[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/28/16

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Jan 28 08:04:09 PST 2016


    “Voter Registration Doesn’t Point to Iowa Surge for Sanders or
    Trump” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79348>

Posted onJanuary 28, 2016 8:02 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79348>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Nate Cohn 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/upshot/surge-for-sanders-or-trump-in-iowa-voter-registration-doesnt-suggest-it.html?ref=politics&_r=0>for 
NYT’s The UpShot.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79348&title=%26%238220%3BVoter%20Registration%20Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Point%20to%20Iowa%20Surge%20for%20Sanders%20or%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,election 
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


    “Nominating Cruz Or Trump Might Not Doom Down-Ballot Republicans”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79346>

Posted onJanuary 28, 2016 7:54 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79346>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Harry Enten 
<http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nominating-cruz-or-trump-might-not-doom-down-ballot-republicans/>for 
538.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79346&title=%26%238220%3BNominating%20Cruz%20Or%20Trump%20Might%20Not%20Doom%20Down-Ballot%20Republicans%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “Why I Dropped Out” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79344>

Posted onJanuary 28, 2016 7:48 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79344>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Part II<http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-i-dropped-out>in the 
New Yorker from Lessig.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79344&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20I%20Dropped%20Out%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,political parties 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>


    “Political Money: New Best-Selling Book Genre?”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79342>

Posted onJanuary 28, 2016 7:47 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79342>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Eliza Newlin Carney 
<http://prospect.org/article/political-money-new-best-selling-book-genre>for 
TAP:

    Books about who pays for American elections rarely hit the
    bestseller lists, but a rash of new titles tackling the once-obscure
    topic of campaign financing signals that publishers now regard
    political money as popular fare.

    Whether your cup of tea is juicy details about the billionaire
    industrialists Charles and David Koch, like those/New Yorker/writer
    Jane Mayer dishes up in her 450-page narrative/Dark Money
    <http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453936996&sr=8-1&keywords=dark+money>/,
    or rigorous legal analysis along the lines of what Richard L. Hasen
    delivers in/Plutocrats United,/
    <http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453937030&sr=8-1&keywords=plutocrats+united> the
    newly hot genre of political money has something to offer.

    For progressive organizers, California writer and activist Derek
    Cressman’s/When Money Talks: The High Price of ‘Free’ Speech and the
    Selling of Democracy
    <http://www.amazon.com/When-Money-Talks-Selling-Democracy/dp/1626565767/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453937131&sr=8-1&keywords=when+money+talks>/offers
    a how-to primer on how fed-up citizens can take action. For
    conservatives, law professor Richard Painter’s/Taxation Only With
    Representation
    <http://www.amazon.com/Taxation-Only-Representation-Richard-Painter/dp/1939324122/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453937187&sr=8-1&keywords=taxation+only+with+representation>/argues
    that campaign reforms would lead government to both spend less and
    regulate less. For those looking for a middle way, Wendell Potter
    and Nick Penniman explain in/Nation on the Take
    <http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_18?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=nation+on+the+take&sprefix=nation+on+the+take%2Caps%2C118>/how
    special interest money impacts the daily lives of ordinary Americans.

    None of these books will win fans in every quarter. Some reform
    advocates will wish that Mayer went beyond describing the problem to
    spelling out solutions. And some scholars will quibble that Hasen’s
    argument for legal fixes to promote “political equality” would not
    withstand constitutional muster. Conservatives will dismiss
    Cressman’s book out of hand, and liberals may argue that the books
    by Painter and by Potter and Penniman don’t go far enough.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79342&title=%26%238220%3BPolitical%20Money%3A%20New%20Best-Selling%20Book%20Genre%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>


    “The ‘Bleak’ History of Third-Party Presidential Bids”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79340>

Posted onJanuary 28, 2016 7:43 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79340>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Sahil Kapur 
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-27/the-bleak-history-of-third-party-presidential-bids?cmpid=BBD012816_POL>reports 
for — wait for it! — Bloomberg.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79340&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20%E2%80%98Bleak%E2%80%99%20History%20of%20Third-Party%20Presidential%20Bids%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,campaign 
finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “Happy birthday to the case that was even worse than Citizens
    United” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79338>

Posted onJanuary 28, 2016 7:42 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79338>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Former Senators  J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) and William E. Brock, 
(R-Tenn.) inThe Hill 
<http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/267079-happy-birthday-to-the-case-that-was-even-worse-than-citizens>:

    Both of us were elected to the Senate in the 1970s, and ran our
    campaigns under the Federal Election Campaign Act. FECA put caps on
    contributions and banned corporations from giving at all. Campaign
    spending was limited and independent expenditures were prohibited.
    The purpose of all this was to protect speech: the speech of those
    who couldn’t afford to contribute massive amounts but whose voice
    ought to be heard just as much by a candidate.

    This system worked, and we’re extremely proud to have earned our
    seats in this manner. The money was sufficient to fund a good
    campaign with enough media to get the message out, and we could be
    sure it was our ideas, not our fundraising prowess, that won the day.

    But in 1976, the Supreme Court got it wrong with Buckley v. Valeo:
    they decided that these reasonable limits on political spending to
    prevent corruption were a violation of the First Amendment. That
    case was the seed that reversed decades of jurisprudence, turned the
    Founders’ conception of free speech on its head and, more than
    thirty years later, germinated the infamous Citizens United decision.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79338&title=%26%238220%3BHappy%20birthday%20to%20the%20case%20that%20was%20even%20worse%20than%20Citizens%20United%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Many 2016 candidates don’t disclose bundlers”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79336>

Posted onJanuary 28, 2016 7:40 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79336>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Fredreka Schouten 
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/27/2016-presidential-candidates-bundlers/79395320/>for 
USA Today.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79336&title=%26%238220%3BMany%202016%20candidates%20don%26%238217%3Bt%20disclose%20bundlers%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “Dark Money Dominates Political Ad Spending; Groups that don’t have
    to disclose their donors have accounted for almost two-thirds of
    political ad spending this cycle” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79334>

Posted onJanuary 28, 2016 7:38 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79334>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bill Allisoncrunches the numbers. 
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-28/dark-money-dominates-political-ad-spending>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79334&title=%26%238220%3BDark%20Money%20Dominates%20Political%20Ad%20Spending%3B%20Groups%20that%20don%26%238217%3Bt%20have%20to%20disclose%20their%20donors%20have%20accounted%20for%20almost%20two-thirds%20of%20political%20ad%20spending%20this%20cycle%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law 
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>


    Adam Lioz on Every Voice Podcast on Buckley at 40
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79332>

Posted onJanuary 28, 2016 7:36 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79332>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Listen. <http://www.demos.org/audio/every-voice-speaks-buckley-40>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79332&title=Adam%20Lioz%20on%20Every%20Voice%20Podcast%20on%20Buckley%20at%2040&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Witness: Cultural differences cause photo ID headaches”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79330>

Posted onJanuary 27, 2016 7:34 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79330>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The latest 
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/witness-cultural-differences-cause-photo-id-headaches/article_efd94926-27a6-5a01-9267-0551cf31e0b7.html>from 
the NC voter id trial.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79330&title=%26%238220%3BWitness%3A%20Cultural%20differences%20cause%20photo%20ID%20headaches%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>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    “The mysterious case of rampant voter fraud has been solved”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79328>

Posted onJanuary 27, 2016 7:28 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79328>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Tom Toles 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2016/01/27/the-mysterious-case-of-rampant-voter-fraud-has-been-solved/?tid=ss_tw>cartoon.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79328&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20mysterious%20case%20of%20rampant%20voter%20fraud%20has%20been%20solved%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    “As Voter ID Laws Expand, Fewer People Are Getting Drivers Licenses”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79326>

Posted onJanuary 27, 2016 4:27 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79326>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Brentin Mock 
<http://www.citylab.com/politics/2016/01/as-voter-id-laws-expand-fewer-people-are-getting-drivers-licenses/431547/>for 
Citylab.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79326&title=%26%238220%3BAs%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%20Expand%2C%20Fewer%20People%20Are%20Getting%20Drivers%20Licenses%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    Big 9th Circuit Win in Judicial Campaign Restrictions Case
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79324>

Posted onJanuary 27, 2016 2:24 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79324>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Ninth Circuit en banc 
<http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/11-17634.pdf>has 
unanimously (with one concurring opinion) upheld three judicial conduct 
rules in Arizona. In /Wolfson v. Concannon/, a state judicial candidate 
challenged a rule that prevented him from personally soliciting 
contributions. He also challenged additional provisions which “prohibit 
him, while running for judicial office, from personally soliciting funds 
for a campaign for another candidate or political organization, publicly 
endorsing or making a speech on behalf of another candidate for public 
office, or actively taking part in any political campaign.”

The court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision last term in the 
/Williams-Yulee/case, an unusual case in which Chief Justice Roberts, 
joined by the four more liberal Justices, upheld Florida’s ban on 
personal solicitation of campaign contributions by judicial candidates. 
Aside from the lineup, what made /Williams-Yulee/unusual was that the 
Court applied strict scrutiny (usually “strict in theory and fatal in 
fact”) yet upheld the law.

Today’s en banc Ninth Circuit opinion held the lower court judge erred 
in applying intermediate scrutiny, given /Williams-Yulee/, which was 
decided /after/the trial court (and Ninth Circuit panel) decision.  But 
under strict scrutiny, the Ninth Circuit today held all three laws (and 
not just the personal solicitation provision) survived strict scrutiny: 
“Arizona can properly restrict judges and judicial candidates from 
taking part in political activities that undermine the public’s 
confidence that judges base rulings on law, and not on party affiliation.”

Judge Berzon, concurring, wrote:

    There is, however, a separate, broader governmental basis for
    regulating judicial behavior that goes beyond a concern with biased
    decisionmaking in individual cases. That interest is society’s
    concern with maintaining both the appearance and the reality of
    a/structurally independent/judiciary, engaged in a decisionmaking
    process informed by legal, not political or broad, nonlegal policy
    considerations.

This decision, and especially its unanimity, shows that at least some 
courts will be reading /Wiliams-Yulee /broadly to uphold a variety of 
restrictions on judicial candidate political activities. I think that’s 
a good thing.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79324&title=Big%209th%20Circuit%20Win%20in%20Judicial%20Campaign%20Restrictions%20Case&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,judicial 
elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>


    “Husted: Voter signup shouldn’t be dangerous”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79322>

Posted onJanuary 27, 2016 2:07 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79322>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ohio SOS Husted 
<http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/01/27/husted-voter-signup-dangerous/79399108/>:

    In October, I joined victims’ advocates and members of the Ohio
    House and Senate to announce the Safe at Home initiative, which,
    once approved by the state legislature, will allow the victims of
    domestic violence, human trafficking and other crimes to apply for a
    confidential address that will shield their residence from public
    record.

    Safe at Home will create a registry of victim advocates from around
    Ohio who will be specially trained to help victims of stalking or
    other violence establish a confidential post office box within the
    Secretary of State’s Office. Any time one of the program
    participants needs to register their address with a company or
    government agency, they can use their PO box number in my office so
    their actual location can’t be found by the general public. Any mail
    received through that box will be forwarded to the victim’s private
    home address on a daily basis.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79322&title=%26%238220%3BHusted%3A%20Voter%20signup%20shouldn%E2%80%99t%20be%20dangerous%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


    “Getting Big Money Out of Politics”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79320>

Posted onJanuary 27, 2016 1:43 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79320>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I talked Plutocrats United with Radio Boston. Listen 
<http://radioboston.wbur.org/2016/01/27/money-politics>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79320&title=%26%238220%3BGetting%20Big%20Money%20Out%20of%20Politics%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>


    “Why I Ran for President” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79318>

Posted onJanuary 27, 2016 10:46 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79318>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Lessig<http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-i-ran-for-president?mbid=rss>at 
The New Yorker.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79318&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20I%20Ran%20for%20President%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “The Value of the Right to Vote” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79316>

Posted onJanuary 27, 2016 10:26 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79316>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Stephan Tontrup and Rebecca Morton have postedthis draft 
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2692760>on SSRN. 
  Here is the abstract:

    We conducted a mixed lab and field experiment during a naturally
    occurring election. We offered subjects the opportunity to
    relinquish their voting rights for money. Significantly more
    participants refused to sell their rights than later participated in
    the election. Subjects were more willing to accept money for
    abstention from voting, than for giving up the right to vote itself.
    In a second experiment we gave subjects an incentive to submit a
    vote. Before and after the election we measured participants
    ‘knowledge about the parties’ and their positions. Even though they
    would not have voted without the incentive, the participants
    improved their knowledge suggesting that they valued their vote. Our
    findings show that people derive strong utility from their
    democratic rights and status as a voter independently of
    participation in the election. Based on our results we develop a new
    concept of rights utility and conclude that low turnout does not
    translate into democratic apathy and should not be used to justify
    quorum rules and restrict direct participatory rights.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79316&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Value%20of%20the%20Right%20to%20Vote%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted intheory <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=41>,voting 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>


    “Corporate political spending can stay secret in Wisconsin”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79314>

Posted onJanuary 27, 2016 10:24 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79314>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Wisconsin Law Journal reports. 
<http://wislawjournal.com/2016/01/26/corporate-political-spending-can-stay-secret-in-wisconsin/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79314&title=%26%238220%3BCorporate%20political%20spending%20can%20stay%20secret%20in%20Wisconsin%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “Inside the pro-Sanders groups taking on Clinton’s powerhouse
    allies” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79312>

Posted onJanuary 27, 2016 8:36 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79312>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Matea 
Gold<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-pro-sanders-groups-taking-on-clintons-powerhouse-allies/2016/01/27/61aa4e00-c440-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?postshare=3281453911717195&tid=ss_tw>for 
WaPo:

    While she has powerhouse allies such as Planned Parenthood, the
    National Education Association and two big-money super PACs on her
    side, the pro-Sanders effort is being driven by a combination of
    self-directed activists and liberal organizations such as MoveOn and
    Democracy for America.

    The ad hoc network working on Sanders’s behalf is doing so in
    keeping with the spirit of his anti-establishment bid. But it is
    also employing professional political tactics, such as the use of
    entities that can raise and spend unlimited sums of money on
    campaigns, thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

    In some ways, their efforts cut against Sanders’s insistence that,
    unlike Clinton, he does not have a super PAC flanking his campaign —
    a declaration he repeated Tuesday in Des Moines after leading a
    rally at a union hall attended by several nurses in red T-shirts. In
    other ways, they don’t. Although these entities can accept massive
    checks from individuals and corporations — a practice Sanders abhors
    — they do not appear to be doing so, relying instead on small
    donations from grass-roots supporters.

    “The difference is a pretty simple difference,” he said. “Hillary
    Clinton goes out raising money for her own super PAC. I don’t have a
    super PAC, and in the best of all possible worlds, which I hope to
    bring about, we will get rid of super PACs, we will overturn
    Citizens United. I do not have a super PAC, I’ve never raised a
    nickel for a super PAC, I don’t want a super PAC.”

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79312&title=%26%238220%3BInside%20the%20pro-Sanders%20groups%20taking%20on%20Clinton%E2%80%99s%20powerhouse%20allies%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,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/20160128/b0564b8f/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/20160128/b0564b8f/attachment.png>


View list directory