[EL] Walker/Wisconsin Club for Growth

Steve Hoersting hoersting at gmail.com
Thu Jun 19 12:30:24 PDT 2014 

Thank you, Adam, for the additional info. I will read the Easterbrook
opinion this evening,

Steve


On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Adam Bonin <adam at boninlaw.com> wrote:

> Let’s be accurate: the prosecutor assembled this evidence over months and
> years, and he did not make the decision to release anything today.  It was 7
> th Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook who ordered the documents to be
> released.
> http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-unseals-hundreds-of-documents-in-john-doe-probe-b99295017z1-263839791.html
> ]
>
>
>
> --Adam
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Hoersting
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:57 PM
> *To:* Byron Tau
> *Cc:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Walker/Wisconsin Club for Growth
>
>
>
> I am not the source you're looking for, Byron.
>
>
>
> But I will say this is regrettable. If issue advocacy is at the heart of
> the activity in question, as all court documents up-to-now bear out, then
> any "excitement" on anyone's part doesn't raise the facts to the level of
> legal significance.
>
>
>
> Boy, these are interesting allegations for this prosecutor to make:
>
>
>
> 1) Six months out from the November election.
>
>
>
> 2) On the heels of Walker's settlement negotiations. I haven't heard the
> results of those. Are we to infer Walker didn't see the case the same way
> the prosecutors did, was unwilling to settle, and this press release is
> meant to correct his thinking?
>
>
>
> 3) In hopes of winning another set of elections using Lawfare? If so, this
> is becoming a pattern.
>
>
>
> Allow me to point out that these events -- IRS targeting and "lost"
> emails, as an example -- mark a trend no society can long withstand.
> Whether Democrat, Green, Libertarian, or Republican, this is not a state of
> affairs you want your kids growing up in.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Byron Tau <btau at politico.com> wrote:
>
> If anyone has been closely following the legal issues in this Walker case
> and wants to walk me through them, I'm at either number below and poking
> around on something regarding the election law around this.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Byron Tau
>
> Lobbying and campaign finance reporter || POLITICO
>
> c: 202-441-1171
>
> d: 703-341-4610
>
> Follow: @byrontau <http://twitter.com/byrontau>
>
> Subscribe to: http://www.politico.com/politicoinfluence/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen [
> rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:34 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] more news 6/19/14
> Breaking: “Prosecutors allege Walker at center of ‘criminal scheme’”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62540>
>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:30 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62540> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
> <http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-unseals-hundreds-of-documents-in-john-doe-probe-b99295017z1-263839791.html>
> :
>
> Prosecutors allege that Gov. Scott Walker was at the center of an effort
> to illegally coordinate fundraising among conservative groups to help his
> campaign and those of Republican senators fend off recall elections during
> 2011 and ’12, according to documents unsealed Thursday.
>
> In the documents, prosecutors lay out what they call a “criminal scheme”
> to bypass state election laws by Walker, his campaign and two top deputies
> — R.J. Johnson and Deborah Jordahl.
>
> The governor and his close confidants helped raise money and control
> spending through 12 conservative groups during the recall elections,
> according to the prosecutors’ filings.
>
> The documents include an email in which Walker tells Karl Rove, former top
> adviser to President George W. Bush, that Johnson would lead the
> coordination campaign. Johnson is also chief adviser to Wisconsin Club for
> Growth, a conservative group active in the recall elections.
>
> You can find the documents here.
> <http://host.madison.com/unsealed-documents-from-john-doe-ii-lawsuit/pdf_e6b7181d-e5f7-576e-a60d-1d67d373846c.html>
>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62540&title=Breaking%3A%20%E2%80%9CProsecutors%20allege%20Walker%20at%20center%20of%20%E2%80%98criminal%20scheme%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
> Texas Swagger Costs It Attorneys Fees in Voting Rights Case
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62537>
>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62537> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See this order
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-order.pdf> in *State
> of Texas v. Davis*:
>
> This matter presents a case study in how not to respond to a motion for
> attorney fees and costs. At issue is whether defendant-intervenors, who
> prevailed in Voting Rights Act litigation before a three-judge panel, may
> recoup attorney fees and costs even though the Supreme Court vacated that
> opinion in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in a different
> lawsuit that declared a section of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.
> A quick search of the Federal Reporter reveals the complexity of this
> narrow question. Yet, rather than engage the fee applicants, Plaintiff
> Texas basically ignores the arguments supporting an award of fees and
> costs. In a three-page filing entitled “Advisory,” Texas trumpets the
> Supreme Court’s decision, expresses indignation at having to respond at
> all, and presumes that the motion for attorney fees is so frivolous that
> Texas need not provide further briefing in opposition unless requested.
> Such an opposition is insufficient in this jurisdiction. Circuit precedent
> and the Local Rules of this Court provide that the failure to respond to an
> opposing party’s arguments results in waiver as to the unaddressed
> contentions, and the Court finds that Texas’s “Advisory” presents no
> opposition on the applicable law. Accordingly, the Court will award the
> requested fees and costs.
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62537&title=Texas%20Swagger%20Costs%20It%20Attorneys%20Fees%20in%20Voting%20Rights%20Case&description=>
>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> “First Person Singular: The dirty secrets of ballot counting”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62535>
>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:01 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62535> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paul Mitchell <http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>
> has lead story at Electionline Weekly.
>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62535&title=%E2%80%9CFirst%20Person%20Singular%3A%20The%20dirty%20secrets%20of%20ballot%20counting%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> “Soft Money’s Squishy Political Influence”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62530>
>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 9:20 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62530> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT’s “The Upshot”
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/upshot/soft-moneys-squishy-political-influence.html?_r=0>
> on Tokaji-Strause.
>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62530&title=%E2%80%9CSoft%20Money%E2%80%99s%20Squishy%20Political%20Influence%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> J. Christian Adams Wrongly Suggests Poll Workers Should Exclude Democrats
> from Voting in Mississippi Primary, Ignoring Relevant Case Law and an AG
> Opinion <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62528>
>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 9:12 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62528> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Via Josh Marshall <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in-it-to-win-it--7>,
> comes a story at Breitbart, Former DOJ Attorney: Illegal for Democrats to
> Vote in MS GOP Primary Runoff
> <http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/18/Top-Ex-DOJ-Attorney-It-s-Illegal-For-Democrats-To-Vote-In-Mississippi-s-GOP-Primary-Runoff>.
> Here’s the relevant part of the article:
>
> J. Christian Adams, a former Civil Rights Division attorney at the
> Department of Justice with experience litigating election law cases in
> Mississippi, said a law there prevents people from voting in the primary
> for candidates they don’t plan to support in the general election….
>
> The Mississippi law Adams cites, MS Code 23-15-575, states: “No person
> shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends
> to support the nominations made in which he participates.”
>
> “Mississippi law prohibits Democrats from voting in a Republican primary,”
> Adams said in an emailed statement. “Obviously poll workers aren’t mind
> readers. But if someone doesn’t intend to support the nominee in November,
> then that person isn’t allowed to vote in the Republican primary.”
>
> In addition, the state Democratic Party sued Gov. Haley Barbour and others
> in the mid-2000s regarding just that matter—prompting United States
> District Judge W. Allen Pepper to write in a June 8, 2007, opinion that it
> is the responsibility and right of the political party holding a primary
> election to ensure that the elections are fair and legal. In the case of a
> Republican primary and runoff, only Republicans vote, and in the case of a
> Democrat primary and runoff, only Democrats vote—and it is the role of the
> political parties to ensure that process is handled correctly.
>
> The Supreme Court determined in a 2005 case that the First Amendment
> “protects the right of political parties to associate with fellow members
> and disassociate with non-members,” Judge Pepper wrote in his opinion. So
> technically it’s the party’s responsibility—i.e., in this case, state GOP
> chairman Joe Nosef’s responsibility—to protect GOP voters’ First Amendment
> rights by working to keep Democrats from voting in the GOP primary runoff.
>
> Here’s what Adams does not tell you in the piece: Judge Pepper’s opinion
> in *Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour*, 491 F.Supp.2d 641
> (N.D. Miss. 2007) was reversed and remanded in an opinion by Judge Edith
> Jones for a unanimous 5th Circuit, 529 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2008). In the
> course of holding that the state Democratic Party lacked standing and that
> the case was not appropriate for federal court review, Judge Jones rejected
> the analysis of Judge Pepper, and explained how MS Code 23-15-575 had been
> interpreted by the Mississippi Attorney General:
>
> In June 2003, the Mississippi State Democratic Party and Mississippi State
> Democratic Party Executive Committee (collectively “MSDP”) asked the state
> attorney general (“AG”) how the party could enforce § 23–15–575
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-575&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>,
> which it had not done before. The MSDP wanted to curtail alleged “party
> raiding” and crossover voting “whereby voters in sympathy with one party
> designate themselves as voters of another party so as to influence or
> determine the results of the other party’s primary.”2
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7/View/FullText.html?listSource=RelatedInfo&docFamilyGuid=I303e9f7a2ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&originationContext=appellatehistory&transitionType=HistoryItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_footnote_B00222016191757>
> This practice is forbidden by the plain language of § 23–15–575
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-575&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>.
> The AG responded with an opinion (“*Cole Opinion*”) stating that a party
> may challenge a voter in a primary only in accordance with Miss.Code Ann.
> § 23–15–579
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-579&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>,
> which outlines strict procedures for challenging a voter. The AG stated
> further that a voter may be challenged only for the reasons listed in Miss.Code
> Ann. § 23–15–571
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-571&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> .3
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7/View/FullText.html?listSource=RelatedInfo&docFamilyGuid=I303e9f7a2ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&originationContext=appellatehistory&transitionType=HistoryItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_footnote_B00332016191757> *See
> *2003 WL 21962318 (Miss. A.G. Op. No. 2003–0316 July 21, 2003)
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0295698412&pubNum=0000999&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>.
> According to the AG:
>
>       [W]e find nothing that would allow a poll worker, poll watcher or
> another voter to ask a voter if he or she intends to support the nominees
> of the party once the voter presents himself or herself to vote. Challenges
> may be made … for the reason that the voter does not intend to support the
> nominees of the party per Section 23–15–575
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-575&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> …
>
>         If a challenge of a voter is properly initiated in strict
> accordance with Section 23–15–579
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-579&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> and the voter then openly declares that he or she does not intend to
> support the nominees of the party, the poll workers could find the
> challenge to be well taken and mark the ballot “challenged” or “rejected”
> consistent with the provisions of said statute. On the other hand, if the
> voter openly declares his or her intent to support the nominees, then a
> challenge is not proper under Section 23–15–575
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-575&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> .
>
> ….
>
>       [W]e have previously opined that absent an obvious factual situation
> such as an independent candidate attempting to vote in a party’s primary,
> the stated intent of the voter is controlling…. No past action by a voter
> can form the basis of a valid challenge under Section 23–15–571(3)(g)
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-571&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=SP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29#co_pp_1988000045090>
> and Section 23–15–575
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-575&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> .
>
> *Id.*
>
> (FN 3 read: 3
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7/View/FullText.html?listSource=RelatedInfo&docFamilyGuid=I303e9f7a2ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&originationContext=appellatehistory&transitionType=HistoryItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_footnoteReference_B00332016191757_ID0EVFBG>
>
> Section 23–15–571
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-571&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> states that “[a] person offering to vote may be challenged upon the
> following grounds”:
>
> (a) That he is not a registered voter in the precinct;
>
> (b) That he is not the registered voter under whose name he has applied to
> vote;
>
> (c) That he has already voted in the election;
>
> (d) That he is not a resident in the precinct where he is registered;
>
> (e) That he has illegally registered to vote;
>
> (f) That he has removed his ballot from the polling place; or
>
> (g) That he is otherwise disqualified by law.)
>
> In other words, the state law has been interpreted by the state attorney
> general so that poll workers may *not* challenge a voter, despite that
> voters past history of voting for Democrats unless the voter comes in and
> “openly declares that he or she does not intend to support the nominees of
> the party.”
>
> It sure seems that the Breitbart story should have mentioned the appeal,
> and vacating of Judge Pepper’s opinion, as well as the AG opinion.
>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62528&title=J.%20Christian%20Adams%20Wrongly%20Suggests%20Poll%20Workers%20Should%20Exclude%20Democrats%20from%20Voting%20in%20Mississippi%20Primary%2C%20Ignoring%20Relevant%20Case%20Law%20and%20an%20AG%20Opin>
>
> Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,
> primaries <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
> “Unregulated, Outside Spending by Koch-Related Group Plagues Local
> Elections, Public Citizen Report Finds”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62526>
>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62526> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Press release
> <http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=4223>:
> “Unregulated, undisclosed spending made possible by the U.S. Supreme
> Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has
> left local communities defenseless against big money national organizations
> intent on interfering with their elections, according to a report released
> <http://www.citizen.org/americans-for-prosperity-local-affairs-report>
> today by Public Citizen.”
>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62526&title=%E2%80%9CUnregulated%2C%20Outside%20Spending%20by%20Koch-Related%20Group%20Plagues%20Local%20Elections%2C%20Public%20Citizen%20Report%20Finds%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> Three-Judge Court Unanimously Dismisses Partisan Gerrymandering Claim
> Against Texas 2013 Redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62524>
>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62524> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> You can find the order here. <http://t.co/QPHnNvZbWk>
>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62524&title=Three-Judge%20Court%20Unanimously%20Dismisses%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Claim%20Against%20Texas%202013%20Redistricting&description=>
>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
> “Campaign-Finance Reform Has to Be Cross-Partisan”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62522>
>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62522> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Lessig in the Atlantic.
> <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/campaign-finance-reform-has-to-be-cross-partisan/372983/>
>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62522&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign-Finance%20Reform%20Has%20to%20Be%20Cross-Partisan%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “The Limits of ‘The New Soft Money’” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62520>
>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:04 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62520> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bauer <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2014/06/limits-new-soft-money/>on
> the Tokaji-Strause report <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/thenewsoftmoney/>.
>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62520&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Limits%20of%20%E2%80%98The%20New%20Soft%20Money%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee [Corrected] Votes 5-4 in Favor of
> Campaign Finance Amendment <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62507>
>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 6:50 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62507> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> So reports Peter Overby.
> <https://twitter.com/peteroverby/status/479358474066087936>
>
> [This post has been corrected and bumped to the top.]
>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62507&title=Senate%20Judiciary%20Committee%20Subcommittee%20%5BCorrected%5D%20Votes%205-4%20in%20Favor%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Amendment&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>



-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140619/d0eb014b/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/20140619/d0eb014b/attachment.png>

View list directory