[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/28/14

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Mar 27 19:53:18 PDT 2014


    SOCLASS II: Elections, Law and Democracy
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59292>

Posted on March 27, 2014 7:50 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59292>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

[bumping to the top for tomorrow's event]

Looking forward to this event <http://soclass.org/> at Whittier Law 
School on March 28. Here is the conference schedule 
<http://soclass.org/conference-schedule>.  I'll be giving thekeynote, 
<http://soclass.org/elections-law-and-democracy>"Abuse of Discretion: 
The U.S. Supreme Court's Indefensible Use of Evidence in Election Law 
Cases."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59292&title=SOCLASS%20II%3A%20Elections%2C%20Law%20and%20Democracy&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    "GOP Gripes About 'BullShit' Vote"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59767>

Posted on March 27, 2014 7:39 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59767>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Straight out of 
<http://thehill.com/homenews/house/201950-gop-gripes-about-bull-vote> 
"House of Cards:"

    Medicare doctor payments on Thursday without a full roll call vote.

    "Outrageous," Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told The Hill after
    complaining about the maneuver to a colleague. "I think it's
    outrageous."

    House Republican leaders had planned to bring up the "doc fix" under
    a procedure requiring a two-thirds majority to pass, but after a
    series of closed-door meetings on Thursday morning, they determined
    they didn't have the votes to meet that threshold and didn't want to
    stay in session long enough to set up a simple majority vote.

    So with just a few members on the House floor before a scheduled
    vote on an unrelated Ukraine measure, Republicans brought up the
    Medicare bill by voice vote. When no one in the chamber objected,
    the measure passed.

    "Bullshit," said a visibly annoyed Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) as he
    emerged from the floor following the Ukraine vote. When Mulvaney was
    asked to comment about the upcoming GOP budget, he replied: "I can't
    talk about the budget because I'm so pissed about the [doc fix]."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59767&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20Gripes%20About%20%E2%80%98BullShit%E2%80%99%20Vote%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in legislation and legislatures 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, political parties 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>


    "Prosecutors must prove Yee knew money was pay for official acts"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59765>

Posted on March 27, 2014 5:44 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59765>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

LA Times 
<http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-yee-legal-20140327,0,5526895.story#axzz2xDJGQW6X>:

    "Campaign contribution cases are the trickiest," said Dennis
    Riordan, one of San Francisco's top appellate criminal defense lawyers.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that "people are entitled to donate to
    candidates to influence their actions and candidates are entitled to
    take into account the desires of their campaign donors when they
    vote,"  Riordan said.

    Because of that rule, federal prosecutors will have to prove that
    Yee understood the money he received was payment for official acts, 
    Riordan said.

    "You have to prove mental state, prove that was what the public
    official was thinking," Riordan said.

    The complaint against Yee said he repeatedly objected when
    undercover agents suggested the money represented "pay for play"
    transactions.

    "I have never seen a case in which a complaint of public corruption
    conceded there were exculpatory statements of that kind," Riordan said.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59765&title=%E2%80%9CProsecutors%20must%20prove%20Yee%20knew%20money%20was%20pay%20for%20official%20acts%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in bribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>, campaign finance 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    "Joshua Spivak on Colorado's proposed recall election reform"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59763>

Posted on March 27, 2014 3:52 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59763>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here 
<http://www.coloradoindependent.com/146702/joshua-spivak-on-colorados-proposed-recall-election-reform>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59763&title=%E2%80%9CJoshua%20Spivak%20on%20Colorado%E2%80%99s%20proposed%20recall%20election%20reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in recall elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11>


    "Federal Court Orders N.C. Lawmakers to Release E-Mail Related to
    Passage of State's Sweeping Voter Suppression Law"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59761>

Posted on March 27, 2014 3:33 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59761>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Press release 
<http://www.southerncoalition.org/nc-voting-rights-case-judge-orders-legislature-to-release-email/> 
and order. 
<http://www.southerncoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/order.pdf>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59761&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20Court%20Orders%20N.C.%20Lawmakers%20to%20Release%20E-Mail%20Related%20to%20Passage%20of%20State%E2%80%99s%20Sweeping%20Voter%20Suppression%20Law%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    Are Things Getting Better with Restrictive Voting Laws? The Answer
    is Unclear <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59759>

Posted on March 27, 2014 3:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59759>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I've spoken to a number of reporters in the last few weeks doing stories 
on whether the wave of restrictive voting laws coming out of mostly 
Republican legislatures seems to be cresting, and perhaps the situation 
is becoming better. Based upon this new Pam Fessler NPR story 
<http://www.npr.org/2014/03/27/295331365/voting-rights-fight-takes-a-new-direction>, 
it appears to be a point of view pushed by the Brennan Center.

Like Pam, I'm not so sure that's right.

As I've chronicled 
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182857>, the 2012 
elections saw both a popular and judicial backlash against some of the 
most restrictive voting rules passed mostly by Republican legislatures 
in the runup to the 2012 elections.  (That backlash included a number of 
voter id laws put on hold, and the Sixth Circuit use /Bush v. Gore/ to 
limit Ohio cutbacks in early voting as well as restrictive rules on 
counting provisional ballots.)  At the end of the 2012 piece, I 
speculated that Republicans might see these restrictive rules as in 
tension with a desire to make the party more inclusive and thereby more 
competitive in presidential elections.  I pointed to both Florida's 
restoration of some cut early voting time as well as WI Gov. Scott 
Walker's backing away from an attempt to get rid of Wisconsin's same day 
voter registration.

But that backing away in 2012 has faded away and we are seeing all kinds 
of new restrictions. Just today, Gov. Walker signed a bill cutting back 
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-signs-asbestos-lawsuit-bill-b99234687z1-252672541.html> 
on some (though not all that the legislature wanted) of early voting in 
Wisconsin. Kansas and Arizona (soon to be joined byother states 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/after-ruling-alabama-joins-2-states-in-moving-to-alter-voting-rules.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry154%23%2Fhasen%2Fsince1851%2Fallresults%2F1%2Fallauthors%2Fnewest%2F>) 
are now pushing <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59556> for greater 
citizenship checks for voters registering using the federal form. Worse, 
the precedent set by the Kobach case <https://t.co/RKICU3GCP5> could 
give states greater power to restrict registration and voting 
<http://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2014/3/necessary-voter-eligibility-enforcement-under-kobach-v-eac> 
under the guise of enforcing "voter qualifications."   Freed of Section 
5 of the Voting Rights Act, North Carolina 
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353068> enacted the 
toughest set of voting restrictions in a single measure I can think of 
since at least the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Texas is 
aggressively enforcing its tough voter id law.  Both North Carolina and 
Texas are fighting hard against the Department of Justice's Voting 
Rights Act lawsuits against the states. Prospects to restore through 
congressional legislation some of the protections of the Voting Rights 
Act lost through the Supreme Court's /Shelby County /decision are 
uncertain at best. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which has a 
crucial role in certifying voting technology and providing best 
practices for states and localities running elections, is still dead, 
thanks to a blockage by Republicans of nominees in the Senate.

So are things really getting better?  I think it is too early to say 
that, and some signs point in the opposite direction.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59759&title=Are%20Things%20Getting%20Better%20with%20Restrictive%20Voting%20Laws%3F%20The%20Answer%20is%20Unclear&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    "Scott Walker signs early-voting bill, uses partial veto to extend
    hours" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59757>

Posted on March 27, 2014 3:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59757>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

/Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel/: 
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-signs-asbestos-lawsuit-bill-b99234687z1-252672541.html>

    In the early voting measure, Walker used his partial veto powers ---
    the most powerful in the nation --- to nix language restricting
    early voting hours in Milwaukee and other cities to 45 hours a week
    while leaving in place a provision to prohibit early voting on weekends.

    Democrats have decried those voting limits as the latest effort by
    the GOP to make it harder for minorities, veterans, the elderly and
    students to vote, saying it amounted to "fixing elections" rather
    than problems.

    Republicans said they were advancing the measure because they want
    voting hours to be more uniform around the state, particularly
    because rural officials don't have the staff to keep clerks' offices
    open for early voting as late as their urban counterparts.

    Under the legislation as rewritten by Walker, early voting in
    clerk's offices could take place solely on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 7
    p.m. but would not face the additional limit of 45 hours per week.

    Walker also struck out a part of the bill added by Senate
    Republicans that would have required the state to pay for half of
    the expenses for smaller communities offering early voting at a cost
    of about $200,000.

    The governor's changes softened the effect of the bill but are
    unlikely to appease Democrats.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59757&title=%E2%80%9CScott%20Walker%20signs%20early-voting%20bill%2C%20uses%20partial%20veto%20to%20extend%20hours%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    NYT Editorial Blog Urges Gov. Cuomo to Sign National Popular Vote
    Bill <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59755>

Posted on March 27, 2014 2:25 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59755>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here 
<http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/shouldnt-every-vote-count/>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59755&title=NYT%20Editorial%20Blog%20Urges%20Gov.%20Cuomo%20to%20Sign%20National%20Popular%20Vote%20Bill&description=>
Posted in electoral college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44>


    "Florida halts purge of noncitizens from voter rolls"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59753>

Posted on March 27, 2014 2:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59753>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

/Tampa Bay Times/ 
<http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/florida-halts-purge-of-noncitizens-from-voter-rolls/2172206>: 
"Gov. Rick Scott's chief elections official is suspending Florida's 
efforts to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls, citing changes to a 
federal database used to check voters' citizenship status."

Here 
<http://dos.myflorida.com/media/29715/secretary_detzner_project_integrity_memo_to_supervisors_of_elections.pdf> 
is the FL. Secretary of State's memo on the change.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59753&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%20halts%20purge%20of%20noncitizens%20from%20voter%20rolls%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    "Voter ID: Where Are We Now?" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59751>

Posted on March 27, 2014 2:20 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59751>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

That's the lead story in the March issue of NCSL's "The Canvass 
<http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-canvass-march-2014.aspx?utm_source=Canvass&utm_campaign=8b36eaee85-Canvass_April_20134_25_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c27fe8f428-8b36eaee85-111828865>."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59751&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20ID%3A%20Where%20Are%20We%20Now%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


    "News Analysis: Richland County, S.C. elections still in turmoil"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59749>

Posted on March 27, 2014 2:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59749>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

That's the lead story in this week's Electionline Weekly. 
<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59749&title=%E2%80%9CNews%20Analysis%3A%20Richland%20County%2C%20S.C.%20elections%20still%20in%20turmoil%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


    Re: From the Hobby Lobby oral argument: Should legislation passed by
    unanimous vote be invalidated or narrowly construed?
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59741>

Posted on March 27, 2014 10:04 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59741>by Anita Krishnakumar 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=16>

//Will Baude's Washington Post 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/25/from-the-hobby-lobby-oral-argument-should-legislation-passed-by-unanimous-vote-be-invalidated-or-narrowly-construed/> 
piece raises an interesting significance-of-the-legislative-process 
question. While Will (and the Court) frames the issue in constitutional 
terms, it has obvious statutory interpretation implications as well. 
Just a few things that popped out at me while reading Will's piece:

1. On Justice Scalia's /Shelby County v. Holder/ comment 
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-96.pdf> 
that the unanimous vote in favor of renewing the VRA was about the 
"perpetuation of racial entitlement" and the difficulty of undoing such 
entitlements through the normal legislative process:  Much has been 
written about this comment, but what strikes me is that it seems almost 
like a cousin---a hostile cousin, but a cousin---of the 
representation-reinforcement based canon of statutory construction 
advocated by Bill Eskridge 
<http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3824/> and Cass Sunstein 
<http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1341272?uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103867078983>in 
the 1990s. Eskridge and Sunstein argued that in order to counteract the 
legislative process's tendency to favor wealthy, well-organized 
interests over diffuse unorganized ones, courts should err on the side 
of construing statutes in favor of politically-disadvantaged litigants. 
As a corollary, they also advocated that when faced with a statute 
manifestly designed to benefit a narrow interest at the expense of a 
diffuse one (such as, say, a statute containing a tax exemption or a 
subsidy), courts should construe that statute narrowly, to limit the 
targeted benefit. Justice Scalia's suggestion that civil rights statutes 
effect "racial entitlements" that should be viewed with skepticism turns 
the Eskridge-Sunstein principle on its head, since Eskridge and Sunstein 
would consider racial minorities a politically-/disadvantaged/ group, 
but it sounds in similar concerns about legislative process 
(dys)function. The difference is simply in which interest groups one 
considers to be politically-favored or entrenched. The Supreme Court has 
never really embraced the proposed representation-reinforcement canon, 
however, and despite Justice Scalia's famous comment in /Shelby County/, 
it remains unlikely to do so.

2. Justice Ginsburg's comments in /Hobby Lobby 
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf>/, 
noting that "People from all sides of the political spectrum voted for 
[RFRA]" and arguing that "It seems strange that there would have been 
that tremendous uniformity if it means what you said it means, to cover 
profit corporations"---strikes me as a different kind of argument 
altogether. Her comment focuses on legislative intent, not interest 
group politics and seems to me to be a relative, if not quite a cousin, 
of the Dog That Didn't Bark canon. That canon reflects a Sherlock Holmes 
<http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/40/the-memoirs-of-sherlock-holmes/573/adventure-1-silver-blaze/>-inspired 
principle that if Congress intends for a statute to work a significant 
change in the status quo, we should expect to see some legislator, 
somewhere in the legislative record, comment on the change---and that 
legislative silence therefore can be taken as a sign that the statute 
does not effect any radical departure from the status quo. Justice 
Ginsburg seems to be inferring, in a related vein, that the unanimity of 
the vote adopting RFRA may tell us something about congressional 
intent---i.e., that the statute does not take the controversial, 
politically-divisive step of covering profit corporations.

3. Ultimately, Baude comments that "It's perilous to think that the vote 
total tells us that much about what a statute means." I completely 
agree. Different legislators vote for (or against) a statute for many 
different reasons, and their final vote tells us nothing about those 
reasons. Of course, Justice Scalia often has made precisely this 
legislative process observation. (/See, e.g./, his rants against 
inferences based on rejected legislative proposals in /Rapanos v. United 
States/ <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1034.pdf> and 
/Johnson v. Transportation Agency/ 
<http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/616/case.html>). So his 
comments in /Shelby County/ are surprising, not just for their content, 
but also from a methodological standpoint.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59741&title=Re%3A%20From%20the%20Hobby%20Lobby%20oral%20argument%3A%20%20Should%20legislation%20passed%20by%20unanimous%20vote%20be%20invalidated%20or%20narrowly%20construed%3F&description=>
Posted in guest blogging election law scholarship 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=64>, legislation and legislatures 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    "Watchdog Groups File FEC Complaints Against National Republican
    Congressional Committee and Democratic Senate Majority PAC"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59738>

Posted on March 27, 2014 8:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59738>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Press release 
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2417:march-27-2014-watchdog-groups-file-fec-complaints-against-national-republican-congressional-committee-and-democratic-senate-majority-pac&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59738&title=%E2%80%9CWatchdog%20Groups%20File%20FEC%20Complaints%20Against%20National%20Republican%20Congressional%20Committee%20and%20Democratic%20Senate%20Majority%20PAC%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    "Foxes, Henhouses, and Commissions: Assessing the Nonpartisan Model
    in Election Administration, Redistricting, and Campaign Finance"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59735>

Posted on March 27, 2014 7:59 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59735>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The <http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/> /UC Irvine Law Review/ has just 
posted the papers from a symposium I organized a year ago September.  
Here is the full set of excellent papers, which follow my (less 
excellent) Introduction.

Volume 3: Issue No. 3 . August 2013

/Masthead <http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/masthead.pdf>/

/Table of Contents <http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/toc.pdf>/


    /Symposium Issue
    /


  Foxes, Henhouses, and Commissions: Assessing the Nonpartisan Model in
  Election Administration, Redistricting, and Campaign Finance


    Introduction

Foxes, Henhouses, and Commissions: Assessing the Nonpartisan Model in 
Election Administration, Redistricting, and Campaign Finance 
<http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/hasen.pdf>
/Richard L. Hasen/


    Articles & Essays*
    *

Virtue over Party: Samuel Randall's Electoral Heroism and Its Continuing 
Importance <http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/foley.pdf>
/Edward B. Foley/

Are Ballot Titles Biased? Partisanship in California's Supervision of 
Direct Democracy 
<http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/elmendorf_spencer.pdf>
/Christopher S. Elmendorf and Douglas M. Spencer/

The Policy Views of Partisan Election Officials 
<http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/kimball_et_al.pdf>
/David C. Kimball, Martha Kropf, Donald Moynihan, Carol L. Silva, and 
Brady Baybeck/

America's Top Model: The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board 
<http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/tokaji.pdf>
/Daniel P. Tokaji/

Community of Interest Methodology and Public Testimony 
<http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/mac_donald_cain.pdf>
/Karin Mac Donald and Bruce E. Cain/

Redistricting Commissions in the Western United States 
<http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/miller_grofman.pdf>/
/Peter Miller and Bernard Grofman//

The Consequences of Consequentialist Criteria 
<http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/stephanopoulos.pdf>//
/Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos///

Do State Ethics Commissions Reduce Political Corruption? An Exploratory 
Investigation 
<http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/crider_milyo.pdf>///
/Kayla Crider and Jeffrey Milyo////

The Federal Election Commission as Regulator: The Changing Evaluations 
of Advisory Opinions 
<http://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/vol3/no3/franz.pdf>////
/Michael M. Franz/////

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59735&title=%E2%80%9CFoxes%2C%20Henhouses%2C%20and%20Commissions%3A%20Assessing%20the%20Nonpartisan%20Model%20in%20Election%20Administration%2C%20Redistricting%2C%20and%20Campaign%20Finance%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, 
election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>


    "Senate Candidates Find A Way To Give Those Friendly Super PACs A
    Helping Hand" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59733>

Posted on March 27, 2014 7:40 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59733>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Paul Blumenthal reports 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/27/2014-senate-super-pacs_n_5036277.html?1395920849>for 
HuffPo.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59733&title=%E2%80%9CSenate%20Candidates%20Find%20A%20Way%20To%20Give%20Those%20Friendly%20Super%20PACs%20A%20Helping%20Hand%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    "Inside the Koch brothers' campus crusade"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59731>

Posted on March 27, 2014 7:34 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59731>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CPI reports 
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/03/27/14497/inside-koch-brothers-campus-crusade>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59731&title=%E2%80%9CInside%20the%20Koch%20brothers%E2%80%99%20campus%20crusade%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    "Fiascos and a Matter of Degree" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59729>

Posted on March 27, 2014 7:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59729>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bauer 
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2014/03/fiascos-matters-degree/>on 
lobbying, money and influence.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D59729&title=%E2%80%9CFiascos%20and%20a%20Matter%20of%20Degree%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, 
lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>

-- 
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/20140327/32d3ea33/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/20140327/32d3ea33/attachment.png>


View list directory