[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/29/16

[Rick Hasen]

TX Voter ID Plaintiffs and TX Want District Court to Fashion ID Softening FASTER<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84699>
Posted on July 29, 2016 8:41 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84699> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Joint scheduling reques<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/veassey-joint.pdf>t.

This is smart, but it does give a side not happy (likely the state of TX) a chance to go back to 5th Circuit on remedy.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84699&title=TX%20Voter%20ID%20Plaintiffs%20and%20TX%20Want%20District%20Court%20to%20Fashion%20ID%20Softening%20FASTER&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Unanimous 3rd Circuit Rejects Sen. Menendez Challenge to His Indictment on Speech or Debate Clause Grounds<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84697>
Posted on July 29, 2016 8:27 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84697> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

A very solid decision<http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/7-29-16%20Menendez%20opinion.pdf>, it seems to me, and my guess is one that would not interest the Supreme Court should the Senator seek to go further.

It is also worth noting that the 3rd Circuit does not cite the recent Supreme Court McDonnelldecision, and there seems no question that the Senator could not take advantage of that case if the government proves the facts as alleged: he appeared to have done more than simply suggested a meeting with government officials on Dr. Melgen’s behalf; he sought to influence official government action.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84697&title=Unanimous%203rd%20Circuit%20Rejects%20Sen.%20Menendez%20Challenge%20to%20His%20Indictment%20on%20Speech%20or%20Debate%20Clause%20Grounds&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

8th Circuit, on 2-1 Vote, Sends Back PAC Registration Deadline Challenge to District Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84695>
Posted on July 29, 2016 8:11 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84695> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Missourians for Fiscal Accountability v. Klahr<http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/07/152172P.pdf>.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84695&title=8th%20Circuit%2C%20on%202-1%20Vote%2C%20Sends%20Back%20PAC%20Registration%20Deadline%20Challenge%20to%20District%20Court&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Voter ID Laws and the Future of Judicial ‘Softening'”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84692>
Posted on July 29, 2016 8:07 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84692> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bauer<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2016/07/voter-id-laws-future-judicial-softening/>:

Moreover, and maybe most important, the experience with softening and its limits will contribute to a record on which more expansive judicial relief can be sought. Softening is an inevitable step for courts reluctant to challenge state prerogatives in structuring their elections, including protecting against fraud, but increasingly alert to the proliferation of new burdens imposed on voters. Judges have to contend with problems like the Supreme Court’s misconceived opinion on ID in Crawford. They are working around the problem, for the moment, with “softening.” But with time and experience, the limits of those measures in alleviating major burdens on voters are coming clearly into review. The developing record of this inadequacy will strengthen the hand of voting rights advocates in pushing the courts—and the law–toward more comprehensive relief.

Courts moving in this direction will have the benefit of fresh thinking about state-imposed voting burdens, such as Sam Issacharoff’s “emerging rule of reason<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2788808>” and a“balancing test”<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2743946> proposed to similar effect by Rick Hasen. Each of them calls for dispensing with a complex and largely futile inquiry into motive and asking fundamental questions abut the adequacy of a State’s justification for burdening voting rights. The experience of recent years suggests that these justifications have been weak, and the lessons learned from contemporary voting rights struggles will eventually lead the courts to attack these restrictions more frontally and decisively, not just at the margins and only “softly.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84692&title=%26%238220%3BVoter%20ID%20Laws%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20Judicial%20%26%238216%3BSoftening%27%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Did Clinton Avoid Mentioning Judge Garland to Goad Senate Republicans Into Confirming Him?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84690>
Posted on July 29, 2016 8:04 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84690> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jason Steed<https://formalegalis.org/2016/07/29/how-garland-gets-confirmed-before-the-election/>:

My theory: If we get deep into August and the polls are showing not only a strong lead for Clinton but also promising leads in enough of those senate races, it will take only credible whispers of withdrawing Garland’s nomination to make the Republicans nervous enough to go ahead and confirm him before the election. And how do you create a credible threat of withdrawal? By taking the stage before millions of viewers for a week to talk about goals and priorities, and the importance of the Supreme Court, without mentioning Garland. There was an effort to rally Democratic voters behind the importance of appointing the right people to the Supreme Court—but no effort to rally Democratic voters behind Garland. Why? Because absenting Garland from the DNC was a signal. The Party didn’t commit itself to Garland. Clinton didn’t commit herself to Garland. Even Obama didn’t push for Garland. The signal: after this week, the possibility of withdrawing Garland on November 9 is real.

That could well be the play. I still think the most likely scenario is no Garland confirmation before the election; no withdrawal; and Senate Republicans allow a vote to confirm Garland in the lame duck if Clinton wins and Democrats retake the majority (knowing full well that the Democrats or Republicans will eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees just as soon as it is necessary to confirm a preferred nominee to do so).
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84690&title=Did%20Clinton%20Avoid%20Mentioning%20Judge%20Garland%20to%20Goad%20Senate%20Republicans%20Into%20Confirming%20Him%3F&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Due Process, Fair Play, and Excessive Partisanship: A New Principle for Judicial Review of Election Laws”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84688>
Posted on July 29, 2016 7:55 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84688> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This looks<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2815892> to be an important new draft from Ned Foley. Here is the abstract:
American democracy is plagued by excessive partisanship, and yet constitutional law thus far has been incapable of redressing this ill. Gerrymandering is one clear example: the partisan distortion of legislative districts has accelerated dramatically in the last several decades, yet the federal judiciary has been unable to develop a constitutional standard for curbing this egregiously anti-democratic behavior. Likewise, state legislatures around the country in the last decade have been enacting statutes to cut back voting opportunities, and federal courts have struggled with articulating appropriate standards for evaluating the constitutionality of these rollback laws. A main reason for this struggle has been the judicial unwillingness to tackle directly the transparently partisan motives underlying these legislative cutbacks in voting opportunities.
This judicial difficulty with curtailing excessive partisanship stems from an attempt to rely on equal protection as the relevant constitutional standard for judicial review of election laws. Invocation of equal protection is understandable given the initial success of Warren Court precedents, like Reynolds v. Sims and Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, in using equal protection to protect equal voting rights. But as the courts have subsequently discovered, equal protection is ill-suited to the problems of gerrymander or legislation that cuts back voting opportunities for all voters.
This Article offers a previously undeveloped alternative to equal protection: due process. In a wide range of areas, including civil and criminal procedure, the Supreme Court has long recognized that due process encompasses a principle of fair play. This fair play principle, well understood to apply in society to athletic competition, is suitable in the domain of politics for constraining excessive partisanship in electoral competition. In fact, the history of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification reveals that this fair play principle played an essential role in constraining excessive partisanship that threatened to destabilize the Republic at the time the amendment’s ratification was under consideration in Congress. Once the significance of this history is recognized, the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause is properly construed as constraining partisan overreaching that currently threatens to undermine American democracy. In this way, the federal judiciary appropriately can invoke due process to directly redress excessive partisanship in the form of gerrymandering or rollbacks in voting opportunities.


[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84688&title=%26%238220%3BDue%20Process%2C%20Fair%20Play%2C%20and%20Excessive%20Partisanship%3A%20A%20New%20Principle%20for%20Judicial%20Review%20of%20Election%20Laws%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Libertarian Johnson-Weld Ticket Makes Positive Noises on Justice Breyer, Judge Garland<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84685>
Posted on July 28, 2016 10:03 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84685> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Reason interview.<http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/25/libertarians-pitch-trump-hillary-bernie/3>

Ted Frank<https://twitter.com/tedfrank/status/758854276013629440>: “And there goes my support for Johnson-Weld. Will write a letter asking for my donation back. Very frustrating”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84685&title=Libertarian%20Johnson-Weld%20Ticket%20Makes%20Positive%20Noises%20on%20Justice%20Breyer%2C%20Judge%20Garland&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


SuperPac Aims to Fill Trump Void in FL, OH, and PA<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84683>
Posted on July 28, 2016 5:36 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84683> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

What a quote from Ed Rollins to the NYT:<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/pro-donald-trump-super-pac-to-run-ads-in-battleground-states.html>

“There is no structure I can find anywhere in those states from the Trump campaign,” Mr. Rollins said.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84683&title=SuperPac%20Aims%20to%20Fill%20Trump%20Void%20in%20FL%2C%20OH%2C%20and%20PA&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


“Exclusive: FBI investigates hacking of Democratic congressional group – sources”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84681>
Posted on July 28, 2016 5:23 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84681> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Reuters<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-democrats-exclusive-idUSKCN1082Y7?il=0>:

The FBI is investigating a cyber intrusion at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) that may be related to an earlier hack at the Democratic National Committee, said four sources familiar with the matter on Thursday.

The previously unreported incident at the DCCC, which raises money for Democrats running for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, may have been intended to gather information about donors, rather than to steal money, the sources said.

The breach and its potential ties to Russian hackers are likely to sharpen concern, so far unproven, that Moscow is attempting to meddle in U.S. elections. The issue has clouded this week’s Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84681&title=%26%238220%3BExclusive%3A%20FBI%20investigates%20hacking%20of%20Democratic%20congressional%20group%20%26%238211%3B%20sources%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Top Ten Law Faculty in Election Law by Scholarly Impact, 2010-2014 (Inclusive)<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84676>
Posted on July 28, 2016 4:26 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84676> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Brian Leiter has been conducting a series of surveys<http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2016/07/number-of-highly-cited-law-faculty-by-school.html> aimed at identifying the top ten most cited faculty in a number of different fields, building toward a more comprehensive list<http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2016/07/most-cited-lists-whats-coming.html>. Brian’s surveys draw on the data from the 2015 Sisk study<http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2015/09/top-40-law-faculties-in-scholarly-impact-2015.html>. This time around, like last time around<http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2014_scholarlyimpact.shtml>, Brian did not do a survey of the election law field, I believe out of concern that many people who write in the election law field write in other areas, and he is aiming to include those who write 75% to 80% in an area to be counted as writing primarily in that field. I am not sure if all the people below would make a strict count in a 75% threshold (someone like Sam Issacharoff, for example, writes a fair bit on class actions and civil procedure). But each person on the list is someone who is strongly identified as an election law, voting rights, or law and democracy scholar by those of us in the field.

In any case, using the same methodology of the Sisk study (firstname /2 lastname with date restrictions in Westlaw “Journals and Law Reviews” database), I have created a new ranking of election law professors (here is the ranking from 2014<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=63297&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+electionlawblog%2FuqCP+%28Election+Law%29>).  I have excluded our friend Beth Garrett from the survey, who tragically passed away<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80623> this year. She would have ranked seventh in the survey.
Rank

Name

Institution

Total Citations

1

Samuel Issacharoff

NYU

1056

2

Richard Pildes

NYU

926

3

Pamela Karlan

Stanford

779

4

Richard Hasen

UC Irvine

653

5

Richard Briffault

Columbia

648

6

Heather Gerken

Yale

573

7

Nathaniel Persily

Stanford

415

8

James Gardner

Buffalo

354

9

Michael Kang

Emory

240

10

Bradley Smith

Capital

215


[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84676&title=Top%20Ten%20Law%20Faculty%20in%20Election%20Law%20by%20Scholarly%20Impact%2C%202010-2014%20(Inclusive)&description=>
Posted in election law biz<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>


Todd Rokita “is telling a story he knows is false”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84674>
Posted on July 28, 2016 3:15 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84674> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Robbin Stewart.<http://ballots.blogspot.com/2016/07/im-in-north-dakota-today.html>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84674&title=Todd%20Rokita%20%26%238220%3Bis%20telling%20a%20story%20he%20knows%20is%20false%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Court case could open Kansas primary elections to thousands of new voters”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84672>
Posted on July 28, 2016 3:11 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84672> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bryan Lowry<http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article92437137.html> for the Wichita Eagle:

A Shawnee County judge will decide whether thousands can vote in state and local elections when Kansas holds its primaries next week.

Judge Larry Hendricks will review Friday whether Secretary of State Kris Kobach has the authority to set up a dual voting system.

A state board approved a new rule earlier this month to allow people who registered at DMV offices to vote in federal elections even if they failed to provide proof of citizenship as required by Kansas law. The rule is meant to put the state in compliance with a recent ruling by a federal judge to let these voters vote under the federal “motor-voter” law.

The rule, crafted by Kobach’s office, still bars more than 17,000 motor-voters from participating in state and local elections without providing proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which prevailed against Kobach in federal court earlier this year, is challenging the new rule in state court in an attempt to enable these voters to vote on all races when the state holds its primary elections Aug. 2.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84672&title=%26%238220%3BCourt%20case%20could%20open%20Kansas%20primary%20elections%20to%20thousands%20of%20new%20voters%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“He lost after a law changed; can he win now that it’s changing again?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84670>
Posted on July 28, 2016 3:08 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84670> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

McClatchy<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article92381282.html>:

Two years ago, then-Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Texas, lost to a Republican challenger by a little more than 2,000 votes in a vast congressional district<https://www.texastribune.org/directory/districts/us-house/23/> that stretches from San Antonio for over 800 miles of border, brush and desert to the outskirts of El Paso.

Gallego is running again, and one factor that he believes cost him the election –Texas’ strict photo-identification requirements for voters – is about to change, to his benefit.

Last week the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld earlier rulings that the state’s voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act<https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/20/appeals-court-rules-texas-voter-id/> by making it more difficult for minorities to vote. The case, Veasey v. Abbott<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article79632987.html>, was led by Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, a Fort Worth lawmaker who is African-American. Greg Abbott, a Republican, was Texas’ attorney general at the time of the suit and is now the state’s governor.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84670&title=%26%238220%3BHe%20lost%20after%20a%20law%20changed%3B%20can%20he%20win%20now%20that%20it%E2%80%99s%20changing%20again%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election 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>


“Judge: First Amendment Protects Political Robocalls”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84667>
Posted on July 28, 2016 12:08 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84667> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WSJ Law Blog<http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/28/judge-first-amendment-protects-political-robocalls/>:

Political robocalls may be an irritating feature of modern campaigning, but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve protection under the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled.<http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2016_0727_roboruling.pdf>

A decision handed down Wednesday in Arkansas federal court struck down a state law<http://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2010/title-5/subtitle-6/chapter-63/subchapter-2/5-63-204> passed 35 years ago that banned political robocalls. The statute restricted commercial robocalling and also made it unlawful to solicit information “in connection with a political campaign” using an automated phone system for dialing numbers and playing recorded messages.

Indiana Law Blog<http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2016/07/courts_does_the_3.html>:

No, it does not, according to this April 7, 2016 opinion<https://ecf.insd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?12010cv0723-84> from Judge Lawrence of the SD Indiana, that concludes on p. 12:

The IADMS [Indiana’s Automated Dialing Machine Statute] is content neutral and is a valid time, place, or manner restriction on speech, and, accordingly, it does not violate the First Amendment. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
If only there were some high court of last resort which could resolve conflicts among courts from around the country.
UPDATE: Apparently the statutes differ significantly in that the Arkansas statute, but not the Indiana statute, targeted only political robocalls.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84667&title=%26%238220%3BJudge%3A%20First%20Amendment%20Protects%20Political%20Robocalls%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


“With clock ticking elections officials faced with known unknowns; Elections officials worry about impacts on voters, poll workers”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84665>
Posted on July 28, 2016 12:04 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84665> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

That’s the lead story in this week’s Electionline Weekly.<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84665&title=%26%238220%3BWith%20clock%20ticking%20elections%20officials%20faced%20with%20known%20unknowns%3B%20Elections%20officials%20worry%20about%20impacts%20on%20voters%2C%20poll%20workers%26%238221%3B&des>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“Trump super PAC stokes the flames with Sanders supporters at DNC”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84663>
Posted on July 28, 2016 9:01 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84663> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CNN<http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/trump-super-pac-sanders-supporters/index.html>. Watch for Jill Stein support to come.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84663&title=%26%238220%3BTrump%20super%20PAC%20stokes%20the%20flames%20with%20Sanders%20supporters%20at%20DNC%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“OUR OPINION: Lawmakers should loosen North Dakota’s Voter ID law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84661>
Posted on July 28, 2016 8:56 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84661> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Grand Forks Herald editorial.<http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/our-opinion/4082093-our-opinion-lawmakers-should-loosen-north-dakotas-voter-id-law>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84661&title=%26%238220%3BOUR%20OPINION%3A%20Lawmakers%20should%20loosen%20North%20Dakota%26%238217%3Bs%20Voter%20ID%20law%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


--
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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160729/ed4e3ac7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160729/ed4e3ac7/attachment.png>