[EL] I wonder if anyone knows the terms of the settlement in Dickranian v Los Angeles

[Robbin Stewart]

http://ballots.blogspot.com/2015/05/dickranian-v.html
Thursday, May 28, 2015
I wonder if anyone knows the terms of the Dickranian settlment.

Dickranian v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:12-cv-05145-ODW-SS (C.D. Cal.), on
appeal No. 12-56844 (9th Cir.) Case Description: On June 13, 2013,
plaintiff Laurel Dickranian filed suit in U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California challenging Los Angeles disclaimer and
disclosure requirements as unconstitutional. Dickranian spent nearly $8,000
sending letters to more than 17,000 Los Angeles voters urging them to elect
a particular candidate for the office of City Attorney. The City’s law
requires those making independent expenditures in city candidate or ballot
measure elections to file a campaign finance report and a copy of the
communication. The district court summarily dismissed Dickranian’s
complaint and upheld the City’s disclosure law. Case Status: Dickranian
appealed the district court’s dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On November 7, 2014, the parties notified the Ninth Circuit that
they had settled the case. CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC filed an
amicus brief in support of the City’s law with the Ninth Circuit on June
24, 2013.
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/new-litigation-summary-clc-reveals-ongoing-flood-challenges-campaign-finance

The lower court opinion is clearly erroneous for the usual reasons.
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2012cv05145/534612/15

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72896
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150528/10ce50bc/attachment.html>