[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/6/20

[Rick Hasen]

“Mike Bloomberg plans new group to support Democratic nominee”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109884>
Posted on March 5, 2020 7:45 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109884> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mike-bloomberg-plans-new-group-to-support-democratic-nominee/2020/03/05/a2522c44-5f13-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html>

Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has decided to form an independent expenditure campaign that will absorb hundreds of his presidential campaign staffers in six swing states to work to elect the Democratic nominee this fall.

The group, with a name that is still undisclosed because its trademark application is in process, would also be a vehicle for Bloomberg to spend money on advertising to attack President Trump and support the Democratic nominee, according to a person familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal internal deliberations….

Because of campaign finance rules, Bloomberg’s aides have concluded that they cannot simply tell campaign employees to work directly for Biden. “The folks in those states have been told that they can apply for spots in the battleground,” said the person familiar with the plans.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109884&title=%E2%80%9CMike%20Bloomberg%20plans%20new%20group%20to%20support%20Democratic%20nominee%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


“Facebook Removes Misleading Trump Census Ads”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109882>
Posted on March 5, 2020 7:41 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109882> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/technology/facebook-trump-census-ads.html>

Facebook said on Thursday that it had removed misleading ads run by President Trump’s re-election campaign about the 2020 census, in a stand against disinformation ahead of the decennial population count that begins next week.

Earlier this week, Trump Make America Great Again, a joint fund-raising arm of Donald J. Trump for President Inc. and the Republican National Committee, started running ads on the social media site that Facebook said could have caused confusion about the timing of the census.

“President Trump needs you to take the Official 2020 Congressional District Census today. We need to hear from you before the most important election in American history,” the ad said. The campaign asked followers to “respond NOW” to help our campaign messaging strategy, with an appeal to text “TRUMP to 8022.”

The Census Bureau will not begin to survey the public for its population survey until next week. The ad linked the census to the Trump campaign, a misrepresentation of the official government survey, said civil rights groups.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109882&title=%E2%80%9CFacebook%20Removes%20Misleading%20Trump%20Census%20Ads%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, census litigation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“California officials demand changes to L.A. voting after election day chaos”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109880>
Posted on March 5, 2020 7:36 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109880> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

LAT:<https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-05/california-officials-demand-changes-los-angeles-voting-election-day-chaos>

Perhaps no California county had more at stake in the statewide primary this year than Los Angeles, home to more voters than anywhere else in the state, and whose officials attempt<https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-24/california-presidential-primary-could-hinge-on-big-voting-changes-in-los-angeles>ed to implement the new law while also rolling out a new $300-million system for marking and counting ballots<https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-24/california-presidential-primary-could-hinge-on-big-voting-changes-in-los-angeles>. Images of voters standing in long lines deep into the night on Tuesday were seen across the nation, and voters complained of problems on social media and by calling the state’s election hotline.

State Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), the author of the 2016 law to move counties away from traditional elections<https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-polling-place-replaced-vote-centers-20160823-snap-story.html> and toward a model that combines absentee ballots with full-service centers for those who want to vote in person, said he will introduce legislation next week that would require L.A. County to open more vote centers in November or mail all registered voters a ballot….

adilla, who was the new law’s most vocal champion and raised no concerns in 2016 about exempting L.A. from mailing everyone a ballot, insisted Thursday it was not his decision.

“It was a mistake for the Legislature to give L.A. County special treatment,” he said.

Dean Logan, L.A. County’s registrar of voters, said in a written statement he released Thursday that Padilla’s call to mail everyone a ballot would not be easy.

“The logistics and capacity for election administration in Los Angeles County are complex and demanding,” Logan wrote. “Significant efforts were made — and must be made going forward — to ensure greater access, functionality and reliability in the voting model. Expansion of vote by mail should be explored to determine its viability in the short timeframe ahead of the November election, but more is required.”…

Richard L. Hasen, an election law professor at UC Irvine, said that the novelty of the new voting machines and check-in tablets made enhanced training important. And he said an influx of younger, more technologically savvy election workers would help.

“The technology has gone from fourth-grade technology to graduate school-level technology,” he said. “You need younger people who are more comfortable with the technology. There should be a big push for that.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109880&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20officials%20demand%20changes%20to%20L.A.%20voting%20after%20election%20day%20chaos%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“How Mike Bloomberg Hid His Billions from You”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109878>
Posted on March 5, 2020 7:29 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109878> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Dave Levinthal <https://publicintegrity.org/politics/mike-bloomberg-billions-disclosure-president/> for CPI:

Michael Bloomberg is extraordinarily rich<https://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg/#d9cdeeb14178>. And in December, soon after becoming an extraordinarily rich presidential candidate — one required<https://www.fec.gov/press/resources-journalists/presidential-senate-and-house-candidates/> by law to publicly disclose his personal assets within one month’s time — Bloomberg pleaded plenitude.

“Mr. Bloomberg requires additional time to collect information regarding complex holdings and prepare and file his report,” Bloomberg attorney Lawrence Norton wrote to regulators<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6793299-Bloomberga.html> at the Federal Election Commission.

The FEC, as it all but reflexively does with dallying presidential candidates, granted Bloomberg’s request<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6793298-Bloombergb.html> for 45 more days — days that came and went.

On Jan. 17, another letter<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6793156-bloomberg11.html>.

“Mr. Bloomberg … has made diligent efforts to prepare his report,” Norton wrote the FEC. “Nevertheless, due to the complexity of his holdings and the need to obtain certain information from third parties, Mr. Bloomberg needs additional time to gather and review his financial information and complete and file his report.”

The FEC again gave Bloomberg 45 more<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6793157-bloomberg1.html> days. The former mayor of New York City and Bloomberg LP<https://www.forbes.com/companies/bloomberg/#7b64f14e74a1> mogul needn’t file his personal financial disclosure form until March 20 — after Bloomberg had already pumped more than half a billion dollars of his own money into his campaign and after millions of Democrats cast ballots during Super Tuesday primaries.

Small hitch: Bloomberg<https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/presidential-profiles-2020/michael-bloomberg-president-election-democrat/> is now a former presidential candidate<https://www.npr.org/2020/03/04/811873643/after-disappointing-super-tuesday-mike-bloomberg-suspends-his-campaign>. As such, he is no longer under legal obligation to disclose the sources of his wealth or any creditors he owes, according to guidance from the FEC and Office of Government Ethics<https://www.oge.gov/Web/OGE.nsf/All%20Advisories%20by%20Year/A2E172617AC08FA185257E96005FBEBD/$FILE/8c49965d6b5a4dc6b2e2c1a61d724dfa5.pdf?open>.

In essence, Bloomberg ran out the clock on transparency.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109878&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Mike%20Bloomberg%20Hid%20His%20Billions%20from%20You%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“National, Texas Democrats file lawsuit to keep straight-ticket voting for 2020 election”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109876>
Posted on March 5, 2020 7:16 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109876> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Fort Worth Star-Telegram<https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article240938016.html>:

After some Texans waited more than six hours to cast their ballot<https://www.texastribune.org/2020/03/04/harris-countys-texas-southern-university-voting-delays-what-happened/> on Super Tuesday, national and Texas Democrats filed a lawsuit Thursday to block a state law that would eliminate straight-ticket voting come November.

In a federal lawsuit filed in Laredo<https://www.dscc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2020-03-05-Bruni-v.-Hughs-Complaint.pdf> against Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs, the Texas Democratic Party, along with the Democratic campaign arms of the U.S. House and Senate, allege that the ending the practice will “unjustifiably and discriminatorily burden Texans’ fundamental right to vote,” in an 2020 election where historic turnout is anticipated.

The lawsuit argues that straight ticket voting “plays a critical role” and allows for voters to cast their ballots more efficiently when they can have dozens of races to make a decision on. Without it, voters will take longer to cast their ballots, and minority voters who live in the more densely populated areas of the state will be disparately affected, the lawsuit argues.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109876&title=%E2%80%9CNational%2C%20Texas%20Democrats%20file%20lawsuit%20to%20keep%20straight-ticket%20voting%20for%202020%20election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


“Secretary of state: Expect Michigan primary results to come later”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109874>
Posted on March 5, 2020 7:12 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109874> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Detroit News:<https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/05/secretary-state-expect-michigan-primary-results-come-later/4963503002/>

 Results from Michigan’s presidential primary election Tuesday will come later than usual, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson cautioned during a Thursday press conference.

Benson didn’t provide an estimate for how long results will be delayed after polls close Tuesday night. But a document prepared by the Michigan Department of State said, “There is significant possibility that unofficial election results will not be available until much later in the evening than they have been historically.”…

In 2018, Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment that allowed eligible voters to register up through Election Day and that allowed for no-reason absentee voting. Previously, voters had to meet certain criteria, like being older than 60 or being out of town on Election Day, to vote absentee.

The changes and interest in this year’s election have led to a surge in absentee voting. Compared with one week before the 2016 presidential primary, Michigan has experienced an 80% increase in applications for absentee ballots in 2020, according to the Department of State.

As of Thursday, Michigan voters had returned 572,895 absentee ballots, according to the department.

For weeks, Benson and other election officials have pressed Michigan lawmakers<https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2020/01/28/benson-detroit-clerk-press-early-absentee-ballot-processing/4596454002/> to allow local clerks to begin processing the absentee ballots before Election Day to help them cope with the time it takes to unseal and tabulate the ballots. But Michigan lawmakers so far haven’t enacted any changes.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109874&title=%E2%80%9CSecretary%20of%20state%3A%20Expect%20Michigan%20primary%20results%20to%20come%20later%E2%80%9D>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>, election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“How Pennsylvania’s New Mail-in Ballot Law Could Create Election Night Chaos”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109872>
Posted on March 5, 2020 9:50 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109872> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AJ Vicens<https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/pennsylvania-election-night/> for Mother Jones:

Imagine this: It’s the night of November 3, 2020 and eyeballs across the country are glued to television. As results trickle in, networks begin making calls in the presidential race, filling states red for President Trump or blue for the Democratic ticket.

In 2016, just 80,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania gave Trump his electoral college win. Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes are the biggest prize among these closely watched swing states, and are widely assumed to be a prerequisite to winning the presidency. And initial results, based on day of votes, suggest a winner. But over the course of the next 24 hours or so, hundreds of thousands of mailed ballots are counted, and the candidate who looked like the victor on election night has fallen behind. That candidate’s supporters—and perhaps the candidate themself—claims foul play or rigging. Chaos ensues. “If we don’t know for 24 hours or 48 hours…That is the ultimate concern.”

As things stand, election officials in the state fear Americans could confront this exact hypothetical this fall. As Rick Hasen, an elections administration expert and law professor at the University of California, Irvine, recently told me<https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/02/slow-elections/>, its one of his “nightmare scenarios.” New rules<https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/pa-election-reform-deal-20191023.html> this year allow all Pennsylvania residents to request to cast ballots by mail, an opportunity that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of voters will take up. Under existing state law, they cannot be counted, or even opened, until after 8pm on election night, when traditional polling locations close. In a state where Trump topped Hillary Clinton by just 44,292 votes, these ballots could be decisive—and the process could take up to three days.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109872&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Pennsylvania%E2%80%99s%20New%20Mail-in%20Ballot%20Law%20Could%20Create%20Election%20Night%20Chaos%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>


“Why Trump and the RNC are spending $10 million to fight Democrats’ voting rights lawsuits”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109870>
Posted on March 5, 2020 9:40 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109870> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I have written this piece<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/05/why-trump-rnc-are-spending-10-million-fight-democrats-voting-rights-lawsuits/> for the Monkey Cage over at the Washington Post. A snippet:

I have been tracking election-related litigation brought across the country since 1996. That was four years before Bush v. Gore<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/>, in which the Supreme Court halted litigation over Florida’s vote recount in the 2000 election, thereby putting George W. Bush in the White House. These lawsuits range widely, including fights over which candidates can get listed on the ballot; disputes over campaign finance rules; and arguments over the legality of lines drawn to define congressional districts.

In my 2012 book, “The Voting Wars<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300198248?ie=UTF8&tag=washpost-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=0300198248>,” I noted that we have seen twice the amount of election litigation on average in each of the years after 2000 compared with the average amount of litigation in each of the years from 1996 through 1999.

I recently updated my research for my new book, “Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300248199?ie=UTF8&tag=washpost-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=0300248199>.” As you can see in the figure below, U.S. election lawsuits each year have nearly tripled since the end of 1999, from an average of 94 cases per year before Bush v. Gore to an average of 270 cases after. Election litigation was up 23 percent in 2016 compared with 2012. The midterm elections of 2018 saw 394 cases — the most at least since 1996, and likely ever.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109870&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Trump%20and%20the%20RNC%20are%20spending%20%2410%20million%20to%20fight%20Democrats%E2%80%99%20voting%20rights%20lawsuits%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>


“Putting the Long Voting Lines in Context”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109868>
Posted on March 5, 2020 9:36 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109868> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jill Cowan<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/us/placer-county-coronavirus-death.html> for NYT’s California Today.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109868&title=%E2%80%9CPutting%20the%20Long%20Voting%20Lines%20in%20Context%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“Facebook allows Trump campaign to run deceptive Census ads”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109866>
Posted on March 5, 2020 9:34 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109866> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Judd Legum<https://popular.info/p/facebook-allows-trump-campaign-to> for Popular Information.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109866&title=%E2%80%9CFacebook%20allows%20Trump%20campaign%20to%20run%20deceptive%20Census%20ads%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


Charles: “Meltdown? On Rhetoric and Causation” (Balkinization Symposium on Election Meltdown)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109864>
Posted on March 5, 2020 9:33 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109864> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Guy Charles<https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/03/meltdown-on-rhetoric-and-causation.html>:

Rick Hasen is a prolific scholar (and a wonderful interlocutor).  He is not only one of the most thoughtful scholars in the field of election law, he seems to write a book every other year.  He has a great eye for identifying the issues of the moment, he has a prodigious command of relevant information, and he has an ability, which is rare among most legal academics, to distill complex issues in a manner that makes sense to non-academics.  His latest project, Election Law Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy, displays these skills in ample abundance.  Rick’s timing could not have better. Or worse?  His book, predicting an election law meltdown, came out just as, it seemed, the Iowa Caucuses were experiencing<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/politics/iowa-democratic-caucus-explained.html> the election administration version of the ten plagues of Egypt.  Rick relies on a series of vignettes and real-world events to show how the confluence of “four factors—voter suppression, pockets of incompetence, foreign and domestic dirty tricks, and incendiary rhetoric—undermines public trust in the fairness and accuracy of American elections and creates high risks for the 2010 elections and beyond.” (10).  The book is engaging, moves quickly, raises a number of important points, and is extremely accessible.  I want to focus on two issues in particular that the book raised for me, one about rhetoric and the other about causation.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109864&title=Charles%3A%20%E2%80%9CMeltdown%3F%20On%20Rhetoric%20and%20Causation%E2%80%9D%20(Balkinization%20Symposium%20on%20Election%20Meltdown)>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>


“Trump’s DOJ Has Not Filed A Single New Voting Rights Act Case”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109862>
Posted on March 5, 2020 9:31 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109862> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Tierney Sneed <https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trumps-doj-has-not-filed-a-single-new-voting-rights-act-case> for TPM:

The apparent refusal of President Trump’s Justice Department to engage in any meaningful, public enforcement of the Voting Rights Act has taken Republicans’ general hostility to the law to a whole new level.

The DOJ has not filed a single new Voting Rights Act case since the Trump administration took over — setting it apart from the last several administrations, Republican and Democratic.

While it did some litigating of cases under other election laws in the first half of the administration, the Justice Department’s Voting Section has not brought any new cases since 2018.

The current dry spell in DOJ voting rights enforcement is unprecedented, according to the DOJ’s own public record<https://www.justice.gov/crt/search-cases-and-matters> and what former voting section officials told TPM.

“It’s not that there is an absence of enforcement opportunities. Private plaintiffs continue to bring cases, some quite vigorously,” said Justin Levitt, an election law professor who served as a deputy assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division under President Obama. “The fact the department is currently involved in none of them is disturbing.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109862&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%E2%80%99s%20DOJ%20Has%20Not%20Filed%20A%20Single%20New%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Case%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Department of Justice<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


“Report: Russian social accounts sow election discord – again”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109860>
Posted on March 5, 2020 9:28 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109860> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP<https://apnews.com/0db953743c56cd6fd6e4ef73e02f120c>:

Four years after Russia-linked groups stoked divisions in the U.S. presidential election on social media platforms, a new report shows that Moscow’s campaign hasn’t let up and has become harder to detect.

The report <https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-evidence-shows-how-russias-election-interference-has-gotten-more> from University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Young Mie Kim found that Russia-linked social media accounts are posting about the same divisive issues — race relations, gun laws and immigration — as they did in 2016,<https://apnews.com/1335fb62321b40e1a5556e822c0f0ac0> when the Kremlin polluted American voters’ feeds with messages about the presidential election.

Since then, however, the Russians have grown better at imitating U.S. campaigns and political fan pages online, said Kim, who analyzed thousands of posts. She studied more than 5 million Facebook ads during the 2016 election, identifying Russia’s fingerprints on some of the messages through an ad-tracking app installed on volunteers’ computers. Her review is co-published by the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy institute, where she is a scholar.

The recent improvements make it harder for voters and social media platforms to identify the foreign interference, Kim said.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109860&title=%E2%80%9CReport%3A%20Russian%20social%20accounts%20sow%20election%20discord%20%E2%80%93%20again%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

--
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/20200306/145081b7/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/20200306/145081b7/attachment.png>