[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/3/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Sep 3 07:46:11 PDT 2015
"Why Fund-Raising Is Important, Even if You Are Trump”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75819>
Posted onSeptember 3, 2015 7:43 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75819>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Smart Lynn Vavreck NYT Upshot column
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/upshot/what-fund-raising-would-reveal-about-trumps-campaign.html?ref=politics>:
Mr. Trump may continue to eschew money from lobbyists and special
interests and condemn those candidates who take it, but a closer
look at the F.E.C. fund-raising numbers reveals an interesting
pattern that underscores the importance of campaign organization in
soliciting donations: Candidates who are good at raising money from
super PACs are also good at raising money from individual donors.
And vice versa.
Mr. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have all raised a lot of money
from super PACs and outside groups, but they are also the top three
candidates in terms of campaign contributions by individual donors.
Dismissing candidates who raise unlimited sums of money from outside
groups as being indebted to those interests and therefore
untrustworthy ignores the fact that those candidates are also the
ones raising the most money from more limited individual contributions.
The explanation for this pattern may in part come from the
candidate’s appeal among the electorate and within the party. But
another important part is the professionalism of their organizations
and their ability to find and ask the right people to contribute
across a range of possibilities.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75819&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Fund-Raising%20Is%20Important%2C%20Even%20if%20You%20Are%20Trump%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Land Of (Dis)Enchantment: New Mexico Legislature Takes Steps To
Consider Impeachment Of SoS” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75817>
Posted onSeptember 3, 2015 7:31 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75817>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A ChapinBlog.
<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/09/03/land-of-disenchantment-new-mexico-legislature-takes-steps-to-consider-impeachment-of-sos/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75817&title=%E2%80%9CLand%20Of%20%28Dis%29Enchantment%3A%20New%20Mexico%20Legislature%20Takes%20Steps%20To%20Consider%20Impeachment%20Of%20SoS%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“How Team Bush Divides in Order to Conquer”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75815>
Posted onSeptember 3, 2015 7:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75815>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-03/how-team-bush-divides-in-order-to-conquer?cmpid=BBD090315_POL>:
But “not coordinated” isn’t clearly defined, and candidates have
taken advantage of that. This year almost every presidential
candidate in the field has at least one supporting super-PAC that’s
ostensibly acting independently of his or her campaign, though
staffed in many cases by the candidates’ long-time aides. Arguably,
no one has taken advantage of this legal loophole more than
Bush. The flow of consultants from the outside groups to the
campaign and, in at least one instance, the sharing of staff, has
created a series of interlocking relationships that illustrate how
the best-funded Republican candidate is aggressively navigating the
new world of campaign finance laws.
While there’s no apparent legal violation, and the various pro-Bush
entities have insisted they are in compliance with the law, the
situation shows how difficult it can be to fence off outside groups,
which can collect contributions in unlimited amounts. In the case of
Right to Rise Policy Solutions, organized as a “social welfare”
non-profit, donors never have to be disclosed.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75815&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Team%20Bush%20Divides%20in%20Order%20to%20Conquer%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Why Lawrence Lessig Should Love Money in Politics”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75813>
Posted onSeptember 3, 2015 7:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75813>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
David
Keating<http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/02/why-lawrence-lessig-should-love-money-in-politics/>for
the Daily Caller:
That’s why the quick rush to cover Lessig is important to note. You
see, passing even more complicated campaign finance laws isn’t
actually about saving America from corruption. Lessig, the media,
and the rest of the left seem to believe that the reason Republicans
support gun rights is because of campaign donations from the NRA,
and that the Republicans oppose restrictions on fracking because of
donations from energy companies. In fact, he explicitly says so on
his newly launched campaign website, saying that “every issue — from
climate change to gun safety, from Wall Street reform to defense
spending — is tied to this ‘one issue.’”
Meanwhile the truth is much less complicated than that. Republicans
tend to believe in limited government and individual liberty, so
they vote that way. Democrats tend to believe the opposite. And
while this may be a bit inconvenient for Lessig (it sure wasn’t
covered in his Ted Talk) – voters tend to vote for people who share
their beliefs. It’s why Utah sends conservative Republicans to
Congress and Massachusetts sends people like Elizabeth Warren to the
Senate. Does anyone in their right mind believe that limiting
contributions to candidates would change that?
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75813&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Lawrence%20Lessig%20Should%20Love%20Money%20in%20Politics%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“A new way to track political money in California”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75811>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 9:51 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75811>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT
<http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-unveils-improved-campaign-finance-search-site-20150902-story.html>:
Californians will have an easier time determining who is giving
money to political candidates and causes starting Thursday, when a
new tool becomes available on the secretary of state’s website.
The antiquated CalAccess system, which shows political donations and
lobbying information on the site, is clunky and difficult to use,
especially for searching and sorting the data.
A new search engine has been added to help users see more fully and
easily, for example, the money received by candidates and
ballot-measure campaigns. It will also be easier to see where
industries and other special interests are concentrating their money.
“The public and press should have quick and easy access to campaign
finance information,” Secretary of State Alex Padilla said Wednesday
in announcing the improvements. The new search mechanism provides “a
clearer view of the flow of campaign dollars,” he said.
The new tool, developed by the nonprofit group Maplight, which
tracks political money, allows searches by geography, dollar amounts
and time periods going back to 2001. It also allows quick
determination of totals in specific elections.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75811&title=%E2%80%9CA%20new%20way%20to%20track%20political%20money%20in%20California%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Indicted Philadelphia congressman cannot suppress warrant for
emails” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75809>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 9:27 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75809>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Reuters
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/02/us-usa-crime-fattah-emails-idUSKCN0R21WX20150902>:
Chaka Fattah, a Philadelphia congressman facing corruption charges,
failed to persuade a federal appeals court to void a search warrant
that would give investigators access to seven years of his private
emails.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesdaydismissed
<http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/143752p.pdf>Fattah’s argument
that executing the warrant to forceGoogle
<http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=GOOG.O>Inc to
turn over contents of his Gmail account dating back to 2008 would
violate the U.S. Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which
provides protections for members of Congress.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75809&title=%E2%80%9CIndicted%20Philadelphia%20congressman%20cannot%20suppress%20warrant%20for%20emails%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Appeals court to hear election recall case brought by San Antonio
and Houston churches” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75807>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 9:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75807>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
San Antonio Express-News:
<http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Appeals-court-to-hear-election-recall-case-6481793.php?t=3ede6624ed&cmpid=twitter-premium>
Are Texas churches prohibited from campaigning to recall politicians?
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will weigh that question
Thursday in a case set to clarify if and how a church as a corporate
entity can influence the political process of ousting a sitting
elected official.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75807&title=%E2%80%9CAppeals%20court%20to%20hear%20election%20recall%20case%20brought%20by%20San%20Antonio%20and%20Houston%20churches%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inrecall elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
SC Gov. Nikki Haley Discusses Voter ID in “Black Lives Matter”
Speech <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75805>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 4:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75805>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Text of the speech
<http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article33497625.html>:
One of the lessons of the flag controversy is that if we stop
shouting and start listening, we get more accomplished. We should
all listen to each other more – we will all benefit from walking in
someone else’s shoes.
A good example in the civil rights arena is in voter ID laws. There
are those who act is if any effort whatsoever to maintain the
integrity of the voting process is a racist attack on civil rights.
Well that’s just not so.
Requiring people to show a photo ID before they vote is a reasonable
measure. It’s not racist. If everyone was willing to stop shouting,
and stop trying to score race-baiting political points, we could
reach common ground.
I want everyone who is eligible to vote, to vote. I now count
Reverend Jesse Jackson as a friend. I got to know him through the
funerals. He’s a native South Carolinian, who has done some amazing
things in his career with voter registration.
I will say this: any time Reverend Jackson wants to do a voter
registration drive in South Carolina, I will stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with him. I want to make it easy for everyone
who is rightfully eligible to vote to do so.
For most people, showing a picture ID is no burden. But I recognize
that it is a burden for some. And those people are
disproportionately poor, elderly, or disabled – which is why in
South Carolina we offered rides to any citizen, anywhere in the
state, to get to a local DMV and get a free picture ID.
So let’s not throw out voter ID laws – the integrity of our
democracy is too important for that. But let’s figure out ways to
make it easy and cost-free for every eligible voter to obtain a
photo ID. That way, everyone who wants to vote, can vote.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75805&title=SC%20Gov.%20Nikki%20Haley%20Discusses%20Voter%20ID%20in%20%E2%80%9CBlack%20Lives%20Matter%E2%80%9D%20Speech&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
“Kris Kobach’s plan to delete more than 30,000 voter registration
applications in Kansas draws dissent, praise”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75803>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 4:03 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75803>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Dr. Evil.
<http://cjonline.com/news/2015-09-02/kris-kobachs-plan-delete-more-30000-voter-registration-applications-kansas-draws>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75803&title=%E2%80%9CKris%20Kobach%E2%80%99s%20plan%20to%20delete%20more%20than%2030%2C000%20voter%20registration%20applications%20in%20Kansas%20draws%20dissent%2C%20praise%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted infraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
“Stephen Colbert one-ups Jeb Bush raffle with 1 of his own”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75801>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 3:41 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75801>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP reports.
<http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:18db0507151848a3b1170e2bc4d23daf>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75801&title=%E2%80%9CStephen%20Colbert%20one-ups%20Jeb%20Bush%20raffle%20with%201%20of%20his%20own%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Olivia Reynolds found guilty of 24 counts of voter fraud”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75799>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 2:45 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75799>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Absentee ballot fraud
<http://www.dothaneagle.com/news/crime_court/olivia-reynolds-found-guilty-of-counts-of-voter-fraud/article_f1e41832-51ab-11e5-b6fc-dfcad6ddb7db.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75799&title=%E2%80%9COlivia%20Reynolds%20found%20guilty%20of%2024%20counts%20of%20voter%20fraud%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inabsentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Explaining the Blue Shift in Election Canvassing”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75797>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 2:06 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75797>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ned Foley and Charles StewartAPSA paper
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2653456>:
We conduct statistical analysis of a phenomenon recently identified
by Foley (2013), the rise in the number of votes counted after
Election Day (“overtime votes”) and the growing tendency of these
votes to disproportionately favor Democrats in presidential
elections (the “blue shift.”) We provide a historical description of
these two time series, from 1948 to 2012, and establish that the
timing of the persistent growth in the blue-shifted overtime vote
began with the 2004 election. While some of the interstate
variability in these time series is accounted for by regional
factors (e.g., a lag in news travelling to New York), changes in the
time series are broadly consistent with changes in electoral
practices, especially in recent years.
We perform statistical analysis to understand better interstate
variability in the overtime vote and the blue shift in the 2012
presidential election. We discover that variation in the size of the
overtime vote is associated with the number of provisional ballots,
but not the number of absentee/mail ballots; variation in the
relative size of the blue shift is positively associated with the
number of provisional ballots and with the Democratic partisanship
of the states. We also perform an analysis of the overtime vote in
seven statewide contests in Virginia, using that state’s change log
as evidence. We find a tendency of provisional ballots to
persistently favor Democrats in these races, whereas other sources
of votes accounted for after Election Day do not persistently favor
Democrats in that state.
We conclude the paper by suggesting how the analysis offered here
might be expanded in future work.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75797&title=%E2%80%9CExplaining%20the%20Blue%20Shift%20in%20Election%20Canvassing%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inabsentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,provisional ballots
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=67>
“Closing Arguments: Should 2 justices have recused themselves in
John Doe case?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75795>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 1:36 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75795>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A debate
<http://wislawjournal.com/2015/09/02/closing-arguments-should-two-justices-have-recused-themselves-in-john-doe-case/>in
the /Wisconsin Law Journal./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75795&title=%E2%80%9CClosing%20Arguments%3A%20Should%202%20justices%20have%20recused%20themselves%20in%20John%20Doe%20case%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“CNN Charging 40 Times Its Usual Price for Spots in Republican
Debate” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75793>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 11:09 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75793>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Advertising Age
<http://adage.com/article/media/cnn-charging-10-times-usual-price-commercials-republican-debate/300185/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social> says
it is all about Trump.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75793&title=%E2%80%9CCNN%20Charging%2040%20Times%20Its%20Usual%20Price%20for%20Spots%20in%20Republican%20Debate%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Texas Two-Steps All Over Voting Rights; It says it can make voting
as difficult as it wants to, and any law that says otherwise is
unconstitutional.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75791>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 9:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75791>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have writtenthis piece
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/09/voting_rights_act_sections_2_and_5_texas_defends_voter_id_laws.html>for
/Slate/. It begins:
In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, one of the most
important pieces of legislation in U.S. history. It contained key
protections for minority voters, especially blacks, who had been
effectively disenfranchised in the South. The act was a remarkable
success, increasing minority voter registration and turnout rates
within a few years. In 1982, an important amendment made it much
easier for minority voters to elect candidates of their choice.
Then, following the contested 2000 elections, states started passing
new voting rules along partisan lines. As part ofthese voting wars
<http://www.amazon.com/Voting-Wars-Florida-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248/ref=la_B0089NJCR2_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441121721&sr=1-5>,
conservative states began passing laws making it harder to register
and vote, restrictions that seemed to fall most on poor and minority
voters.
In the midst of all of this, the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down a
key component of the Voting Rights Act. It had required states and
jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to
get permission from the federal government before making a voting
change by proving that the proposed change would not make it harder
for minority voters to vote and to elect their preferred candidates.
Don’t worry, Chief Justice John Roberts assured the American public
in that 2013 case,/Shelby County v. Holder/
<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-96/opinion3.html>.
Although states with a history of racial discrimination would no
longer be subject to federal “preclearance” of voting changes
because preclearance offends the “equal sovereignty” of states such
as Texas, there’s always Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That
provision, Roberts explained, is available “in appropriate cases to
block voting laws from going into effect. … Section 2 is permanent,
applies nationwide, and is not at issue in this case.”
It concludes:
Let’s not mistake what Texas is doing here. To seem more moderate,
it couches its constitutional arguments in the language of
“constitutional avoidance,” not exactly saying that Section 2 is
unconstitutional but saying that the courts should read it narrowly
because otherwise the law would be unconstitutional. In practical
terms, that’s a distinction without a difference. In either case,
according to Texas, the result is that Section 2 cannot offer
protection for racial minorities in vote denial cases.
If the argument succeeds, then Roberts’ promise in/Shelby
County/that minority voters will be protected by Section 2 after the
death of preclearance will prove to be tragically empty. And the
Texas two-step will stomp out what remains of protections for
minority voters from the new vote denial.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75791&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Two-Steps%20All%20Over%20Voting%20Rights%3B%20It%20says%20it%20can%20make%20voting%20as%20difficult%20as%20it%20wants%20to%2C%20and%20any%20law%20that%20says%20otherwise%20is%20unconstitutional.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
NPR with a Great Explainer and Graphics on Iran Deal Vote
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75789>
Posted onSeptember 2, 2015 9:06 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75789>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here
<http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/02/436647276/minority-rules-capitol-hill-vote-tactics-displayed-in-iran-deal>:
Here’s how it works. Instead of voting on whether to/approve/the
Iran deal, Congress votes on whether to/disapprove/.
If they disapprove, the president can veto their disapproval. And
under the normal rules, it would take two-thirds of the House and
the Senate to override the veto. That makes all the difference.
We asked NPR editor Ron Elving how this changes the number of votes
the president’s side needs.
“If it were normal legislation and not a treaty, you would need 60
to shut off debate and then 51 to prevail,” he said. For a treaty,
67 votes would be needed.
So how many does the president need for this deal? Thirty-four, said
Elving. “That’s the essence of what we’re talking about here. If the
Senate gives the president 34 votes to sustain his veto, he has won
and it’s over.”
The president can also win without a veto, if a minority of 41
senators sustains a filibuster. All the checks and balances that
make congressional action difficult work in the president’s favor
because his opponents, not Obama, are the ones who need Congress to
pass something.
As of Wednesday, 34 Democrats had already voiced their support for
the deal, with a number of others undeclared.
That means even if Republicans all vote no — and even if Democratic
skeptics like Sen. Charles Schumer of New York also vote no — it
looks like the president will have enough votes to prevail.
“It is a mechanism by which lawmakers can deal with the
contradictions that reality presents them. You can call it cynical,
you can call it pragmatic, but it gets the job done,” Elving said,
“both in the sense of keeping the government going forward and in
the sense of solving the political problem of the individual lawmaker.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75789&title=NPR%20with%20a%20Great%20Explainer%20and%20Graphics%20on%20Iran%20Deal%20Vote&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
--
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
hhttp://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/20150903/df815c47/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/20150903/df815c47/attachment.png>
View list directory