[EL] Reason to worry about Evenwel? (ELB News and Commentary 12/3/15)

[Marty Lederman]

Two quick responses to Rick's column about whether (and why or why not) to
worry about *Evenwel*.

First, I agree that it's unlikely the Court will rule for the appellants,
mostly for the reasons Rick canvasses.  But the real action is on the
question of whether and how it will take up *Texas's* invitation to hold
(even though the case doesn't require the Court to opine on it) that
states *can
*exclude nonvoting populations, including, most importantly, noncitizens,
in drawing districts for state office.  Will the Court endeavor to send a
strong signal to state legislatures to go that route, even absent any
concrete circumstances in which to assess whether and why and how a
particular state would do so?  That, IMHO, is one big thing to watch for in
Evenwel.

Second, when he was Deputy SG, John Roberts did not argue that "it would be
quite anomalous . . . [to hold] that the Constitution *requires* the use of
total population in apportioning congressional districts* among the states*
(that’s in the 14th Amendment) but it *forbids* the use of total population
in drawing congressional (or state) districts within states."

He argued, instead, that it would be quite anomalous to hold that the
Constitution *requires* the use of total population *in drawing
congressional (or state) districts within states *(a proposition for which
he cited *Wesberry*), and yet *forbids* such use of total population in
drawing *state* districts.

(See my post, citing his BIO, here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-curious-result-urged-by-appellants.html
)

And in this respect, the other very significant thing to watch for in
*Evenwel* is what, if anything, the Court says or implies about the
required population base for intrastate *congressional *districting.  In
their reply brief, petitioners actually argue that the premise of Deputy SG
Roberts's argument "is flawed."  They argue that neither *Wesberry *nor any
other case has decided that question yet . . . thereby sending a clear
signal that it's next in their sights, assuming the Court holds either that
legislatures must or can exclude noncitizens in state-house districting.
As for the merits of the question on congressional districts, they say only
this:

 The Court need not resolve that question here. Appellants
do not challenge a congressional map, and congressional and
state-level districting, while not “wholly inapposite,” are “based
on different constitutional considerations and [are] addressed to
rather distinct problems.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 560.


Therefore I think the other important thing-- perhaps the *most *important
thing-- to watch for at argument next week, and in the opinion, is whether
and how the Justices describe the constitutional requirements for
*congressional
*district line-drawing, because that is, I think, the proverbial two-ton
gorilla in the middle of the room.  The Justices would be wise to let it
lie; but whether they will do so? . . .

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> Why I’m Optimistic About Evenwel, #SCOTUS One Person, One Vote Case
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77988>
> Posted on December 3, 2015 8:18 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77988>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Regular readers of ELB know that I’m often sounding the alarm about
> Supreme Court cases with the potential to hurt our democracy. For example,
>  I recently wrote <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77857> of big procedural
> victory for campaign finance opponents which makes it fairly likely the
> Supreme Court will strike down the soft money provisions of the
> McCain-Feingold law within a few years. Indeed, in a current draft
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2639902> which I’ll
> be presenting at a* Stanford Law Review* symposium in February, I ask the
> question why the Roberts Court, despite cases such as *Citizens United*
> and *Shelby County*, has not moved even further to the right as I had
> predicted <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=850544> when
> the Roberts Court began in 2006.
>
> So I’m somewhat surprised myself that I am not all that worried about what
> the Court is going to do in the Evenwel v. Abbott
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>
>  one person, one vote case, being heard next week at the Supreme Court.
> In *Evenwel*, plaintiffs ask for the Court to declare that the only
> proper basis to fulfill the Court’s ruling cases such as *Reynolds v.
> Sims* requiring creation of equipopulous legislative districts is to draw
> such districts with the same number of (eligible or registered?) voters,
> rather than people. If the argument is successful, it would radically
> change the way most states conduct their elections, and it would shift
> power in state (and likely congressional) elections away from Democratic
> and Latino areas (which tend to have larger Latino non-citizen populations)
> and toward Republican and rural ones. Indeed, I have argued in Slate
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/evenwel_v_abbott_supreme_court_case_state_districts_count_voters_or_total.html>
>  and at SCOTUSBlog
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/07/symposium-ideology-partisanship-and-the-new-one-person-one-vote-case/>
>  that the best way to understand this lawsuit is not as a principled
> conservative argument, but as an attempted Republican power grab.
>
> So why am I optimistic?
>
> First, I don’t think the Court wanted to take this case. I’ve explained
> this a lot in my earlier writings on this case, so I’ll be brief here. The
> Court has had the chance to hear this issue a number of times, and refused.
> In 2001, only Justice Thomas dissented from a cert. denial where this issue
> was raised. But Ed Blum managed to get this case heard before a three-judge
> court, with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court feels a much
> greater obligation to take these cases, because a decision not to hear the
> case (unlike a cert denial) is a ruling on the merits. Here’s Chief Justice
> Robertsspeaking at oral argument <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77284> in
> another case earlier in the term on the three judge courts:
>
> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:  I mean, the other
> alternative is it’s a three-­judge district court, and
> then we have to take it on the merits.
> Imean, that’s aserious problem because there are a lot of cases that
> come up in three-judge district courts that would be the kind of case
> –­­ I speak for myself, anyway–
> ­­ that wemight deny cert in, to let the issue percolate.  And now
> with the three judge district court, no, we have to decide it on the merits…
>
> So I don’t think the Court particularly wanted to take this case. And I
> expect only Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, who expressed doubts about
> the one person one vote rule many decades ag
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=72780>o, are likely to be in play.
>
> Second, this issue seems like it was already settled in the 1966 case *Burns
> v. Richardson
> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=900318815708885571&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr>.
>  *There, the Court approved Hawaii’s use of total registered voters
> rather than total population, saying that the issue of what to use as the
> denominator in drawing equal districts resided in the states, at least when
> total voters does not sway too much from total population. So precedent is
> on Texas’s side.
>
> Third, it would be quite anomalous (as Chief Justice Roberts argued when
> he was a lawyer in the 9th Circuit Garza case), that the Constitution
> *requires* the use of total population in apportioning congressional
> districts among the states (that’s in the 14th Amendment) but it *forbids*
>  the use of total population in drawing congressional (or state)
> districts within states. To the extent that the 14th Amendment is silent,
> certainly it would be odd to think the 14th amendment would have these two
> wildly different rules in these cases.
>
> Fourth, and related to the third point, there’s no strong originalist
> argument for this position. It is certainly possible to take a principled
> conservative position that these cases should have remained non-justiciable
> (that is, to argue *Baker v. Carr* was wrong) or that the 14th amendment
> does not require any kind of equality in the drawing of districts (that is,
> to argue *Reynolds* and the cases which followed it are wrong), but it is
> not a principled conservative position to argue that the 14th amendment
> *must* be interpreted to take discretion away from the states. This
> argument is not trolling <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77967>, as Andrew
> Grossman suggested. It is a recognition that it will be hard to attract
> conservative Justices to a position which is supported neither by
> originalist interpretation nor by principles of federalism.
>
> Fifth, and perhaps most importantly: Nate Persily
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/10/19/theres-nothing-conservative-about-destabilizing-our-election-system/>
>  had made what I consider to be the ironclad case
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/evenwel-persily-Brief.pdf>that
> actually putting a total voter standard into practice would be
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77303> very, very difficult. We do not
> have good data
> <https://soundcloud.com/cac-constitution/evenwel-v-abbott-telebriefing-1222015>,
> and we don’t come close to having good data, on voters as opposed to people
> in districts. Is the Court going to order that the census try collecting
> these data, or allow districts to be drawn based upon sample data, which is
> not up to date?  It is hard to imagine.
>
> OK, so I may eat my words after oral argument. But this case (unlike
> others) is not causing me to lose sleep at night (yet).
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77988&title=Why%20I%26%238217%3Bm%20Optimistic%20About%20Evenwel%2C%20%23SCOTUS%20One%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote%20Case&description=>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> “Evenwel and the Next Case” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77990>
> Posted on December 3, 2015 8:15 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77990>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Dan Tokaji: <https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/evenwel-and-the-next-case>
>
> Although I’m generally loath to predict outcomes, I expect the Court to
> reject the appellants’ argument that the Constitution requires equalization
> of eligible voters among districts. But*how* it rejects this argument is
> very much up in the air. If *Evenwel* relies mainly on the principle of
> representational equality, it will tend to preserve the status quo in which
> state legislative districts are drawn based on total population. On the
> other hand, if the Court relies primarily on federalism, it will invite
> states to stop counting children, non-citizens, and other non-voters when
> drawing districts. Blue states will surely continue to draw districts based
> on total population, but we can expect red states to choose a narrower
> metric, one that diminishes the voting strength of minority communities and
> others with large non-voting populations. Those states might not even wait
> until the next census, given that the Court opened the door to mid-decade
> redistricting in another case from Texas, *LULAC v. Perry*
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-204.ZS.html>.
>
> In sum, the issue before the Court in *Evenwel* is less difficult than
> the question whether states must equalize total population in drawing
> legislative districts. But *Evenwel *is still very important, because
> what the Court says in this case will affect, if not determine, the result
> of the next case. The decision will also affect how states – especially
> those controlled by Republicans – will draw districts after the 2020
> census, and possibly whether they’ll redraw their current districts before
> then.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77990&title=%26%238220%3BEvenwel%20and%20the%20Next%20Case%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> “National Political Groups Ran More Ads in State Races This Year”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77986>
> Posted on December 3, 2015 7:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77986>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> CPI <http://time.com/4134259/campaign-finance-state-ads/>:
>
> In total, 33 outside groups poured more than $32 million into their own
> political ads this year, accounting for more than one-third of the
> estimated $86 million in broadcast TV ad spending in the seven states
> <https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/10/01/18101/2015-state-ad-wars-tracker>
>  with major races, according to a Center for Public Integrity
> <https://www.publicintegrity.org/>analysis of data from media tracking
> firm Kantar Media/CMAG.
>
> That represents more than 1 in 4 political spots aired, compared with
> fewer than 1 in 5 ads in both 2011 when the same states had comparable
> races and in 2014 when major races occurred in 45 states
> <https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/09/22/15623/state-ad-wars-tracker>.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77986&title=%26%238220%3BNational%20Political%20Groups%20Ran%20More%20Ads%20in%20State%20Races%20This%20Year%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “David Cohen, Pioneer of Public Interest Lobbying, Dies at 79”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77984>
> Posted on December 3, 2015 7:39 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77984>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Sad news
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/politics/david-cohen-pioneer-of-public-interest-lobbying-dies-at-79.html?ref=politics&_r=0>
>  from the NYT:
>
> David Cohen, a self-styled Washington white-hat lobbyist who as the
> president of Common Cause successfully fought for post-Watergate laws on
> ethics, campaign financing and public disclosure, died on Sunday in
> Westport, Conn. He was 79.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77984&title=%26%238220%3BDavid%20Cohen%2C%20Pioneer%20of%20Public%20Interest%20Lobbying%2C%20Dies%20at%2079%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted in election law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
> “U.S. Attorney reviewing voting rights lawsuit filed against Alabama”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77982>
> Posted on December 3, 2015 7:37 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77982>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Al.com:
> <http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/12/us_attorney_reviewing_voting_r.html>
>
> The top federal prosecutor in North Alabama says she is reviewing a lawsuit
> filed Wednesday
> <http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/12/greater_birmingham_ministries.html>
>  by groups challenging Alabama’s law requiring people to present photo
> identification before they can vote.
>
> “We received a copy of the lawsuit … We are certainly reading the lawsuit
> with great interest,” said U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance.
>
> But Vance said it was “too speculative” at this point on whether the U.S.
> Department of Justice would get involved in the issue. But, she added, “we
> are acutely concerned with protecting the right to vote.”
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77982&title=%26%238220%3BU.S.%20Attorney%20reviewing%20voting%20rights%20lawsuit%20filed%20against%20Alabama%26%238221%3B&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>
> “Who’s Behind the Ghost Companies Funding Jeb Bush’s Super-PAC?”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77980>
> Posted on December 3, 2015 7:31 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77980>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Russ Choma
> <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/ghost-companies-funding-jeb-bush-super-pac-right-to-rise>for
> Mother Jones:
>
> In February, a limited liability company called TH Holdings LLC donated
> $100,000 to Right to Rise, the super-PAC supporting Jeb Bush’s bid for the
> GOP presidential nomination. That’s not extraordinary; quite a few LLCs
> have donated to the super-PAC, which has so far raised more than $103
> million. But TH Holdings is a special case—one that represents the
> worst-case scenario in the post-*Citizens United*campaign finance
> landscape: untraceable corporations shoveling untraceable cash into the
> political system. Beyond this six-figure contribution, the company appears
> to have no history of doing business anywhere. And its incorporation
> records reveal no owners, managers, or officers.
>
> As far as the public record goes, this looks like a ghost company. So who
> is behind this contribution?
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77980&title=%26%238220%3BWho%26%238217%3Bs%20Behind%20the%20Ghost%20Companies%20Funding%20Jeb%20Bush%26%238217%3Bs%20Super-PAC%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “Liberals, conservatives battle McConnell on plan to boost political
> parties” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77978>
> Posted on December 3, 2015 7:25 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77978>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Fredreka Schouten
> <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/02/liberals-conservatives-battle-mcconnell/76686414/>for
> USA Today:
>
> Despite the resistance from House conservatives and liberal watchdogs, the
> push to strengthen political parties is gaining traction from establishment
> Republicans and Democrats.
>
> The liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice recently released a report
> that proposed easing, or dismantling altogether, candidate-party
> coordination limits.
>
> Some Democratic lawyers also want to loosen those restrictions.
>
> “In light of everything that has happened in the last five years on
> campaign finance, including the unleashing of super PACs, it’s time to
> revisit the effect that McCain-Feingold has had on parties, especially
> state and local parties,” said Neil Reiff, a Washington election lawyer who
> represents Democrats.
>
> There’s precedent for rewriting campaign-finance laws in year-end funding
> bills.  Last year, lawmakers tripled the amount of money a single donor
> could give to all party committees. The provision appeared on page 1,599 of
> a 1,603-page, $1 trillion spending bill.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77978&title=%26%238220%3BLiberals%2C%20conservatives%20battle%20McConnell%20on%20plan%20to%20boost%20political%20parties%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “How Far Will The Supreme Court Go In The Big New Voting Rights Case?”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77976>
> Posted on December 3, 2015 7:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77976>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Tierney Sneed reports
> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/evenwel-supreme-court-texas> on Evenwel
> for TPM.
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77976&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20Far%20Will%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20Go%20In%20The%20Big%20New%20Voting%20Rights%20Case%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> “Supreme Court Blocks Native Hawaiian Vote Count”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77973>
> Posted on December 2, 2015 7:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77973>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports.
> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NATIVE_HAWAIIAN_ELECTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77973&title=%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%20Blocks%20Native%20Hawaiian%20Vote%20Count%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, voting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
> “Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Vote Limited to Native Hawaiians”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77971>
> Posted on December 2, 2015 7:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77971>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jess Bravin reports
> <http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-temporarily-blocks-vote-limited-to-native-hawaiians-1449103992>
>  for the WSJ.
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77971&title=%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%20Temporarily%20Blocks%20Vote%20Limited%20to%20Native%20Hawaiians%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, voting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
> CAC Telebriefing on Evenwel Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77969>
> Posted on December 2, 2015 6:58 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77969>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Listen
> <https://soundcloud.com/cac-constitution/evenwel-v-abbott-telebriefing-1222015>
> :
>
> On December 2, 2015, Constitutional Accountability Center hosted a
> telebriefing on the case of Evenwel v. Abbott – due to be argued at the
> Supreme Court on the morning of December 8. The call featured insights from:
>
> * CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans
> * University of California at Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen
> * Stanford Law Professor Nathaniel Persily
> * MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas Saenz
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77969&title=CAC%20Telebriefing%20on%20Evenwel%20Case&description=>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> “Evenwel v. Abbott: What Does One Person, One Vote Really Mean?”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77967>
> Posted on December 2, 2015 6:57 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77967>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Andrew Grossman has written this report
> <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/12/evenwel-v-abbott-what-does-one-person-one-vote-really-mean#_ftn31>for
> the Heritage Foundation. Here is a summary:
>
> *The greatest hope of those committed to the one-person, one-vote status
> quo seems to be that in deciding*Evenwel v. Abbott*, the Supreme Court
> will simply leave it alone if they raise enough random objections. Infused
> in that view is a great deal of dismissiveness about the merits of the*
> Evenwel *litigation and a great deal of angst over its potential
> political effects. If the Court is true to its precedents, it will act to
> enforce Sue Evenwel’s and Edward Pfenninger’s right to cast votes of the
> same weight as those of their fellow Texans. If it does not do that, its
> decision will mark a real break in the law of OPOV and, as a practical
> matter, could even spell the beginning of the end of the doctrine. That is
> the choice the Court faces.*
>
> Don’t miss text accompanying n. 31, in which I’m accused of trolling.
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77967&title=%26%238220%3BEvenwel%20v.%20Abbott%3A%20What%20Does%20One%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote%20Really%20Mean%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.edu
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151204/5a6af736/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/20151204/5a6af736/attachment.png>