[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/22/21

[Rick Hasen]

“Black Democrats urge party to shift its voting rights push”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121768>
Posted on April 22, 2021 7:34 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121768> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/22/black-democrats-voting-rights-484089>:

Democrats have spent months touting an expansive proposal that would reshape U.S. elections. But with the bill’s Senate prospects growing more dire, key members of the Congressional Black Caucus are pushing to narrow their strategy.

The massive election reform measure known as H.R. 1 passed the House last month, but it has yet to win unified support from the 50-member Senate Democratic caucus amid a fierce GOP pushback effort that casts it as an aggressive consolidation of political power. With that Senate logjam in mind, a group of Black Democrats is pressing to elevate a more targeted voting rights bill — named for and championed by the late Rep. John Lewis — that they believe could be a moresuccessful sell on Capitol Hill.

The reality for Democrats is that the Lewis legislation won’t be much easier to pass than H.R. 1, which includes sweeping election administration mandates. Many in the party believe that no matter which bill the party prioritizes, success will require abolishing the filibuster that now requires 10 GOP votes to get most measures through the Senate.

Still, multiple Democrats acknowledged this week that the voting rights-only bill named for Lewis stands a better chance to make it to President Joe Biden’s desk. That bill has more Democratic support and an outside chance to win over a few Republicans, based on past votes to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

And the stakes couldn’t be higher for Biden’s party as they search for a way to blunt the GOP-led voter crackdown efforts in state legislatures ahead of next November’s midterms….

But CBC members say they want to move quickly. Their sense of urgency is in part because states will start receiving redistricting data over the summer from the Census Bureau to use for drafting new maps for House districts. If Democrats’ Lewis bill — which would restore key sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act — is not passed by then, certain states will not have to get preapproval for their electoral maps affirming an absence of racial discrimination.

Those protections were eliminated after the Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act’s so-called pre-clearance formula in 2013. That decision allowed many states to change their election laws without prior federal approval, including several southern states that drew criticism from voting rights advocates. Some Black lawmakers said Congress needs to get voting rights legislation to Biden’s desk by September at the very latest, because most states will begin enacting new maps around then, while others are already beginning<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121748> the process.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121768&title=%E2%80%9CBlack%20Democrats%20urge%20party%20to%20shift%20its%20voting%20rights%20push%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


“As the voting-rights fight moves to Texas, defiant Republicans test the resolve of corporations that oppose restrictions”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121766>
Posted on April 22, 2021 7:31 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121766> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-voting-restrictions-gop-corporations/2021/04/21/a2746b8c-a1e4-11eb-a774-7b47ceb36ee8_story.html>:

As the battle over a new Georgia law imposing identification requirements for mail ballots and other voting limits raged this month, Republicans in Texas knew they would be next — and acted quickly to try to head off the swelling number of corporations that had begun to scrutinize even more restrictive proposals being considered there and around the country.

Gov. Greg Abbott angrily declined to throw the first pitch at the Texas Rangers’ home opener, accusing Major League Baseball, which had announced plans to pull its All-Star Game from Atlanta, of buying into a “false narrative” about Georgia’s new law. The next day, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick responded to an early trickle of corporate statements denouncing the proposals under consideration in Austin, calling the critics, including Texas-based American Airlines and Dell Technologies, “a nest of liars.”

“Texans are fed up with corporations that don’t share our values trying to dictate public policy,” Patrick said in a separate statement.

And on Wednesday, state Rep. Briscoe Cain (R), the chief sponsor of one of the voting bills, proposed financial penalties<https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/amendments/prefiled/pdf/SB00001H2_E870211.PDF> against entities that publicly threaten “any adverse action against this state” in protest against election legislation.

To many of the companies and voting-rights advocates, the message is clear: Some Republicans have no plans to back down, and businesses that continue to speak out could face retribution.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121766&title=%E2%80%9CAs%20the%20voting-rights%20fight%20moves%20to%20Texas%2C%20defiant%20Republicans%20test%20the%20resolve%20of%20corporations%20that%20oppose%20restrictions%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Poll shows deep divisions over Georgia voting law”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121764>
Posted on April 22, 2021 7:10 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121764> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AJC:<https://www.ajc.com/politics/poll-shows-deep-divisions-over-georgia-voting-law/SAT54SN5JJCF5PAEBG3BICTDMQ/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_2251254>

Georgia voters are split along party lines over the state’s new election law<https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-state-legislature/voting-law-a-rorschach-test-for-a-divided-georgia/JA36OVZ5KJD2XLCTPIBRF5GG4A/>, with a divided majority supporting drop box limits, absentee ballot ID requirements and shorter deadlines to request absentee ballots, according to a University of Georgia poll released Wednesday.

But some parts of the law<https://www.ajc.com/politics/bill-changing-georgia-voting-rules-passes-state-house/EY2MATS6SRA77HTOBVEMTJLIT4/> earned bipartisan support or condemnation.

Voters overwhelmingly back weekend early voting options, and both conservatives and liberals say the law — pushed through the General Assembly by the GOP majority — was motivated by Republican Donald Trump’s loss<https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-georgia-manual-recount-confirms-biden-victory/B7LNNHYZOVGKZBUVAT7NZT3VZE/> to Democrat Joe Biden.

Georgians oppose a ban on giving food and drinks to voters waiting in line, and they object to allowing the state to take over<https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-bill-would-shift-power-over-elections-to-gop-appointees/VPNVO2W4TBBTFKGA7Z2GZIEQEE/> underperforming county election offices.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121764&title=%E2%80%9CPoll%20shows%20deep%20divisions%20over%20Georgia%20voting%20law%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“As Republicans Push to Limit Voting, Disagreements on Strategy Emerge”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121762>
Posted on April 21, 2021 9:56 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121762> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/us/politics/republican-voting-laws.html>:

This G.O.P. resistance to certain voting legislation reflects an awkward and delicate dance within the party: As state lawmakers loyal to former President Donald J. Trump try to please him and his supporters by enacting new voting limits across the country, they are facing pockets of opposition from other Republicans who argue that some of the bills go too far or would hurt their own voters.

These Republicans see themselves as moderating forces on bad bills. And they are instead proposing less stringent measures that they say will improve the efficiency and security of early voting now that so many more people are using it because of changes brought about by the coronavirus pandemic. They acknowledge, however, that their timing is bad. Pushing for any bill that includes new requirements for voting after an election that went more smoothly than many expected raises an inevitable question: Why now, if not to try to thwart Democrats?

The number of Republicans willing to speak out is modest compared with the many Trump-friendly lawmakers in G.O.P.-controlled state capitols who continue to validate the former president’s false claims of fraud by proposing harsh new voting measures. And even when other lawmakers in the party are successful in softening or stopping these, the outcome often remains new restrictions on voting — however small or subtle — that Democrats say are unnecessary and that are likely to disproportionately affect Black, Latino and poor voters.

But there is a difference between the public perception of these new laws and bills and the reality, Republicans say. Many of the most restrictive provisions have never made it past the bill-drafting phase or a legislative committee, halted by Republican leaders who say it is counterproductive to limit forms of voting that are convenient and that people in both parties prefer. (Republicans in states like Arizona have amassed such power in state legislatures in no small part because for many years their own voters embraced voting by mail.) And some Republicans have criticized as anti-democratic efforts to empower state legislators to reject the will of voters.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121762&title=%E2%80%9CAs%20Republicans%20Push%20to%20Limit%20Voting%2C%20Disagreements%20on%20Strategy%20Emerge%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Nevada secretary of state finds no ‘evidentiary support’ for GOP election fraud claims”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121760>
Posted on April 21, 2021 9:47 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121760> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CNN<https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/politics/barbara-cegavske-nevada-gop-voting-2020-election/index.html>:

Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske<https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/12/politics/nevada-gop-censure-secretary-of-state-barbara-cegavske/index.html>‘s office told the state Republican Party on Wednesday that an investigation had found no “evidentiary support” for its allegations of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.”

And while the NVGOP raises policy concerns about the integrity of mail-in voting, automatic voter registration, and same-day voter registration, these concerns do not amount to evidentiary support for the contention that the 2020 general election was plagued by widespread voter fraud,” said the letter, addressed to the Nevada Republican Party.

Cegavske, the only statewide Republican office holder, said in the letter that elections staff had inventoried and labeled four boxes of materials that had been delivered to the state Capitol on March 4 — and then to her office — and had investigated the accompanying allegations of voter fraud.Of the 122,918 records to support the accompanying allegations filed by members of the Nevada GOP,

Cegavske’s office narrowed down the list of unique “Election Integrity Violation Reports” to 3,963, some of which were already under investigation. An accompanying report fleshed out why many of the complaints were unsubstantiated.The Nevada GOP filed almost 4,000 complaints about noncitizens voting. But the investigative report noted that “the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as U.S. Courts of Appeal in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere, have ruled that election officials cannot lawfully require documentary proof of citizenship as a condition of voter registration. Nevada law is consistent with federal law in this regard.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121760&title=%E2%80%9CNevada%20secretary%20of%20state%20finds%20no%20%E2%80%98evidentiary%20support%E2%80%99%20for%20GOP%20election%20fraud%20claims%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Watch Archived Video of My Conversation with Larry Diamond and Pam Fessler on How to Fix American Democracy<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121758>
Posted on April 21, 2021 9:26 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121758> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This was a great discussion:<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmlBHMsSDx4>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121758&title=Watch%20Archived%20Video%20of%20My%20Conversation%20with%20Larry%20Diamond%20and%20Pam%20Fessler%20on%20How%20to%20Fix%20American%20Democracy>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Republicans Say They Care About Election Fraud. Here’s How They Could Actually Prevent It.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121756>
Posted on April 21, 2021 4:34 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121756> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

538<https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-say-they-care-about-election-fraud-heres-how-they-could-actually-prevent-it/> says it’s paper ballots.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121756&title=%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20Say%20They%20Care%20About%20Election%20Fraud.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20How%20They%20Could%20Actually%20Prevent%20It.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voting technology<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>


“Matt Gaetz sparked William Barr to drop the F-bomb in a legal spat over Florida voting”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121754>
Posted on April 21, 2021 1:20 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121754> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico:<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/gaetz-keefe-barr-florida-voter-fraud-483464>

Months before news broke that the feds were investigating him for sex trafficking, Rep. Matt Gaetz was at the center of a separate internal fight at the Justice Department. The sparring match involved an Oval Office meeting, a foul-mouthed threat from the attorney general and voting in Florida. It has not been previously reported.

In Aug. 2018, President Donald Trump nominated Larry Keefe — a former law partner of Gaetz’s at the firm Keefe, Anchors & Gordon — as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Florida. More than a year after he was sworn in, and as Joe Biden was locking up the Democratic nomination, Keefe looked to open a wide-ranging probe into voter fraud in Florida, according to two people familiar with the matter.

To open the probe, he needed approval from the Public Integrity Section at the Justice Department’s headquarters. The lawyers there blanched at the statewide scope of Keefe’s proposal, the sources said, and indicated they thought it would be too broad.

Keefe told Gaetz that he was facing resistance from the Public Integrity Section, according to a third person familiar with the situation….

After Keefe and Gaetz discussed the issue, the congressman had a meeting in the Oval Office with Trump. Gaetz said Trump brought up his views on fraud connected to mail-in voting. In response, Gaetz brought up Keefe’s legal theory.

“I said to him that an appreciation for the Keefe position on venue would give good U.S. attorneys in every capital city the necessary jurisdiction to root out fraud,” Gaetz said. “I also shared with President Trump that Keefe had faced substantial resistance from the Department of Justice.”

Gaetz said that Trump then told White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who was in the room, to tell Attorney General William Barr that Trump believed Keefe’s legal theory had merit.

When Barr learned about Gaetz’s conversation with the president, he was incensed. The attorney general called the U.S. attorney and gave him an earful, according to two people familiar with the call.

“If I ever hear of you talking to Gaetz or any other congressman again about business before the department, I am going to fucking fire your ass,” Barr told him, according to one of the people with knowledge of the call.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121754&title=%E2%80%9CMatt%20Gaetz%20sparked%20William%20Barr%20to%20drop%20the%20F-bomb%20in%20a%20legal%20spat%20over%20Florida%20voting%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Department of Justice<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>


The New Oklahoma Maps<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121748>
Posted on April 21, 2021 12:38 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121748> by Nicholas Stephanopoulos<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=12>

Oklahoma just became the first state to release<https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1384940360049303555> draft district maps for the next decade. These maps are notable in that they use American Community Survey data — not Census data — to equalize population. The maps were also released in the least user-friendly way possible, without shapefiles or block assignment files that would facilitate their analysis.

Nevertheless, PlanScore executive director (and data whiz) Mike Migurski managed to evaluate<https://twitter.com/michalmigurski/status/1384952023569797120> the maps’ likely partisan effects. And they’re atrocious. The state house map<https://planscore.org/plan.html?20210421T190932.018394874Z> has an expected pro-Republican efficiency gap of 13%, remaining in double digits in almost any electoral environment. The state senate map<https://planscore.org/plan.html?20210421T190939.675034041Z> has an expected pro-Republican efficiency gap of 15%, also remaining in double digits in essentially all electoral conditions. These are staggeringly bad scores, at the outer edge of the historical distribution. They’re a preview of the ruthless gerrymandering we’re likely to see this cycle in states with single-party control of redistricting. And they probably explain why Oklahoma released the maps in such a nontransparent format — to try to prevent their partisan implications from being apparent.
[cid:image002.jpg at 01D7374A.293D9BD0][cid:image003.jpg at 01D7374A.293D9BD0]
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121748&title=The%20New%20Oklahoma%20Maps>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


May 6-7: AALS Conference on Rebuilding Democracy and the Rule of Law<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121745>
Posted on April 21, 2021 9:33 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121745> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

A great lineup and set of topics for this seminar<https://www.aals.org/events/rebuilding-democracy/schedule/>. Day 1 is on the Presidency and Day 2 is on voting rights, race, and election adminstration. Glad to be participating in Day 2.

Free registration required for zoom log-in.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121745&title=May%206-7%3A%20AALS%20Conference%20on%20Rebuilding%20Democracy%20and%20the%20Rule%20of%20Law>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Corporate America boosts Biden’s inaugural committee”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121743>
Posted on April 21, 2021 6:49 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121743> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico:<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/corporate-america-biden-inaugural-committee-483904?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f109-dd93-ad7f-f90d0def0000&nlid=630318>

Joe Biden campaigned on raising taxes on companies and the wealthy. It didn’t dissuade some of America’s biggest companies and richest donors from helping to fund his inauguration.

Many of them opened up their checkbooks for Biden’s inaugural committee, helping him raise more than $61 million to fund his largely virtual festivities.

The list included companies with major business before the federal government — on everything from taxes to regulations — such as Uber, Lockheed Martin, Comcast, AT&T, Bank of America, Pfizer and Qualcomm, all of which gave the maximum $1 million.

Unlike presidential and congressional campaigns, inaugural committees are not barred from accepting corporate donations, giving companies a rare opportunity to write big checks to politicians.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121743&title=%E2%80%9CCorporate%20America%20boosts%20Biden%E2%80%99s%20inaugural%20committee%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


Montana: “Gianforte signs bills eliminating Election Day registration, tightening voter ID”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121739>
Posted on April 20, 2021 8:45 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121739> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

KTVH:<https://www.ktvh.com/news/montana-politics/gianforte-signs-bills-eliminating-election-day-registration-tightening-voter-id>

Republican governor Greg Gianforte on Monday signed two bills that eliminate voter-registration on Election Day in Montana and tighten ID requirements for voting and voter-registration.

Gianforte, accompanied by bill sponsors and Republican Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen, who supported the measures, signed them into law at the Capitol.

“These new laws will help ensure the continued integrity of Montana’s elections for years to come,” he said in a statement.

Jacobsen said, “Montana sets the standards for elections across the country. However, there is always room for improvement, and voter ID and voter-registration deadlines are best practices in protecting the integrity of elections.”

Opponents of the two bills said they’re nothing more than voter-suppression, making it harder for Montanans to vote or register to vote. They’ve noted that supporters of the laws produced no evidence of any voter-fraud or problems with Montana’s prior system.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121739&title=Montana%3A%20%E2%80%9CGianforte%20signs%20bills%20eliminating%20Election%20Day%20registration%2C%20tightening%20voter%20ID%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Democrats press Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to recuse in major First Amendment case”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121737>
Posted on April 20, 2021 8:25 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121737> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

USA Today:<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/20/dems-seek-supreme-court-justice-amy-coney-barrett-recusal-big-case/7298043002/>

Three Democratic lawmakers are pressing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/26/amy-coney-barrett-senate-vote-confirm-judge-supreme-court/3741746001/> to recuse herself from one of the court’s highest profile cases this term because of her ties to the conservative nonprofit that filed the appeal.

A foundation associated with Americans for Prosperity, which acknowledged spending “seven figures” on advertising<https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/518850-advocacy-groups-spend-big-on-barrett-fight> to support Barrett during her confirmation battle last fall, has brought a case that will be argued at the nation’s highest court next week challenging a requirement that it disclose major donors to state regulators in California.

In a three-page letter reviewed by USA TODAY, the lawmakers assert the Americans for Prosperity campaign in support of Barrett<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/26/new-justice-amy-coney-barrett-steers-supreme-court-right/6343958002/> represents the appearance of a conflict in the pending dispute involving the group’s public charity, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Both groups are backed by Republican megadonor Charles Koch<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/29/charles-koch-republicans-shouldnt-take-financial-support-granted/858986002/>.

“Statute, constitutional case law, and common sense all would seem to require your recusal,” wrote Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., a member of the House Judiciary Committee<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/15/democrats-introduce-legislation-expand-supreme-court/7233345002/>. “At a minimum, there should be a public explanation as to why you think recusal is not required under federal law.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121737&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20press%20Supreme%20Court%20Justice%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett%20to%20recuse%20in%20major%20First%20Amendment%20case%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


--
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/20210422/e579eada/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/20210422/e579eada/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 110967 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210422/e579eada/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 112199 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210422/e579eada/attachment-0001.jpg>