[EL] impact of new voting laws

Tue Nov 11 14:47:25 PST 2014

The headline on my blog post was simply the question, "How much of a difference did new voting restrictions make in yesterday's close races?"  That is not sensational.  The post itself makes two points-that the number of people who were likely affected by new voting laws is close to the margin of victory in some states (note that it makes no claims about how affected voters would have voted, and it includes races that were won by both Rs and Ds), and that the impact of these new laws in terms of dignitary harm to affected voters makes them more pernicious than their possible effect on close races.

With respect to your analogy, the numbers I use are much different than those in dead people voting articles.  There aren't actually thousands of dead people who vote in any election, and the number of dead people who are still on the rolls bears no relation to the magnitude of the problem of dead people voting.  Here, in contrast, there are more than 20,000 actual Kansans who tried to register this year but found their registrations put in suspense because of a documentary proof of citizenship requirement.  True, I don't know how many of those particular citizens would have voted this year, but I do know from Michael McDonald that about 43% of all eligible Kansans voted this year and from the Census that the number of registered Kansans who have voted in the 2010 and 2006 midterms is around 70%.  I also have no idea who those Kansans would have voted for, but I make no claims in that regard.  And I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that there might have been a turnout drop of 2% because of the voter ID requirement, when GAO already found such a drop in Kansas in 2012 and where other studies support the idea that voter ID laws typically lead to about a 2.4% drop in turnout.  I don't care how affected voters would have voted or about precise calculations, since my point is simply that the number of affected people is of an order of magnitude that is big enough to swing close races.

While it is true that people can and do use numbers like these incorrectly or in partisan ways, that doesn't mean that those numbers aren't informative or interesting and that they shouldn't color our view of these new laws.  And it doesn't mean, as Francis Barry seems to suggest, that highlighting the impact of these laws is meant to undercut the legitimacy of any particular election outcome.  (To the extent that he suggests partisan motivation, he conveniently leaves out the race I discuss where Democrat Mark Warner won under a race conducted with a new voter ID law.)  These numbers highlight problems with new voting laws, and they also point to the need to study these questions in much more detail.  Where we definitely agree is on the need for a detailed and "nuanced empirical analysis" of the impacts of new laws.  But just because we don't have those data yet doesn't mean that we don't know enough to raise serious concerns about those laws.

From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:53 PM
To: Weiser, Wendy; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] impact of new voting laws

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.

[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in election 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<mailto: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 their lowest 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 on November 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.

[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in election 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 on November 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/>
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
"No end to campaign in swing state of Colorado"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68180>
Posted on November 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>.
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in campaigns<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 on November 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>
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in campaign 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 on November 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/>."
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in chicanery<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 on November 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in campaign 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 on November 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>
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in campaign 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 on November 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in Supreme 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 on November 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/>
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
"The Death of the Southern White Democrat Hurts African-Americans the Most"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68166>
Posted on November 9, 2014 2:28 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68166> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jason Zengerle writes for TNR<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120212/john-barrows-2014-midterm-loss-end-white-southern-democrats>.
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in campaigns<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 on November 9, 2014 11:19 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68164> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wendy Weiser writes<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, 700,000voted 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 hoursof 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in election 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 on November 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>
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"Founder of Anti-Money 'Super PAC' Defends Its Poor Showing"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68160>
Posted on November 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in campaign 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 on November 8, 2014 6:21 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68158> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See this press release<https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-files-lawsuit-behalf-iowa-mom-seeking-regain-her-right-vote>.
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in felon voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>
"Why everyone still hates the airline industry, in one tweet"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68156>
Posted on November 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's WonkBlog<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/08/why-everyone-still-hates-the-airline-industry-in-one-tweet/>.
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in Uncategorized<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 on November 8, 2014 9:14 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68154> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

So suggests The Economist.<http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/11/big-money-politics?fsrc=rss>
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"Poli Sci Experiment Takes Heat For Asking If Blacks Are 'Too Demanding'"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68152>
Posted on November 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>
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
"Federal appeals court rejects citizenship proof rule for Kansas voters"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68150>
Posted on November 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>.
[cid:image001.png at 01CFFDCB.5935A4F0]<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 in election 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<mailto: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/20141111/34efe616/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141111/34efe616/attachment.png>