[EL] The Root Cause of Election Unrest is Non-transparency (Allowing People to Imagine Whatever They Will)
Dan Meek
dan at meek.net
Thu Jan 7 23:47:44 PST 2021
Some argue for hand counting or hand recounts. Other say that is
cumbersome and not accurate. Some do not trust any kind of machine
tabulation of ballots, as the machines (computers) can be programmed to
produce distorted results. A machine recount would then produce the
same distorted results.
I think every state should use two different scanning/tabulating
systems, produced and serviced by different vendors, with both capable
of reading the same completed paper ballots. All ballots would be run
through both systems. Discrepancies in results would indicate a problem
with one or both systems. Consistent results would disprove that either
system was programmed to produce distorted results.
Too expensive? Then at least do the post-election audit using a second
brand of scanning/tabulating system.
Dan Meek
503-293-9021 dan at meek.net <mailto:dan at meek.net> 855-280-0488 fax
On 1/7/2021 8:08 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
> Well put. The principal problem is not primarily in how elections are
> run (although that is part of the problem). The problem is one of
> stoking passions through false accusations of election regularities
> and attempts to strongarm those with a formal role in the vote
> tabulating and counting process to reverse the democratic will.
>
> *From: *Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> on behalf of Margaret Groarke <margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 6:44 PM
> *To: *Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>, Virginia Martin
> <virginiamartin2010 at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [EL] The Root Cause of Election Unrest is
> Non-transparency (Allowing People to Imagine Whatever They Will)
>
> I have found it interesting that, after a presidential election in
> which states had to figure out how to run an election in a pandemic
> (and did an admirable job), and there were 60 lawsuits brought
> challenging the results, and in which two months after the election we
> have the losing candidate still not conceding and instigating an
> invasion of the Capitol building, there was very little traffic on
> this list. When I explained to people that Donald Trump and Rudy
> Giuliani's allegations of various things were false, I would
> sometimes note that, on a list of election law professors and other
> elections experts, which runs the gamut politically, there were no
> reports of fraud or other wrongdoing discussed.
>
> And now, the day after the invasion, there's a debate about whether we
> should hand count paper ballots. More amazing.
>
> I read Rick Hasen's /Election Meltdown/ this summer, and I've been
> thinking in particular about the chapter on overblown rhetoric, which
> I think is closer to the real problem here. Counting huge piles of
> paper ballots by hand will not eliminate the distrust of the election
> system. Distrust of the election results was deliberately birthed and
> stoked by elected officials -- people like Kris Kobach, Rudy Giuliani,
> Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. They can use whatever raw material is at
> hand. If there are no photos of election workers pulling ballots out
> of a suitcase (I guess they would prefer that ballots be left
> unsecured on a table top), they would use a photo of an election
> worker buried behind mile high stacks of paper ballots. If three
> people count a pile of ballots by hand and get slightly different
> numbers, that will be headline news.
>
> Georgia had paper ballots, which were counted by a machine (and by
> hand, actually). Nevertheless, as late as Saturday, as we all know,
> the president was continuning to allege that there was malfeasance in
> the election. I live in NY, and served as a poll worker for the first
> time this year (I thought as a political scientist interested in
> elections I was long past due). We use optical scan ballots -- paper
> ballots, marked by the voter and counted by a machine. Should you need
> to do a manual recount it would be possible, although I doubt it would
> be more accurate or more transparent than the scanner.
>
> It is late, and I am feeling very depressed and worried for our
> democracy today, and so I am not going to attempt to propose a
> solution to this very serious crisis. But I don't think going back to
> paper ballots counted by hand is the solution.
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:17 PM Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com
> <mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Professor Schultz:
>
> I think I can speak on behalf of almost all of the leaders of the
> 2004 elector challenge regarding Obio in Kerry v Bush and say *YES
> that the transparency of HCPB would allay all of our concerns *to
> have a transparent system of vote counting with good chain of
> custody.
>
> I was personally involved with the Rossi Gregoire hand recount
> case in Washington state from 2004 but I know all the people
> involved on the presidential side.and i know they favor HCPB but
> of course i don't represent them.
>
> But Professor Schultz references the Trump 2020 effort which was
> able to grow much faster and had a President instigating behind it.
>
> Here's the problem, /you will never be able to put the genie back
> into the bottle now that tens of millions of people have seen the
> nontransparency /and the many procedural dismissals that don't
> reach the merits. They may have little evidence or even "no
> evidence" but their movement amounts to an emphatic vote of no
> confidence in the nontransparent voting system.
>
> We speak here of the voting system so within that scope I cannot
> deal with ngoing disputes about the Electors Clause for example.
> That has nothing to do with voting systems or se. But if there are
> processes, (as there are), to have legal claims heard and decided
> after a full transparent airing of all arguments, that safety
> valve of being heard goes a very long way toward keeping the
> peace, even if it doesn't settle every dispute.
>
> I took the time to call and talk to one mid-level attorney on the
> Trump side. We did not agree on voter ID for example, but we were
> in complete agreement on the need for transparency and that both
> sides could agree on full transparency and getting rid of the
> nontransparent machines.
>
> What the Trump 2020 movement is, even if stipulated to have zero
> evidence, is *an emphatic vote of no confidence *in the current
> electronic systems. You don't need evidence per se on a vote of no
> confidence.
>
> Against that complete failure we are supposed to balance the
> convenience of some labor avoidance or the inability to wait any
> more time after a two year campaign?
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021, 5:33 PM Steve Klein
> <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com <mailto:stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Professor Schultz,
>
> I appreciate you breaking the mold of "this never would have
> happened if we had [campaign finance, election, human nature]
> reform," but I daresay you've found something even more
> quixotic with the alternative.
>
> No, no, before you all pile on, I'm with you: let's make
> eliminating t/he anxiety about losing one's job/ a cornerstone
> of the regime. No cost-benefit here. And... Mexico will pay
> for it. Or something.
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:25 PM Schultz, David
> <dschultz at hamline.edu <mailto:dschultz at hamline.edu>> wrote:
>
> Hi folks:
>
> Let's be real. Do any of you really think that more
> transparency or other small fixes like this to the
> election system will ease election unrest? If you do
> then you must also think that the fact that widespread
> voter fraud does not exist will convince people that it
> does not exist. Whatever you mean by election unrest has
> deeper sociological and economic roots than adding more
> transparency. Let's begin to think about the gross
> economic inequalities that plague our system, or the
> shodding health care system, or perhaps the anxiety about
> losing one's job as the roots for why people are
> politically angry.
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 7:13 PM Stephanie Singer
> <sfsinger at campaignscientific.com
> <mailto:sfsinger at campaignscientific.com>> wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 4:54 PM, Fredric Woocher
> <fwoocher at strumwooch.com
> <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>> wrote:
>
> I’m sorry, but this is just silly. In a
> jurisdiction like Los Angeles County, it would
> take weeks to count all the ballots for a single
> county-wide election, much less for the scores of
> contests that are on each primary and election
> ballot.
>
> It depends on the level of involvement by citizens.
> The number of ballots is directly proportional to the
> number of voters.
>
> And the result would be less accurate than a
> machine count.
>
> Now that more and more jurisdictions are doing
> risk-limiting tabulation audits, we are starting to
> have more data about accuracy. Without that kind of
> check, the best we can say is that machines more
> reliably get the same answer each time than people
> using the hash method. That’s at best a statement
> about precision, not accuracy
> <https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-accuracy-and-precision-609328>.
>
> We already have a transparent system: If the
> election is close enough (and even if it’s not),
> you can do a manual recount of the ballots and
> check the results against the machine count.
>
> Depends on who “you” are, and what state you’re in.
> And depends on what your state means by “manual
> recount”. In a Florida “manual recount", the paper
> records people get to hold in their hands and evaluate
> with their eyes are only the ones identified by the
> computers as having an undervote or overvote.
>
> And do really think having the votes counted by
> multiple people with clickers is going to yield a
> uniform outcome that will convince the people who
> listen to Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and the
> Krakens that the vote count was accurate when
> their preferred candidate loses?
>
> Depends on the level of involvement. If there were a
> culture of serving and observing, there’s no reason to
> think we’d be worse off than we are now. There’s
> nothing like taking part in a bit of election
> administration to wake people up to the complexities.
>
> Fredric D. Woocher
>
> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
>
> 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90024
>
> fwoocher at strumwooch.com
> <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
>
> (310) 576-1233 x105
>
> Direct: (310) 933-5739
>
> *_IMPORTANT NOTICE_**:*Pursuant to the Governor’s
> “Stay at Home” Order, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP is
> CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. *_Packages requiring
> signatures will be returned undelivered – do not
> serve papers by this method_.* While our office
> is closed, *Strumwasser & Woocher LLP consents to
> electronic service in all of its matters*. Please
> serve by electronic mail to
> _fwoocher at strumwooch.com
> <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>_ AND to our
> Senior Legal Assistant, LaKeitha Oliver, at
> loliver at strumwooch.com
> <mailto:loliver at strumwooch.com>. We reserve the
> right to object to any notice or delivery of any
> kind if not actually received by counsel before
> all statutory deadlines.
>
> *From:* Law-election
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]
> *On Behalf Of *Paul Lehto
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 7, 2021 3:53 PM
> *To:* John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com
> <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>; Virginia Martin
> <virginiamartin2010 at gmail.com
> <mailto:virginiamartin2010 at gmail.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] The Root Cause of Election
> Unrest is Non-transparency (Allowing People to
> Imagine Whatever They Will)
>
> So on one side we have nontransparency in the
> voting system which breeds distrust which is then
> amplified by every partisan hope, fear, or piece
> of evidence, all the way up to an insurrection on
> ONE SIDE,
>
> ...And on the other side we have some 75 year old
> who might be groggy. And more hours to count.
>
> The balancing isn't even close, and I could add
> much more to the first paragraph but recent events
> are enough.
>
> The nontransparency is a fatal flaw in the current
> system, and a transparent system in the form of
> hand counted ballots is required to secure and
> guarantee the right to vote vis-a-vis situations
> of corrupt election officials, power outages and
> so on, and having tens of thousands of summonses
> workers nationwide who can personally attest based
> on their own observation and experience would
> restore public confidence.
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021, 3:43 PM John Tanner
> <john.k.tanner at gmail.com
> <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Did you wakes up the 75 year old participants
> at 4 or 5 am and have them work for 12 hours?
> On a ballot with 30+ offices and ballot
> measures?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 6:38 PM, Stephanie
> Singer <sfsinger at campaignscientific.com
> <mailto:sfsinger at campaignscientific.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I took part in a demo of the clicker
> method. I don’t know of any academic
> research, but from my experience the
> clicker method is far better. It makes
> sense psychologically — each person is
> focused on just one physical spot on the
> ballot, not needing to look back and
> forth. And in the demo we had several
> people tracking each candidate, and their
> tallies matched at the end (or perhaps
> were occasionally off by one). It was
> quick and easy and, with enough people
> clicking, convincing.
>
> Stephanie Singer
> <https://www.pdx.edu/profile/stephanie-singer>
>
> Research Assistant Professor, Portland
> State University
>
> Former Chair, Philadelphia County Board of
> Elections
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 2:04 PM, John
> Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com
> <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> One would think that “mark, mark, ...
> tally” would avoid differences, since
> there’s a check every 5th vote. One
> would be wrong. And then you have to
> go back and reconcile to find where
> the count got off — usually several
> tallies back. I suspect the clicker
> would be even worse
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 4:42 PM,
> Stephanie Singer
> <sfsinger at campaignscientific.com
> <mailto:sfsinger at campaignscientific.com>>
> wrote:
>
> It’s undeniable that the counting
> happens at a time when everyone is
> exhausted. And thanks for pointing
> out the difficulties of oversight
> in primaries.
>
> At least one better counting
> method has been developed and
> tested by Karen McKim of Wisconsin
> Election Integrity
> <https://wisconsinelectionintegrity.org/>.
> Each person in a group of
> observers has a hand-held
> clicker-counter (like the ones
> used to measure people flowing
> through turnstiles). The ballots
> can then be shown one after
> another, quite quickly. My
> understanding is that this is
> quite accurate and efficient.
>
> The science and engineering of
> post-election tabulation audits
> for ballot scanners is
> progressing, but I haven’t yet
> seen a workable proposal for
> risk-limiting audits of
> precinct-counted ballots.
>
> If you don’t count at the precinct
> at the end of the voting period,
> you have to solve the ballot
> custody problem, also quite knotty.
>
> —Stephanie
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 1:26 PM,
> John Tanner
> <john.k.tanner at gmail.com
> <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I agree completely that the
> election process should
> include at all levels and
> locations poll officials and
> poll watchers appointed by
> both major parties — and by
> all diverse candidates in
> primaries and nonpartisan
> elections (easier said than
> done). And posting the results
> at the polls and centrally is
> or used to be common. But
> hand counted paper ballots?
> I recall monitoring primary
> elections with hand counted
> paper ballots at relatively
> tiny precincts. It takes
> forever, in part because of
> frequent differences in the
> counts (often resolved by
> splitting the difference) and
> poll workers quitting fit the
> night and one (1) poll
> official taking the materials
> home to safeguard them. In
> one MS primary election, the
> count wasn’t completed until
> Thursday evening , at which
> point I could finally go to
> sleep (after helping polish
> off some beer the senior
> attorney had bought). There’s
> are reasons we use machines now.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 1:59
> PM, Stephanie Singer
> <sfsinger at campaignscientific.com
> <mailto:sfsinger at campaignscientific.com>>
> wrote:
>
> A big Plus One to what
> Paul has written.
>
> To move to the kind of
> resilient system Paul has
> described, we need to face
> head on the downsides of
> such a system. There are
> people in this country who
> physically cannot mark and
> review paper ballots
> without assistance (either
> from people or
> technology). And there are
> people of this country who
> cannot physically get to
> the polling place on the
> given day (e.g., overseas
> deployed military).
>
> Companies that manufacture
> and maintain computerized
> voting systems have
> exploited this downside
> for profit.
>
> I wonder what folks on
> this list think of proxy
> voting.
>
> —Stephanie
>
> PS: a relevant piece I
> wrote was published a few
> hours before all hell
> broke loose yesterday:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/06/stolen-election-trump-patriot/
>
> On Jan 6, 2021, at
> 2:46 PM, Paul Lehto
> <lehto.paul at gmail.com
> <mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> The short answer is
> voter-marked and hand
> counted paper ballots
> counted in precincts
> with results posted at
> the precincts as well
> as reported to the
> county or state. And
> also using a
> summonsing process to
> guarantee sufficient
> labor or add
> additional independent
> observers as needed.
>
> This way any group can
> verify the tabulation
> by looking at precinct
> posted results, and
> counts in precincts
> are monitored by all
> interested political
> parties plus
> individuals drafted by
> a process similar to
> jury summonsing. It is
> a labor intensive
> process but *most
> people would much
> rather spend a day
> counting ballots than
> spend two weeks in a
> jury trial. *
>
> If ballot counting is
> observed by multiple
> observers adverse to
> each other (the system
> used and assumed by
> the framers of the
> 12th amendment) out of
> a combination of
> people we might not
> trust to count ballots
> alone, we can
> nevertheless achieve a
> trustable result.
>
> We might also realize
> that the framers of
> the 12th amendment
> presupposed HCPB, and
> might come to
> understand that a
> joint session is
> subservient to the
> will of the people and
> _able to make only the
> objections and
> corrections that vote
> counting clerks are
> able to make, not
> relitigate the entire
> election_.
>
> More importantly,
> glitches, errors or
> frauds create
> observable evidence
> that can be accessed,
> and inaccuracies are
> isolated to the
> precinct level. Thus,
> if and when people
> tell stories about
> paper ballot fraud,
> that actually proves
> both that fraud can
> happen and that *the
> voting system actually
> worked to create
> evidence of the
> problem and thus allow
> us to tell the story
> today*. It is up to
> the administrative and
> legal systems - not
> the voting system - to
> actually prosecute or
> correct for the fraud
> or error. The voting
> system only needs to
> be transparent and
> create clear indelible
> evidence of voter intent.
>
> With a fully
> transparent vote
> counting process, I
> find that almost
> everyone I talk to is
> willing to pay the
> labor and time
> pricetag for the
> system, because of the
> rational confidence
> created in the
> results, and the fact
> that it is the best
> guarantee of our right
> to vote actually
> working if and when a
> criminal regime is in
> control of the vote
> counting process.
> Given that voting is
> our most important
> right, and given the
> Declaration of
> Independence recites
> that our government
> was setup for the
> purpose of securing
> and guaranteeing our
> rights, this is not
> too much to ask. The
> alternative is to have
> a voting system that
> is non-transparent and
> thus is vulnerable to
> failing completely at
> the very moment we
> need it the most -
> when criminality has
> invaded the
> governmental election
> processes.
>
> The human need for
> hand counts of
> valuable things is
> witnessed every day
> when counting our own
> cash at the bank
> teller window or at
> the ATM. There is just
> no substitute for hand
> counting when we deal
> with something
> valuable AND there is
> incentive for one or
> more parties to count
> inaccurately, as
> exists in elections.
>
> It would also have the
> added benefit of
> bringing statutes back
> into line with
> reality, such as the
> requirement of a 0.5%
> lead or less to
> trigger a recount.
> That kind of narrow
> window makes sense
> with HCPB, but with
> electronic elections
> if there is fraud it
> is the same amount of
> effort to create a
> lead outside the
> recount margin as
> there is to win by
> just a few votes.
>
> And it would also
> bring back into
> alignment the call for
> public confidence and
> acceptance of the
> results. That is a
> call for rational
> acceptance of the
> results if counts are
> transparent but is a
> call for a faith that
> losers find hard to
> develop when counts
> are nontransparent.
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021,
> 2:10 PM David Mason
> <dmason12 at gmail.com
> <mailto:dmason12 at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> What sorts of
> systems, policies,
> and procedures
> would you
> recommend to
> achieve this level
> of transparency?
>
> Dave Mason
>
> On Wed, Jan 6,
> 2021 at 4:34 PM
> Paul Lehto
> <lehto.paul at gmail.com
> <mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
> Obviously,
> things have
> gotten out of
> hand, but what
> is the root of
> the problem?
>
> The problem is
> that _we do
> not have a
> voting system
> that the
> LOSERS of the
> election can
> believe
> in_ based on
> the
> transparency
> of the
> process. *If
> we want
> peaceful
> transitions of
> power the
> system needs
> to lead to
> results
> trustable by
> the "sore
> losers."*
>
> While people
> need to be
> held
> accountable
> for illegal
> actions,/going
> forward/,
> instead of
> designing our
> voting systems
> with gaining
> the consent of
> the governed
> among the
> losing side,
> we instead
> demand "public
> confidence" in
> nontransparent
> computerized
> counts on pain
> of charges of
> undermining
> democracy.
>
> *This lack of
> transparency
> in vote
> counting is
> the SEED to
> which either
> facts or
> fevered dreams
> can attach*,
> and typically
> our partisan
> affiliations
> and the media
> sources we
> select
> predetermine
> what
> information we
> will receive
> and what
> conclusions we
> will draw.
>
> I have
> predicted this
> would
> eventually
> happen for
> over a
> decade. I was
> quoted in
> Politico a
> couple weeks
> ago about
> Trump
> activists
> because I was
> active in
> investigating
> the 2004
> elections
> after serving
> as one of
> Kerry's "army"
> of lawyers
> (who were
> actually just
> assisting
> people to
> vote).
> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/19/2004-kerry-election-fraud-2020-448604
> This article
> sought to find
> out what those
> who questioned
> 2004 thought
> of those who
> questioned
> 2020. A
> variety of
> opinions emerged.
>
> In /Politico
> /I was quoted
> as saying the
> election
> disputes are
> the equivalent
> of a religious
> war where both
> sides assert
> their strongly
> held beliefs
> on the basis
> of faith
> rather than on
> the basis
> of_knowledge_.
> All people
> must
> necessarily
> have beliefs
> rather than
> true personal
> knowledge
> about the vote
> count results
> because the
> counts
> themselves are
> nontransparent,
> being done on
> computers, so
> that literally
> no one has
> personal
> knowledge the
> results are
> correct. Even
> election
> officials lack
> the kind of
> personal
> knowledge we
> expect from
> any admissible
> affidavit,
> Instead,
> officials
> believe them
> to be correct
> based on logic
> and accuracy
> tests and such
> but they don't
> really KNOW.
> Experts can
> add numerous
> circumstantial
> reasons to
> support that
> belief, but
> our opinions
> remain in the
> territory of
> trust and
> confidence
> rather than
> hard facts and
> knowledge.
>
> The election
> results are
> simply the
> conclusions.
> I've been
> entitled to
> every data
> source any
> expert in
> court relies
> upon for his
> or her
> conclusions,
> except in
> election law,
> where the
> computers are
> generally
> deemed
> inaccessible.
>
> Our present
> system merely
> urges public
> confidence in
> those
> conclusory
> results, which
> is the same as
> urging trust
> or faith. As a
> result, t_he
> opinions on
> all sides
> about the
> election
> results amount
> to statements
> of political
> religious
> faith_, and
> thus we have
> what amounts
> to a religious
> war in which
> various sides
> insult the
> faith of the
> other side,
> eventually
> leading to
> violence as we
> see today.
>
> Transparency
> is strongly
> effective at
> getting rid of
> conspiracy
> theories
> because when
> facts are
> present, no
> theories,
> conspiracy or
> otherwise, are
> necessary or
> possible.
> Transparency
> would likely
> not reduce
> Republican
> support for
> objections
> from
> Rasmussen's
> 73% released
> today down to
> zero, but it
> would
> critically
> drop it below
> fifty percent
> at the very
> least. And
> that is the
> difference
> between
> peaceful
> transitions of
> power
> transitions of
> power that are
> not peaceful.
>
> Trump
> supporters may
> not be able to
> prove fraud,
> but the
> reverse is
> also true:
> Biden
> supporters
> can't prove
> Biden win,
> except with a
> full hand
> recount and
> good chain of
> custody and no
> ballot box
> stuffing. The
> solution is to
> get it right
> on election
> night with a
> transparent
> counting
> system that
> the large
> majority of
> losers can
> RATIONALLY
> trust. Not
> faith-based
> elections like
> we have now.
>
> --
>
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> PO Box 2796
>
> Renton, WA 98056
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> <mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com>
> 906-204-4965
> (cell)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election
> mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> *Disclaimer*
>
> The information contained in this communication
> from the sender is confidential. It is intended
> solely for use by the recipient and others
> authorized to receive it. If you are not the
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action
> in relation of the contents of this information is
> strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> This email has been scanned for viruses and
> malware, and may have been automatically archived
> by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber
> resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses
> with brand protection, security awareness
> training, web security, compliance and other
> essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect
> large and small organizations from malicious
> activity, human error and technology failure; and
> to lead the movement toward building a more
> resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
>
> David Schultz, Distinguished University Professor
> Hamline University
> Department of Political Science,
>
> Department of Legal Studies,
>
> Department of Environmental Studies
>
> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>
> MS B 1805
> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
> 651.523.2858 (voice)
> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
> My latest book: Presidential Swing States: Why Only Ten
> Matter
>
> https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
>
> Steve Klein
>
> Attorney
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenrklein
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
>
> *Margaret Groarke*
>
> /Professor, Political Science/
>
> /Coordinator, Community Engaged Learning/
>
> https://jaspercommunityengagement.blogspot.com/
>
> Make an appointment to talk with me
> <https://manhattan.starfishsolutions.com/starfish-ops/dl/instructor/serviceCatalog.html?bookmark=connection/13271/schedule>
>
> //
>
> Bronx, NY 10471
>
> Phone: 718-862-7943
>
> Fax: 718-862-8044
>
> margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu <mailto:name.name at manhattan.edu>
>
> www.manhattan.edu <http://www.manhattan.edu/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210107/8442056a/attachment.html>
View list directory