court has recognized, "the use of the word
'all' [as a modifier] suggests an expansive meaning because 'all' is
a term of great breadth." /Nat'l Coal. for Students with
Disabilities Educ. & Legal Def. Fund v. Allen,/ 152 F.3d 283, 290
(4th Cir.1998)
<https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1998156965&pubNum=506&fi=co_pp_sp_506_290&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29#co_pp_sp_506_290>.
Given that the phrase "all records concerning the implementation of
programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the
accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters"
unmistakably encompasses completed voter registration applications,
such applications fall within Section 8(i)(1)'s general disclosure
mandate.
Perhaps True the Vote will have stronger arguments as they brief this
case. But so far this appears weak to me.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62967&title=In%20%23MSSEN%2C%20True%20the%20Vote%20Appears%20to%20Have%20Weak%20Statutory%20Argument%20for%20Poll%20Book%20Review%20Request&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, NVRA (motor
voter) <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
"Blogger drawing anger, praise covering Miss. primary"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62965>
Posted on July 2, 2014 10:34 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62965>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Clarion-Ledger,
<http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/02/chuck-c-johnson/12052915/>which
has been GREAT on the #MSSEN story.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62965&title=%E2%80%9CBlogger%20drawing%20anger%2C%20praise%20covering%20Miss.%20primary%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
Serious, So Far Unproven Accusations of Illegal Votes and Stolen
Election in #MSSEN <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62963>
Posted on July 2, 2014 9:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62963>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via PoliticalWire
<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2014/07/02/mcdaniel_says_cochran_stole_election.html#.U7QzmSw0ZIQ.twitter>,
incendiary words from Sen. McDaniel.
--
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/20140702/13aceb6b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140702/13aceb6b/attachment.png>
View list directory