[EL] buying candidates?
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Wed Nov 5 08:08:56 PST 2014
Regarding:
Despite denials by some such as Mr. Bopp who assert that they never
declared money is speech, many who oppose restrictions on money used for
political purposes do use that phrase and those who argue for more restrictions
argue against that metaphor.
Professor, I challenged you to come up with one example to support this
straw man. The only example you cited was a brief I filed years ago which
actually said the opposite. I invite you again to prove this false claim.
Jim Bopp
In a message dated 11/5/2014 10:59:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dschultz at hamline.edu writes:
Mark makes the point I made a few weeks ago when someone asked about the
the concept of "money is speech." Metaphors are both useful to understand
the world but they can also trap up. When people come to believe their meta
phors then problems often arise. Despite denials by some such as Mr. Bopp
who assert that they never declared money is speech, many who oppose
restrictions on money used for political purposes do use that phrase and those who
argue for more restrictions argue against that metaphor. Unfortunately,
many people, including those on this listserv, confuse scholarly or
intellectual argument with sloganeering, marketing, or political advocacy of a
position.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Mark Schmitt <_schmitt.mark at gmail.com_
(mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com) > wrote:
There's a reason a conversation like this one becomes so pointless so
quickly: It is conducted entirely in metaphors. "Buying votes" is a metaphor
for the influence that large donors can have on legislative decisions.
"Market of ideas," "drowning out speech," and "leveling the playing field" are
also metaphors.
As a writer, I love metaphors, and they can be aids to understanding. But
they are not trump cards in an argument. And dismantling someone else's
metaphor isn't a trump card either.
Mark Schmitt
_202/246-2350_ (tel:202/246-2350)
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Sean Parnell
<_sean at impactpolicymanagement.com_ (mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com) > wrote:
So when you say that you “would like to see the purchase of votes be part
of the discussion,” you mean you’ve made your point and aren’t interested
in clarifying or responding to any questions or critiques of that point?
Thanks for explaining. By the way, I suggest you look up the definition of “
discussion,” I suspect you may be surprised.
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
_571-289-1374_ (tel:571-289-1374) (c)
_sean at impactpolicymanagement.com_ (mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com)
From: Robert Wechsler [mailto:_catbird at pipeline.com_
(mailto:catbird at pipeline.com) ]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 7:56 AM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] buying candidates?
I made my point in the beginning, in response to what Benjamin Barr wrote.
You twisted it then, and there's no reason to make it again. You can keep
the benefit of the doubt to yourself. Treat is a gift rather than as a
transaction involving a product that is bought and sold.
On 11/2/2014 9:18 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
Exactly (and I do mean EXACTLY) what “free market values” you see in our
elections that so trouble you? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt (for
now) that you have some point to make, so please make it.
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
_571-289-1374_ (tel:571-289-1374) (c)
_sean at impactpolicymanagement.com_ (mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com)
From: Robert Wechsler [mailto:catbird at pipeline.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 4:55 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] buying candidates?
What I said is not that parties are purchasing elections, or that spending
money supporting candidates (via persuasion/dissuasion (the attempt to
garner if not purchase votes) or via the actual purchase of votes, which has
occurred on many occasions, whatever the value of a vote may be) is about
economics, but that the values of free market economics are not appropriate
to the election of political candidates.
One of the problems in the world of campaign finance is that it often
overlooks the fact that it is part of government ethics, which is based in “
regime values,” that is, the values that underlie our system of government:
fairness, justice, openness, constitutional freedoms, civic responsibility,
and citizen participation. It is not just about free speech vs. "reform."
If you acknowledge that the appropriateness of free market values in the
election of candidates is an issue, then we can have a discussion. If you do
not, then you can just keep being disrespectful.
Rob Wechsler
City Ethics
On 11/2/2014 4:20 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
Sorry, Robert, but you’re not really making any sense.
Let’s start with basics. For one party to purchase an election, someone
else must sell it to them. Explain to me, in non-euphemistic terms (i.e. “
politicians are selling it to the rich”) who the seller is. Alternately, stop
pretending you’re talking about economics.
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
_571-289-1374_ (tel:571-289-1374) (c)
_sean at impactpolicymanagement.com_ (mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com)
From: Robert Wechsler [mailto:catbird at pipeline.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 10:06 AM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) ; _fwoocher at strumwooch.com_ (mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com)
; _cmaceda_CONTRACTOR at ap.org_ (mailto:cmaceda_CONTRACTOR at ap.org)
Subject: Re: [EL] buying candidates?
Mr. Parnell, my "real issue," as I said, is There is a difference between
persuading people about products or issues and persuading people about
voting. In your mock discussion, you assume that a vote is a product, rather
than discuss whether or not it is a product and what that might mean with
respect to regulating attempts to purchase it. Therefore, your response is a
way to play at responding to an issue I raised without actually responding
to it. It is disrespectful and wasteful of our time.
The appropriateness of market economics in voting is not a "silly
euphemism." It is a central issue that, I believe, does not receive sufficient
discussion, which is why I raised it. Don't you realize that your snideness
reflects poorly both your ability to counter reasonable, responsible arguments
and on your ethics in engaging with others?
Mr. Woocher's and Mr. Maceda's responses to what you wrote are, on the
other hand, thoughtful, responsible responses to what you wrote below. So
let's "begin the discussion" by discussing it, not mocking it.
Rob Wechsler
City Ethics
On 11/1/2014 5:53 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
Robert: I’d be happy to keep the purchase of votes part of the discussion.
Of course, there can’t be a purchase without a seller, so let’s begin
the discussion there.
One key element of markets, for example, is price, which generally occurs
at the intersection of the supply and demand curves. Tell me, Robert, how
much do you sell yours for? Or what price are you willing to pay for mine?
Or what price do you think anyone sells theirs for?
Let’s discuss my personal supply curve for votes, since we’re talking
about the purchase of votes and my own supply curve is really the only one I
can talk about with any real knowledge.
As a producer of votes, I’m willing to provide as many votes as I can up
to a point where the marginal gain of another vote meets or exceeds the
marginal cost (or expected marginal gain meets expected marginal costs, if you
prefer) that vote. At the point where the expected marginal cost of
producing one additional vote exceeds the expected marginal gain, I will cease
production of votes.
In my case the number of votes I, personally, am willing to provide is 1,
at least per election, per candidate. The cost to me to produce this vote
is rather negligible – perhaps $0.50 or so in gas, another $0.10 or so in
depreciation on my vehicle, depending on how long the wait in line is
perhaps $100 or $200 in forgone income. On the other side of the ledger are my
expected gains, which include the psychic income from the feeling of having
done my civic duty, the value to me of not running the risk of showing up on
some creepy politician’s list of people who haven’t done their civic duty
(see this for what I’m talking about:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/dems-keep-it-creepy.php), plus financial benefits that may accrue
to me from elected officials adopting policies I favor (this is a triple
probability function, of course – the probability that my vote might make
the difference in an election times the probability the elected official will
keep their word times the probability my favored policies will result in
the outcome I believe it will times the net-present value of those
financial benefits), plus non-financial benefits that may accrue to me (again a
triple probability function, substitute psychic income values for the
financial benefit values in the previous calculation).
That last bit about the value of financial and non-financial value is
more complicated than what I just outlined, of course – the value of the
benefit to me must be compared to the lesser or possibly even negative financial
result that might occur should things go the other way. But to provide a
simple illustration of what I’m talking about, on the financial side I may
benefit from an increase in the Child Tax Credit if that is what the
candidate I vote for pledges, on the non-financial side I may benefit from not
being locked up for dissenting from government approved orthodoxy if the
candidate I vote for opposes ‘truth in politics’ laws.
As for why I’m only willing to produce a single vote for a candidate, the
fact is that the gross marginal value of that second vote is vanishingly
small (because the probability that my second vote will make the difference
in an election is near-zero), while the costs of that second vote are
significant. For starters, I lose the psychic income from performing my civic
duty and in fact incur psychic costs, because I’m now doing the opposite of
my civic duty. On top of that, if I am caught (another probability
calculation) then I face a variety of legal sanctions, which to me seem a very high
cost indeed. Comparing the miniscule gain to the substantial cost, the
rational decision to me is to only produce a single vote.
This is just the start of the discussion, of course. All I’ve provided
here is the maximum number of votes I am willing to provide as a seller of
votes. To begin with, there’s still a product differentiation issue (i.e.
which candidate will I sell my vote to) which is simply which candidate offers
the greatest net gain to me, once both the financial and non-financial
gains are summed. Perhaps the next round we’ll address this?
Anyways, these are just some opening thoughts on the sale and purchase of
votes, of course. Your thoughts, Robert? Or have I misunderstood you, and
you don’t really mean the actual purchase of votes, instead it’s simply
some sort of silly euphemism tossed about by ‘reformers’ who wish to imply
illegality and nefarious undertakings when discussing the ability of persons
to attempt to persuade voters to support certain candidates and policies?
If that’s the case, we probably ought to drop the whole “purchase of votes”
meme, since it’s obviously not really applicable, and instead you ought
to whine about the simple unfairness of the fact that some people are more
persuasive than others, or that people you disagree with are occasionally
more persuasive than those you agree with, or whatever your real issue is.
Best,
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
_571-289-1374_ (tel:571-289-1374) (c)
_sean at impactpolicymanagement.com_ (mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com)
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Wechsler
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 5:36 PM
To: Benjamin Barr
Cc: _law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] buying candidates?
We don't feel guilty or ashamed that we've made money in free market.
This isn't about making money in a free market. It is about spending money
in a market that is not free: the election of those who manage our
communities. If this market were free, then people could buy each other's votes.
If you are unflinching in your inclination toward liberty, how can you
oppose the purchasing of votes?
I would like to see the purchase of votes be part of the discussion. After
all, that's really what the discussion is about.
Robert Wechsler
City Ethics
On 10/31/2014 4:54 PM, Benjamin Barr wrote:
Professor,
Some of us are stricken with an unflinching inclination toward liberty.
We'd prefer that a free people be able to speak as they see fit, pool their
resources together as they'd like, associate in commonality as they enjoy,
and otherwise engage in the American experiment.
We don't feel guilty or ashamed that we've made money in free market. We
welcome the Steyers, Kochs, and Soros of the world to compete for our
attention and shake up the public mind. We aren't afraid of their ideas. We
welcome unions, corporations, trial attorneys, and coal producers to share
their thoughts, even when they use silly names. We believe in free exchange
and citizens capable of self-government.
We also realize that the surest path to tyranny is found in displacing
this precious liberty held by Americans with the unilateral voice of
government to decide who has "political power or who gets elected."
Forward, and a Happy Halloween to all!
Benjamin Barr
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Schultz, David A. <_dschultz at hamline.edu_
(mailto:dschultz at hamline.edu) > wrote:
I will chime in late on this debate since I was working.
The difficulty of us to really draw the lines between permissible use of
money to influence candidates or races and impermissible uses (buying
candidates or bribery) might suggest that it is impossible to do so because it
may be a distinction without a difference. This may thus speak to the
core issue that I repeatedly bring up but which most of you chose to simply
ignore: i.e., perhaps it is not legitimate for people to use money or
convert over economic resources into political resources or perhaps it is simply
not legitimate to make money the allocative factor that determines who has
political power or who gets elected.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Rick Hasen <_rhasen at law.uci.edu_
(mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) > wrote:
I have changed this subject heading to something more descriptive.
On 10/31/14, 11:25 AM, Benjamin Barr wrote:
Brad's on to something here.
There's an awful example of this going on in Texas right now (and
something I'm working on with the Wyoming Liberty Group folks). The case is Cary
v. Texas and is in the Fifth District appellate court. It involves a crew
of people who improperly funded a judicial campaign. But instead of having
the state slap them with violations of its Election Code and Judicial
Campaign Fairness Act, they're going after one of the funders under criminal
bribery, "organized crime," and Texas' favorite money laundering laws to
pursue 14 years of jail for him.
Prosecutors there believe you can sidestep the state's campaign finance
laws because the giving of money to "run for office" and "continue to run for
office" constitutes bribery and organized criminal activity in their eyes.
It's worth pausing to read that again. Make one mistake in how you
decide to fund a candidate for office and you're not dealing with campaign
finance violations (pesky in and of themselves); you're facing 14 years in the
slammer.
There's a careful sort of delineation, constitutionally mandated, in
nearly every state's bundle of anti-corruption laws. Bribery and criminal
offenses are the proverbial jackhammers here. They prevent immediate quid pro
quo arrangements and include pesky things like heightened evidentiary
standards and burdens of proof that some prosecutors don't like very much.
Campaign finance laws, aimed at preventing future quid pro quo arrangements
and serving limited informational interests, regulate with much more
precision and more lightly given the important First Amendment interests at stake.
It's time to get over the notion that Americans coming together to support
policies and politicians they prefer are engaged in criminal activity.
Its destroying real people who get caught up in this nonsense.
Forward,
Benjamin Barr
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Smith, Brad <_BSmith at law.capital.edu_
(mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu) > wrote:
So Democrat Jones announces he is running for Senate, and states plainly,
"I don't agree with most of my party on campaign finance reform. I oppose
amending the constitution, and I oppose the DISCLOSE Act." Larry Lessig
says, "This will hurt Jones in getting the Democratic nomination. Mayday PAC
will support Jones' opponent."
That's "buy[ing] the candidate's policy decisions"?
Isn't that more accurately called "opposing a candidate you disagree
with"?
"Right to Life will oppose candidates who support abortion rights.
Support for abortion rights will hurt a candidate in Republican primaries."
That's bribery?
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
_614.236.6317_ (tel:614.236.6317)
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
____________________________________
From: Tyler Creighton [_tyler at rethinkmedia.org_
(mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org) ]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 11:03 AM
To: Svoboda, Brian (Perkins Coie)
Cc: Smith, Brad; _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
To acquire candidate Smith's silence or opposition to the carbon tax by
paying for ads supporting candidate Smith or by promising to pay for ads
attacking him.
Tyler Creighton | _tyler at rethinkmedia.org_ (mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org)
| Media Associate
_ReThink Media_ (http://rethinkmedia.org/) | _(202) 449-6960_
(tel:(202)%20449-6960) office | _(925) 548-2189_ (tel:(925)%20548-2189) mobile
_ at ReThinkDemocrcy_ (https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy) |
_ at ReThink_Media_ (https://twitter.com/rethink_media) | _ at TylerCreighton_
(http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Svoboda, Brian (Perkins Coie)
<_BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com_ (mailto:BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com) > wrote:
The universal unconscious scores again, because this discussion comes
while I am reading Dan Lowenstein’s “When Is a Campaign Contribution a Bribe?”
, republished in Heffernan and Kleinig’s Private and Public Corruption. It
seems to me that Professor Lowenstein’s five hypotheticals would provide a
useful framework for this debate. Perhaps the listserv’s monthly robo
email could include a hyperlink to Professor Lowenstein’s article, which never
seems to go out of season.
=B.
Brian Svoboda | Perkins Coie LLP
PARTNER
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
D. _+1.202.434.1654_ (tel:+1.202.434.1654)
F. _+1.202.654.9150_ (tel:+1.202.654.9150)
E. _BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com_ (mailto:%20BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com)
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[mailto:_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] On
Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 9:46 AM
To: Tyler Creighton
Cc: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
You have a curious interpretation of "buy."
You seem to be exactly the kind of person I was referring to.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
_614.236.6317_ (tel:614.236.6317)
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
____________________________________
From: Tyler Creighton [_tyler at rethinkmedia.org_
(mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org) ]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 7:28 AM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: Reuben, Richard C.; Rick Hasen; _law-election at UCI.edu_
(mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
The President of AFP seems to confirm that big spending for a candidate
(or the threat of big spending against a candidate) is in fact to buy the
candidate's policy decisions.
_In NYT today_
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/why-republicans-keep-telling-everyone-theyre-not-scientists.html?ref=todayspaper%20) :
Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, said his group
intends to aggressively work against Republicans who support a carbon tax or
regulations in the 2016 presidential primary campaigns. “They would be at a
severe disadvantage in the Republican nomination process,” Mr. Phillips said.
“We would absolutely make that a crucial issue.”
Tyler Creighton | _tyler at rethinkmedia.org_ (mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org)
| Media Associate
_ReThink Media_ (http://rethinkmedia.org/) | _(202) 449-6960_
(tel:(202)%20449-6960) office | _(925) 548-2189_ (tel:(925)%20548-2189) mobile
_ at ReThinkDemocrcy_ (https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy) |
_ at ReThink_Media_ (https://twitter.com/rethink_media) | _ at TylerCreighton_
(http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton)
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Smith, Brad <_BSmith at law.capital.edu_
(mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu) > wrote:
This actually strikes me as pretty tame compared to what I've seen, so
maybe the future is now.
But it is a shame that over the years so many have labored so hard to
convince Americans that if someone contributes to an officeholder's campaign,
it is proof that the officeholder is bought and that the officeholder's
decisions are not based on the merits, the officeholder's ideology, or the
perceived desires of constituents, but simply the wishes of donors.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
_614.236.6317_ (tel:614.236.6317)
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
____________________________________
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] on behalf
of Reuben, Richard C. [_ReubenR at missouri.edu_ (mailto:ReubenR at missouri.edu)
]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:31 PM
To: 'Rick Hasen'; '_law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu) '
Subject: Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
Apologies if _this_
(http://www.iagreetosee.com/portfolio/republicans-spending-oust-groovy-judge-pat-joyce/?utm_expid=75724171-4.BszejjW6RMeHyvjzhd7TGw
.0&utm_referrer=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd
=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iagreetosee.com%2Fportfolio%2Frepublic
ans-spending-oust-groovy-judge-pat-joyce%2F&ei=RZ9SVJq3JtX_yQSUw4DgBQ&usg=AF
QjCNF-VgTyYb_g2mLuoL36cxqDZUb2Pw&sig2=QLsHDOuK-t-67ruAQca8wA&bvm=bv.78597519
,d.aWw?&version=a) has already been posted, but I thought you might like
to see the future of judicial campaigns, as played out today in a judicial
election in Cole County, Mo. This one is obviously very ugly, and there is
still time yet before the election.
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[mailto:_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] On
Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:57 PM
To: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
Subject: [EL] more news 10/30/14
_“Messing With Texas Again: Putting It Back Under Federal Supervision”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67669)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 12:40 pm_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67669) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
I have written_ this piece _
(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/messing-with-texas-voter-id) for TPM Cafe. It begins:
Readers of the _entire 147-page opinion_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf) issued earlier this month by a
federal district court striking down Texas’s strict voter identification law
as unconstitutional and a violation of the Voting Rights Act might have
been too exhausted to realize that the opinion’s very last sentence may be
its most important. The court ended its opinion with a dry statement
promising a future hearing on “plaintiffs’ request for relief under Section 3(c)
of the Voting Rights Act.” That hearing, however, has the potential to
require Texas to get federal approval for any future voting changes for up to
the next decade, and to make it much more difficult for the state to pass
more restrictive voting rules. It may be much more important than the ruling
on the voter ID law itself.
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67669&title=“
Messing%20With%20Texas%20Again:%20Putting%20It%20Back%20Under%20Federal%20Supervision”&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)
, _The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) , _voter id_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9) , _Voting Rights Act_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)
_“McDonnell team sought mistrial over juror’s ouster, expressed concern
about alternate”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67667)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 12:30 pm_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67667) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_WaPo reports._
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcdonnell-team-sought-mistrial-over-jurors-ouster-expressed-concern-about-altern
ate/2014/10/30/d3f3d1c2-6053-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html)
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67667&title=“McDonnell%20team%20sought%20mistrial%20over%20juror’
s%20ouster,%20expressed%20concern%20about%20alternate”&description=)
Posted in _bribery_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54)
_“Ginsburg Was Right: Texas’ Extreme Voter ID Law Is Stopping People From
Voting”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67665)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 12:24 pm_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67665) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_HuffPo reports._
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/texas-voter-id_n_6076536.html?utm_hp_ref=tw)
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67665&title=“Ginsburg%20Was%20Right:%20Texas’
%20Extreme%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Is%20Stopping%20People%20From%20Voting”&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)
, _The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) , _voter id_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9) , _Voting Rights Act_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)
_“50,000 Missing Georgia Voter-Registration Applications? Nothing to See
Here”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67663)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 12:20 pm_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67663) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_The Daily Beast reports._
(http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/30/50-000-missing-georgia-voter-registration-applications-nothing-to-see-here
.html?via=desktop&source=twitter)
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67663&title=“
50,000%20Missing%20Georgia%20Voter-Registration%20Applications?%20Nothing%20to%20See%20Here”&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)
_“Argument preview: Racial gerrymandering, partisan politics, and the
future of the Voting Rights Act”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67661)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 12:07 pm_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67661) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
I have written _an extensive preview for SCOTUSBlog_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/argument-preview-racial-gerrymandering-partisan-politics-and-t
he-future-of-the-voting-rights-act/) of a pair of cases the Supreme Court
will hear at a November 12 oral argument. The issues are complex but very
important and I’ve tried to lay it out so that someone not in the election
law field can understand what’s at stake. The preview begins:
The Supreme Court has long ignored Justice Felix Frankfurter’s warning to
stay out of the political thicket. It regularly hears _challenges_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/perry-v-perez/) to _redistricting
cases_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-state-legislature-v-arizona-independent-redistricting-commission/?wpmp_switcher=desktop) (not
to mention _lots_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/) of other_ types_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/crawford-v-marion-county-election-bd/) of _election_
(http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Roberts-order-Lux-9-30-101
.pdf) _cases_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/susan-b-anthony-list-v-driehaus/) ), raising issues from the _one-person, one-vote_
(http://electionlawblog.org/archives/001449.html) rule to _vote dilution_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/06/comments-on-lulac-v-perry/) under the Voting
Rights Act, to _racial_
(http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_357) and _partisan_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/06/texas-redistricting-counting-the-votes/) gerrymandering claims. The Court’s decision to hear a
part of a challenge to Alabama’s state legislative redistricting plan
enacted after the 2010 census (in _Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-legislative-black-caucus
-v-alabama/) and _Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-democratic-conference-v-alabama/) ,
set for argument on November 12) brings all of these issues together in a
seemingly technical but high-stakes case, showing the artificiality of
separating issues of race and party in redistricting, offering a bold role
reversal in political parties’ use of racial gerrymandering claims, and offering
a surprising new threat to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67661&title=“
Argument%20preview:%20Racial%20gerrymandering,%20partisan%20politics,%20and%20the%20future%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act”&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1)
_“State election officials opt to delay election in Bobby Harrell’s old
House seat”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67659)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 10:06 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67659) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Following up on_ this post_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649) , the
South Carolina state election board i_s delaying the election_
(http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141030/PC1603/141039960?fb_comment_id=fbc_5218145
74587702_521834871252339_521834871252339#f35ae82f9c) and Democrats intend
to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67659&title=“
State%20election%20officials%20opt%20to%20delay%20election%20in%20Bobby%20Harrell’s%20old%20House%20seat”&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)
_“In Michigan, Spending Big Money to Stop Big Money”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67657)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 9:45 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67657) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_NYT First Draft_
(http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/10/30/?entry=3977&_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-share) : “Now, with Election Day
nearing, Mayday is pinning its hopes on Michigan’s Sixth Congressional
District, where Representative Fred Upton, a Republican who is the chairman of
the influential Energy and Commerce Committee and was once deemed a safe
incumbent, is facing an unexpectedly strong challenge from Paul Clements, a
Democrat. In a race that was on no one’s radar a month ago, Mayday is now
the biggest outside spender.”
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67657&title=“In%20Michigan,%20Spending%20Big%20Money%20to%20Stop%20Big%20Money”
&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)
_“Horse. Stable Door. Too Late”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67655)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 9:24 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67655) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Paul Gronke_
(http://blogs.reed.edu/earlyvoting/commentary/non-citizen-voting-and-why-political-scientists-who-are-publicly-engaged-may-need-an-editor
/) on the non-citizen voting controversy and Jesse Richman’s most recent
comments on it which try to pull back from some of its bolder claims.
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67655&title=“Horse.%20Stable%20Door.%20Too%20Late”&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)
, _The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60)
_“CFI Releases Analysis of Money in State Elections”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67653)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 9:07 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67653) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_New release_
(http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/14-10-30/CFI_Releases_Analysis_of_Money_in_State_Elections.aspx) , with these subheads:
Nearly Two-Thirds of the Candidates’ 2012 Money in the Median State Came
from PACs or from $1,000+ Donors; Small Donors Gave 16%
Less than 1% of Adults in the Median State Gave any Money at All to a
Candidate for State Office
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67653&title=“CFI%20Releases%20Analysis%20of%20Money%20in%20State%20Elections”
&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)
_Lava!_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67651)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 9:05 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67651) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
and other things that can mess up an election administrator’s election
day, via _Electionline Weekly._
(http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly)
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67651&title=Lava!&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)
_Fight in South Carolina Over Replacing Resigning House Speaker on
Ballot_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 7:21 am_ (http://ele
ctionlawblog.org/?p=67649) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
See _here_
(http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141030/PC1603/141039975/1031/palmetto-sunrise-decision-on-harrell-district-house-race-today) and
_here._
(http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141029/PC1603/141029303?fb_action_ids=887859377892337&fb_action_types=og.comments)
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649&title=Fight%20in%20South%20Carolina%20Over%20Replacing%20Resigning%20House
%20Speaker%20on%20Ballot&description=)
Posted in _campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59)
_“Danger Zone: A Supreme Court Misstep On Voting Rights”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67647)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 7:19 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67647) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Linda Greenhouse NYT column_
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/opinion/a-supreme-court-misstep-on-voting-rights.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&
module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-col
umn-top-span-region) .
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67647&title=“
Danger%20Zone:%20A%20Supreme%20Court%20Misstep%20On%20Voting%20Rights”&description=)
Posted in _Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) , _The
Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) , _Voting Rights Act_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)
_“Keep On Drillin’? Santa Barbara Prepares To Vote On Oil Future”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67644)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 7:14 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67644) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_NPR’s Kirk Siegler _
(http://www.npr.org/2014/10/30/359894342/keep-on-drillin-santa-barbara-prepares-to-vote-on-oil-future?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_
medium=social&utm_campaign=morningedition&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2054)
on big money being spent on a local ballot measure.
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67644&title=“Keep%20On%20Drillin’
?%20Santa%20Barbara%20Prepares%20To%20Vote%20On%20Oil%20Future”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59)
_“The S.E.C. and Political Spending”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67642)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 7:10 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67642) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_NYT editorial._
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/opinion/the-sec-and-political-spending.html?_r=2)
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67642&title=“The%20S.E.C.%20and%20Political%20Spending”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)
_“Ethics commission approves dark money regulation”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67640)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 7:09 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67640) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_San Antonio Express News_
(http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Ethics-commission-approves-dark-money-regulation-5856838.php) :
Texas’ campaign finance regulator is set to shine a light on secret
spending in state elections.
The Texas Ethics Commission, in a unanimous vote Wednesday, approved a
new regulation to require politically active nonprofits to disclose donors if
they spend more than 25 percent of their annual budget on politicking.
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67640&title=“Ethics%20commission%20approves%20dark%20money%20regulation”
&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)
_“Beth White Hoist on Her Own Petard”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67638)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 7:06 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67638) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Robbin Stewart._
(http://ballots.blogspot.com/2014/10/beth-white-hoist-by-own-petard-httpwww.html) More _here._
(http://ballots.blogspot.com/2014/10/placeholder-for-post-to-write-tomorrow.html)
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67638&title=“Beth%20White%20Hoist%20on%20Her%20Own%20Petard”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59)
_“How Canadian Corporations are Tipping the Scales in US Politics”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67636)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 7:05 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67636) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_The Globe and Mail reports._
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/how-canadian-corporations-are-tipping-the-scale
s-in-us-politics/article21357759/)
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67636&title=“
How%20Canadian%20Corporations%20are%20Tipping%20the%20Scales%20in%20US%20Politics”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)
_“Election Analysis Blog Launched”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67634)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 7:02 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67634) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Press release_ (http://www.law.uky.edu/index.php?nid=247) :
The University of Kentucky College of Law Election Law Society, a law
student organization, and election law professor, Joshua A. Douglas, announce
the first of its kind at UK – an Election Analysis Blog.
http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/
Professor Douglas, the Robert G. Lawson and William H. Fortune Associate
Professor of Law, and students from the Election Law Society will provide
live analysis on legal issues surrounding the election as results pour in
across the Commonwealth and the nation. They will field questions from the
general public and media and provide ongoing commentary on any legal issues
that may arise.
There have already been significant lawsuits in the past few weeks –
about Kentucky’s 300-foot ban on electioneering around a polling site,
allegations of false campaign advertising, voter ID laws, and more – that will
impact Election Day. The U.S. Senate race in Kentucky between Alison Lundergan
Grimes and Mitch McConnell is one of the most expensive – and potentially
one of the closest – in the country. UK’s Election Analysis Blog will
chronicle it all.
Good luck to Josh Douglas and the students at UK. They join the great
_State of Elections_ (http://stateofelections.com/) blog at William and Mary
whose law students do a consistently excellent job.
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67634&title=“Election%20Analysis%20Blog%20Launched”&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1)
_“Sandra Fluke’s Election Bid Opposed By One Big-Spending Businessman”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67632)
Posted on _October 30, 2014 6:58 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67632) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Paul Blumenthal_
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/sandra-fluke-election_n_6070726.html) reports for HuffPo.
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67632&title=“Sandra%20Fluke’
s%20Election%20Bid%20Opposed%20By%20One%20Big-Spending%20Businessman”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59)
--
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_ (tel:949.824.3072) - office
_949.824.0495_ (tel:949.824.0495) - fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu)
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
____________________________________
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by
reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
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_ (tel:949.824.3072) - office
_949.824.0495_ (tel:949.824.0495) - fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu)
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
_651.523.2858_ (tel:651.523.2858) (voice)
_651.523.3170_ (tel:651.523.3170) (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0004.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0005.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0006.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0007.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0008.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0009.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0010.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0011.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0012.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0013.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0014.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0015.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0016.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0017.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141105/00ac71d0/attachment-0018.bin>
View list directory