[EL] Chicago Voters endorse campaign finance reform
Sean Parnell
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
Thu Feb 26 07:14:21 PST 2015
For those interested in seeing how taxpayer financed campaigns at the
municipal level work in the real world, a good place to start might be page
23 of this report, which addresses New York City.
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013-08-05_Issue-R
eview_Swanson_Clean-Elections-Scandal-Case-Studies-From-Maine-Arizona-And-Ne
w-York-City.pdf
I suspect taxpayer financing in Chicago would produce an even more colorful
variety of corruption than New York, and not much else.
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith,
Brad
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 1:31 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Chicago Voters endorse campaign finance reform
Asked whether the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois should "reduce
the influence of special interest money in elections by financing campaigns
using small contributions from individuals and a limited amount of public
money,"
<http://elections.chicagotribune.com/results/#category/chicago_referendums>
voters signaled yes by a 58-point margin, 79 percent to 21 percent.
Fortunately, the question presented to voters was unbiased.
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
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
_____
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen
[rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:56 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/26/15
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70565> Off to University of Alabama Voting
Rights Act Symposium
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70565> February 25, 2015 9:55 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.law.ua.edu/calendar/event/50th-anniversary-of-the-voting-rights-
act-symposium/> Looking forward to this.
I'll be talking about the <http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=220511> Alabama
redistricting case, <http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=221453> awaiting decision
at the Supreme Court.
Regular blogging resumes on Monday.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70565&title=Off%20to%20University%20of%20Alabama%20Voting%20Rights%20
Act%20Symposium&description=> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70563> "Obama Calls Out America's Dismal
Voter Turnout: 'Why Are You Staying Home?'"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70563> February 25, 2015 9:51 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/25/obama-voter-turnout-immigration_n_
6756606.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics> HuffPo.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70563&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20Calls%20Out%20America%E2%80%99s%20Dismal
%20Voter%20Turnout%3A%20%E2%80%98Why%20Are%20You%20Staying%20Home%3F%27%E2%8
0%9D&description=> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31> voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70561> "Kansas Senate advances bill giving
Kobach power to prosecute election crimes"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70561> February 25, 2015 9:45 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2015/feb/24/senate-advances-bill-giving-secret
ary-state-power-/> What could go wrong?
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70561&title=%E2%80%9CKansas%20Senate%20advances%20bill%20giving%20Kob
ach%20power%20to%20prosecute%20election%20crimes%E2%80%9D&description=>
Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> Uncategorized
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70559> Josh Douglas: "The Right to Vote
Amendment is Worth At Least One Candle: A Reply to Heather Gerken"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70559> February 25, 2015 9:38 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
The following is a guest post from
<http://www.law.uky.edu/index.php?hid=93> Josh Douglas:
A new constitutional amendment affirmatively granting the right to vote
could have a significant impact on protecting voting rights for all
Americans. Most significantly - and perhaps paradoxically - we are likely
to see the biggest effects of a federal amendment where we least expect it:
in state courts.
Professor Heather Gerken, in a characteristically eloquent and well-reasoned
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70486> new
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567394> article, claims
that pursuing a new constitutional amendment enshrining the right to vote is
"not worth the candle." The heart of Professor Gerken's argument is that
the benefits of a new right-to-vote amendment do not justify the costs
involved, particularly as Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges
are unlikely to alter the scope of voting rights analysis given the
likelihood that, to pass, the amendment's language would have to be too
vague.
But a constitutional amendment granting the right to vote does not need
federal judges, or even the U.S. Supreme Court, to have a big impact. That
is because many state courts follow federal law even when construing their
own state constitutions. So a new provision in the federal Constitution,
even if couched in broad platitudes, will have corollary effects on state
constitutional law.
The doctrinal implication of a federal right-to-vote amendment depends on a
concept known as "lockstepping," which I discussed in
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2234762> this article
analyzing state constitutional protection for the right to vote.
Many rights are listed in both federal and state constitutions. Yet even
when state constitutional protection is textually broader than what is
afforded under the U.S. Constitution, many state courts simply follow - or
lockstep - their state constitutions to be in line with the federal
constitution. The right to vote is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2234762> Every state
constitution (besides Arizona's) affirmatively confers the right to vote to
the state's citizens, a broader grant than the lack of an explicit right
within the U.S. Constitution. Yet many state courts lockstep their
state-level protection so that it is the same as the U.S. Supreme Court's
more restrictive interpretation of the federal right to vote.
A U.S. constitutional amendment affirmatively granting the right to vote
would have a trickle down effect on these state courts. No longer would
state judges be able to lockstep the state constitution's grant of voting
rights with the U.S. Supreme Court's narrow jurisprudence. Instead, a state
court that chooses to lockstep would follow the analogous explicit right
within the U.S. Constitution, making the protection in the state and federal
constitutions coextensive - and broader than it is now.
Having an affirmative constitutional right to vote makes a difference in
judicial decision making at the state level. Courts that currently lockstep
their state constitutions with federal law tend to rule more narrowly toward
voting rights; state courts that independently construe their state
constitutional right-to-vote provisions as broader than federal law tend to
rule more expansively toward voting rights. The hot-button issue of voter
ID provides a great example. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld
Indiana's voter ID law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Litigants then turned to state courts around the country,
challenging voter ID laws under the state constitutions' more explicit and
broader right-to-vote provisions. Courts that properly construed their
state constitutions as going beyond the federal constitution, such as in
Pennsylvania and Arkansas, invalidated the voter ID laws. But courts that
lockstepped their state constitutional protection with federal law, such as
in Georgia and Wisconsin, generally upheld the state's laws. If there were
a right-to-vote provision in the U.S. Constitution, it is more likely that
these courts would have lockstepped their state constitutions with that
broader federal protection.
Further, as I recount in a
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2495078> new article,
state courts resolve tons of election law cases, dealing with voter ID,
felon disenfranchisement, and the voting process, among others. By and
large, when state courts lockstep their state constitutions with federal
law, they provide less protection to the right to vote. Although
lockstepping in this setting is itself problematic (for reasons I discuss in
my article), a federal right-to-vote amendment would mitigate that concern.
Even if federal courts might be slow to adapt, state courts that currently
lockstep would have to recognize this change in federal law and adjust
accordingly.
A constitutional amendment granting the right to vote would thus have an
impact that goes well beyond the federal judiciary. It could affect
hundreds or thousands of cases at the state level - which is, after all,
where the majority of election litigation occurs. This is a meaningful
change that is worth the effort: in addition to its many other virtues -
such as signaling the importance of voting rights and energizing people to
care about this issue - a constitutional amendment can have a significant
substantive effect on state court protection of the right to vote.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70559&title=Josh%20Douglas%3A%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Right%20to%20Vote%20Am
endment%20is%20Worth%20At%20Least%20One%20Candle%3A%20A%20Reply%20to%20Heath
er%20Gerken%E2%80%9D&description=> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> Supreme Court,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31> voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70557> "Foreign governments gave millions to
foundation while Clinton was at State Dept."
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70557> February 25, 2015 5:04 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to
-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-86
68-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html?postshare=3671424911701912> WaPo:
The <https://www.clintonfoundation.org/> Clinton Foundation accepted
millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham
Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated
its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials
disclosed Wednesday.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70557&title=%E2%80%9CForeign%20governments%20gave%20millions%20to%20f
oundation%20while%20Clinton%20was%20at%20State%20Dept.%E2%80%9D&description=
> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20> conflict of interest laws
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70555> McGinley and McGahn on Aaron Schock
Case
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70555> February 25, 2015 3:10 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/schock-lawyers-up-115476.html> This
could get interesting.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70555&title=McGinley%20and%20McGahn%20on%20Aaron%20Schock%20Case&desc
ription=> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70552> "The Next Attack on Voting Rights;
And why Democrats should fight for a constitutional right-to-vote
amendment."
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70552> February 25, 2015 2:00 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/the_next_r
epublican_attack_on_voting_right_democrats_should_fight_for_a.html> Jamelle
Bouie for Slate.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70552&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Next%20Attack%20on%20Voting%20Rights%3B%20
And%20why%20Democrats%20should%20fight%20for%20a%20constitutional%20right-to
-vote%20amendment.%E2%80%9D&description=> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> The Voting Wars,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70550> Today's #SCOTUS Yates Ruling Tells Us
Nothing About Obamacare Challenge: Analysis
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70550> February 25, 2015 12:18 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/3133/government%E2%80%99s-loss-su
preme-court-today-may-signal-more-important-win-down-road> Over at the CAC,
Brianne Gorod sees good things for the government's position in
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/?wpmp_switcher=de
sktop> King v. Burwellbased on today's ruling in the Yates (fish) case at
the Supreme Court:
With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral argument inKing v. Burwell
next week, those looking for clues as to what the Court will decide later
this year when it rules inKing need look no further than a very different
case the Court decided today. InYates v. United States, the Court held, in
a fractured 4-1-4 decision, that a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that
bars the destruction of "tangible object[s]" does not apply to the
destruction of fish (specifically, red grouper). In their opinions in
Yates, the plurality and the dissent didn't agree about much, but there's
one thing they did agree on, and that principle is key to why the government
should win in King: when you're interpreting a law, context matters.
In King, the Court has been asked to decide whether the tax credits that put
the "affordable" in the Affordable Care Act are available to all Americans
who meet the income criteria, or only to those who purchase their insurance
on state-run Exchanges. When one looks at the whole statute in King, the
answer is clear: tax credits are available to all Americans who qualify
based on income, regardless of whether they purchase insurance on a
state-run or a federally-facilitated Exchange. The argument made by the
law's challengers rests on a facile reading of four words-"established by
the State"-that appear in the formula for calculating the amount of the tax
credit (not eligibility for it), as well as the argument that one need not
look any further than those four words when trying to understand what the
statute means. Today's opinion in Yates makes clear how wrong those
arguments are.
I disagree, and think that Yates tells us nothing in how the Court will rule
in the Obamacare challenge. I say this for two reasons.
First, the general principles of statutory interpretation discussed by the
Court (with the exception of the question of reliance on legislative
history) are accepted, on at least a superficial level, by all nine
Justices. Consider, for example, the rule that courts should read statutes
in context. Here is what Justice Kagan in dissent says on this point: "That
is not necessarily the end of the matter; I agree with the plurality
(really, who does not?) that context matters in interpreting statutes."
"Really, who does not?" indicates the problem. There are enough different
rules of statutory interpretation that can push or pull in a case like Yates
or King that stating the general principle does not bind any Justice to
decide a case one way or another.
Second, most cases in most courts, including most cases at the Supreme
Court, involve issues where precedent (and sometimes accepted means of
interpretation) are a very good predictor of how a court will rule. That is,
in many cases, judges (and Justices) do their best to apply close precedent
to issues before the Court. (It is less true that means of interpretation
are seen as precedential, but that's not my main point). But in a small
class of cases with a very strong ideological valence, you can throw the
usual rules of interpretation out the window. The Justices are much more
likely in these cases to be (subconsciously?) swayed by their ideological
commitments, world view, and consideration of the consequences of a ruling
than by application of earlier precedent.
I would not be surprised in the King case if both the majority and dissent
cite Yates to support their side's argument. But if anyone really thinks any
Justice's vote in King v. Burwell will depend upon what the Court did in
Yates, I'd be very, very surprised.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70550&title=Today%E2%80%99s%20%23SCOTUS%20Yates%20Ruling%20Tells%20Us
%20Nothing%20About%20Obamacare%20Challenge%3A%20Analysis&description=> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21> statutory interpretation,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70547> "Chicago voters overwhelmingly
endorse campaign finance reform"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70547> February 25, 2015 11:18 am
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2015/2/25/chicago-voters-over
whelmingly-endorse-campaign-finance-reform.html> Al Jazeera:
Chicago voters endorsed by a wide margin Tuesday
<http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2015/2/19/chicago-initiative-
seeks-to-give-small-donors-bigger-voice.html> a plan to institute public
campaign financing and limit outside contributions. The ballot measure,
though non-binding, begins a process that will now move to city and state
government, where legislation would be drafted.
Asked whether the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois should "reduce
the influence of special interest money in elections by financing campaigns
using small contributions from individuals and a limited amount of public
money,"
<http://elections.chicagotribune.com/results/#category/chicago_referendums>
voters signaled yes by a 58-point margin, 79 percent to 21 percent.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70547&title=%E2%80%9CChicago%20voters%20overwhelmingly%20endorse%20ca
mpaign%20finance%20reform%E2%80%9D&description=> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70545> "The Relationship Market: How Modern
Lobbying Gets Done"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70545> February 25, 2015 11:16 am
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/relationship-market-how-modern-lobbying-gets
-done> Very important analysis from Maggie McKinley and Thomas Groll over at
Harvard's Safra.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70545&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Relationship%20Market%3A%20How%20Modern%20
Lobbying%20Gets%20Done%E2%80%9D&description=> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27> legislation and legislatures,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70543> "Senators Are Announcing Retirements
Earlier. Fund-Raising Plays a Big Role."
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70543> February 25, 2015 11:13 am
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/upshot/senators-are-announcing-retirement
s-earlier-fund-raising-plays-a-big-role.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1> NYT's "The
Upshot:"
If you're a United States senator thinking about retiring before the
November 2016 elections, the clock is ticking.
Since 1991, more than 80 percent of senators who have announced their
retirements already did so by January of their election years. From 1920
through 1990, just 46 percent of retiring senators did the same, according
to <http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/karol/Forcing%20their%20Hands__.pdf> a new
paper by David Karol, a professor of government and politics at the
University of Maryland.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70543&title=%E2%80%9CSenators%20Are%20Announcing%20Retirements%20Earl
ier.%20Fund-Raising%20Plays%20a%20Big%20Role.%E2%80%9D&description=> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27> legislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70541> Podcast with Michael Morley on
Arizona Redistricting Case
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70541> February 25, 2015 11:12 am
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
Northwestern University Law Review Online is pleased to announce its
publication of a
<http://colloquy.law.northwestern.edu/main/2015/02/conversation-with-profess
or-michael-t-morley.html> podcast with Professor Michael Morley discussing
his recent essay,
<http://colloquy.law.northwestern.edu/main/2015/01/intratextual-legislatures
.html> The Intratextual Independent "Legislature" and the Elections Clause.
In the essay, Professor Michael Morley assesses the Constitution's Elections
Clause and how the Supreme Court might interpret the clause in Arizona State
Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (set for oral
argument on March 2). The case will decide whether an Arizona voter
initiative vesting congressional redistricting authority in an independent
commission rather than the state legislature violates the Constitution's
Elections Clause. Morley employs "intratextualism" to interpret the
Elections Clause, carefully assessing the use of "legislature" in other
parts of the United States Constitution and founding-era state
constitutions. This analysis leads Morley to conclude that the Arizona's
voter initiative is unconstitutional, because it completely removes the
state legislature's congressional redistricting authority.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70541&title=Podcast%20with%20Michael%20Morley%20on%20Arizona%20Redist
ricting%20Case&description=> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7> citizen commissions,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70> Elections Clause,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> redistricting,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70539> "Unlimited and Undisclosed: The
Religious Right's Crusade to Deregulate Political Spending"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70539> February 25, 2015 11:06 am
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.commoncause.org/research-reports/unlimited-and-undisclosed.html>
New Common Cause report:
Common Cause's new report, "Unlimited and Undisclosed: The Religious Right's
Crusade to Deregulate Political Spending," focuses on how one particular
interest group has waged war on important campaign finance laws in order to
allow more big money in our political system.
The new report explores:
. How religious right, anti-marriage equality, and anti-abortion
organizations have served as plaintiffs in over 70 lawsuits challenging
campaign finance laws over the last twenty years at the state, local, and
federal level.
. How James Bopp, a prominent conservative attorney, uses Republican
and religious right organizations as a vehicle to derail campaign finance
laws, including in high profile cases such as Citizens United and
McCutcheon, which have contributed to the flood of money in our elections.
. The political spending of religious right groups to support
Republican candidates over the last two decades, and how it has increased
since the Citizens United.
. The work of religious right groups against disclosure laws that
would require big political spenders such as the National Organization for
Marriage and the National Right to Life Committee to disclose their donors
who give for the purpose of influencing elections.
<http://www.commoncause.org/research-reports/unlimited-and-undisclosed.pdf>
>READ THE REPORT<
<http://www.commoncause.org/research-reports/unlimited-and-undisclosed.pdf>
Unlimited and Undisclosed: The Religious Right's Crusade to Deregulate
Political Spending
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D70539&title=%E2%80%9CUnlimited%20and%20Undisclosed%3A%20The%20Religio
us%20Right%E2%80%99s%20Crusade%20to%20Deregulate%20Political%20Spending%E2%8
0%9D&description=> Share
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance
--
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/20150226/5a49b8f6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150226/5a49b8f6/attachment.png>
View list directory