[EL] Census case

Thu Jun 27 10:39:45 PDT 2019

Thus far, I continue to believe it is legally correct to conclude that, as Sam says, there is no basis for any further proceedings in the MD case.  That means there is no basis now even for discovery to go forward, contrary to Josh’s view.  The Supreme Court has already affirmed an injunction against the citizenship question.  For now, no citizenship question can be used.  Put it this way, I’m sure it would be obvious to all that if the government does not decide to try to add the citizenship question again, with a different rationale, the MD case as moot.  But that’s exactly what the situation is as of now.  For that reason, there is no basis for the MD courts to do anything at this point.

Normally, that would be mean the case would be dismissed as moot.  But in this context, I can understand the lower courts retaining jurisdiction over the matter for the time being, given the imminent prospect that the government might decide to add the question after a new process that produces a new justification (if there is time for that).  If the question is added for new reasons, the courts will then determine whether those new reasons are adequate.  In doing that, they will certainly look to the entire history of the adoption of the question. But they will be adjudicating the new policy, not the one enjoined today.  And until the government goes forward (if it does) there is no live controversy that would provide a basis for the federal courts in MD to do anything.

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Sq. So.
NYC, NY 10012
212 998-6377

From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Samuel Bagenstos
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 12:38 PM
To: Josh Blackman <joshblackman at gmail.com>
Cc: Brunell, Thomas <tbrunell at utdallas.edu>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Census case

I don't disagree with the substantive analysis in Rick Hasen's Slate piece (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/john-roberts-trump-census-question-supreme-court-october.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__slate.com_news-2Dand-2Dpolitics_2019_06_john-2Droberts-2Dtrump-2Dcensus-2Dquestion-2Dsupreme-2Dcourt-2Doctober.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=cKex9rTR0sQt3JOrqe0F6owSUTO5kTuqTENCMznvIlI&s=BbEuXlCkYWeiWK8c8qtpRREy3sKB39uZpJ6uTeZSCVg&e=>), but I don't think it answers Rick Pildes's procedural question.  Right now there's no citizenship question to enjoin, so there's no live controversy in the Maryland case.  If the administration makes a new decision to add a citizenship question, then there will be a live controversy (in which APA and equal protection issues will presumably be litigated).  I don't see anything in the Slate piece that addresses the procedural point.

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:27 PM Josh Blackman <joshblackman at gmail.com<mailto:joshblackman at gmail.com>> wrote:
An injunction may yet be proper, but not one issued today or tomorrow (as I anticipated). The government would first have to propose a new justification, which could then be enjoined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Blackman
http://JoshBlackman.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__JoshBlackman.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=cKex9rTR0sQt3JOrqe0F6owSUTO5kTuqTENCMznvIlI&s=xrLE7JJjn_cDp_tX0JifFxDhzHw3KUOVrzFJ8Vs5yMw&e=>
Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_gp_product_1610393287_ref-3Das-5Fli-5Ftf-5Ftl-3Fie-3DUTF8-26camp-3D1789-26creative-3D9325-26creativeASIN-3D1610393287-26linkCode-3Das2-26tag-3Djoshblaccom-2D20&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=cKex9rTR0sQt3JOrqe0F6owSUTO5kTuqTENCMznvIlI&s=03oybLcIjQJdYTfBiElnpIauYS3iB5si25EqmfJMlVI&e=>
Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, & Executive Power<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amzn.to_2aqbDwy&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=cKex9rTR0sQt3JOrqe0F6owSUTO5kTuqTENCMznvIlI&s=4TACaPhALfo9NGQrMYrcWrLxFg3sHepJBN_EC2_iyPU&e=>

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:25 AM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
Strongly disagree on that point. A separate injunction barring the inclusion of the question will be necessary in the event the Commerce Dept tries to come back with a new reason for including the question.

From: Josh Blackman <joshblackman at gmail.com<mailto:joshblackman at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:23 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
Cc: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>, "Brunell, Thomas" <tbrunell at utdallas.edu<mailto:tbrunell at utdallas.edu>>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Census case

The Maryland case is still live, but there is no need to issue an urgent injunction now because the Court remanded the New York case. I think discovery could still proceed, unless the Court stays that decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Blackman
http://JoshBlackman.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__JoshBlackman.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=cKex9rTR0sQt3JOrqe0F6owSUTO5kTuqTENCMznvIlI&s=xrLE7JJjn_cDp_tX0JifFxDhzHw3KUOVrzFJ8Vs5yMw&e=>
Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_gp_product_1610393287_ref-3Das-5Fli-5Ftf-5Ftl-3Fie-3DUTF8-26camp-3D1789-26creative-3D9325-26creativeASIN-3D1610393287-26linkCode-3Das2-26tag-3Djoshblaccom-2D20&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=cKex9rTR0sQt3JOrqe0F6owSUTO5kTuqTENCMznvIlI&s=03oybLcIjQJdYTfBiElnpIauYS3iB5si25EqmfJMlVI&e=>
Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, & Executive Power<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amzn.to_2aqbDwy&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=cKex9rTR0sQt3JOrqe0F6owSUTO5kTuqTENCMznvIlI&s=4TACaPhALfo9NGQrMYrcWrLxFg3sHepJBN_EC2_iyPU&e=>

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:21 AM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
I disagree, and think the case is still live.
I’ve got a piece posting to Slate in a few minutes making this point.

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>
Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:17 AM
To: "Brunell, Thomas" <tbrunell at utdallas.edu<mailto:tbrunell at utdallas.edu>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: [EL] Census case

I have seen journalists saying that the EP litigation in MD on the Census case will now go forward.  I would think today’s decision instead moots that litigation.  The citizenship question cannot now be added to the Census form.  There is no longer a live issue in front of those courts.

IF the Commerce Department does determine again to add a citizenship question and does provide a new and different rationale for doing so, then that decision will of course be litigated.  And plaintiffs might argue that the “new” citizenship question rests on a discriminatory purpose.  In addition, they might well seek to show that the original decision itself rested on a discriminatory purpose, and that the “new” question is tainted by the prior one.

But that’s all for future litigation.  The pending case on the “old” question in MD is now moot.  Do other disagree with that analysis?

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Sq. So.
NYC, NY 10012
212 998-6377

From: Brunell, Thomas [mailto:tbrunell at utdallas.edu<mailto:tbrunell at utdallas.edu>]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 12:07 PM
To: Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>
Cc: Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

The fact that he mentions there are approximately the same number of constituents in each district clearly indicates he is talking about everyone.

Tom Brunell, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science
School of Economic, Political and Policy Science
UT Dallas
800 W. Campbell Road
Richardson, TX 75080
(972) 883-4963

On Jun 27, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:

I think the instinct – and I call it that, an instinct, not necessarily a thought-through position -- behind the statement is that anyone in your district is a constituent.  He certainly could have used “voters” or “eligible voters” or “citizens.”  I don’t think legislative offices turn away resident aliens who seek assistance, for example, because they are not “constituents.”

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Sq. So.
NYC, NY 10012
212 998-6377

From: Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 11:57 AM
To: Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

How do you think he defines “ constituents”?

Trevor Potter

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 27, 2019, at 5:34 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu%3cmailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>> wrote:

In describing the one-person, one-vote doctrine, CJ Roberts says: “each representative must be accountable to (approximately) the same number of constituents (my emphasis).

If states/localities ever do redistrict based on eligible voters rather than population, I am sure that line will be quoted extensively.

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Sq. So.
NYC, NY 10012
212 998-6377

From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Adam Bonin
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 10:58 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu%3cmailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

I'm not sure that's even an option. District court already determined that Commerce had never offered other reasons, and remanded just to confirm that Commerce had general jurisdiction to run the Census. See pp 266-70. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/2019-01-15-574-Findings%20Of%20Fact.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brennancenter.org_sites_default_files_legal-2Dwork_2019-2D01-2D15-2D574-2DFindings-2520Of-2520Fact.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=-GeSXw67sotv25U19eXvb00wdCy7Qan56cOs8AQnRs8&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brennancenter.org_sites_default_files_legal-2Dwork_2019-2D01-2D15-2D574-2DFindings-2520Of-2520Fact.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=LbJENb2EllxoCgCoJ2HVRc8NEUPigx0yk1vjzx_rQuE&e=>

in short, wrote Judge Furman:

Remand, meanwhile, is appropriate as well, in recognition of the fact that Congress delegated its authority over administration of the census to the Secretary of Commerce, not to this Court. That is not to say that Defendants can or would be able to remedy the defects in Secretary Ross’s decision that this Court has found in time for the 2020 census. But to the extent that a “remand” is even necessary to make clear that the Secretary of Commerce retains authority to make decisions about the census, so long as they are consistent with law and this Court’s Opinion, a remand is appropriate.

The parties’ respective arguments for an alternative remedy are unpersuasive. For their part, Defendants contend that remand without vacatur is “the only potentially appropriate remedy.” Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. 83-85, ¶¶ 80-85. Putting aside whether such a remedy is consistent with the plain language of the APA, it is inappropriate here. Courts authorizing remand without vacatur have done so where the agency shows “at least a serious possibility that [it] will be able to substantiate its decision on remand” and that “the consequences of vacating may be quite disruptive.” Allied-Signal, Inc., 988 F.2d at 151. Defendants have done neither here. The problem with Secretary Ross’s decision was not that it was inadequately explained, but rather that it was substantively arbitrary and capricious and “not in accordance” with statutes that constrain his discretion. And as Plaintiffs correctly point out, “the Secretary has never suggested an alternative basis for his decision.” Pls.’ Proposed Conclusions ¶ 456. Notably, Defendants offer nothing more than a bare conclusory assertion that “there is a non-trivial likelihood that the agency will be able to state a valid legal basis for its decision” on remand. Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. 84, ¶ 83 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Nothing in either the Administrative Record or the trial record even remotely suggests such a “likelihood.”

Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
121 S. Broad Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19107

(267) 242-5014 (c)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com%3cmailto:adam at boninlaw.com>>
http://www.boninlaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.boninlaw.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=5nw5r1b3sb3G1JWIhiJ2DVgax61Ueo6qdXgCirhxC_I&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.boninlaw.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=mkbb2G-jkLnGJBJzMr2UJfXbYH-VB1McmVMLmemoMmc&e=>

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:41 AM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>> wrote:
Here’s the link to the opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D966-5Fbq7c.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=qAtiZ17eMvJ732Di9_JC-OXYV_cslaKSgM-4-GQ6f88&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D966-5Fbq7c.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=DQFA1sOXdJTscTCfjVf3QhCvds4_JOEHcXdAO6GhZfw&e=>

Question is whether agency can come up with another explanation in time

From: Pamela S Karlan <pkarlan at stanford.edu<mailto:pkarlan at stanford.edu<mailto:pkarlan at stanford.edu%3cmailto:pkarlan at stanford.edu>>>
Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 7:38 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu%3cmailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

Census case got remanded on the grounds that the VRA enforcement rationale can’t support the decision to ask the citizenship question.
Pam Karlan
Stanford Law School
karlan at stanford.edu<mailto:karlan at stanford.edu<mailto:karlan at stanford.edu%3cmailto:karlan at stanford.edu>>
650.725.4851

On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:12 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>> wrote:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D422-5F9ol1.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=85g-hGm03JlLwImwB0lIr3OygRx-c5p1rQQZLSzCh1o&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D422-5F9ol1.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=a5OruKQ5Zhuzhye4Ja03XDcbASkb58d_KokAg8GKjq4&e=>

--
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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=zTd4EHeAUAprQTknF2BB2QppjQqw3XuVIMd60E4jnL0&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=ef5XEfzfYm0obGPKIqVRNXtdfwPdV0BRj4e9n6QP45c&e=>
http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=X__JGNarEx4GYxGTlRTwNqCCdY419n39Bzxu4enQMto&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=AiYhbBnmopseHn2mTsS73PXVVdL_3d1NC2XHKrmkikQ&e=>
<image001.png>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=N3xF4k3FuHKq0_dTIPnYeg7QSieM43kv-RMW84edEn4&e=>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=N3xF4k3FuHKq0_dTIPnYeg7QSieM43kv-RMW84edEn4&e=>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=>

<image001.png>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=ZuOBw7haaSQ5Hm_kmav-ZfhcbMssiV7fPMd9Z76KTPg&s=c1YBiUsY1_c_YbU1EF7vleIjfBKQWTHVdyHAPcASh9M&e=>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=cKex9rTR0sQt3JOrqe0F6owSUTO5kTuqTENCMznvIlI&s=GfGvhdCRno0V7tcm_8hZ8_9m_nZ1F3uoVKgJmVwPncs&e=>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=cKex9rTR0sQt3JOrqe0F6owSUTO5kTuqTENCMznvIlI&s=GfGvhdCRno0V7tcm_8hZ8_9m_nZ1F3uoVKgJmVwPncs&e=>

--
Samuel Bagenstos
sbagen at gmail.com<mailto:sbagen at gmail.com>
Twitter: @sbagen
University of Michigan homepage: http://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=sambagen<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.umich.edu_FacultyBio_Pages_FacultyBio.aspx-3FFacID-3Dsambagen&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=cKex9rTR0sQt3JOrqe0F6owSUTO5kTuqTENCMznvIlI&s=OvSb3-MuVqBuNfmBhc5XAeX4BwdWNZZ12OSBC_4FW4A&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190627/cf5b3add/attachment.html>