[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/18/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Mar 18 07:50:34 PDT 2015
“Would Automatic Voter Registration Increase Turnout?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71084>
Posted onMarch 18, 2015 7:48 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71084>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NPR reports.
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/03/18/393645667/would-automatic-voter-registration-increase-turnout>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71084&title=%E2%80%9CWould%20Automatic%20Voter%20Registration%20Increase%20Turnout%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voter registration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
“Rep. Aaron Schock announces resignation in wake of spending probe”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71082>
Posted onMarch 18, 2015 7:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71082>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Wapo reports.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/17/rep-aaron-schock-plans-to-resign-in-wake-of-spending-probe/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71082&title=%E2%80%9CRep.%20Aaron%20Schock%20announces%20resignation%20in%20wake%20of%20spending%20probe%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Bibi Deploys the Southern Strategy”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71080>
Posted onMarch 18, 2015 7:45 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71080>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jeffrey Goldberg
<http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/bibi-deploys-the-southern-strategy/388096/>:
The now-and-apparently-forever prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu,
ought to be proud of his country’s record of enfranchisement. He
should be happy that Arabs vote in large numbers, just as Jews vote
in large numbers. But Netanyahu was not happy yesterday when he saw
Arabs heading to the polls. He said, in a message distributed on
social media and meant for his base, “Right-wing rule is in danger.
Arab voters are streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations.”
It is often said (by me, among others) that Netanyahu would do very
well as a Republican candidate for governor or senator in America.
In the past, I imagined him fitting in with the fiscally
conservative, rhetorically responsible, socially tolerant,
foreign-policy hawkish wing of the party. What I didn’t fully
understand was just how much of Lee Atwater he had in him. Atwater,
you’ll remember, was the South Carolina Republican operative who was
one of the prime innovators of racial dog-whistling, an approach
used by a good number of Republicans to instill fear in white voters.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71080&title=%E2%80%9CBibi%20Deploys%20the%20Southern%20Strategy%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“The Debate Over Voter ID Continues”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71078>
Posted onMarch 18, 2015 7:42 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71078>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News from Nevada.
<http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/The-Debate-over-Voter-ID-Continues-296684711.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71078&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Debate%20Over%20Voter%20ID%20Continues%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
Brennan Center, Volokh File Brief in Employee Candidate Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71076>
Posted onMarch 18, 2015 7:35 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71076>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Case page
<https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/lawson-v-union-county-clerk-court>:
In this brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
the Brennan Center argues that firing a government employee merely
for running for office not only violates her First Amendment rights
but also undermines everyone’s interest in fostering competition,
opportunity, and participation in democratic elections.
On March 16, 2015, the Brennan Center for Justice, along with Common
Cause and the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment, filed
anamicus brief
<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Lawson%20BC%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf>authored
byEugene Volokh
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/>, Gary T.
Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, in/Lawson v. Union
County Clerk of Court/. The brief supports Melanie Lawson, the
plaintiff-appellant, in her appeal of the lower court’s decision
upholding her termination.
Lawson, while on leave from her job as a deputy clerk of court in
Union County, S.C., in 2012 had run for office to replace her boss,
the county clerk of court. She campaigned on the message that her 20
years of experience working in the clerk’s office would make her an
effective clerk of court. She lost the election and then was fired
from her job.
The right of public employees under the First Amendment to be
protected from retaliation for their personal political activity is
well established. There is a narrow exception for employees whose
jobs entail policymaking that requires political allegiance to
leadership; but, the brief argues, Lawson’s role did not fit that
exception. She performed strictly administrative tasks—collecting
receipts, managing dockets, publishing judges’ orders, tracking
data—for the county’s family court. Nor was there any evidence that
Lawson’s candidacy disrupted the functioning of the clerk’s office.
The district court erroneously ruled that Lawson’s administrative
job did require political allegiance to her boss and that her
candidacy therefore was not protected by the First Amendment, the
Brennan Center and fellow amici contend. This ruling “does not
merely limit Lawson’s First Amendment rights; it also shrinks
political opportunity and chills democratic participation on a wider
scale,” the brief argues. Amici are calling on the Fourth Circuit to
reverse the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina:
The district court’s holding lets the government unjustifiably deter
some of the most qualified people from running for
office—experienced government workers with the expertise and
credibility to offer voters viable alternatives to incumbents. By
allowing incumbents to threaten such would-be candidates with job
loss, the district court’s holding effectively excludes the most
qualified newcomers from the political process and costs citizens
the accountability, efficiency, and opportunity that arise when
incumbents face viable competition for election.
The Brennan Center’s brief is availablehere
<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Lawson%20BC%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71076&title=Brennan%20Center%2C%20Volokh%20File%20Brief%20in%20Employee%20Candidate%20Case&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Wisconsin Supreme Court Urged to Affirm Constitutionality of State
Restrictions on Coordinated Spending in John Doe Case”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71074>
Posted onMarch 18, 2015 7:32 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71074>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/wisconsin-supreme-court-urged-affirm-constitutionality-state-restrictions-0>:
Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, Common
Cause in Wisconsin and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin,
submitted an/amici/brief
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/CLC%20amici%20brief.FINAL_.signed.pdf>to
the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to be filed upon leave of the court,
in/Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Peterson/. The brief urges the
court to find Wisconsin’s restrictions on the coordination of
expenditures between candidates and outside groups constitutional.
The consolidated case centers around a challenge to a so-called John
Doe investigation of alleged illegal coordination between the
campaign of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and outside groups.
That investigation has been halted until various challenges are
resolved.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71074&title=%E2%80%9CWisconsin%20Supreme%20Court%20Urged%20to%20Affirm%20Constitutionality%20of%20State%20Restrictions%20on%20Coordinated%20Spending%20in%20John%20Doe%20Case%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Floyd Abrams Speech on First Amendment Discusses McCutcheon,
Citizens United <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71072>
Posted onMarch 18, 2015 7:31 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71072>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via Concurring Opinions
<http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2015/03/guest-contributor-floyd-abrams-liberty-is-liberty.html>:
You may agree or disagree with the positions we took or the clients
for whom we took them. But one thing is common to all of the
examples I have just cited to you. No one in any of these matters —
not any opponent, not any judge, no one — said anything to the
effect that since our client was a corporation that it had no First
Amendment rights and should not be heard to say that those rights
had been violated. I do not exaggerate when I say that if anyone had
said that in court, he or she would have been laughed out of it.
Yet much of the debate about the/Citizens United/case sounds as
if it was shocking for the Supreme Court to have held that
corporations receive First Amendment protection at all. The opinion
for the Court, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, cited 25 cases,
including ones involving for-profit non-media corporations, in which
First Amendment protection had been afforded to corporations. Even
Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissenting opinion said that “[w]e have
long since held that corporations are covered by the First
Amendment.” Yet listen to a different part of Justice Stevens’
opinion in which he states that “corporations have no consciences,
no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires” – as if that wiped
out all those First Amendment cases. Or to Senator Elizabeth
Warren,instructing
<http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1142915/47879134#c60>us that
“corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids,
they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance. They live, they
love and they die.” All true and yet all unresponsive to why the
First Amendment, as it has so often been held to do, should not be
held to protect the speech of corporations as well as “real” people.
Or of New York University Law Professor Burt Neuborne writing that
unlike corporations, human beings “die, do not enjoy economic
advantages like limited liability, and, most important, have a
conscience that sometimes transcends crude economic self-interest.”
These differences, Professor Neuborneargued
<http://slinkingtowardretirement.com/?p=20421>, “raise a threshold
question . . . about whether corporations are even in the First
Amendment ballpark.”
It is worth pondering about what a different nation we would live in
if the answer to that question were a negative one. All the examples
I cited a moment ago would become moot. Gone, then, would have been
even the possibility of full free speech protections for the various
entities that I mentioned a moment ago – for Barnes & Noble seeking
to protect the confidentiality of the purchasers of its books, for
the Brooklyn museum which wished to choose its own art regardless of
the artistic taste of the Mayor, for the motion picture company not
wanting to be charged with a crime for including an essential
sexually oriented scene in a movie about the relationship between an
older woman and teen aged boy, for colleges and universities seeking
to be free to engage in affirmative action, and for corporations
that are ordered by the Federal government to include language on
their lawfully sold products that is drafted to persuade the public
not to purchase them. The same would be true of your university —
also a corporation — if it concluded that its First Amendment
freedoms were at risk.
So for me, at least that part – that foundational part of
the/Citizens United/case – should have been easy. But it isn’t.
Nothing is, in the First Amendment area, these days because
differences about what the First Amendment is about have become so
vast. Let me offer one example of a post-/Citizens United/case in
which those differences were spelled out with particular brio by
members of the Supreme Court. It is the recent/McCutcheon/
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=12-536>case,
which struck down a cap on the total amount of contributions an
individual may make to candidates (while leaving in effect the
limits Congress had set on a candidate by candidate basis).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71072&title=Floyd%20Abrams%20Speech%20on%20First%20Amendment%20Discusses%20McCutcheon%2C%20Citizens%20United&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Campaign seeks to pave way for independents in debates”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71070>
Posted onMarch 18, 2015 7:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71070>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CNN <http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/17/politics/presidential-debate-changes/>:
A group of influential political scientists, current and former
elected officials and activists are challenging a decade-old rule
that they say prevents independents from engaging in presidential
debates — and, in turn, effectively keeps them out of the contest
entirely.
The campaign, dubbed “Change the Rule,” is aimed at convincing the
Commission on Presidential Debates to change the standard it uses
for third-party candidates to qualify for the debates.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71070&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign%20seeks%20to%20pave%20way%20for%20independents%20in%20debates%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,third parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>
“San Francisco Ethics Commission Announces the Release of New Report
on Campaigns and Lobbying in San Francisco in 2014″
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71068>
Posted onMarch 18, 2015 7:26 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71068>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release
<http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2015/03/press-release-march-17-2015-san-francisco-ethics-commission-announces-the-release-of-new-report-on-c.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71068&title=%E2%80%9CSan%20Francisco%20Ethics%20Commission%20Announces%20the%20Release%20of%20New%20Report%20on%20Campaigns%20and%20Lobbying%20in%20San%20Francisco%20in%202014%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Three Amicus Briefs Filed in 5th Circuit in Texas Voter ID Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71066>
Posted onMarch 18, 2015 7:20 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71066>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via Moritz:
* AARP’s Amicus Curiae Brief
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Veasey100.pdf>PDF
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Veasey85.pdf>(filed
3/10/15)
* ACLU’s Amicus Curiae
Brief<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Veasey101.pdf>PDF
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Veasey85.pdf>(filed
3/10/15)
* Texas
Election<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Veasey103.pdf>Administrator’
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Veasey103.pdf>sAmicus
Curiae
Brief<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Veasey103.pdf>PDF
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Veasey85.pdf>(filed
3/10/15)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71066&title=Three%20Amicus%20Briefs%20Filed%20in%205th%20Circuit%20in%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Case&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
“Will Hillary Clinton Invade GOP Primary?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71064>
Posted onMarch 17, 2015 1:30 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71064>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Frank Wilkinson
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-17/how-soon-will-hillary-clinton-attack-jeb-bush->:
“Hillary Clinton won’t have a truly competitive Democratic primary for
president. So in her spare time, she might instead opt to meddle in the
high-stakes Republican primary.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71064&title=%E2%80%9CWill%20Hillary%20Clinton%20Invade%20GOP%20Primary%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Billionaires Alter 2016 Playing Field”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71062>
Posted onMarch 17, 2015 1:27 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71062>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jeanne Cummings
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-17/billionaires-poised-to-alter-2016-playing-field-jeanne-cummings-i7dbncym>for
Bloomberg View.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71062&title=%E2%80%9CBillionaires%20Alter%202016%20Playing%20Field%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Daschle to Register With DOJ as Lobbyist for Foreign Client”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71060>
Posted onMarch 17, 2015 1:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71060>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
BLT reports.
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202720663052/Daschle-to-Register-With-DOJ-as-Lobbyist-for-Foreign-Client?slreturn=20150217162615#ixzz3Udnbs3CP>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71060&title=%E2%80%9CDaschle%20to%20Register%20With%20DOJ%20as%20Lobbyist%20for%20Foreign%20Client%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inlobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“Donors to Tax-Exempts Often Give Super-Sized Amounts”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71058>
Posted onMarch 17, 2015 1:25 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71058>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Tax Notes Today reports.
<http://services.taxanalysts.com/taxbase/tnt3.nsf/%28Number/2015+TNT+51-2?OpenDocument&Login>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71058&title=%E2%80%9CDonors%20to%20Tax-Exempts%20Often%20Give%20Super-Sized%20Amounts%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Want More Voters? Abolish Registration”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71056>
Posted onMarch 17, 2015 9:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71056>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Frank Barry
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-17/want-more-voters-abolish-registration>for
Bloomberg View.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71056&title=%E2%80%9CWant%20More%20Voters%3F%20Abolish%20Registration%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voter registration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
Here’s a New Vote Buying Scheme: “Get Out of Hell Free” Cards
(Israel elections) <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71054>
Posted onMarch 17, 2015 9:19 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71054>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Failed Messiah:
<http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2015/03/alleged-voter-fraud-in-haredi-arab-israeli-polling-stations-345.html>
The Shas Party ispromising voters
<http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/192764#.VQhDMmZk90E>who
vote for Shas “a pidyon hanefesh” (redemption of their soul;
essentially a “get out of hell free” card) to be given by top Shas
Party rabbis in exchange for the voter’s vote for Shas. That ad
reportedly features the slogan, “those who choose Shas go straight
to heaven.” This ad was ruled to be illegal – no surprise because
similar Shas Party ads and promises have been ruled illegal in
previous elections. But because the penalty for cheating is so
small, Shas keeps breaking the law with near impunity. Shas
reportedly expressed “sorrow” over the the CEC’s ruling against the
ad and said that “kissing mezuzahs and wearing amulets is an
integral part of the tradition of most Israeli citizens…we are proud
of our traditions and reject suppression and incitement.” This
despite the fact that amulets given in exchange for voting for a
political party have repeatedly over many years been ruled to be
illegal.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71054&title=Here%E2%80%99s%20a%20New%20Vote%20Buying%20Scheme%3A%20%E2%80%9CGet%20Out%20of%20Hell%20Free%E2%80%9D%20Cards%20%28Israel%20elections%29&description=>
Posted invote buying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=43>
“The New Normal in Election and Political Law”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71051>
Posted onMarch 17, 2015 9:06 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71051>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Announcement via email:
The Yale Law and Political Society and Yale Law & Policy Review
arehosting a conference
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Yale-Election-Law-Conference-Schedule.docx>on
Saturday, April 11 at Yale Law School (127 Wall St., New Haven, CT
06520). The conference will explore the current state of political
and electoral legal practice, with an eye to generating new ideas
for research and advocacy. Election and political law have undergone
radical changes in the past five years. The Supreme Court’s recent
decisions in /Citizens/ /United v. FEC/, /McCutcheon v. FEC/, and
/Shelby//County//v. Holder/ have systematically reshaped our
campaign finance and voting rights regimes. We can expect these
changes in the law to have significant, long-term effects on
electoral politics. Yet most analyses have focused on these
decisions’ individual impacts rather than their collective
consequences on our political system. Our conference will bring
together election administrators, litigators, campaign
practitioners, and academics to take comprehensive stock of the
state of our electoral regime, uncover opportunities for new
scholarship, and discuss likely directions for future campaign
practice.
Conference speakers include Robert Bauer, Jennifer Brown, Benjamin
Ginsberg, J. Gerald Hebert, Jennifer Heerwig, Dale Ho, Donald
McGahn, Nina Perales, Gary Poser, Robert Post, Ann Ravel, Neil
Reiff, Paul Ryan, Katherine Shaw, and Ace Smith.
The conference is free for Yale University and New Haven community
members. For non-Yale students, the conference fee is $15. For
everyone else (general conference attendees), the fee is $30. Please
register here: www.law.yale.edu/electionlawconference2015
<http://www.law.yale.edu/electionlawconference2015>.
If you have any questions, please
emailelectionlawconference at yale.edu
<mailto:emailelectionlawconference at yale.edu>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71051&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20New%20Normal%20in%20Election%20and%20Political%20Law%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Is Hlliary Clinton Now Officially “Testing the Waters” for a
Presidential Bid? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71049>
Posted onMarch 17, 2015 8:55 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71049>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The NYT suggests as much
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/03/17/today-in-politics-as-hillary-clinton-tests-the-waters-who-pays/>,
and I think that would be a change in her status.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71049&title=Is%20Hlliary%20Clinton%20Now%20Officially%20%E2%80%9CTesting%20the%20Waters%E2%80%9D%20for%20a%20Presidential%20Bid%3F&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
New Issue of Election Law Journal Features Research Related to
Bauer-Ginsberg Commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71047>
Posted onMarch 17, 2015 8:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71047>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Check it out, <http://online.liebertpub.com/toc/elj/14/1>guest edited by
Doug Chapin.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71047&title=New%20Issue%20of%20Election%20Law%20Journal%20Features%20Research%20Related%20to%20Bauer-Ginsberg%20Commission&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,PCEA (Bauer-Ginsberg Commission)
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=79>
--
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/20150318/862f5e36/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/20150318/862f5e36/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: icon-acrobat_012.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 125 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150318/862f5e36/attachment.gif>
View list directory