[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/25/18

Tue Sep 25 07:38:47 PDT 2018

“The turnout gap between whites and racial minorities is larger than you think — and hard to change”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101278>
Posted on September 25, 2018 7:31 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101278> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bernard Fraga<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/09/25/the-turnout-gap-between-whites-and-racial-minorities-is-larger-than-you-think-and-hard-to-change/?utm_term=.5ae9efa085b4> for the Monkey Cage:

But Democrats confront a major challenge: People of color vote at a substantially lower rate than whites. In my new book, “The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America<http://cambridge.org/TurnoutGap>,” I explain why. Below are four takeaways on racial differences in who votes…..

3. Vote suppression does not explain the turnout gap

What explains these persistent disparities in turnout between minorities and whites? Many focus on “vote suppression,” or election practices such as voter identification laws<https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/13/16296902/clinton-allegation-voter-suppression-wisconsin>, reductions in early voting<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/inside-the-republican-creation-of-the-north-carolina-voting-bill-dubbed-the-monster-law/2016/09/01/79162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html> and precinct closures<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/08/18/georgia-voting-rights-activists-move-to-block-a-plan-to-close-two-thirds-of-polling-places-in-one-county/> — all of which are often compared to<https://scholarworks.umb.edu/sociology_faculty_pubs/11/> Jim Crow-era restrictions. Indeed, voter suppression is implemented in places<http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/03/04/evidence-suggests-that-state-legislators-are-working-to-restrict-access-to-the-vote-in-response-to-minority-turnout/> where reducing minority turnout would help Republicans.

But do these laws actually have a large impact on minority turnout? That is not clear. In “The Turnout Gap,” I show that states with these policies actually tend to have higher minority turnout, both before and after implementation. In a separate study<https://www.dropbox.com/s/f3oqui1jhq6nqie/FragaMiller_TXID_2018.pdf?dl=0> of Texas<https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/texas/?tid=a_inl_auto>, Michael Miller and I find that voter identification laws disproportionately affect minorities, but the effects are nowhere near large enough to explain the turnout gap.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101278&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20turnout%20gap%20between%20whites%20and%20racial%20minorities%20is%20larger%20than%20you%20think%20%E2%80%94%20and%20hard%20to%20change%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Claims She Faced “Bullying” Over Her Vote to Keep Redistricting Measure on Ballot<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101276>
Posted on September 25, 2018 7:18 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101276> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Unusual story<https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/09/24/justice-clement-bullying-redistricting-proposal/1412350002/> in the Detroit News:

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Clement said she faced “bullying and intimidation” while deliberating a case that paved the way for a redistricting proposal to go on the November ballot.

Clement, a Gov. Rick Snyder appointee up for election in November, made the comments to The Detroit News editorial board Monday, a few days after learning the Michigan Republican Party had left her name and photo off door hangers distributed by volunteers in “targeted areas.”

She was one of two GOP-nominated justices who backed a 4-3 ruling<https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/07/31/michigan-supreme-court-gerrymandering-initiative/871624002/> that put the redistricting commission plan on the Nov. 6 ballot, a measure Republican officials have opposed.

As she runs for election to the court for the first time, Clement said she encountered  pressure from “outside interests” — which she refused to identify — hoping to block the proposal from the ballot as she deliberated her decision.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101276&title=Michigan%20Supreme%20Court%20Justice%20Claims%20She%20Faced%20%E2%80%9CBullying%E2%80%9D%20Over%20Her%20Vote%20to%20Keep%20Redistricting%20Measure%20on%20Ballot>
Posted in judicial elections<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>, redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

“Independent Spending in the 2018 Congressional Primaries Went Up (Again)”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101274>
Posted on September 25, 2018 7:07 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101274> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CFI<http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/18-09-25/Independent_Spending_in_the_2018_Congressional_Primaries_Went_Up_Again.aspx>:

Independent expenditures (IEs) spending for congressional primaries went up once again. This unsurprising conclusion was based on a Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) analysis of data supplied by the Federal Election Commission for all federal primaries from 2006 through the last ones of September 2018. Perhaps more striking than the bottom line totals, however, were some of the stories that show up in the subtotals.

As is well known, IEs went up sharply after two court decisions in 2010 (Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission and SpeechNow v FEC), nearly doubling every election between 2008 and 2014. (See Table 1<http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/Federal/IEs/2018_Primary_Table1.pdf>) The rate of growth seemed to ease a bit in 2016, as independent spenders turned toward the presidential election. But 2018 showed growth once again – not at the explosive rates of 2010-2014, but at a level that is still well worth noticing (30% above 2014 and 41% above 2016).

The pattern has not been uniform. More IE money was drawn toward Senate than House primaries in 2012, 2014 and 2016 when few political experts thought the House majority was likely to change. But with control clearly at stake in 2018, IEs in House primaries almost pulled even with those in the Senate.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101274&title=%E2%80%9CIndependent%20Spending%20in%20the%202018%20Congressional%20Primaries%20Went%20%20Up%20(Again)%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Bipartisan Furor as North Carolina Election Law Shrinks Early Voting Locations by Almost 20 Percent”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101272>
Posted on September 24, 2018 3:10 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101272> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

ProPublica:<https://www.propublica.org/article/bipartisan-furor-as-north-carolina-election-law-shrinks-early-voting-locations-by-almost-20-percent>

In June, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation mandating that all early voting sites in the state remain open for uniform hours on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., a move supporters argued would reduce confusion and ultimately make early voting easier and more accessible.

But with the start of early voting only weeks away, county election officials across the state — who previously had control over setting polling hours in their jurisdictions — say the new law has hamstrung their ability to best serve voters. Some officials in rural counties say they’ve had to shrink the number of early voting locations to accommodate the law’s longer hour requirements and stay within their budgets.

A ProPublica analysis of polling locations shows that North Carolina’s 2018 midterm election will have nearly 20 percent fewer early voting locations than there were in 2014. Nearly half of North Carolina’s 100 counties are shutting down polling places, in part because of the new law. Poorer rural counties, often strapped for resources to begin with, are having a particularly difficult time adjusting to the new requirement.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101272&title=%E2%80%9CBipartisan%20Furor%20as%20North%20Carolina%20Election%20Law%20Shrinks%20Early%20Voting%20Locations%20by%20Almost%2020%20Percent%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

Divided 8th Circuit Stays Lower Court Order Barring Enforcement of Part of North Dakota Voter ID Law Which Plaintiffs Claimed Burdened Native American Voters<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101269>
Posted on September 24, 2018 12:11 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101269> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can find the majority and dissenting opinions at this link<http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/181725P.pdf>.

Given the divided Supreme Court and the composition of the full 8th Circuit, this ruling is likely to stand, despite the state’s delay, the proximity to the election, and the potential for harm to voters.

(h/t Gabriel Malor<https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1044295987366440962>)
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101269&title=Divided%208th%20Circuit%20Stays%20Lower%20Court%20Order%20Barring%20Enforcement%20of%20Part%20of%20North%20Dakota%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Which%20Plaintiffs%20Claimed%20Burdened%20Native%20American%20Voters>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

“New Tools to Destroy Partisan Gerrymandering Recognized in Common Cause Writing Contest “<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101267>
Posted on September 24, 2018 10:23 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101267> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release:

New Tools to Destroy Partisan Gerrymandering Recognized in Common Cause Writing Contest

LOS ANGELES, September 24, 2018 — As Common Cause takes its quest to end partisan gerrymandering to the U.S. Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Rucho<http://email.prnewswire.com/wf/click?upn=mrW9aHhFe71WJxwxpgHxdzEDQ5Dh-2FE2NJ-2BBVn5krFj7KktHU4wba20kyx1defxkO-2Fq1WeL0V7y8jY1MUSos94DMqq53HreUtEWOdkVTLS42Z0QiQgEw7HPrSgqLVc57bdSAivoxQ5aeyXHHqcjHvCZqfmrZL2Rcj6CV8ZupK3m8o9-2FpQUTG8FJsDqNLwuwQ5IjG6Ctu24SYB2LXU6dbY4ijc1ngBi-2BpX4Re3ACHC3vo-3D_MxsnV1nFJ0N6iaI6ROK3eERHn3LdCNHdSOXIWZIS7ekEoqe0xiUYCeWVdORMAMemmmZZahst5-2BalHbpnJ3Ooz6Hq4azVGnt6uXlthx4lu2ioU6WqccfkELpbUKDu3BoVH7VPpll-2F5G8sk08jWmHX6JAiEkMMasKL3LCBie7uz72PMnwjID7m5Xo7t3C37Yp7yBT1MQTw2nELOyn8AMGSexddhC86gZzgGGiRycK2boH-2BeSFEWCyRSo7EoOdZXnxZ5tMfBNX32nUM9as5NWJbu8ZrdJvABy7Jzy2g4sC0Kr-2Bq-2BuoxN-2BbtzDCa4yURL3Tk>, it is also promoting a toolkit for courts and advocates to determine whether partisan gerrymandering has effectively taken away voters’ voices. A new and important tool, a “Swiss Army knife” paper written by Princeton University neuroscientist Samuel S. Wang and his team, pulls together several different legal and math approaches and explains how they all work together. Today he is named the winner of Common Cause’s third Partisan Gerrymandering Writing Competition.

For his winning article, “An Antidote for Gobbledygook,” Wang lands a cash prize and a publication byline in the Election Law Journal. The rest of the country stands to gain from his redistricting toolkit, which empowers judges and advocates to evaluate whether certain political viewpoints are being suppressed using pencil-and-paper math and more advanced analysis.

The toolkit could be used in states such as North Carolina, whose map is currently being challenged in Common Cause v. Rucho. A three-judge federal district court panel has twice ruled the map an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander this year. The case is speeding its way to the Supreme Court.

“We are on the brink of a breakthrough in the fight against partisan gerrymandering,” said Kathay Feng, national redistricting director for Common Cause. “Advocates, scholars and the courts are all working toward a shared agreement on why people, not politicians, should draw voting districts, and how to evaluate whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. We congratulate the winners of our Partisan Gerrymandering Writing Competition and thank them for designing ways to give voters the power that our founding fathers intended them to have.”

The winners of the Partisan Gerrymandering Writing Competition are:

1st Place: Sam Wang of Princeton University<http://email.prnewswire.com/wf/click?upn=mrW9aHhFe71WJxwxpgHxdzEDQ5Dh-2FE2NJ-2BBVn5krFj7KktHU4wba20kyx1defxkO-2Fq1WeL0V7y8jY1MUSos94DMqq53HreUtEWOdkVTLS42Z0QiQgEw7HPrSgqLVc57bdSAivoxQ5aeyXHHqcjHvCZqfmrZL2Rcj6CV8ZupK3m8o9-2FpQUTG8FJsDqNLwuwQ5AifpT-2BywuQe8vBAusUBpNGzBxjRg81xHszifvj1JosY-3D_MxsnV1nFJ0N6iaI6ROK3eERHn3LdCNHdSOXIWZIS7ekEoqe0xiUYCeWVdORMAMemmmZZahst5-2BalHbpnJ3Ooz6Hq4azVGnt6uXlthx4lu2ioU6WqccfkELpbUKDu3BoVH7VPpll-2F5G8sk08jWmHX6JAiEkMMasKL3LCBie7uz706Q-2BHEJIiB4INV6h6zYSe6PfwHmp9M6Jkv7KgiHzSNhIw-2F6EnEw-2BwTxfNOWfUyikR-2FlhyYnpIZcG7TlY-2BKwqNzmffEArvHMJO3LOhHflLOE8PqUUU5olHDWnKaFUAh-2BpuP-2F8owQaHjwrt3UJVAfyfI> claimed the competition’s top prize with a paper that gives judges and advocates a toolbox of mathematical tests to evaluate a map. Professor Wang explained, “We perceived two challenges. First, we wanted to sort out the many mathematical tests to make them intuitive for lawyers and judges. Second, we wanted to get the math to fit with not just the Constitution but also state law, since the Supreme Court might not be an effective route to limiting extreme partisan gerrymanders. … We hope our framework can help power court challenges under state constitutions. We also hope these ideas can be translated into reform legislation in a way that avoids pitfalls that come from imprecise drafting.”

2nd Place: Second place went to Michael D. McDonald, professor of political science and Director of the Center on Democratic Performance of Binghamton University<http://email.prnewswire.com/wf/click?upn=mrW9aHhFe71WJxwxpgHxdzEDQ5Dh-2FE2NJ-2BBVn5krFj7KktHU4wba20kyx1defxkO-2Fq1WeL0V7y8jY1MUSos94DMqq53HreUtEWOdkVTLS42Z0QiQgEw7HPrSgqLVc57bdSAivoxQ5aeyXHHqcjHvCZqfmrZL2Rcj6CV8ZupK3m8o9-2FpQUTG8FJsDqNLwuwQ5Spi-2Fxrka8hklauAjrF6Xy5V4tNPh0oiMQhEiYOBLjAE-3D_MxsnV1nFJ0N6iaI6ROK3eERHn3LdCNHdSOXIWZIS7ekEoqe0xiUYCeWVdORMAMemmmZZahst5-2BalHbpnJ3Ooz6Hq4azVGnt6uXlthx4lu2ioU6WqccfkELpbUKDu3BoVH7VPpll-2F5G8sk08jWmHX6JAiEkMMasKL3LCBie7uz72A0G21iJ2wflbOnxNIb4ot2tg2CtVaijKgfY2ONg0YsAlEPESqBwbECkyZ2IoBPHaSIw8ziTgC-2BJIvdI6ZiLD6tyJbyIBZUMoC5-2FbX7z-2BM5-2FhqkI6-2Fr07hdj4fsGXa8-2BpxAx1cR9kiFaPwk2tRhlZJ>, whose paper proposes two paths forward for establishing manageable standards to identify partisan gerrymanders in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gill v. Whitford.

3rd Place: John Curiel<http://email.prnewswire.com/wf/click?upn=mrW9aHhFe71WJxwxpgHxdzEDQ5Dh-2FE2NJ-2BBVn5krFj7KktHU4wba20kyx1defxkO-2Fq1WeL0V7y8jY1MUSos94DMqq53HreUtEWOdkVTLS42Z0QiQgEw7HPrSgqLVc57bdSAivoxQ5aeyXHHqcjHvCZqfmrZL2Rcj6CV8ZupK3m8o9-2FpQUTG8FJsDqNLwuwQ50FcnTx9HSGWtKM9HEW3vA80e1ZhybWqPTUccexECrDE-3D_MxsnV1nFJ0N6iaI6ROK3eERHn3LdCNHdSOXIWZIS7ekEoqe0xiUYCeWVdORMAMemmmZZahst5-2BalHbpnJ3Ooz6Hq4azVGnt6uXlthx4lu2ioU6WqccfkELpbUKDu3BoVH7VPpll-2F5G8sk08jWmHX6JAiEkMMasKL3LCBie7uz70D-2B1IWS2EOgYxUbZYD3qxZKZETy7WHZ0THEN267boq0XvRV8RWsbWkvAYz5pt4J4AkJRA-2FGBGRMzrNBPlV10t0ayW3TPjhS3TfO9a0vORXsuopqUZtJaZQ8HsLh7B2-2FVNzFUeMcyxJ4EvQCPhkLj4l> and Tyler Steelman of the University of North Carolina<http://email.prnewswire.com/wf/click?upn=mrW9aHhFe71WJxwxpgHxdzEDQ5Dh-2FE2NJ-2BBVn5krFj7KktHU4wba20kyx1defxkO-2Fq1WeL0V7y8jY1MUSos94DMqq53HreUtEWOdkVTLS42Z0QiQgEw7HPrSgqLVc57bdSAivoxQ5aeyXHHqcjHvCZqfmrZL2Rcj6CV8ZupK3m8o9-2FpQUTG8FJsDqNLwuwQ5VvyYhY8bDQMnASdE3t6oiMfv4qtSlhvTBYhDI8VpLT4-3D_MxsnV1nFJ0N6iaI6ROK3eERHn3LdCNHdSOXIWZIS7ekEoqe0xiUYCeWVdORMAMemmmZZahst5-2BalHbpnJ3Ooz6Hq4azVGnt6uXlthx4lu2ioU6WqccfkELpbUKDu3BoVH7VPpll-2F5G8sk08jWmHX6JAiEkMMasKL3LCBie7uz70weneRvRqqxOHJoQ7BxGv0gZetRBwkG4ivVddC-2FUV3FBL-2Fz9mAuzue6SdKSZIZf4pRSJU5RVezjinzvySEvdoPzAPkXNlWhr0OAuuXyC7lOXgimc6o34oVCMVjTkDWEYQGF-2BET-2FBlMp36pzixTCGSH> took third place with a paper that argues that preserving ZIP Codes in redistricting processes produces a substantive reduction in partisan bias and protects the constituent-representative link.

Common Cause sponsored the third Partisan Gerrymandering Writing Contest to encourage innovative scholarship to assist the Supreme Court, lawyers, and advocates in better understanding and measuring partisan gerrymandering. This year as Common Cause v. Rucho and other cases made their way through the courts, participants were asked to think creatively about ways to assist the courts in developing greater legal clarity around how to determine what is an unconstitutional gerrymander.

Past year’s winners have contributed to scholarship to end partisan gerrymandering by using their ideas in litigation. For example, Common Cause collaborated with the winners of the first contest on an amicus brief that assessed the partisan fairness of maps submitted to replace an illegal racial gerrymander in Virginia. The efforts were crucial to ensuring that the special master appointed by the federal court had the information at his disposal to choose a map that did not give an unfair advantage to any political party.

The second-place winner of the second annual contest served as an expert witness in Common Cause v. Rucho and successfully demonstrated to the court using 1,000 computer simulated maps that the legislature’s map was a statistical anomaly that must have been an intentional partisan gerrymander.

The judging panel for the third annual Partisan Gerrymandering Writing Contest included UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky<http://email.prnewswire.com/wf/click?upn=mrW9aHhFe71WJxwxpgHxdzEDQ5Dh-2FE2NJ-2BBVn5krFj7KktHU4wba20kyx1defxkO-2Fq1WeL0V7y8jY1MUSos94DMqq53HreUtEWOdkVTLS42Z0QiQgEw7HPrSgqLVc57bdSAivoxQ5aeyXHHqcjHvCZqfmrZL2Rcj6CV8ZupK3m8o9-2FpQUTG8FJsDqNLwuwQ5sJIpHczZNmPRji2-2FVwEL5Om4Hici9hz9J4yhNgHaXYQ-3D_MxsnV1nFJ0N6iaI6ROK3eERHn3LdCNHdSOXIWZIS7ekEoqe0xiUYCeWVdORMAMemmmZZahst5-2BalHbpnJ3Ooz6Hq4azVGnt6uXlthx4lu2ioU6WqccfkELpbUKDu3BoVH7VPpll-2F5G8sk08jWmHX6JAiEkMMasKL3LCBie7uz71Hzp20EwYaz5GBcZ97jgCw8e-2FyZ43jKQu2JYRzxccrnZbAj69vJGGuUsbvLxmPBdfRSATx-2FNileKmo77owtYddMPzOwE2BswwW4h3j0Qoz6V5i0xbK8rWGOEidVcaOdoMNbZnbaIjEcLZntg3EIlCU>, Office of Congressional Ethics Board of Directors member Allison Hayward<http://email.prnewswire.com/wf/click?upn=mrW9aHhFe71WJxwxpgHxdzEDQ5Dh-2FE2NJ-2BBVn5krFj7KktHU4wba20kyx1defxkO-2Fq1WeL0V7y8jY1MUSos94DMqq53HreUtEWOdkVTLS42Z0QiQgEw7HPrSgqLVc57bdSAivoxQ5aeyXHHqcjHvCZqfmrZL2Rcj6CV8ZupK3m8o9-2FpQUTG8FJsDqNLwuwQ5DMu6CHLipkJ5M6jXvrOSXkbxBnAeFmjGjexcqaRVhJc-3D_MxsnV1nFJ0N6iaI6ROK3eERHn3LdCNHdSOXIWZIS7ekEoqe0xiUYCeWVdORMAMemmmZZahst5-2BalHbpnJ3Ooz6Hq4azVGnt6uXlthx4lu2ioU6WqccfkELpbUKDu3BoVH7VPpll-2F5G8sk08jWmHX6JAiEkMMasKL3LCBie7uz708k-2FPu2-2FxMNgtW8AOtBekgpUoPn-2FI-2FPkjwRPbC4d5AzTgEV5UBY1liV-2FDO8TEn5-2BKbYX2zcxH7QCxsQ-2FIvN9BkXyJRp1VzVVwtGAQjz6rEFlPxFlJ1P3fMz8XYaVNsINtqvyRvMMQ5nFa5spinTi6n>, Brennan Center for Justice Senior Counsel Michael Li<http://email.prnewswire.com/wf/click?upn=mrW9aHhFe71WJxwxpgHxdzEDQ5Dh-2FE2NJ-2BBVn5krFj7KktHU4wba20kyx1defxkO-2Fq1WeL0V7y8jY1MUSos94DMqq53HreUtEWOdkVTLS42Z0QiQgEw7HPrSgqLVc57bdSAivoxQ5aeyXHHqcjHvCZqfmrZL2Rcj6CV8ZupK3m8o9-2FpQUTG8FJsDqNLwuwQ5arE62zweG53Qlac5Aub6K-2BumL460chF5GutTfKnbpGw-3D_MxsnV1nFJ0N6iaI6ROK3eERHn3LdCNHdSOXIWZIS7ekEoqe0xiUYCeWVdORMAMemmmZZahst5-2BalHbpnJ3Ooz6Hq4azVGnt6uXlthx4lu2ioU6WqccfkELpbUKDu3BoVH7VPpll-2F5G8sk08jWmHX6JAiEkMMasKL3LCBie7uz71gvEO6ASgoMgrWr5tfxcMP687srWymOgMKW-2BHwfD7nMV9PuiNBXxi7ikXsUXxXqm8fmYNVb9DkcwPaPydbvXEzp-2BjOI1x6thlilsJNd-2FI2pxqegcOyGsuzBlyLMrBp1YBHET05G9L78jeD9-2FhxXJks>, and Tufts University associate professor of mathematics Moon Duchin<http://email.prnewswire.com/wf/click?upn=mrW9aHhFe71WJxwxpgHxdzEDQ5Dh-2FE2NJ-2BBVn5krFj7KktHU4wba20kyx1defxkO-2Fq1WeL0V7y8jY1MUSos94DMqq53HreUtEWOdkVTLS42Z0QiQgEw7HPrSgqLVc57bdSAivoxQ5aeyXHHqcjHvCZqfmrZL2Rcj6CV8ZupK3m8o9-2FpQUTG8FJsDqNLwuwQ57i-2Ff6lBPkuSCJN580OoRUvmPzGineyv-2FMxPbTr-2B00-2Fc-3D_MxsnV1nFJ0N6iaI6ROK3eERHn3LdCNHdSOXIWZIS7ekEoqe0xiUYCeWVdORMAMemmmZZahst5-2BalHbpnJ3Ooz6Hq4azVGnt6uXlthx4lu2ioU6WqccfkELpbUKDu3BoVH7VPpll-2F5G8sk08jWmHX6JAiEkMMasKL3LCBie7uz70PaGMw3Mm11cuKLjyNQpViScZ-2FIK8FMDMOrlNvlHpwaN2nJMkzK6CRQTZINVRFKZFrIQBPTeGQMy6EZNX6-2BmuDBy6wC1WlQQRr5lt6Hn-2BMQkdED6fVO3KGhbcZJj-2B6n6Xl3-2FrUwTqmC8NMpQJXJBAE>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101267&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Tools%20to%20Destroy%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Recognized%20in%20Common%20Cause%20Writing%20Contest%20%E2%80%9C>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
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/>
[signature_848612189]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180925/6fa9c5bd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180925/6fa9c5bd/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180925/6fa9c5bd/attachment-0001.png>