[EL] Absentee ballot signature matching problems
Fredric Woocher
fwoocher at strumwooch.com
Thu Apr 9 15:41:06 PDT 2020
Mark,
For sure, signatures evolve, and it is not a perfect system to have to rely upon them. I can say from much experience with vote recounts and election contests, however, that you would be pleasantly surprised at how signature commonalities can still be detected through individual letter comparisons and combinations, which appear to endure over the years and through different marking conditions. But it is for this reason that I think Rick properly suggests that it is important for there to be a mechanism for someone whose vote-by-mail ballot signature has been "rejected" to be informed of this and to have the opportunity to correct or explain the situation before the ballot is permanently rejected.
As for the mechanics of signature comparison, LA County does now have an optical scanning machine that performs the "first cut" comparison of signatures on returned ballot envelopes and voter registration (or DMV) affidavits. I believe that 80-90% or so "pass" this comparison and are counted by the machine's comparison. Any that are rejected by the machine are then reviewed by hand. As Bill pointed out, this is always done before any ballots are opened. In California at least, the decision to reject a ballot based on an alleged signature mismatch can be challenged in a recount or judicial election contest, so you do occasionally get recount boards (or, in California, County Registrars) pouring over a few "close" signatures to decide whether they match or not, but of course that only occurs if the election is extremely close.
Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024
fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
(310) 576-1233
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Pursuant to the Governor's "Stay at Home" Order, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. Packages requiring signatures will be returned undelivered - do not serve papers by this method. While our office is closed, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP consents to electronic service in all of its matters. Please serve by electronic mail to fwoocher at strumwooch.com AND to our Senior Legal Assistant, LaKeitha Oliver, at loliver at strumwooch.com<mailto:loliver at strumwooch.com>. We reserve the right to object to any notice or delivery of any kind if not actually received by counsel before all statutory deadlines.
From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Scarberry
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 3:12 PM
To: edu law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci. <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Absentee ballot signature matching problems
My signature has changed over the years, and at this point (due to age or whatever) may not look the same when I sign it twice on the same day. (As Groucho Marx said of himself, I have the hands of a sturgeon.) Does that create problems in authenticating absentee ballots? I seem to recall someone on the list saying that a good number of absentee ballots are disqualified for that reason.
I can just imagine tables of recount workers arguing over whether signatures match, in a future Bush v. Gore scenario. Is there a way to do computer comparisons that accounts for normal (or abnormal) variations in signatures? Is it really possible for poll workers even now to check signatures on all the absentee (or whatever you want to call them) ballots?
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine University
Rick J. Caruso School of Law
________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 2:58:23 PM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>; Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>>; Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at gmail.com<mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>>
Cc: edu law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci. <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Kleinfelds' proposal
Presuming that there is some system already in place to ensure that a vote-by-mail ballot is cast and returned by the intended person (e.g., signature matching against voter's affidavit of registration), what exactly constitutes or creates the "too large of a risk" that you are concerned about in sending all actively registered voters a ballot without an affirmative request? My understanding is that states like Oregon and Washington already do that, and California effectively does that for all "permanent vote-by-mail" voters, and I have not seen any reports of widespread fraud as a result.
Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024
fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
(310) 576-1233
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Pursuant to the Governor's "Stay at Home" Order, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. Packages requiring signatures will be returned undelivered - do not serve papers by this method. While our office is closed, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP consents to electronic service in all of its matters. Please serve by electronic mail to fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com> AND to our Senior Legal Assistant, LaKeitha Oliver, at loliver at strumwooch.com<mailto:loliver at strumwooch.com>. We reserve the right to object to any notice or delivery of any kind if not actually received by counsel before all statutory deadlines.
From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 2:36 PM
To: Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>>; Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at gmail.com<mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>>
Cc: edu law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci. <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Kleinfelds' proposal
I'm all in favor of sending them automatically in states with accurate voter rolls. But too many have very bloated voter rolls. I don't favor aggressive purges because that will lead to disenfranchisement of eligible but infrequent voters. But having thousands of ballots to no longer eligible voters floating out there seems like too large of a risk.
From: Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>>
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 2:32 PM
To: Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at gmail.com<mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>>
Cc: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Kleinfelds' proposal
Thanks very much, Paul. That's very helpful. I hope it's clear that what I am proposing is that all voters receive a ballot at home that they can "return" either in person or by mail. Rick would require them first to say "please do" to a state offer; and others would only send the ballot if and when a voter affirmatively requests it, w/o an invitation.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 5:24 PM Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at gmail.com<mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>> wrote:
Not speaking for every scholar by any means, but as an expert in this area (I've been studying "early voting" since 2004; I helped the EAC develop the questions for the EAVS survey and developed the questions used by the American National Election Study and Cooperative Congressional Election Study to identify early voters).
I've gotten this question a LOT and understanding that I only speak for myself and not other political scientists
&TLDR version
Details below, but the brief version "Election Day Voting," "Early In Person Voting," and "Vote by Mail Absentee" are the most commonly used terms.
But there is complexity within some of the categories, especially "vote by mail absentee". See below for the long boring version.
===
1) EARLY VOTING is generally an umbrella term used to refer to methods of voting whereby the ballot is cast at a place and time other than at the polling place on election day.
1a) Sometimes, EARLY VOTING is used to describe "early in-person" voting.
2) ELECTION DAY or PRECINCT PLACE voting is used to describe voting on Election Day at a polling place / precinct place.
3) EARLY IN PERSON VOTING describes voting prior to Election Day at an early voting location, most often a county or local elections office, or a satellite location, or at a voting center.
4) VOTING BY MAIL usually refers to any of a variety of ballot delivery and return methods whereby a ballot and accompanying materials are sent from a local jurisdiction, most often using the US Postal Service. Voters complete the ballot at a time and place of their choosing, and the ballots are returned either through the postal service, or dropped off at a secure location (county office or drop boxes).
4A) VOTE AT HOME is a term that has become recently popularized because it provides a better description of how many voters actually complete the ballot, and recognizes that in a number of states, more than half of the "VOTE BY MAIL" ballots are not, in fact, returned by mail, but instead are dropped off (over 60% in Oregon, I believe the same numbers in Washington and Colorado).
4B) Sometimes, people will use the term "VOTE BY MAIL" or "VOTE AT HOME" to refer to those states that have "FULL VOTE BY MAIL" (this is the term I try to use). That includes Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Hawaii.
4C) Sometimes, people will use the term "UNIVERSAL BALLOT DELIVERY" to refer to the same set of states, but this term is not very common.
5) NO EXCUSE ABSENTEE: refers to states that do not require an excuse to request an absentee ballots.
6) EXCUSE REQUIRED ABSENTEE: Pretty self explanatory.
OK. So that's the word from the anal retentive specialist. As the discussion makes clear, there is imprecision in the terms used for the by-mail systems. I think there are at least two reasons or this.
First, there are important election administration differences between a full vote by mail / vote at home / universal ballot delivery system, and a no-excuse absentee system, and an excuse required system. For someone interested in election administration, these distinctions are key.
Second, from the behavioral perspective (e.g. someone who studies individual voting behavior), the behavioral act of receiving and returning a ballot "at home" is different from voting "in-person". So sometimes scholars will lump all of the "delivered by mail" systems together and distinguish from from the "voting in person" systems.
---
Paul Gronke
Professor, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center
http://earlyvoting.net
General Inquiries: Laura Swann swannla at reed.edu<mailto:swannla at reed.edu>
Media Inquiries: Kevin Myers myersk at reed.edu<mailto:myersk at reed.edu>
On Apr 9, 2020, at 11:27 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
I have a Washington Post oped coming soon that addresses the merits of these issues. So I won't weigh in on that here, at least not yet.
But I wanted to talk about terminology, and this supposed distinction between "mail in balloting" and absentee balloting. I don't think Jim's use of the terminology is consistent with usage I have seen. There are 5 states that allow all voters to vote by mail. I've seen that referred to as all-mail balloting (though there still is some in person voting) or "universal" absentee balloting. Other states offer no-excuse absentee balloting (or no excuse vote-by-mail) or excuse-only absentee balloting (or excuse only vote by mail). Vote by mail is sometimes referred to as VBM. And advocates for expanded vote-by-mail now are trying to rebrand it as "vote at home."
In short, I don't think people talk about mail-in balloting and absentee balloting as different things.
Rick
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of James Bopp Jr <jboppjr at aol.com<mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>>
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 11:06 AM
To: "sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>" <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>>, "IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>" <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>>, "davidadamsegal at gmail.com<mailto:davidadamsegal at gmail.com>" <davidadamsegal at gmail.com<mailto:davidadamsegal at gmail.com>>, "john.k.tanner at gmail.com<mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>" <john.k.tanner at gmail.com<mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Kleinfelds' proposal
I hate to spoil a kumbaya moment, but there are serious considerations here that just don't seem to be getting attention.
First, vote fraud protections, that are ubiquitous with absentee and in person voting procedures, are often stripped away in most mail in ballot schemes. These fraud prevention measures are designed to protect the constitutional right to vote by preventing vote dilution: the dilution of the vote of eligible, registered voters by the votes of illegal voters. Failure to have adequate fraud protection measures violates the right to vote.
Second, "mail in balloting," as I understand it and use it, differs most importantly from "absentee balloting" by not requiring a prior application to obtain the ballot. In "mail in balloting," ballots are just mail wholesale to all registered voters.
Third, requiring a prior application to receive an absentee ballot is a very important, even critical, protection against vote fraud. It ensure that the person is actually alive, what the person's current address is, and provides an audit trail. A prior application also allows election official and others time to verify the voter's eligibility, existence, etc.
Fourth, as a result, absentee ballot return rate is very high.
Fifth, wholesale mailing of ballots to all registered voter also has 2 big problems of its own.:
(1) there are many registered voters who are current ineligible or not at the address indicated on the rolls. Thus, we are flooding the state with ballots readily available for fraudulent use. This violates the rights of eligible registered voters by diluting their votes. and
(2) there are also eligible, registered voters who will not get a mailed ballot, because they have moved or are on an "inactive" list. These eligible, registered voters won't have the option of in person voting and thus will have to fulfill burdensome requirement to timely get a ballot mailed to them that other eligible registered voters don't have to fulfill. This is an unconstitutional burden on their right to vote.
Sixth, these scheme often eliminate in person voting. In person voting procedures have substantial fraud prevention measures and also serve as a safety valve for those who find this is the only way they have available to vote. Denying them that option also violates their right to vote.
And whether one wants to flood a state with mailed ballots in order to facilitate vote fraud, which Republicans fear, or because vote fraud is a fantasy, which Democrats believe, there is just more to this. My view is that a prior application is a necessity, that other reasonable fraud protection measures are needed, but that absentee voting can be no cause.
So at least we agree on something. Jim Bopp
James Bopp, Jr.
Attorney
The Bopp Law Firm, PC | www.bopplaw.com<http://www.bopplaw.com/>
The National Building | 1 South 6th Street | Terre Haute, IN 47807
voice: (812) 232-2434 ext. 22 | fax: (812) 235-3685 | cell: (812) 243-0825 | jboppjr at aol.com<mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>
Sent from AOL Desktop<https://discover.aol.com/products-and-services/aol-desktop-for-windows>
In a message dated 4/9/2020 1:15:10 PM US Eastern Standard Time, sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> writes:
Also https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/24/conservatives-must-get-behind-vote-by-mail-options/
Sean
From: Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:31 PM
To: Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>>; 'David Segal' <davidadamsegal at gmail.com<mailto:davidadamsegal at gmail.com>>; 'John Tanner' <john.k.tanner at gmail.com<mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
Cc: 'Election Law Listserv' <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: RE: [EL] Kleinfelds' proposal
See further Henry Olsen's latest column, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/08/theres-plenty-room-compromise-mail-in-voting-get-it-done/
Ilya Shapiro
Director
Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
tel. (202) 218-4600
cel. (202) 577-1134
ishapiro at cato.org<mailto:ishapiro at cato.org>
Bio/clips: https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro
Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro<http://www.twitter.com/ishapiro>
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023
Cato Supreme Court Review: http://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review
Watch our 18th Annual Constitution Day Conference, Sept. 17, 2019:
https://www.cato.org/events/18th-annual-constitution-day
From: Law-election On Behalf Of Sean Parnell
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 12:00 PM
To: 'David Segal' <davidadamsegal at gmail.com<mailto:davidadamsegal at gmail.com>>; 'John Tanner' <john.k.tanner at gmail.com<mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
Cc: 'Election Law Listserv' <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Kleinfelds' proposal
Well, you've already got a number of right-of-center groups who have in one way or another indicated some interest in expanded absentee/vote-by-mail options (per Jim Bopp's earlier e-mail, these are not the same thing) - when I scroll to the bottom of this e-mail I note it's someone from Cato commenting favorably on an article at National Review Online that is itself favorable to such policies. And I've spoken with a few right-of-center groups that are generally favorable to the idea, though of course there are some bright red lines for them. I suppose the corollary is: are there any groups we'd consider to be aligned with the left that would be willing to back such a compromise, or willing to accept that the federal government should support but not mandate expanded absentee/vote-by-mail options?
Sean
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of David Segal
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 11:21 AM
To: John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com<mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Kleinfelds' proposal
Are there any interest groups that we'd consider to be aligned with the right that are, or seem as though they might be willing, to back this or similar proposals?
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:05 AM John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com<mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>> wrote:
To get a federal bill you need for both sides to be able to declare victory. Adding a one-time ban on vote harvesting would be one way - and I have seen it first hand eith white candidates harvesting black votes against black candidates.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 9, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Steve Kolbert <steve.kolbert at gmail.com<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>> wrote:
My question about the proposal: what impact (if any) will drive-through voting have on line/queue management? A line of 50 voters on foot snaking around a building corner is much different than a line of 50 (or 200!) voters in their vehicles clogging up nearby public roads.
Communication with incoming voters may also be an issue. It's one thing to put a "Vote Here" sign (or two, or three) in a parking lot. But when the line of cars snakes two (or ten) blocks, incoming voters may not initially understand that this backed-up traffic is all waiting to vote. So these new voters may attempt to head straight to the polling place, then have to exit and re-route back to the end of the line of vehicles. I can envision this creating a further traffic build-up.
I imagine that, with some test-runs and practice, drive-through voting might eventually become a well-oiled machine. But we're talking about trying it on a large scale for the first time in the largest election held every four years. Growing pains are inevitable, and the scale of the election has the potential to magnify them. (Of course, there may not be any better options.)
Steve Kolbert
(202) 422-2588
steve.kolbert at gmail.com<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
@Pronounce_the_T
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:48 AM Mark <markrush7983 at gmail.com<mailto:markrush7983 at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all--
The proposal is beyond reasonable and wise. Yet, alas, it may fail due to the septic state of politics in the USA.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:43 AM Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com<mailto:jeffhauser at gmail.com>> wrote:
" We need another Bauer-Ginsberg commission or some such"
Haha yeah that was a resounding success!
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:29 AM Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>> wrote:
Holding small business loans hostage to election funding is not a way to enhance confidence in whatever crisis-related tweaks are necessary. Either this stuff passes on its own terms or it shouldn't pass. The concern isn't about "voting rights" as such-the pre-corona "suppression" meme/myth is not something Republicans will magically now sign onto-but having functioning elections and avoiding the Wisconsin game of chicken where nobody wins (even if the supreme courts were 100% correct in their legal rulings). We need another Bauer-Ginsberg commission or some such, un-sexy technocratic reforms to help election administration, not ideological ones that reinforce priors. The Kleinfeld proposal is consistent with that (and the Kleinfeld siblings are themselves on opposite partisan sides, albeit narrowly straddling the divide).
Ilya Shapiro
Director
Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
tel. (202) 218-4600
cel. (202) 577-1134
ishapiro at cato.org<mailto:ishapiro at cato.org>
Bio/clips: https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro
Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro<http://www.twitter.com/ishapiro>
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023
Cato Supreme Court Review: http://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review
Watch our 18th Annual Constitution Day Conference, Sept. 17, 2019:
https://www.cato.org/events/18th-annual-constitution-day
From: Law-election On Behalf Of Jeff Hauser
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 8:56 AM
To: Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Kleinfelds' proposal
" Federal funding would no doubt help make the decision to expand absentee voting easier, but lack of funding is not an absolute barrier."
The literature on "states rights" and the history of access to voting in this country strongly suggests federal action is necessary. House Democrats are necessary to keeping GOP leaning business owners/equity holders afloat, and it strikes me as both necessary and proper that funding such efforts be tied to de facto voting rights.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 8:47 AM Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>> wrote:
It's probably worth noting that states generally fund and run their own elections, so there's no real need to go through McConnell and Trump to expand absentee voting and other options. Federal funding would no doubt help make the decision to expand absentee voting easier, but lack of funding is not an absolute barrier.
Sean Parnell
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of David Segal
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 10:29 PM
To: Eric J Segall <esegall at gsu.edu<mailto:esegall at gsu.edu>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Kleinfelds' proposal
It's good that they are pushing and I think a patchwork of purple, and even some red, states might implement procedures along these lines. (Hard to imagine that all would, which might implicate the POTUS race and would certainly have impacts on Congress and state and local races.)
But it's very hard for me to see a path under any circumstances through McConnell and Trump, even if Congressional Ds prioritize this more in negotiations.
Do other folks here think otherwise, re: the politics of the bulk of R-controlled states and Congress, and if so would you be able to speak to what it looks like in more detail?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:59 PM Eric J Segall <esegall at gsu.edu<mailto:esegall at gsu.edu>> wrote:
Yes. excellent piece, great ideas, and thanks Ilya for supporting it.
Best,
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 8, 2020, at 8:28 PM, Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>> wrote:
I thought this was solid and would get bipartisan support:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-response-holding-elections-during-pandemic/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2F2020%2F04%2Fcoronavirus-response-holding-elections-during-pandemic%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C119d6d922e124261fa9008d7dc1cf8fa%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637219889314052158&sdata=4s3OdhFO8WLQxHc0JJqmIRohy3lAafOZxuD09D9fQSY%3D&reserved=0>
Ilya Shapiro
Director
Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
1000 Mass. Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
(o) 202-218-4600
(c) 202-577-1134
Twitter: @ishapiro
http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fpeople%2Fshapiro.html&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C119d6d922e124261fa9008d7dc1cf8fa%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637219889314062151&sdata=grQ9OqFvGz001aj76eTzlUJUNjTU20RD%2BUsdz5IBl%2BI%3D&reserved=0>
CAUTION: This email was sent from someone outside of the university. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flaw-election&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C119d6d922e124261fa9008d7dc1cf8fa%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637219889314082142&sdata=8C5lPdsZJBwhGN8EQYZ%2F1o96UNi%2FgJylfESmNa2f24M%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
--
Mark Rush
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
--
Marty Lederman
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-662-9937
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200409/91a7741f/attachment-0001.html>
View list directory