[EL] Maine says "Yes" to keeping ranked choice voting after statewide use: [was ELB News and Commentary 6/13/18]

Tue Jun 12 21:54:47 PDT 2018

The results have looked good for reformers all night, but it was wise to be
cautious about the ranked choice voting referendum. The Bangor Daily News
team knows their state well though and called it:
https://bangordailynews.com/2018/06/13/politics/early-returns-show-evenly-split-electorate-on-ranked-choice-voting/

Mainers also seem to have come out to vote in big numbers, voted with
ranked choice voting in their primaries, then voted on it -- and reaffirmed
their yes vote from 2016.

RCV will be used for this November's general elections for US Senate and US
House. In each contest, there are at least three significant candidates,
including state legislators running outside the major parties in both
congressional districts and Sen. Angus King facing both Republican and
Democratic nominees.  RCV will also be used for future primaries. In
today's contests, the 7-way Democratic contest for governor will be decided
by a ranked choice voting tally, while a Republican seems to have surpassed
50% in the 4-way contest for governor, and a Democrat is on the cusp in the
second congressional district.
Rob

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> “Radical plan to split California into three states earns spot on November
> ballot” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99512>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 9:39 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99512> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> LAT:
> <http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html>
>
> *California’s 168-year run as a single entity, hugging the continent’s
> edge for hundreds of miles and sprawling east across mountains and desert,
> could come to an end next year — as a controversial plan to split the
> Golden State into three new jurisdictions qualified Tuesday for the Nov. 6
> ballot.*
>
> *If a majority of voters who cast ballots agree, a long and contentious
> process would begin for three separate states to take the place of
> California, with one primarily centered around Los Angeles and the other
> two divvying up the counties to the north and south. Completion of the
> radical plan — far from certain, given its many hurdles at judicial, state
> and federal levels — would make history.*
>
> Seems to me that this alone would doom the proposal:
>
> *There also is a sizable debate about whether such a sweeping change can
> be created through a ballot initiative — that is, whether it rises to the
> level of a “revision” of the California Constitution, which can only be
> instigated by the Legislature or by a formal constitutional convention.
> Revisions, Amar wrote in 2017, are generally seen by the courts as the most
> substantial kinds of changes to a government.*
>
> *“What is of greater importance to a state than its geographic
> boundaries?” Amar wrote. “As the national debate about a wall along the
> Mexican border rages, we are reminded that even in a digital age, physical
> space and physical lines matter immensely to the course of peoples’ lives,
> and the legal regimes under which they live.”*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99512&title=%E2%80%9CRadical%20plan%20to%20split%20California%20into%20three%20states%20earns%20spot%20on%20November%20ballot%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “N.D. takes pride in its voting law” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99510>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 9:29 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99510> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP:
> <http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/jun/11/n-d-takes-pride-in-its-voting-law-20180/>
>
> *In an era when hacking has raised concerns about the security of
> America’s elections and President Donald Trump raises concerns about voter
> fraud, North Dakota stands out as the only state that doesn’t require voter
> registration.*
>
> *Residents and most state and local election officials say the low-tech
> system in use for Tuesday’s primary, as it has been for generations, works
> just fine.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99510&title=%E2%80%9CN.D.%20takes%20pride%20in%20its%20voting%20law%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> “The Ohio Purge and the Future of Voting”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99508>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 9:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99508> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Dale Ho NYT oped:
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/opinion/the-ohio-purge-and-the-future-of-voting.html>
>
> *States should also be encouraged to adopt Election Day registration
> programs allowing eligible voters — including those who have been knocked
> off the rolls — to register at the polls. Fifteen states and the District
> of Columbia follow this approach, and they see turnout rates as much as 10
> percent higher than those of states that don’t.*
>
> *Two more states may soon adopt Election Day registration: Maryland, where
> the State Legislature has placed a measure on the ballot in November that
> would create such a program and Michigan, where the A.C.L.U. is supporting
> an effort to gather enough signatures to put a similar initiative on the
> ballot.*
>
> *Ultimately, if legislatures and courts won’t protect our voting rights,
> it may be up to us to do it ourselves at the ballot box.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99508&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Ohio%20Purge%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20Voting%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in NVRA (motor voter) <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
> “No Voters Will Be Removed From Rolls Before November Election In Spite Of
> Supreme Court Decision” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99506>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 9:16 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99506> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Statehouse News reports.
> <http://statenews.org/post/no-voters-will-be-removed-rolls-november-election-spite-supreme-court-decision>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99506&title=%E2%80%9CNo%20Voters%20Will%20Be%20Removed%20From%20Rolls%20Before%20November%20Election%20In%20Spite%20Of%20Supreme%20Court%20Decision%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> Federal District Court Holds Colorado Law Allowing Private Individuals to
> File Campaign Finance Complaints Violates the First Amendment
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99504>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 6:58 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99504> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This opinion
> <https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/COSOS/2018/06/12/file_attachments/1022722/Doc.%2B161%2Border%2Bgranting%2BPL%2Bsummary%2Bjudgment.pdf> (by
> Obama appointee Raymond Moore) is perhaps the worst-written and reasoned
> election law opinion I’ve read from a federal court.
>
> I’m not saying the result is necessarily wrong (though my early thoughts
> are that it is). But much more clarity is necessary here.
>
> Here’s a press release
> <https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/COSOS/bulletins/1f6ea3f> from
> the CO SOS saying this case “has major implications for Colorado’s
> enforcement of its campaign finance laws.”
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99504&title=Federal%20District%20Court%20Holds%20Colorado%20Law%20Allowing%20Private%20Individuals%20to%20File%20Campaign%20Finance%20Complaints%20Violates%20the%20First%20Amendment>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
> “Do we have a right not to vote? The Supreme Court suggests we don’t”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99502>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 3:41 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99502> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Dan Smith and Michael Herron NYDN oped
> <http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-right-not-to-vote-20180612-story.html>
> :
>
> *More fundamentally, do we have a right not to vote?*
>
> *Should infrequent voters be removed from the rolls merely for not
> exercising their franchise? Is the right to vote only protected when it is
> used? Or do we tacitly renege the franchise when we skip a couple
> elections?*
>
> *The Supreme Court has ruled and do not be surprised if other states jump
> on the court’s decision and begin purging infrequent voters. When it comes
> to the right to vote, it’s now use it or lose it.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99502&title=%E2%80%9CDo%20we%20have%20a%20right%20not%20to%20vote%3F%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20suggests%20we%20don%E2%80%99t%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in NVRA (motor voter) <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
> Ohio’s Voter Purge Law Has Been in Place for 24 Years
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99500>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 2:46 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99500> by *Richard
> Pildes* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
>
> Surprised to learn that?  I know I was.  I discovered that from Justin
> Levitt’s blog post, here
> <https://acslaw.org/acsblog/voter-registration%E2%80%99s-disappointing-day-at-the-court>,
> which says:
>
> *This is not a new piece of voter suppression devised by current elections
> officials: Ohio put the process in place 24 years ago, and it has been
> implemented by both Rs and Ds.*
>
> That sent me back to the plaintiff’s brief, which indeed complains about
> Ohio “retaining” this system, not about Ohio’s adoption of this system. Nor
> is there any claim I could see that Ohio has suddenly started enforcing
> this system more aggressively.  Indeed, Justin’s criticism is that in the
> last 24 years, more effective means of maintaining accurate lists have been
> developed.
>
> None of this affects the issue of what the proper interpretation of the
> statute is.  But if the media coverage of this case has left you with the
> impression this was a recently enacted law, that’s wrong.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99500&title=Ohio%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20Purge%20Law%20Has%20Been%20in%20Place%20for%2024%20Years>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “Voter Registration’s Disappointing Day at the Court”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99498>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 11:38 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99498> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Justin Levitt for ACS
> <https://acslaw.org/acsblog/voter-registration%E2%80%99s-disappointing-day-at-the-court> on
> the Husted decision.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99498&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20Registration%E2%80%99s%20Disappointing%20Day%20at%20the%20Court%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in NVRA (motor voter) <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
> “IRS revokes dark money group Americans for Job Security’s tax exempt
> status” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99496>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 11:29 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99496> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Big news
> <https://www.issueone.org/irs-revokes-dark-money-group-americans-for-job-securitys-tax-exempt-status/> from
> Issue One:
>
> *This week, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that it revoked
> the dark money group Americans for Job Security’s tax exempt status. The
> announcement followed a complaint
> <https://www.issueone.org/issue-one-and-campaign-legal-center-file-irs-complaint-against-major-dark-money-group/>from Issue
> One <https://www.issueone.org/> and the Campaign Legal Center
> <http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/> (CLC) against the organization.*
>
> *Americans for Job Security was a tax-exempt “business league” that spent
> tens of millions of dollars influencing elections while keeping its donors
> secret, but failed to file its tax returns for the past three years. Issue
> One and CLC’s complaint called on the agency to enforce penalties against
> Americans for Job Security for failing to file multiple years of mandatory
> returns….*
>
> *Founded in 1997, Americans for Job Security was among the earliest
> political “dark money” groups — so-called because they do not publicly
> disclose their donors, unlike political action committees, super PACs,
> candidates and parties, which do.*
>
> *A tax-exempt business league under section 501(c)(6) of the tax code,
> Americans for Job Security spent more than $20 million
> <https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C90011669/?cycle=2012> in political
> advertising in the two election cycles following the U.S. Supreme Court’s
> 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.*
>
> *In July 2016, the Federal Election Commission fined Americans for Job
> Security $43,000
> <https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6816/> after the agency
> concluded that the group should have disclosed a nonprofit known as the
> Center to Protect Patient Rights, then associated with the political
> network of billionaires Charles and David Koch, as a donor behind some of
> its political expenditures in 2010.*
>
> *In addition to its own political spending, Americans for Job Security
> also played a prominent role in funneling tens of millions of dollars
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/a-money-shuffle-to-avoid-donor-disclosure/552/> to
> two ballot measure fights in California during the 2012 election — part of
> a scheme that the California Fair Political Practices Commission later
> concluded
> <http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/25/local/la-me-secret-money-20131025> was
> designed to hide the identities of the actual donors supporting the ballot
> measure efforts.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99496&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20revokes%20dark%20money%20group%20Americans%20for%20Job%20Security%E2%80%99s%20tax%20exempt%20status%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
>
>
>
>
> Maine: “LePage declares he ‘probably’ won’t certify election results, but
> secretary of state says they’re still binding”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99494>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 10:34 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99494> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Press Herald
> <https://www.pressherald.com/2018/06/12/voters-turn-out-for-historic-election-day/>
>  reports:
>
> *Gov. Paul LePage announced he may not certify the results from a historic
> vote Tuesday because he is opposed to a new way of voting.*
>
> *Tuesday is the first time in Maine where voters statewide will use a
> ranked-choice system, which allows voters to submit a ballot that ranks
> votes for candidates in order of preference. It is being used in both
> parties’ voting for gubernatorial candidates, a race for the Democratic
> nomination for the U.S. House in the state’s 2nd congressional district and
> a state legislative seat.*
>
> *LePage, in an interview with WCSH-TV, called the voting system “the most
> horrific thing in the world” and said he “probably” won’t certify the
> results and instead will “leave it up to the courts to decide.”*
>
> *LePage also said, incorrectly, that Maine had ranked-choice voting before
> and former Gov. Joshua Chamberlain “got rid of it” because it was not
> working.*
>
> *Secretary of State Matt Dunlap, in an interview Tuesday morning, said the
> election results will be binding whether LePage certifies them or not.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99494&title=Maine%3A%20%E2%80%9CLePage%20declares%20he%20%E2%80%98probably%E2%80%99%20won%E2%80%99t%20certify%20election%20results%2C%20but%20secretary%20of%20state%20says%20they%E2%80%99re%20still%20binding%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “Republicans show they don’t trust the voters”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99492>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 10:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99492> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jennifer Rubin column
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/12/republicans-show-they-dont-trust-the-voters/?utm_term=.07a0fdb626e2> for
> WaPo:
>
> *President Trump tweeted triumphantly on Monday, “Just won big Supreme
> Court decision on Voting! Great News!” The great news in his book is a 5-4
> decision allowing Ohio to remove people from the voting rolls who haven’t
> voted in every election. Specifically, if they haven’t voted in two years,
> they get a postcard in the mail, and if they don’t respond, they have four
> more years to vote. Then they are taken off the rolls.*
>
> *What if they throw away the postcard thinking it is junk mail? Too bad.
> What if for six years they cannot find someone worth voting for? Too bad.
> Off they go. You would think the Trump administration and the five
> conservative justices didn’t want just anyone who wishes to vote to be
> allowed to do so.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99492&title=%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20show%20they%20don%E2%80%99t%20trust%20the%20voters%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> 8th Circuit Holds Unconstitutional Missouri Law Requiring Political
> Committees Influencing Elections to Be Formed at Least 30 Days Before an
> Election <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99490>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 10:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99490> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This ruling <http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171314P.pdf> makes
> sense to me:
>
> *Assuming, without deciding, that this [anti-corruption] interest is
> compelling, the formation deadline is unconstitutional because it is not
> narrowly tailored. The formation deadline indiscriminately prohibits (or
> significantly burdens) speech by individuals or groups who did not form a
> campaign committee by the 30-day deadline. This would be less burdensome if
> all individuals and groups knew well in advance that they would eventually
> want to speak. But as the Supreme Court has recognized, this is not the
> case…*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99490&title=8th%20Circuit%20Holds%20Unconstitutional%20Missouri%20Law%20Requiring%20Political%20Committees%20Influencing%20Elections%20to%20Be%20Formed%20at%20Least%2030%20Days%20Before%20an%20Election>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
> My First Post at Just Security: “Will the Supreme Court’s Understanding of
> the First Amendment Thwart Laws Aimed at Limiting Foreign Influence in U.S.
> Elections?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99488>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 7:59 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99488> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this post
> <https://www.justsecurity.org/57624/supreme-courts-understanding-amendment-thwart-laws-aimed-limiting-foreign-influence-u-s-elections/> for
> Just Security, which is the second in their series on potential legal gaps
> exposed by events related to the 2016 election. It begins:
>
> *By now everyone is familiar with attempts by the Russian government and
> others to interfere in U.S. elections. They hacked into at least 21 state
> voter registration databases
> <https://www.npr.org/2017/09/22/552956517/ten-months-after-election-day-feds-tell-states-more-about-russian-hacking>,
> though there is no evidence they changed any data there or affected any
> voting or vote counting. Numerous Russian officials tried to gain influence
> over the Trump campaign, including though an offer to the president’s son,
> Donald Trump Jr., of dirt on opponent Hillary Clinton. And there were the
> Russian-funded social media campaigns, some of which spread falsehoods, and
> others of which just tried to stir up the muck by posting on both sides of
> divisive issues like immigration, Black Lives Matter/police violence and
> gay rights.*
>
> *Understandably, Congress and states are considering whether existing laws
> are sufficient to proscribe illegal foreign influence in our elections, or
> if new legislation is necessary. In this post, I want to call attention to
> perhaps the greatest impediment to effective limits on foreign influence on
> our elections: the United States Supreme Court.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99488&title=My%20First%20Post%20at%20Just%20Security%3A%20%E2%80%9CWill%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Understanding%20of%20the%20First%20Amendment%20Thwart%20Laws%20Aimed%20at%20Limiting%20Foreign%20Influence%20in%20U.S.%20Elections%3F%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
> Ron Klain on President Trump’s Celebration of “Victory” in Ohio Voter
> Purge Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99486>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 7:55 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99486> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> View image on Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/RonaldKlain/status/1006376230399152128/photo/1>
>
> [image: View image on Twitter]
> <https://twitter.com/RonaldKlain/status/1006376230399152128/photo/1>
>
> [image:
> https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/467404554493894656/6GSI0IXc_bigger.jpeg]
> <https://twitter.com/RonaldKlain>
>
> <https://twitter.com/RonaldKlain>
>
> *Ronald Klain <https://twitter.com/RonaldKlain>*
>
> *✔@RonaldKlain <https://twitter.com/RonaldKlain>*
>
>
>
> <https://twitter.com/RonaldKlain/status/1006376230399152128>
>
>
>
> Our is the only democracy in the world that celebrates, as clever tactics,
> excluding people from voting. We don't even pretend that the choice of the
> people should win: we accept that a candidate can win by denying the vote
> to millions.
>
> 8:22 PM - Jun 11, 2018
> <https://twitter.com/RonaldKlain/status/1006376230399152128>
>
> ·         <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1006376230399152128>
>
> 1,313 <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1006376230399152128>
>
> ·         <https://twitter.com/RonaldKlain/status/1006376230399152128>
>
> 889 people are talking about this
> <https://twitter.com/RonaldKlain/status/1006376230399152128>
>
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> <https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99486&title=Ron%20Klain%20on%20President%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Celebration%20of%20%E2%80%9CVictory%E2%80%9D%20in%20Ohio%20Voter%20Purge%20Case>
>
> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
>
>
>
>
> “Fraud Fiction Becomes Purge Reality”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99484>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 7:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99484> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Dahlia Lithwick
> <https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/supreme-court-husted-decision-will-disenfranchise-minority-and-low-income-voters.html> for
> Slate.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99484&title=%E2%80%9CFraud%20Fiction%20Becomes%20Purge%20Reality%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in NVRA (motor voter) <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
> “The Supreme Court Blesses Voter Purges”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99482>
>
> Posted on June 12, 2018 7:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99482> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Smart Garrett Epps
> <https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-supreme-court-blesses-voter-purges/562589/>in
> the Atlantic.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99482&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%20Blesses%20Voter%20Purges%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in NVRA (motor voter) <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Richie
President and CEO, FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
Takoma Park, MD 20912
rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org
*FairVote Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>*   *FairVote
Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairvote>*   My Twitter
<https://twitter.com/rob_richie>

Thank you for considering a *donation
<http://www.fairvote.org/donate>. Enjoy our video on ranked choice voting
<https://youtu.be/CIz_nzP-W_c>!*
(Note: Our Combined Federal Campaign number is 10132.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180613/d141e057/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2617 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180613/d141e057/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27441 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180613/d141e057/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180613/d141e057/attachment.png>