[EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/28/20

[Rick Hasen]

“Viral pro-Trump tweets came from fake African American spam accounts, Twitter says; Disinformation experts are anticipating that social media platforms will continue to be central to foreign and domestic efforts to mislead voters.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114534>
Posted on August 27, 2020 8:50 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114534> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NBC News<https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/viral-pro-trump-tweets-came-fake-african-american-spam-accounts-n1238553>:

Twitter has taken action to stop a spam operation that pushed messages from fake accounts about Black people abandoning the Democratic Party.

The company removed two fake accounts and deleted the account of a San Diego man who spammed the platform, a Twitter spokesperson confirmed Wednesday.

The fake accounts were purported to be run by Black people whose viral tweets received tens of thousands of shares in the past month. One of the accounts, @WentDemToRep, logged over 11,000 retweets on a single tweet that claimed that the user was a lifelong Democrat who was pushed to vote Republican by the Black Lives Matter movement. The tweet was posted shortly after the account was created Tuesday.

The WentDemToRep account quickly tagged two other accounts in a reply, @PeterGammo and @KRon619, which were suspended at the same time Tuesday. The Twitter spokesperson said all three accounts were suspended for spam and, “specifically, artificially manipulative behavior.”

Disinformation experts and national security agencies are gearing up for the election, anticipating that social media platforms will continue to be central to foreign and domestic efforts to mislead voters.

The fake accounts, which used the images of Black men for their profile pictures, had five separate posts with at least 10,000 retweets. Recent attempts to co-opt the identities of African Americans to simulate support for President Donald Trump in the run-up to the election have had success online, researchers say<https://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Canaries-in-the-Coal-Mine-Shorenstein-Center-June-2020.pdf>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114534&title=%E2%80%9CViral%20pro-Trump%20tweets%20came%20from%20fake%20African%20American%20spam%20accounts%2C%20Twitter%20says%3B%20Disinformation%20experts%20are%20anticipating%20that%20social%20media%20platforms%20will%20continue%20to%20be%20central%20to%20foreign%20and%20domestic%20efforts%20to%20mislead%20voters.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, cheap speech<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=130>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Elections officials push back on voter fraud claims; It comes as President Trump has alleged widespread voter fraud”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114532>
Posted on August 27, 2020 8:38 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114532> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

ABC News<https://abcnews.go.com/US/elections-officials-push-back-voter-fraud-claims/story?id=72657373>:

ABC News reached out to elections authorities in all 50 states for their assessment of Trump’s claims. Of the nearly 30 secretaries of state and elections board offices who provided on-the-record responses in July none expressed doubts in their state’s ability to protect the integrity of their elections this November.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114532&title=%E2%80%9CElections%20officials%20push%20back%20on%20voter%20fraud%20claims%3B%20It%20comes%20as%20President%20Trump%20has%20alleged%20widespread%20voter%20fraud%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Wolf, Republicans at odds over Pennsylvania election law”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114530>
Posted on August 27, 2020 8:32 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114530> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP<https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/elections/2020/08/wolf-republicans-at-odds-over-pennsylvania-election-law.html>:

Gov. Tom Wolf and Republican state lawmakers remained at odds Thursday over how to update Pennsylvania’s voting laws to handle an expected avalanche of mail-in ballots in November’s presidential election in the battleground state, even as Philadelphia moved ahead with an ambitious election plan.

Wolf, a Democrat, laid down several markers for what he is seeking, following a June 2 primary election that saw thousands of mailed-in ballots arrive after the Election Day-deadline and counting in some areas drag on for days, if not more than a week.

With partisans suing to win favorable court-ordered changes, Wolf and Republicans who control the Legislature are clashing over how to prevent vast numbers of ballots from being discarded and how to head off the specter of a presidential election result hanging in limbo on a drawn-out vote count in Pennsylvania.

In part, Wolf called for lawmakers to allow counties to begin processing mail-in ballots three weeks before the election and to require them to count ballots that arrive up to three days after the Nov. 3 election, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day….

Republicans, for now, oppose counting mail-in ballots that arrive after the election. To minimize late-arriving ballots, Senate Republicans are seeking to shorten the deadline to request a mail-in ballot, from one week to 15 days before the election. Democrats oppose that.

Instead of allowing ballot processing to start 21 days before the election, Senate Republicans support a three-day head start. House Republicans said they will take action on yet-to-be published legislation next week that bears similarities to a Senate GOP bill introduced Monday.

Without action, courts may settle some of these issues.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114530&title=%E2%80%9CWolf%2C%20Republicans%20at%20odds%20over%20Pennsylvania%20election%20law%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


Involved in and Have a Memory of Bush v. Gore? The Florida Supreme Court Library Wants to Hear from You<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114528>
Posted on August 27, 2020 8:19 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114528> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Check out the Election 2000 Memory Project<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/2cdd00ba14e542eaaf03985d761e33d4>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114528&title=Involved%20in%20and%20Have%20a%20Memory%20of%20Bush%20v.%20Gore%3F%20The%20Florida%20Supreme%20Court%20Library%20Wants%20to%20Hear%20from%20You>
Posted in Bush v. Gore reflections<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=5>


“Kanye West Is Breaking Campaign Finance Law and Keeping His GOP Backers a Secret”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114526>
Posted on August 27, 2020 8:10 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114526> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Vice News:<https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/k7q57n/kanye-west-is-breaking-campaign-finance-law-and-keeping-his-gop-backers-a-secret>

Kanye West’s presidential campaign continues to push to get him on the ballot in states across the country. But it’s now a full week late with its campaign finance filings, a move that’s allowing the shadowy organization to hide how deep the GOP efforts<https://www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/akzy3b/a-well-connected-gop-strategist-is-helping-kanye-west-get-on-the-ballot-in-wisconsin> to back his spoiler campaign go.

The monthly campaign finance filing was due with the Federal Election Commission on August 20. But West’s campaign still hasn’t submitted the paperwork, a requirement for all presidential candidates that planned to raise or spend at least $100,000 on the campaign.

West filed a statement of candidacy in mid-July, and Republican operatives have helped secure him a spot on ballots in at least nine states, even as he’s missed deadlines in more than two dozen others. All that effort means his campaign almost certainly was legally required to file a monthly finance report that would show who he was paying — and give a more complete picture of what GOP operatives are supporting his campaign.

“He’s either violating the reporting requirements or doesn’t anticipate to spend $100,000 or more on his presidential campaign, and the latter part seems unlikely,” said Paul S. Ryan, the head of litigation at the good government group Common Cause. “He’s missed an FEC reporting deadline on August 20 and is in [likely] violation of the law.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114526&title=%E2%80%9CKanye%20West%20Is%20Breaking%20Campaign%20Finance%20Law%20and%20Keeping%20His%20GOP%20Backers%20a%20Secret%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Judge voids 50,000 absentee ballot requests in Iowa county”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114524>
Posted on August 27, 2020 8:06 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114524> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP<https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rule-trumps-motion-block-180932255.html>:

A judge ordered an Iowa county Thursday to invalidate 50,000 requests for absentee ballots, agreeing with President Donald Trump’s campaign that its elections commissioner overstepped his authority by pre-filling them with voters’ personal information.

Judge Ian Thornhill issued a temporary injunction ordering Linn County Auditor Joel Miller to notify voters in writing that the forms should not have been pre-filled with their information and cannot be processed. Instead, they’ll have to either fill out new requests for absentee ballots or vote on Election Day.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114524&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20voids%2050%2C000%20absentee%20ballot%20requests%20in%20Iowa%20county%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


WaPo Podcast: “Trump suggested sending law enforcement to the polls. Can he do that?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114518>
Posted on August 27, 2020 5:09 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114518> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo<https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/can-he-do-that/trump-suggested-sending-law-enforcement-to-the-polls-can-he-do-that/>:

In this episode

Faith in the U.S. electoral system is one of the most important fundamentals of this country’s democracy.
And this year, it’s being tested in unprecedented ways.
Some of those challenges are emerging from the rhetoric of the president himself. President Trump has discredited mail-in voting, suggested rampant voter fraud and said he might not accept the results of the election.
Most recently, Trump has threatened to use law enforcement officers to patrol polling places.In an interview last week with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump said,“We’re going to have everything. We’re going to have sheriffs, and we’re going to have law enforcement, and we’re going to hopefully have U.S. attorneys and we’re going to have everybody, and attorney generals. But it’s very hard.”
The suggestion raised concerns about voter intimidation and voter suppression.
And while reporting suggests the president isn’t actively making plans to send federal law enforcement to polls, it raised significant questions about whether he could, and the other ways his words could have implications for what Americans can expect at polling places in November.
So can Trump actually do this? Can Trump send law enforcement to the polls on Election Day? And if not, are there consequences for our voting system when the president even threatens to do so?
On this episode of “Can He Do That” podcast, election law expert Rick Hasen and reporter Rosalind Helderman explain what the RNC is planning for Election Day and how today’s laws apply.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114518&title=WaPo%20Podcast%3A%20%E2%80%9CTrump%20suggested%20sending%20law%20enforcement%20to%20the%20polls.%20Can%20he%20do%20that%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Georgia: “State Investigation Finds Failures In Fulton County’s Absentee Process”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114516>
Posted on August 27, 2020 5:06 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114516> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

GPB<https://www.gpb.org/news/2020/08/27/state-investigation-finds-failures-in-fulton-countys-absentee-process>:

A Georgia State Election Board investigation Thursday found that Fulton County’s absentee ballot request process failed in the run-up to the June 9 primary, leaving hundreds of voters without the ballots they requested and contributing to long lines on Election Day.

The board voted unanimously to turn the case over to the attorney general’s office for more investigation into whether Fulton officials violated state laws governing timely processing of absentee ballots.

State investigators received 254 complaints from Fulton voters who said they did not get an absentee ballot after they requested them. At least 107 responded that they did not ultimately vote in the election.

Fulton and Georgia’s other 158 counties were overwhelmed by an avalanche of absentee applications after the secretary of state’s office sent request forms to 6.9 million active voters<https://www.gpbnews.org/post/georgia-will-mail-active-voters-absentee-ballot-request-form-may-primary> in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s largest county also lost time after the registration chief was hospitalized, a longtime staffer died from COVID-19 and the county elections office was closed for several days to be sanitized.

“After that point, the mail steadily increased from one bin to between two and three full bins daily,” Caryn Ficklin with the county said. “Around the same time, the applications sent via email and fax also started increasing.”

Over 140,000 Fulton voters requested absentee ballots for the primary, and lawyers for the county said more than 80,000 applications were sent via email, overloading an email system that delivered each application received to 20 inboxes.

The county also had issues printing the applications, which had to be manually entered into the state’s system. Voters sent in requests with varying file formats that were sometimes unreadable, and along the way an untold number of applications were either never entered or severely delayed in being processed.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114516&title=Georgia%3A%20%E2%80%9CState%20Investigation%20Finds%20Failures%20In%20Fulton%20County%E2%80%99s%20Absentee%20Process%E2%80%9D>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>


New Study: Vote by Mail Increases Voter Turnout But Does Not Alter Election Outcomes<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114514>
Posted on August 27, 2020 2:47 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114514> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The participatory and partisan impacts of mandatory vote-by-mail<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/35/eabc7685>
1.      View ORCID Profile<http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1576-2839>Michael Barber1<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/35/eabc7685#aff-1>,*<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/35/eabc7685#corresp-1> and
2.      View ORCID Profile<http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5099-3395>John B. Holbein2<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/35/eabc7685#aff-2>,*<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/35/eabc7685#corresp-1>

 See all authors and affiliationsScience Advances  26 Aug 2020:
Vol. 6, no. 35, eabc7685
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abc7685
·         Article<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/35/eabc7685>
·         Figures & Data<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/35/eabc7685/tab-figures-data>
·         Info & Metrics<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/35/eabc7685/tab-article-info>
·         eLetters<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/35/eabc7685/tab-e-letters>
·          PDF<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/35/eabc7685/tab-pdf>
Abstract

Recently, mandatory vote-by-mail has received a great deal of attention as a means of administering elections in the United States. However, policy-makers disagree on the merits of this approach. Many of these debates hinge on whether mandatory vote-by-mail advantages one political party over the other. Using a unique pairing of historical county-level data that covers the past three decades and more than 40 million voting records from the two states that have conducted a staggered rollout of mandatory vote-by-mail (Washington and Utah), we use several methods for causal inference to show that mandatory vote-by-mail slightly increases voter turnout but has no effect on election outcomes at various levels of government. Our results find meaning given contemporary debates about the merits of mandatory vote-by-mail. Mandatory vote-by-mail ensures that citizens are given a safe means of casting their ballot while simultaneously not advantaging one political party over the other.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114514&title=New%20Study%3A%20Vote%20by%20Mail%20Increases%20Voter%20Turnout%20But%20Does%20Not%20Alter%20Election%20Outcomes>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>


Dirty Tricks Dep’t: Detroit Voters Targeted with Robocalls Containing False Voting Information Intended to Suppress Vote By Mail<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114512>
Posted on August 27, 2020 2:38 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114512> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Detroit New<https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/27/benson-blasts-robocall-warning-detroit-voters-beware-vote-mail/3444856001/>s:

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is warning Detroit voters of a “racially charged” and false robocall that appears to be discouraging mail-in voting ahead of the November election.

The recording tells voters that their personal information will be part of a public database that will then be used by police to track down people with warrants or debt, according to a recording Benson posted Thursday to Twitter.

“The CDC is even pushing to give preference for mail in voting to track people for mandatory vaccines,” the recording said, referring to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Don’t be (inaudible) into giving your private information to the man. Stay safe, and beware of vote by mail.”

The recording alleges the call was made on behalf of Project 1599, a project spearheaded by conservative social media personality Jacob Wohl and GOP lobbyist Jack Burkman.

The actual source of the call remains unknown, but Wohl and Burkman have a “known reputation for spreading misinformation in an effort to gain notoriety,” Benson and Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement.

Wohl denied involvement when contacted by The Detroit News on Thursday and said he and Burkman,while “not fans of mail-in voting,” were “puzzled” by the call.

You can listen to a version of the robocall here<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVodAUh9kL0&feature=emb_logo>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


Weakest Link Axiom of Election Administration: “What we know about Detroit’s absentee ballot processing errors”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114510>
Posted on August 27, 2020 10:41 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114510> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This continues<https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/27/absentee-ballot-processing-detroit-errors/5635528002/> to be a huge concern of mine given what I’ve termed<https://www.amazon.com/Election-Meltdown-Distrust-American-Democracy/dp/0300248199/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=hasen+election+meltdown&qid=1565015345&s=digital-text&sr=1-1-catcorr> the “weakest link axiom” of election administration: “the accuracy of an electionsystem, and voters’ confidence in the system’s fairness and accuracy during a contest close enough to go into overtime, is only as strong as the weakest parts of that system.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114510&title=Weakest%20Link%20Axiom%20of%20Election%20Administration%3A%20%E2%80%9CWhat%20we%20know%20about%20Detroit%E2%80%99s%20absentee%20ballot%20processing%20errors%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>


“Absentee ballot drop boxes, envelopes big problem for Detroit, advocates say”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114508>
Posted on August 27, 2020 10:37 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114508> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Detroit Free Press<https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/08/27/detroit-absentee-voting-ballots-november-election/5600917002/>:

In November, Detroit voters are expected to cast absentee ballots in droves, but some voting advocates worry that the city hasn’t done enough to get ready for the onslaught.

Unlike most jurisdictions in Michigan that have been using new envelopes to mail absentee ballots — redesigned by the state to help the U.S. Postal Service easily identify and swiftly process them — Detroit has been using an older version. In addition, advocates, already concerned about the small number of ballot drop boxes around the city for the August primary, want to see more added for November’s election, but it is not clear how many more Detroit plans.

For the primary, Detroit had two drop-off boxes for more than 480,000 registered voters.

“It was not anywhere near enough,” said Aghogho Edevbie, the Michigan director for All Voting is Local, a national voting rights advocacy group.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114508&title=%E2%80%9CAbsentee%20ballot%20drop%20boxes%2C%20envelopes%20big%20problem%20for%20Detroit%2C%20advocates%20say%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Partial Rebound in Summer Voter Registration Numbers After Big Dip<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114506>
Posted on August 27, 2020 10:31 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114506> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Center for Election Innovation and Research<https://electioninnovation.org/new-voter-registrations-in-2020/>:

Seven jurisdictions CEIR was able to review (Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia) each reported lower registration rates for May 2020 than May 2016. Since June of this year, there has been more variation between the states in our dataset. For a full five months—from March through July of this year—new voter registration totals in Georgia have been lower than those of 2016. Among the states mentioned above, only Texas showed more new voter registrations for the months of June and July 2020 than those of 2016. Most states fell somewhere in between Georgia’s persistent slump and Texas’ apparent recovery.

Despite the slight month-to-month upticks mentioned above, the cumulative decline in new voter registrations persists. Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia also showed lower cumulative new voter registration totals for January through June of 2020 than during the first six months of 2016. Together, these seven jurisdictions registered 329,756 fewer voters in the first half of this year compared to the same period in 2016.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114506&title=Partial%20Rebound%20in%20Summer%20Voter%20Registration%20Numbers%20After%20Big%20Dip>
Posted in voter registration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>


“Attitudes on Voting in 2020”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114492>
Posted on August 27, 2020 8:57 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=114492> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

Rand has issued this important and extensive report <https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA112-9.html?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=NPA:2542:6313:Aug%2027,%202020%205:48:46%20AM%20PDT&utm_campaign=NPA:2542:6313:Aug%2027,%202020%205:48:46%20AM%20PDT> on public attitudes toward voting this fall. It first “key finding” is that most voters believe voting will be safe this fall — and that older voters are even more likely to believe voting will be safe. Digging deeper into the report, I was happy to see that 55% of voters plan to vote in person. That is higher than most predictions have suggested.

I would also expect that percentage to go up by November, as more public commentary across the political spectrum encourages voters to vote in person and as people hear the message from Dr. Fauci and other public-health officials that in-person voting will be safe, given the safety protocols in place. From the report:

A majority of respondents said that they expect that the 2020 election will be physically safe from COVID-19 health risks
·         Despite the acknowledged increased health risk to older voters, that population had higher perceptions of safety and preparedness than did younger voters.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D114492&title=%E2%80%9CAttitudes%20on%20Voting%20in%202020%E2%80%9D>
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/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200828/a59fd05e/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/20200828/a59fd05e/attachment.png>