[EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/17/20

[Rick Hasen]

“Facebook Knows That Adding Labels To Trump’s False Claims Does Little To Stop Their Spread”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118731>
Posted on November 16, 2020 9:01 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118731> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

BuzzFeed:<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-labels-trump-lies-do-not-stop-spread>

The labels Facebook has been putting on false election posts from President Donald Trump have failed to slow their spread across the platform, according to internal data seen by BuzzFeed News.

In the aftermath of the 2020 US presidential election, Trump has repeatedly spread false information questioning President-elect Joe Biden’s victory — and been rewarded with massive engagement on Facebook. The company has attempted to temper this by adding labels<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-zuckerberg-what-if-trump-disputes-election-results> to the false claims directing people to accurate information about the election and its results.

But this has done little to prevent Trump’s false claims from going viral on Facebook, according to discussions on internal company discussion boards. After an employee asked last week whether Facebook has any data about the effectiveness of the labels, a data scientist revealed that the labels — referred to as “informs” internally — do very little to reduce them from being shared.

”We have evidence that applying these informs to posts decreases their reshares by ~8%,” the data scientists said. “However given that Trump has SO many shares on any given post, the decrease is not going to change shares by orders of magnitude.”

The data scientist noted that adding the labels was not expected to reduce the spread of false content. Instead, they are used “to provide factual information in context to the post.”

“Ahead of this election we developed informational labels, which we applied to candidate posts with a goal of connecting people with reliable sources about the election,” Facebook spokesperson Liz Bourgeois said in a statement, adding that labels were “just one piece of our larger election integrity efforts.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118731&title=%E2%80%9CFacebook%20Knows%20That%20Adding%20Labels%20To%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20False%20Claims%20Does%20Little%20To%20Stop%20Their%20Spread%E2%80%9D>
Posted in cheap speech<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=130>


“Trump aims to undermine Biden’s legitimacy even as legal challenges fizzle”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118729>
Posted on November 16, 2020 8:56 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118729> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CNN<https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/politics/trump-election-challenge-biden-legitimacy/index.html?utm_term=16055884163399cd12b956f37&utm_source=Reliable+Sources+-+November+16%2C+2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=258697_1605588416341&bt_ee=qTJ0sdqhzZRcX4lPbMsLED3vTkmgCCZpBfs%2F8sSweYRL9JbZSse53a2u2inso%2FKb&bt_ts=1605588416341>:

When President Donald Trump <https://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/president-donald-trump-45> learned at the end of last week that his lawyers were dropping their lawsuit seeking a review of ballots in Arizona, the news caught him by surprise.

Summoning members of his team to the Oval Office, where he has been spending afternoons and evenings lately when not in the adjoining dining room watching television, Trump demanded to know why it appeared he was giving up a battle he fully intends to continue waging.

Even as his legal pathway to challenging Joe Biden’s<https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/candidate/biden> electoral victory becomes thinner by the day — and as some of his senior-most aides begin signaling publicly that Biden will take office in January — Trump has shown little indication he plans to back off his false claim that he won the election.

Instead of an actual attempt to locate more votes or even to reverse the election results, Trump’s legal efforts appear designed instead to seed conspiracy theories among his conservative supporters, raise additional money, preserve power over the Republican Party and cast a pall of illegitimacy over Biden’s tenure — the same shadow Trump has long complained darkened his own time in office.

Whether any of those outcomes is his express goal remains unclear. Many around him believe a dejected President is simply making an elaborate attempt at processing his trauma rather than executing a master plan. Asked last week how long his efforts might last, Trump suggested “two weeks, three weeks” — though few believe he will ever acknowledge outright that he lost the election to Biden…

The split came to a head during the Oval Office huddle, a session people briefed on the matter described as contentious even by Trump administration standards. At one point, Giuliani — who was patched in on speaker phone — called the Trump campaign lawyers liars for telling the President his odds of changing the outcome of the election were slim.

On the call, Justin Clark, the President’s deputy campaign manager, fired back. “F***ing asshole,” Clark labeled the former New York City mayor, whose involvement in Trump’s post-election legal efforts has caused anger and exasperation among other advisers.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118729&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20aims%20to%20undermine%20Biden%E2%80%99s%20legitimacy%20even%20as%20legal%20challenges%20fizzle%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Trump digs in on baseless election claims even as legal options dwindle”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118727>
Posted on November 16, 2020 8:47 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118727> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-digs-in-election/2020/11/16/debae3f0-2827-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html>

President Trump began his third straight week of angry defiance of the election results, brooding behind the scenes about the state of his campaign’s legal challenges and of Georgia’s hand recount while refusing the pleas of some advisers to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

Despite mounting legal losses in courts and a retreat by his attorneys in a federal case filed against Pennsylvania election officials, Trump dug in on his false claim that he “won” the election.

The president also assailed Georgia for what he described on Twitter as a “Fake” and “MEANINGLESS” recount in that state, which President-elect Joe Biden leads by 14,205 votes<https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/georgia-2020/?itid=sn_election-2020&itid=lk_inline_manual_11&itid=lk_inline_manual_5> and has been projected to win. Trump officials seized late Monday on the discovery of about 2,600 eligible votes in heavily Republican Floyd County that were not included in initial tallies, although they would not be enough to change the outcome statewide.

Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, said in an interview Monday that he has come under increasing pressure from fellow Republicans to exclude ballots in an effort to reverse Trump’s narrow loss and that the president’s misinformation campaign has gotten so out of hand that he has received death threats.

Trump’s campaign has begun winding down its operations, with employment contracts for a number of aides expiring on Sunday. The president, frustrated that his campaign lawyers were not appearing more frequently on television to amplify his baseless claim that he was the real election winner, has elevated attorneys Rudolph W. Giuliani and Jenna Ellis to run his legal and public-relations efforts to overturn the results.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118727&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20digs%20in%20on%20baseless%20election%20claims%20even%20as%20legal%20options%20dwindle%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Trump campaign would have to pay nearly $8 million for Wisconsin recount”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118725>
Posted on November 16, 2020 8:43 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118725> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:<https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/16/trump-campaign-would-pay-nearly-8-million-wisconsin-recount/6316022002/>

President Donald Trump’s campaign would have to pay nearly $8 million to start a recount in Wisconsin, a state he narrowly lost two weeks ago.

Trump will have to decide by Wednesday whether to carry through with the recount he has promised to pursue.

If his campaign pays the $7.9 million cost up front, the recount will begin as soon as Thursday and be complete by Dec. 1, according to the state Elections Commission.

Trump has been furiously fundraising for the Wisconsin recount and legal challenges<https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/16/trump-campaign-agrees-drop-suit-against-tiny-wisconsin-tv-station/6314907002/> in other states to try to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. If he doesn’t go ahead with the Wisconsin recount, he can use the money he’s raised for other purposes, such as retiring his campaign debt.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118725&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20campaign%20would%20have%20to%20pay%20nearly%20%248%20million%20for%20Wisconsin%20recount%E2%80%9D>
Posted in recounts<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>


“Why counting presidential votes is not for federal district courts”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118723>
Posted on November 16, 2020 8:30 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118723> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ned Foley:<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/why-counting-presidential-votes-is-not-for-federal-district-courts/>

For the past several months, Election Law at Ohio State<https://u.osu.edu/electionlaw/> and SCOTUSblog have teamed up to track significant election-related lawsuits<https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/> with the potential to reach the Supreme Court and affect the presidential election. Now, two weeks after Election Day, litigation over the outcome of the election is rapidly diminishing<https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/politics/lawsuits-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin-georgia/index.html>, but it hasn’t yet completely disappeared. Still scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 17, is a hearing<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-11/pennsylvania-gets-nov-17-hearing-on-tossing-trump-election-suit> in the Trump campaign’s federal-court lawsuit<https://electioncases.osu.edu/case/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-boockvar/> seeking to delay certification of the popular vote in Pennsylvania. The remaining litigation almost certainly will not have a practical effect on the election’s outcome for a variety of reasons (it would be necessary for President Donald Trump to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s apparent victory in three states, not enough ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118708> are at stake even assuming the merits of the legal theories raises, factual evidence is lacking on many of the claims made, and so forth). But as others<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118703> have observed, there are still some legal principles at stake before this ends up just a matter for the history books.

In a recent Washington Post column<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/13/trumps-originalist-judges-should-reject-his-lawsuits-usurping-states-rights-framers-would/>, I set forth the basic reasons why litigation over the counting of votes in a presidential election belongs in state, rather than federal, court. If this procedural point is correct, as is also argued in an important amicus brief<https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Donald-J.-Trump-for-President-v-Boockvar-Doc82-1.pdf> filed by prominent former GOP officeholders<https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Donald-J.-Trump-for-President-v-Boockvar-Doc82-3.pdf>, the pending federal-court case that is the subject of tomorrow’s hearing should be dismissed without consideration of its merits, so that any such claims can be pursued in an appropriate forum established by state law. Here I elaborate on additional details in support of the basic point.  Many of these are drawn from research for the book Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States<https://www.amazon.com/Ballot-Battles-History-Disputed-Elections/dp/0190235276> as well as work done for the American Law Institute’s Principles of Law—Election Administration<https://www.ali.org/news/articles/now-available-principles-law-election-administration/> project.

One can conceive of these points as adding up to the conclusion that federal courts should stay out of cases involving the counting of votes in presidential elections as a matter of equitable discretion — a court of equity historically always can decline to intervene, particularly on a request for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, when the public interest as part of the “balancing of the equities” so dictates — rather than as a strict jurisdictional barrier to federal-district court review.  Another way one could think of this is that vote-counting litigation in a presidential election warrants its own special form of an “abstention” doctrine, or at least yields the conclusion that traditional abstention doctrines as applied to this context calls upon federal district courts to abstain rather than getting involved. But whatever doctrinal label one wishes to attach to this conclusion, these factors combine to provide a strong basis for federal district courts refusing to intervene in the litigation over the counting of presidential ballots….
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118723&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20counting%20presidential%20votes%20is%20not%20for%20federal%20district%20courts%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


Trump Campaign Tries Last Minute Substitution of Attorneys in PA Federal Case and Asks to Postpone Tomorrow’s Preliminary Injunction Hearing; Request Unsurprisingly Denied<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118721>
Posted on November 16, 2020 6:54 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118721> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wow<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1328530023515471872?s=20>:
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118721&title=Trump%20Campaign%20Tries%20Last%20Minute%20Substitution%20of%20Attorneys%20in%20PA%20Federal%20Case%20and%20Asks%20to%20Postpone%20Tomorrow%E2%80%99s%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20Hearing%3B%20Request%20Unsurprisingly%20Denied>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Election Security Experts Contradict Trump’s Voting Claims; In a public letter, 59 top specialists called the president’s fraud assertions ‘unsubstantiated’ and ‘technically incoherent.'”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118718>
Posted on November 16, 2020 3:03 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118718> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/business/election-security-letter-trump.html>

Fifty-nine of the country’s top computer scientists and election security experts rebuked President Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud and hacking on Monday, writing that such assertions are “unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.”

The rebuttal, in a letter to be published on various websites, did not mention Mr. Trump by name but amounted to another forceful corrective to the torrents of disinformation<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-disinformation.html> that he has posted on Twitter.

“Anyone asserting that a U.S. election was ‘rigged’ is making an extraordinary claim, one that must be supported by persuasive and verifiable evidence,” the scientists wrote. In the absence of evidence, they added, it is “simply speculation.”

“To our collective knowledge, no credible evidence has been put forth that supports a conclusion that the 2020 election outcome in any state has been altered through technical compromise,” they wrote…

“It has been extremely frustrating that the existence of serious vulnerabilities is now being confused with the actual exploitation to tamper with elections, which is something that we’ve never seen any evidence for,” said Matt Blaze, a computer science professor at Georgetown University who signed the letter.

The group has persuaded some states to strengthen security. It helped get Colorado to put in place rigorous audits that examine samples of ballots for evidence of incorrect tallying, for example, but has been unsuccessful in pushing those measures at the federal level.

Other signers of the letter include Ronald Rivest, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a pioneer in cryptography; Steven M. Bellovin, a computer science professor at Columbia University; Joseph Lorenzo Hall, the senior vice president at the nonprofit Internet Society; J. Alex Halderman, an election security expert; and Harri Hursti, an election security expert who was in Georgia during the election.

This lette<https://josephhall.org/papers/Experts-Statement-on-the-US-2020-General-Election-16NOV2020-1057.pdf>r is signed by the very top people in this field.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118718&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Security%20Experts%20Contradict%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Voting%20Claims%3B%20In%20a%20public%20letter%2C%2059%20top%20specialists%20called%20the%20president%E2%80%99s%20fraud%20assertions%20%E2%80%98unsubstantiated%E2%80%99%20and%20%E2%80%98technically%20incoherent.%27%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“How the Court’s Decisions Limit the National Electorate”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118716>
Posted on November 16, 2020 2:40 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118716> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Adam Feldman <https://empiricalscotus.com/2020/11/16/the-courts-involvement-elections/> at Empirical SCOTUS.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118716&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20the%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Decisions%20Limit%20the%20National%20Electorate%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Georgia’s secretary of state says fellow Republicans are pressuring him to find ways to exclude legal ballots”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118714>
Posted on November 16, 2020 2:28 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118714> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brad-raffensperger-georgia-vote/2020/11/16/6b6cb2f4-283e-11eb-8fa2-06e7cbb145c0_story.html>

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said Monday that he has come under increasing pressure in recent days from fellow Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), to question the validity of legally cast absentee ballots in an effort to reverse President Trump’s narrow loss in the state.

In a wide-ranging interview about the 2020 election, Raffensperger expressed exasperation with a string of baseless allegations coming from Trump and his allies about the integrity of the Georgia results, including claims <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/16/giulianis-fantasy-parade-false-voter-fraud-claims/?itid=lk_inline_manual_3> that Dominion Voting Systems, the Colorado-based manufacturer of Georgia’s voting machines, is a “leftist” company with ties to Venezuela that engineered thousands of Trump votes not to be counted.

The atmosphere has grown so contentious, Raffensperger said, that both he and his wife, Tricia, have received death threats in recent days, including a text to him that read, “You better not botch this recount. Your life depends on it.”

“Other than getting you angry, it’s also very disillusioning,” Raffensperger said of the threats, “particularly when it comes from people on my side of the aisle. Everyone that is working on this needs to elevate their speech. We need to be thoughtful and careful about what we say.” He said he reported the threats to state authorities.

The pressure on Raffensperger, who has bucked his party <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brad-raffensperger-georgia/2020/11/11/2d0a876e-2426-11eb-952e-0c475972cfc0_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_8> in defending the state’s voting process, comes as Georgia is in the midst of a laborious hand recount <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/georgia-election-recount/2020/11/14/7fc1c82e-25c9-11eb-952e-0c475972cfc0_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_8> of roughly 5 million ballots. President-elect Joe Biden has a 14,000-vote lead in the initial count.

The normally mild-mannered Raffensperger saved his harshest language for U.S. Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), who is leading the president’s effort to prove fraud in Georgia and whom Raffensperger called a “liar” and a “charlatan.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118714&title=%E2%80%9CGeorgia%E2%80%99s%20secretary%20of%20state%20says%20fellow%20Republicans%20are%20pressuring%20him%20to%20find%20ways%20to%20exclude%20legal%20ballots%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


President Trump’s Wants PA to Have Rejected Absentees at a 30x Higher Rate<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118711>
Posted on November 16, 2020 1:48 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118711> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

A recent tweet<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1328448530504163329> argues that PA rejected absentees at only a 0.03% rate this year, compared to 1% in 2016.

Let’s suppose PA rejected another 0.97% of absentees then. PA has counted 2,615,512 absentee ballots. Even if 100% of these absentees had been cast for Biden, which of course they were not, that comes to about 25,370 ballots.

Biden’s lead, which grows by the day, is currently more than 68,000 votes.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118711&title=President%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Wants%20PA%20to%20Have%20Rejected%20Absentees%20at%20a%2030x%20Higher%20Rate>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“The Trump campaign’s disingenuous spin on its watered-down voter fraud claims”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118708>
Posted on November 16, 2020 11:30 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118708> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

I have reviewed the amended complaint filed in court and can attest to the accuracy of the reporting in this Washington Post story<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/16/trump-campaigns-disingenuous-spin-its-watered-down-voter-fraud-claims/>:

The crux of The Post’s report is that the lawsuit removed claims that elections officials violated the Trump campaign’s rights by limiting its ability to witness the ballot-counting process. This is significant because that claim involves more than 600,000 ballots in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. To the extent that the campaign is backing off that, its path to overturn its deficit in Pennsylvania — which is at nearly 70,000 votes and growing — becomes much more difficult. And without Pennsylvania, President Trump would have virtually no shot at retaining office, given that he would need to overturn the results in three states….

But the Trump campaign assures that this is not all that it seems. Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani claimed that The Post “didn’t read para[graphs] 132-150 which repeat all the allegations of the 680,777 mail in votes<https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1328166148416933896> which were deliberately concealed from Republican inspectors.” Trump campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis pointed specifically to Paragraphs 142 and 150<https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1328160354791157760>. All of these paragraphs, they assured, kept the observers claim — and those more than 600,000 votes — on the table.

The Trump campaign also issued a lengthy statement<https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/setting-the-record-straight-on-trump-campaigns-pennsylvania-litigation/> Monday morning calling The Post’s report “a complete mischaracterization.”…

But while the campaign — as The Post’s report acknowledges — continues to assert in its lawsuit that its observers were not able to monitor the counting of mail ballots, it is no longer pursuing legal claims based on that allegation. References to the observers remain in the lawsuit, but the Trump campaign is not seeking legal relief based on that allegation anymore. Instead, those assertions are more or less filler at this point….

The newly amended lawsuit eliminates five of the previous seven allegations of violations, in fact, including all that focused on the access of observers. It also eliminates that claim from its request for relief, which is what really matters in such a lawsuit.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118708&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Trump%20campaign%E2%80%99s%20disingenuous%20spin%20on%20its%20watered-down%20voter%20fraud%20claims%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/20201117/ae990356/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/20201117/ae990356/attachment.png>