[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/17/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Feb 26 17:43:38 PST 2016
“Donald Trump Might Not Keep Paying for His Campaign Himself, Chris
Christie Suggests” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80377>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:41 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80377>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Maggie Haberman
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/donald-trump-might-not-keep-paying-for-his-campaign-himself-chris-christie-suggests/>for
the NYT.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80377&title=%26%238220%3BDonald%20Trump%20Might%20Not%20Keep%20Paying%20for%20His%20Campaign%20Himself%2C%20Chris%20Christie%20Suggests%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Remember When Ted Cruz Helped Suppress the Minority Vote in Texas?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80375>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:38 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80375>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Spencer Woodman
<https://newrepublic.com/article/130530/remember-ted-cruz-helped-suppress-minority-vote-texas>for
TNR.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80375&title=%26%238220%3BRemember%20When%20Ted%20Cruz%20Helped%20Suppress%20the%20Minority%20Vote%20in%20Texas%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted infraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
Scott Walker Paid Fines for Accepting Corporate and Excessive
Campaign Contributions <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80373>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80373>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This is
back<http://www.startribune.com/gov-walker-s-campaign-paid-28-300-campaign-finance-penalty/370322821/>when
Wisconsin still had meaningful campaign finance laws and a reputable
agency to enforce them.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80373&title=Scott%20Walker%20Paid%20Fines%20for%20Accepting%20Corporate%20and%20Excessive%20Campaign%20Contributions&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Mississippi will appeal order to change Dem primary ballot”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80371>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80371>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP: <http://www.sunherald.com/news/state/mississippi/article62471962.html>
Mississippi’s top elections official said Thursday that he will ask
the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a state court order telling him
to add another candidate to the March 8 Democratic presidential
primary ballot.
Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said he intends to file his
appeal with the nation’s highest court Friday and he did not know
whether it would receive rapid consideration.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80371&title=%26%238220%3BMississippi%20will%20appeal%20order%20to%20change%20Dem%20primary%20ballot%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>
“Donors ask GOP consulting firm to research independent presidential
bid” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80369>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80369>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports.
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/doors-gop-consulting-independent-219859>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80369&title=%26%238220%3BDonors%20ask%20GOP%20consulting%20firm%20to%20research%20independent%20presidential%20bid%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“When Super PACs Go Dark: LLCs Fuel Secret Spending”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80367>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:25 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80367>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Eliza
<http://prospect.org/article/when-super-pacs-go-dark-llcs-fuel-secret-spending>:
A hallmark of super PACs, the political action committees that may
raise unlimited contributions if they act independently from
candidates, is that they must publicly disclose their donors.
But in this election, super PACs and their backers are proving
increasingly adept at skirting the federal disclosure rules,
particularly through the use of limited liability companies, or
LLCs—a type of business entity that leaves no paper trail and gives
political players cover to hide their identities.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80367&title=%26%238220%3BWhen%20Super%20PACs%20Go%20Dark%3A%20LLCs%20Fuel%20Secret%20Spending%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Scalia Took Dozens of Trips Funded by Private Sponsors”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80365>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:23 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80365>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Eric Lipton
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/politics/scalia-led-court-in-taking-trips-funded-by-private-sponsors.html>for
the NYT:
WhenJustice Scalia
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/antonin_scalia/index.html?inline=nyt-per>died
two weeks ago, he was staying, again for free, at a West Texas
hunting lodge owned by a businessman whose company had recently had
a matter before theSupreme Court
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org>.
Though that trip has brought new attention to the justice’s penchant
for travel, it was in addition to the 258 subsidized trips that he
took from 2004 to 2014. Justice Scalia went on at least 23 privately
funded trips in 2014 alone to places like Hawaii, Ireland and
Switzerland, giving speeches, participating in moot court events or
teaching classes. A few weeks before his death, he was inSingapore
and Hong Kong
<http://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/en/events/detail.php?paramDate=2016-02-01&guid=F50BE73D-CC48-8EDE-6D3F-E18629BF4CE4-1453278297>….
After Justice Scalia, the second most active traveler on the current
court is Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who took 185 privately paid
trips from 2004 to 2014, according to a database built by the Center
for Responsive Politics, based on individual reports filed by the
justices. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., based on a yearly
average, had the fewest of these privately funded trips — a total of
48 from 2005 to 2014, the last year for which records are available.
Over all, Supreme Court members disclosed 1,009 paid trips between
2004 and 2014.
The destinations often are luxurious, including the Casa de Campo
Resort in the Dominican Republic, where Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
was listed as a speaker for anevent last February,
<https://www.federalbarcouncil.org/FBCFiles/2013_2014_FBC_Annual_Report_Website.pdf>or
Zurich, where Justice Scalia traveled at least three times on
privately funded trips….
The disclosure reports show that the majority of the privately
funded trips — by far — are sponsored by universities, both in the
United States and around the world.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80365&title=%26%238220%3BScalia%20Took%20Dozens%20of%20Trips%20Funded%20by%20Private%20Sponsors%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inconflict of interest laws
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Lawsuit Challenging San Juan County’s Mail-Only Electoral System
Filed” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80363>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80363>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release
<https://lawyerscommittee.org/press-release/lawsuit-challenging-san-juan-countys-mail-only-electoral-system-filed/>:
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers’
Committee), DLA Piper, LLP, the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah (ACLU of Utah)
announce the filing of a new lawsuit against San Juan County, Utah
on behalf of the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission, and seven
members of the Navajo Nation. The lawsuit challenges the County’s
decision to switch to a mail-only voting system that adversely
impacts Navajo voters, and the County’s decision to designate the
only site for in-person voting at a location far away from the
majority of the Navajo voters.
The lawsuit,/Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission v. San Juan
County et al./
<https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Doc-2-San-JuanComplaint.pdf>/,/was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah
and alleges that San Juan County violates provisions of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
The case arises from the County’s decision in 2014 to close all
polling places and switch to a mail-only voting system. The County
is covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act and is required
to provide all voting materials – including voting instructions and
ballots – in both English and Navajo. However, because Navajo is an
unwritten language, the County’s mail-only ballot system conflicts
with their Section 203 obligations.
The postal system in rural parts of San Juan County, where many
Navajo voters reside, is unreliable and not accessible, making it
difficult for many Navajo voters to receive and return their ballots
on time under a mail-only electoral system. Although the County is
approximately half white and half Navajo, the only way a voter can
vote in-person under the current voting scheme is to travel to the
County Clerk’s office in the county seat of Monticello, which is 84
percent white.
Because Navajo residents tend to live farther from the county seat
than white residents, Navajo voters do not have the same voting
opportunities as other residents: Navajo residents must travel, on
average, more than twice as long as white residents in order to
reach Monticello to vote in-person. The trip for a Navajo voter
takes, on average, over two hours round trip, while the trip for a
white voter takes, on average, under an hour. For residents living
in the areas in the southwest of the County that are majority
Navajo, the round trip to Monticello to vote in-person is even
longer and may take between nine and ten hours.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80363&title=%26%238220%3BLawsuit%20Challenging%20San%20Juan%20County%E2%80%99s%20Mail-Only%20Electoral%20System%20Filed%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Fan Mail: Ass Clown Edition <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80361>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80361>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via email:
Mr. Hasen,
I readyour article
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/02/21/appoint-another-scalia-kiss-democracy-goodbye/>this
week concerning Justice Scalia. After careful consideration I have
come to this conclusion about the author: You sir are a complete Ass
Clown.
Your hyperbole on kissing democracy good bye reminds me of Donald
Trump talking about his wall. Justice Scalia will be remembered as
one of the most influential judicial minds of the century. You will
be remembered by your students years from now as “you know, old
what’s his name”.
The University of California system seems like a nice, unchallenging
place for you to place your pulpit.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80361&title=Fan%20Mail%3A%20Ass%20Clown%20Edition&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Outside Conservative Groups Overwhelm Arkansas Judge Races”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80357>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80357>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/conservative-groups-overwhelm-arkansas-judge-races-37221313>:
The Judicial Crisis Network, a Washington-based group, has spent
more than $600,000 on television ads targeting Justice Courtney
Goodson as she runs for the chief justice post. A second group, the
Republican State Leadership Committee’s Judicial Fairness
Initiative, has bought about $250,000 worth of airtime for spots
criticizing a Little Rock attorney in another high court race.
The nearly $1.3 million spent on TV airtime alone more than doubles
the previous Arkansas record for such spending in a judicial
election, according to campaign finance groups.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80357&title=%26%238220%3BOutside%20Conservative%20Groups%20Overwhelm%20Arkansas%20Judge%20Races%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted injudicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
“63,756 Reasons Racism Is Still Alive in South Carolina”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80353>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80353>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ari Berman
<http://www.thenation.com/article/63756-reasons-why-racism-is-still-alive-in-south-carolina/>:
Larrie Butler, a 90-year-old African-American man, was born in
Calhoun County, South Carolina, at a time when the South was
segregated during Jim Crow. He moved to Maryland after serving in
the military and attending college, but returned to South Carolina
in 2010. He got a voter-registration card and voted in the state in
2010.\
In 2011, South Carolina passed a strict new voter-ID law requiring a
government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot. When Butler went to the
DMV to switch his driver’s license from Maryland to South Carolina,
he was told he needed a birth certificate to confirm his identity.
But Butler was born at home, when there were few black hospitals,
and never received a born certificate. When he went to the state
Vital Records office to get a birth certificate, they said he needed
to produce his Maryland driving records and high-school records from
South Carolina. After he returned with that information, he was told
he needed his elementary-school records, which Butler couldn’t
produce because the school was closed. So instead he found his
census record, which was not accepted because his first name in the
census, Larry, did not exactly match the name he’d used for his
entire life, Larrie. He was told to go to court and legally change
his name at 85 years old, in order to obtain the birth certificate
required to get a driver’s license in South Carolina and also be
able to vote.
“It made me feel terrible,” Butler said.
On May 18, 2011, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haleysigned the
voter-ID law
<https://www.scgop.com/2011/05/18/gov-nikki-haley-signs-voter-id-bill-into-law/>.
“If you have to show a picture ID to buy Sudafed, if you have to
show a picture ID to get on an airplane, you should show a picture
ID when you vote,” Haley said.
After the bill’s signing, Butler spoke at a press conference 10 feet
away from where Haley spoke. He held up a plane ticket and Sudafed
he’d bought with his Maryland driver’s license, which he was unable
to use in South Carolina to vote. Shortly thereafter, the DMV called
Butler and said they’d bypass the requirement for a birth
certificate, allowing him to get a state driver’s license and vote
in future elections.
But there are still hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians
facing similar obstacles as Butler. According to state data, 178,000
registered voters, 7 percent of the electorate, lack a DMV-issued
photo ID. Minority voters are 20 percent more likely than whites to
lack a DMV-issued ID, and there are 63,756 nonwhite registered
voters without one.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80353&title=%26%238220%3B63%2C756%20Reasons%20Racism%20Is%20Still%20Alive%20in%20South%20Carolina%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
“Celebrity Justice: Supreme Court Edition”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80351>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 4:57 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80351>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Green Bag has postedthe final
version<http://www.greenbag.org/v19n2/v19n2_articles_hasen.pdf>of my
article on how SCOTUS Justices are much more in the news than ever before.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80351&title=%26%238220%3BCelebrity%20Justice%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Edition%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inCelebrity Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=109>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“More Complaints about Super PACs” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80349>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 4:54 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80349>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer on Frum.
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2016/02/complaints-super-pacs/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80349&title=%26%238220%3BMore%20Complaints%20about%20Super%20PACs%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Governor Brown seeks urgent Supreme Court intervention regarding
ballot measure” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80347>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 4:52 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80347>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
At the lectern
<http://www.atthelectern.com/governor-brown-seeks-urgent-supreme-court-intervention-regarding-ballot-measure/>:
The Supreme Court hadjust yesterday
<http://www.atthelectern.com/supreme-court-will-not-order-anti-citizens-united-measure-onto-the-ballot/>finished
its review of one controversial ballot proposition, when another one
landed on its docket today. Governor Jerry Brown is asking the
Supreme Court to overturn a superior court order, filed yesterday,
that the Sacramento Beecalls
<http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article62340057.html>“a
major setback for Gov. Jerry Brown’s sweeping prison and parole
initiative.” The order, which was sought by the California District
Attorneys Association, prevents the circulation for voter signatures
of aninitiative
<http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0121%20%28Prison%20Sentence%20Reform%29_0.pdf?>that
would make certain nonviolent felons eligible for early parole.
The governor’s emergency writ petition in/Brown v. Superior Court/
<http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2134157&doc_no=S232642>is
availablehere
<https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mwth7urewl757ch/AADIxmH1G2oD4XYqGtTTSqRKa/1_S232642%20-%20Emergency%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Mandate.pdf?dl=0>,
and the two-volume appendix in support of the petition is
availablehere
<https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mwth7urewl757ch/AACju-J0BXsR8Ved6dvddYS6a/2_S232642%20-%20Appendix%20%28Vol%201%20of%202%29.pdf?dl=0>andhere
<https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mwth7urewl757ch/AAAgqYLOwJn4yH8PcvaK0Mfea/3_S232642%20-%20Appendix%20%28Vol%202%20of%202%29.pdf?dl=0>.
Attorney General Kamala Harris — a real party in interest in the
writ proceeding — has alreadyfiled a letter
<https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mwth7urewl757ch/AADNqwR0_lRdH6InhTAbNNLza/4_S232642%20-%20Attorney%20General%20Letter%20in%20Support.pdf?dl=0>supporting
the writ petition.
From a very quick review of these materials, it appears the primary
issue concerns the application of a recent change in the initiative
process. The submission to the Attorney General of a proposed
initiative now begins a 30-day public review period, during which
the initiative proponent can “submit amendments to the measure that
are reasonably germane to the theme, purpose, or subject of the
initiative measure as originally proposed.” (Elections Code,section
9002
<http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC§ionNum=9002.>.)
It looks like Governor Brown submitted amendments that the superior
court found to be not germane.
[Evening update:No stay, but expedited supplemental briefing, for
governor’s writ petition
<http://www.atthelectern.com/no-stay-but-expedited-supplemental-briefing-for-governors-writ-petition/>.]
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80347&title=%26%238220%3BGovernor%20Brown%20seeks%20urgent%20Supreme%20Court%20intervention%20regarding%20ballot%20measure%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted indirect democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
“Does the Biden speech undermine the case for Supreme Court
confirmation hearings?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80345>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 4:48 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80345>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
John Witt:
<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/02/does-biden-speech-undermine-case-for.html>
As readers of this blog will likely know by now, then-Senator Joseph
Biden delivered a speech on the Senate floor in June of 1992 warning
that in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy, President George H. W.
Bush ought not “name a nominee until after the November election is
completed.” Biden urged that the Senate consider “not scheduling
confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political
campaign season is over.”
Flash forward to 2016. Republicans in the Senate and elsewhere cite
the Biden speech in support of their refusal to consider a
nomination to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice
Scalia. The country’s newspapers and commentators have gone along.
The New York Times called Biden’s speech “a direct contradiction to
President Obama’s position.”
The Times is flat wrong. The Biden speech is no contradiction, but
not for the reasons the White House and its allies have asserted. In
1992, Biden’s argument was that action “must be put off until after
the election campaign is over.” In our system of government, the
end of campaign season does not coincide with the inauguration of
the new president. To the contrary, since the enactment of the
Twentieth Amendment, the election gives way to a period of two and a
half months in which the incumbent president, though to be sure a
lame duck, holds all the formal powers of the office, including the
power to nominate new justices. Biden’s move was to insist that,
until the post-election period, there would be too much partisan
rancor to have a full and fair hearing on the merits. After all,
that was what mattered: ensuring an evaluation of the next justice
on the merits, not according to a partisan political calculus.
By contrast, when Republicans today insist that the the current
president should not get a nomination at all, they assert the exact
opposite: that partisan politics should decide the fate of the
Court. Thus the letter to the Senate Majority Leader signed by
every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee announcing
that there will be no hearings “on any Supreme Court nominee until
after our next President is sworn in.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80345&title=%26%238220%3BDoes%20the%20Biden%20speech%20undermine%20the%20case%20for%20Supreme%20Court%20confirmation%20hearings%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Without an Instant Runoff, Trump Favored to Win GOP Nomination”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80343>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 4:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80343>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Rob Richiecrunches the numbers.
<http://www.fairvote.org/without_an_instant_runoff_trump_favored_to_win_gop_nomination>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80343&title=%26%238220%3BWithout%20an%20Instant%20Runoff%2C%20Trump%20Favored%20to%20Win%20GOP%20Nomination%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inalternative voting systems
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
--
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/20160226/26bd7429/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/20160226/26bd7429/attachment.png>
View list directory