[EL] impact of new voting laws
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Nov 11 12:53:01 PST 2014
The main point is that headlines like the one you had and the one
Rampell had exaggerate the likely effect of these laws on both election
outcomes and voter turnout. There is something parallel to claims of
many dead people on the rolls and therefore therefore voter fraud
could---/could---/affect the outcome of an election. Being suggestive of
an effect without offering a nuanced empirical analysis allows for
claims to be exaggerated and used in partisan ways. See also Francis
Barry
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-11/no-voting-laws-didnt-doom-democrats>for
Bloomberg View:
A day after the election, Wendy Weiser
<http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/how-much-difference-did-new-voting-restrictions-make-yesterdays-close-races> at
the Brennan Center for Justice argued that "in several key races,
the margin of victory came very close to the likely margin of
disenfranchisement." She cited the Senate race in North Carolina as
one example; here's the gist of her argument: Four years ago,
200,000 ballots were cast during seven days of early voting that the
state has since eliminated. The state also ended Election Day
registration, which 100,000 North Carolinians took advantage of in
2012, almost one-third of them black. In last week's election, since
Republican Thom Tillis's margin of victory over Democratic Senator
Kay Hagan was about 48,000 votes, Weiser implies that Hagan lost
because so many (Democratic) voters were kept away from the polls.
Weiser's argument has been picked up by other voting-rights
advocates
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/188697/how-new-voting-restrictions-impacted-2014-election> and
pundits
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-voter-suppression-laws-are-already-deciding-elections/2014/11/10/52dc9710-6920-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html>,
but it falls apart upon closer scrutiny. Even with seven fewer days,
early voting in North Carolina increased this year compared with
2010 -- by 35 percent
<http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/11/early-voting-in-nc-midterm-election-tops-1-1-million>.
Statewide turnout also increased from the previous midterm election,
to 44.1 percent from 43.7 percent. Even if turnout was lower than it
would have been without the new voting law --- something that's
impossible to establish --- it was still higher than it had been in
four of the five previous midterm elections
<http://www.ncsbe.gov/ncsbe/voter-turnout>, going back to 1994.
In addition, based on exit polls and voter turnout data, the overall
share of the black vote increased
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/us/politics/republicans-beat-democrats-at-their-own-ground-game.html> slightly
compared with 2010.
Rick Hasen, an expert on election law, says he's skeptical
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68164> about Weiser's analysis, and
rightly so. When voting-rights advocates fail to include any
balancing points in their discussion of the election, they undercut
their credibility and give ammunition to Republicans who suspect
that they are mostly interested in electing Democrats.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68254&title=%E2%80%9CNo%2C%20Voting%20Laws%20Didn%E2%80%99t%20Doom%20Democrats%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
On 11/11/14, 11:32 AM, Weiser, Wendy wrote:
>
> There is nothing inaccurate that I could see in this WaPo piece, even
> if the title is stronger than the claims in the piece. And it even
> explains the caveats.
>
> Based on the numbers so far, it still seems to me far more likely than
> not that the number of people who did not vote because of new laws was
> "perilously close" to the margin of victory in some states. There is
> no certainty yet, of course, but the numbers are way too close for
> comfort. This merits concern---as well as further study.
>
> I look forward to your thoughts.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Wendy
>
> *From:*Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:43 AM
> *To:* Weiser, Wendy; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] impact of new voting laws
>
> I will write a longer response later or tomorrow, but in the meantime,
> I am not the only one who took your post (and especially its title) to
> its logical conclusion:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-voter-suppression-laws-are-already-deciding-elections/2014/11/10/52dc9710-6920-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html?wpmk=MK0000203
>
>
> Catherine Rampell: Voter suppression laws are already deciding elections
>
>
> Voter suppression efforts may have changed the outcomes of some of the
> closest races last week. And if the Supreme Court lets these laws
> stand, they will continue to distort election results going forward....
>
> It's still early to definitively quantify the effects that these laws
> had on national turnout or on the outcomes of individual races.
> Initial estimates <http://www.electproject.org/2014g>suggesting that
> turnout rates sank to theirlowest level since 1942
> <http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present>look pretty
> damning, but so many factors can affect turnout (weather, ballot
> initiatives, the perceived closeness of races, etc.) that it's hard to
> isolate the effects of a single change. More data and statistical
> analysis expected next year will help.
>
> In the meantime, some back-of-the-envelope
> calculations<http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/how-much-difference-did-new-voting-restrictions-make-yesterdays-close-races>from
> Wendy Weiser --- director of the Democracy Program at New York
> University's Brennan Center for Justice --- should at least give us
> pause: Right now, it looks like the margin of victory in some of the
> most competitive races around the country was as big as the likely
> "margin of disenfranchisement," as Weiser puts it. That is, more
> people were newly denied the right to vote than actually cast deciding
> ballots.
>
> On 11/11/14, 8:37 AM, Weiser, Wendy wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> I apologize for the delayed response; I am just now seeing your
> response to my blog post.
>
> You appear to be responding to a claim I did not make in the post.
> I did not say that new voting restrictions /actually/ changed the
> outcomes of any races; all I said is that they /could/ have---that
> in some races the margin of victory was close enough to the number
> of potentially affected voters to raise concerns. I also made
> clear that we do not yet have enough data to fully assess the
> overall impact of these laws. (Frankly, we may never have enough
> data to assess them all.) But that doesn't mean that these
> numbers aren't interesting and shouldn't give us pause. I do
> /not/ claim that 307,500 (200K + 100K + 7.5K) voters were
> disenfranchised by the North Carolina law. But the fact that
> 307,500 voters previously used voting mechanisms that are no
> longer available in North Carolina suggests that it is possible
> that the number of people who did not vote because of the new law
> could have come close to or even exceeded the 48,000 margin of
> victory. (We know, for example, from this study
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2247144> by
> Paul Gronke and Charles Steward that 18.3% of the people who voted
> on the last Sunday in Florida in 2008 did not vote at all in 2012,
> suggesting that the loss of that early voting day did "dissuade[]
> turnout among the latest early voters.")
>
> I am not sure I understand your point about turnout since I make
> no claims about turnout figures. I agree that a turnout analysis
> should account for a variety factors in addition to new voting
> laws, ranging from demographics, how competitive the races were,
> who was on the ballot, and the weather. I look forward to what I
> hope will be a range of studies on this topic.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Wendy
>
> *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 *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2014 11:21 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu <mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/10/14
>
>
> "Turnout Down in Texas, and Democrats Claim a Reason: Voter ID
> Law" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68184>
>
> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 8:18 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68184>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ross Ramsey
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/us/turnout-down-in-texas-and-democrats-claim-a-reason-voter-id-law.html>(Texas
> Tribune/NYT):
>
> /Texas turnout, already the worst in the country, dropped. The
> state's population is larger than it was in 2010. More than 14
> million Texans registered to vote, according to the secretary
> of state --- up from 13.3 million in 2010. Turnout that year
> was 37.5 percent. Turnout this year (the numbers are
> unofficial) was 33.6 percent./
>
> /The people who did not show up appear to be Democrats. The
> Republican numbers were up in the governor's race, while the
> Democratic numbers were way down./
>
> /At a post-election discussion last week, Gilberto Hinojosa,
> chairman of the Texas Democratic Party
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org>,
> suggested the voter ID law might be to blame for the decline,
> implying that Democrats are more numerous among non-voters
> than Republicans. His opposite on the Republican side ---
> Steve Munisteri --- guffawed at that, instead crediting his
> own party's turnout efforts, the state's recent voting history
> and the national trend against Democrats./
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68184&title=%E2%80%9CTurnout%20Down%20in%20Texas%2C%20and%20Democrats%20Claim%20a%20Reason%3A%20Voter%20ID%20Law%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inelection administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
> "Election Day Snafus May Lead To Legislative Action"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68182>
>
> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 8:14 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68182>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> News from CT.
> <http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2014/11/08/election-day-snafus-may-lead-to-legislative-action/>
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68182&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Day%20Snafus%20May%20Lead%20To%20Legislative%20Action%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
>
> "No end to campaign in swing state of Colorado"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68180>
>
> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 8:13 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68180>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> LAT reports
> <http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-colorado-politics-20141109-story.html>.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68180&title=%E2%80%9CNo%20end%20to%20campaign%20in%20swing%20state%20of%20Colorado%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> More on FL AG Pam Bondi's Relationship with Lobbyists Via Eric
> Lipton NYT <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68178>
>
> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 8:07 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68178>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here.
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/link-shows-how-lobby-firm-cultivates-influence.html?ref=politics>
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68178&title=More%20on%20FL%20AG%20Pam%20Bondi%E2%80%99s%20Relationship%20with%20Lobbyists%20Via%20Eric%20Lipton%20NYT&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,lobbying
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
>
>
> "Report: Judge who was cited for voter fraud wants to keep
> casting ballots in Woodbridge"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68176>
>
> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 7:01 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68176>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NJ.com
> <http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/11/report_judge_who_was_cited_for_improper_voting_still_doing_it_wrong.html#incart_river>:
> "A former local judge who stepped down from the bench
> <http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/03/judge_charged_with_voter_fraud_for_improper_voting_in_middlesex_county_prosecutor_says.html> earlier
> this year after being charged with illegally voting in Woodbridge
> elections wants to have his law office declared as his legal
> residence so he can continue to cast votes in the township, anew
> report says
> <http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2014/11/07/vote-fraud-ex-judge-still-trying-vote-woodbridge/18647415/>."
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68176&title=%E2%80%9CReport%3A%20Judge%20who%20was%20cited%20for%20voter%20fraud%20wants%20to%20keep%20casting%20ballots%20in%20Woodbridge%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,residency
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=38>,voting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
>
>
> "'Dark Money' Didn't Decide the Election; But Money Matters
> More Than Ever" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68174>
>
> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 4:48 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68174>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Important
> <http://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/dark-money-didnt-decide-the-election/>Mark
> Schmitt analysis.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68174&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Dark%20Money%E2%80%99%20Didn%E2%80%99t%20Decide%20the%20Election%3B%20But%20Money%20Matters%20More%20Than%20Ever%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
> "Left struggled to move voters with Koch attacks and other
> big-money messages" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68172>
>
> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 4:18 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68172>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Front page Matea Gold WaPo report.
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/left-struggled-to-move-voters-with-koch-attacks-and-other-big-money-messages/2014/11/09/185b32ea-669b-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html>
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68172&title=%E2%80%9CLeft%20struggled%20to%20move%20voters%20with%20Koch%20attacks%20and%20other%20big-money%20messages%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> No, Shelby County Did Not "Abrogate" South Carolina v.
> Katzenbach <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68170>
>
> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 3:32 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68170>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Joel Heller has a very nice piece in the/California Law Review
> Circuit/,Subsequent History Omitted
> <http://www.californialawreview.org/assets/circuit/HELLER_375.pdf>, on
> Westlaw's aberrant coding of the /Shelby County/voting rights case
> as having abrogated the original case upholding voting rights
> preclearance, /South Carolina v. Katzenbach./ From the piece's
> conclusion:
>
> /In labeling Katzenbach "abrogated by Shelby County," Westlaw
> not only made an unwarranted value judgment, but also
> potentially swayed the course of the law. Advocates dissuaded
> from relying on Katzenbach could be robbed of a valuable tool
> for arguing in favor of a revived § 5 or defending other
> provisions of the VRA, and lower courts may refrain from
> citing the case. Yet proponents of § 5 and others who believe
> in the relevance of history should not lay down this tool
> before it is taken away by a more authoritative source than
> Westlaw. There is no need to wave the white flag (or, in this
> case, the red flag) just yet. Law review authors and editors
> should likewise hesitate before following Westlaw's
> instruction to label Katzenbach "abrogated by Shelby
> County."Katzenbach, especially its recognition of the
> relevance of the past, retains an important vitality.
> "[H]istory did not end in 1965," and it did not end in 2013,
> either. Because history lives, this purported subsequent
> history should be omitted./
>
> Let's see if Westlaw responds, as it should.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68170&title=No%2C%20Shelby%20County%20Did%20Not%20%E2%80%9CAbrogate%E2%80%9D%20South%20Carolina%20v.%20Katzenbach&description=>
>
> Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
> "DeMaio Concedes 52nd Congressional District Race"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68168>
>
> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 3:13 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68168>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports.
> <http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/nov/09/demaio-concedes-52nd-congressional-district-race/>
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68168&title=%E2%80%9CDeMaio%20Concedes%2052nd%20Congressional%20District%20Race%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> "The Death of the Southern White Democrat Hurts
> African-Americans the Most" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68166>
>
> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 2:28 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68166>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jason Zengerle writes forTNR
> <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120212/john-barrows-2014-midterm-loss-end-white-southern-democrats>.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68166&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Death%20of%20the%20Southern%20White%20Democrat%20Hurts%20African-Americans%20the%20Most%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
> "How Much of a Difference Did New Voting Restrictions Make in
> Yesterday's Close Races?" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68164>
>
> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 11:19 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68164>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Wendy Weiserwrites
> <http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/how-much-difference-did-new-voting-restrictions-make-yesterdays-close-races>for
> the Brennan Center. Once again, I'm skeptical. Consider the
> analysis of North Carolina:
>
> /In the North Carolina Senate race, state house speaker Thom
> Tillis beat Senator Kay Hagen by a margin of *1.7 percent*
> <http://elections.nytimes.com/2014/north-carolina-elections>,
> or about *48,000 votes*./
>
> /At the same time, North Carolina's voters were, for the first
> time, voting under one of the harshest new election laws in
> the country --- a law that Tillis helped to craft. Among other
> changes, the law slashed seven early voting days, eliminated
> same-day registration, and prohibited voting outside a voter's
> home precinct --- all forms of voting especially popular among
> African Americans. While it is too early to assess the impact
> of the law this year, theElection Protection hotline
> <http://www.866ourvote.org/newsroom/releases/election-day-2014-democracy-should-not-be-this-hard> and
> other voter protection volunteers
> <http://thinkprogress.org/lbupdate/3588748/north-carolinas-new-election-restrictions-are-turning-away-voters/#lbu-1415129144> reported
> what appeared to be widespread problems both with voter
> registrations and with voters being told they were in the
> wrong precinct yesterday./
>
> /Some numbers from recent elections suggest that the magnitude
> of the problem may not be far from the margin of victory: In
> the last midterms in 2010, *200,000*
> <http://www.thenation.com/blog/180608/north-carolina-will-determine-future-voting-rights-act> voters
> cast ballots during the early voting days now cut, according
> to a recent court decision
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/NC241.pdf#page=97>.
> In 2012, *700,000*voted during those days, including more than
> a quarter of all African-Americans who voted that year. In
> 2012, *100,000*
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/League1553.pdf> North
> Carolinians, almost a one-third
> <http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/nc_voting_usca4_20141001.pdf> of
> whom were African-American, voted using same-day registration,
> which was not available this year. And *7,500*
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LOWVv.Howard.Complaint.pdf>voters
> cast their ballots outside of their home precincts that year./
>
> The relevant question is: how many people who WANTED to vote this
> year DID NOT DO SO (and reasonably could not have done so) BECAUSE
> of the changes in the voting rules? In other words, to know
> whether these restrictions were outcome determinative we would
> have to control for:
>
> 1. a potential decline in turnout for reasons unrelated to these
> laws (e.g., less enthusiasm in a midterm election year without an
> African-American candidate on the ballot); and
>
> 2. the extent to which voters who voted early on days which were
> cut (including through same day voter registration) wanted to vote
> but reasonably could not have voted under the alternative early
> voting days, absentee balloting, or voting on election day. There
> is some evidence that early voting turnout may have increased in
> North Carolina despite the fewer number of days because the
> /hours/of voting were extended, making it easier for some working
> voters to vote before or after work.
>
> I'm not saying Wendy's conclusion is wrong---only that it is
> unproven and would take a much more nuanced analysis than this.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68164&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Much%20of%20a%20Difference%20Did%20New%20Voting%20Restrictions%20Make%20in%20Yesterday%E2%80%99s%20Close%20Races%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inelection administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
> "Dark Money Helped Win the Senate"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68162>
>
> Posted onNovember 8, 2014 6:30 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68162>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT editorial.
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/opinion/sunday/dark-money-helped-win-the-senate.html?ref=politics>
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68162&title=%E2%80%9CDark%20Money%20Helped%20Win%20the%20Senate%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
> "Founder of Anti-Money 'Super PAC' Defends Its Poor Showing"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68160>
>
> Posted onNovember 8, 2014 6:29 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68160>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Lessig
> talks<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/11/07/?entry=5344&_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=politics&_r=0>to
> NYT.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68160&title=%E2%80%9CFounder%20of%20Anti-Money%20%E2%80%98Super%20PAC%E2%80%99%20Defends%20Its%20Poor%20Showing%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
> "ACLU Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Iowa Mom Seeking to Regain
> Her Right to Vote" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68158>
>
> Posted onNovember 8, 2014 6:21 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68158>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Seethis press release
> <https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-files-lawsuit-behalf-iowa-mom-seeking-regain-her-right-vote>.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68158&title=%E2%80%9CACLU%20Files%20Lawsuit%20on%20Behalf%20of%20Iowa%20Mom%20Seeking%20to%20Regain%20Her%20Right%20to%20Vote%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted infelon voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>
>
>
> "Why everyone still hates the airline industry, in one tweet"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68156>
>
> Posted onNovember 8, 2014 10:24 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68156>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> My exchange with American Airlines while flying back from the U.
> Chicago election law conference makes WaPo'sWonkBlog
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/08/why-everyone-still-hates-the-airline-industry-in-one-tweet/>.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68156&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20everyone%20still%20hates%20the%20airline%20industry%2C%20in%20one%20tweet%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> Are British Campaigns (With Stricter Campaign Finance Rules)
> Just as Unpleasant as American Campaigns?
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68154>
>
> Posted onNovember 8, 2014 9:14 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68154>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> So suggestsThe Economist.
> <http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/11/big-money-politics?fsrc=rss>
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68154&title=Are%20British%20Campaigns%20%28With%20Stricter%20Campaign%20Finance%20Rules%29%20Just%20as%20Unpleasant%20as%20American%20Campaigns%3F&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
> "Poli Sci Experiment Takes Heat For Asking If Blacks Are 'Too
> Demanding'" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68152>
>
> Posted onNovember 8, 2014 7:27 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68152>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> TPM reports.
> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/south-carolina-political-science-experiment-racism>
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68152&title=%E2%80%9CPoli%20Sci%20Experiment%20Takes%20Heat%20For%20Asking%20If%20Blacks%20Are%20%E2%80%98Too%20Demanding%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> "Federal appeals court rejects citizenship proof rule for
> Kansas voters" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68150>
>
> Posted onNovember 8, 2014 6:50 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68150>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The KC Star reports
> <http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article3654328.html>.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68150&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20appeals%20court%20rejects%20citizenship%20proof%20rule%20for%20Kansas%20voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inelection administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Election Assistance
> Commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>,Elections Clause
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,NVRA (motor voter)
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>,The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
> --
>
> 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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141111/6045b6dc/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/20141111/6045b6dc/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141111/6045b6dc/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory