[EL] Alabama redistricting case before SCOTUS

Fri Feb 4 11:53:49 PST 2022

Alabama's position in this case is exactly the "race-blind" theory of the
Voting Rights Act that Jowei Chen and I described (very much without
endorsing) in our recent Yale Law Journal article
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3800498_code636048.pdf?abstractid=3658671&mirid=1>,
"The Race-Blind Future of the Voting Rights Act." Current VRA doctrine is
obviously race-conscious: The first *Gingles* factor asks whether an
additional *majority-minority* district could be drawn; the second and
third *Gingles* factors ask whether there's *racial* polarization in
voting; the totality of circumstances covers, among other things, the
proportion of *minority opportunity* districts in a state; and so on. In
contrast, Alabama would have VRA liability hinge on a single question: Did
a state draw as many minority opportunity districts as would have arisen
from a *race-blind *redistricting process relying only on *non-racial*
criteria?
Alabama claims that a race-blind line-drawing process would yield only a
single Black opportunity district, meaning that the state's failure to draw
a second Black opportunity district doesn't violate the VRA.

As Rick pointed out, Alabama's position is a direct attack on the entire
doctrinal infrastructure erected in *Gingles* and subsequent cases.
Alabama's position -- which would effectively turn the VRA into a disparate
treatment statute -- is also at odds with the 1982 amendments to the VRA,
whose whole point was to make the VRA a disparate impact law. Nevertheless,
it's likely that at least some Justices will be attracted to Alabama's
position for reasons that Jowei and I canvass in our article. We also
analyze the racial and partisan consequences that would follow if Alabama's
position were endorsed by the Court. In a nutshell, (1) there would be
substantially fewer minority opportunity districts in America, (2) the
remaining minority opportunity districts would have smaller minority
populations, and (3) the partisan effects would be minor except in the
South, where Republicans would benefit.

Nick

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 6:12 PM Mark Scarberry <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
wrote:

> Rick’s discussion is illuminating, but perhaps it doesn’t sufficiently
> grapple with at least two issues. (These points are not original with me,
> as most list members will know.)
>
>
>    1. Current VRA doctrine requires a kind of packing of ethnic minority
>    voters that may reduce the number of representatives elected statewide who
>    might be preferred by minority voters (i.e., for the most part, currently,
>    Democrats). In other contexts some list members would raise concerns about
>    gerrymandering. It isn’t clear that this kind of packing advances the
>    interests of minority voters. Eliminating it might not be “very, very bad.”
>    2. It seems somewhat unfair to treat a group of voters — who typically
>    would not favor the candidate preferred by most minority voters — as a kind
>    of filler needed to equalize district populations.
>
> As I said, it isn’t clear that eliminating this kind of packing would be
> “very, very bad,” in terms of the interests of minority voters. But perhaps
> it would be, given the green light the S. Ct. has given to ostensibly
> political gerrymanders. Others will know more. It does seem to me that the
> Court should follow long-standing precedent, and leave changes to Congress.
>
> Mark
>
> Prof. Mark S. Scarberry
> Pepperdine University
> Rick J. Caruso School of Law
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Eric J Segall <esegall at gsu.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 3, 2022 1:58 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Alabama redistricting case before SCOTUS
>
> Thanks Rick.
>
> The Court from roughly 1875-1954 interpreted the Reconstruction Amendments
> in ways completely inapposite to their text and intended purpose. This
> Court will almost certainly do the same to the VRA, in fact as you know, it
> already has.
>
> Tragic.
>
> Best,
>
> Eric
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 3, 2022, at 4:48 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> 
> Alabama, in Its Stay Application Before the Supreme Court, Asks the
> Conservative Court to Cut Back the Scope of Voting Rights Act in
> Redistricting Cases, With Potentially Major Voting Rights Implications
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D127399&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856683101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=86rURMQQHomIGz0amTk9mCohiyUdY5Um6TOjj7P%2BshE%3D&reserved=0>
>
> February 3, 2022, 1:43 pm
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D127399&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856683101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=86rURMQQHomIGz0amTk9mCohiyUdY5Um6TOjj7P%2BshE%3D&reserved=0>
> redistricting
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D6&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856683101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=7456poIxGkMjU7igNN5hQYE3c2%2BxukQWqwpXtzREDhg%3D&reserved=0>
> , Supreme Court
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D29&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856683101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=jGsvePJXEwmnT3TA4t3amU4XSktbRDdLA%2FJq6kRRrX0%3D&reserved=0>
> , Voting Rights Act
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D15&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856683101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=c2LfSQHcnKuWF4b6%2F5qf8zFdHXNr2edlpYMebax1dCo%3D&reserved=0> *RICK
> HASEN*
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856683101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=%2FyP6E4Tw4rACe7Umctl1WKqbc86o4wqHBH0Tr8tXEDc%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> I have now had a chance to review Alabama’s request for stays
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.montgomeryadvertiser.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2F2022%2F01%2F28%2Falabama-asks-supreme-court-stay-order-blocking-congressional-map%2F9260995002%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856683101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=e9VMDyEdKtSVDCJANhTVSF%2BlsvSD1uWHiWHEdCLPud0%3D&reserved=0> in
> 2 related cases (21A375
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2FSearch.aspx%3FFileName%3D%2Fdocket%2Fdocketfiles%2Fhtml%2Fpublic%255C21a375.html&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856683101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=qeXVOWDbXT0i6k08wdmFtjPSvlm8NCK9TsjTyka17rI%3D&reserved=0>
>  and 21A376
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fsearch.aspx%3Ffilename%3D%2Fdocket%2Fdocketfiles%2Fhtml%2Fpublic%2F21a376.html&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856683101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=%2FjqZluwNkwudOBdlSNavHgmwG9ZW%2FkmWY3vewgYdp08%3D&reserved=0>).
> This post is going to get wonky and technical, so let me begin with the
> bottom line: if and when the Supreme Court reaches the merits (and that
> might happen in connection with these emergency petitions or it might not
> happen until the Court hears the full appeals in these cases and issues a
> ruling this year or next), the Court is being asked to cut back
> significantly on the scope of Section the Voting Rights Act in
> redistricting cases. A cutback could have major negative implications for
> African-American and other racial minority representation in Congress, in
> state legislatures, and in local bodies across the country, making it
> harder to require jurisdictions to draw districts where minority voters can
> elect representatives of their choice. And it would not surprise me to see
> this cutback from an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, even though I
> do not believe that this is the correct reading of the law.
>
> Speaking very roughly and generally, jurisdictions like Alabama with large
> African-American populations have to navigate between two race-related
> rules in drawing district lines (aside from other requirements, such as
> state law requirements and federal constitutional requirements liking
> drawing districts with equal populations). First, Section 2 of the Voting
> Rights Act (as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Thornburg
> v. Gingles
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fus-supreme-court%2F478%2F30.html&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856683101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=mFfhUeqRe7%2FtZ3pkNcdPbBQIQGeyQ0B6NmQrui8%2FUpM%3D&reserved=0>)
> requires states to draw districts where minority voters can elect their
> preferred candidates of their choice under certain conditions. (Those
> conditions are as a threshold matter that the minority group is large and
> geographically compact enough that one can draw a district where minority
> voters can elect their candidate of choice, and racially polarized voting.)
> Second, a jurisdiction may not make race the predominant factor in
> redistricting without a compelling reason to do so, or the district counts
> as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal
> Protection Clause of the Constitution’s 14th amendment. (This doctrine
> originated in the Supreme Court’s *Shaw v. Reno* case from 1993.)
>
> That setup sounds tricky to maneuver: how can one comply with the VRA
> requirement to draw Section 2 districts to help minority voters without it
> being considered a racial gerrymander? The doctrinal answer the Court has
> given is that it has at least assumed (and at one point there were 5
> Justices agreeing) that compliance with the VRA can be a compelling
> interest that can justify making race the predominant factor in
> redistricting.
>
> In the Alabama cases, Alabama has one African-American majority
> congressional district, and a three judge court held in a lengthy unanimous
> opinion (including 2 Trump-appointed judges on the panel) that the VRA
> under *Gingles* required drawing a second African-American majority
> district. There’s no dispute that there is racially polarized voting in
> Alabama, with white voters preferring one set of candidates who usually
> defeat the choices of most African-American voters. And there seems no
> question that a second African-American majority district could be drawn in
> a reasonably compact way, at least compared to the districts Alabama itself
> has drawn for its own plans. So it seems like there’s a strong case that
> Alabama violated the VRA when it drew only one African-American majority
> district.
>
> In its emergency application
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2FDocketPDF%2F21%2F21A375%2F211724%2F20220128152718926_Milligan%2520-%2520SCOTUS%2520Stay%2520App%2520-%2520FINAL%25203.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856683101%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=EZZ6o6o1n14to7%2FqtpjQgSXbEPA3%2FRZzO5LBr2eehpU%3D&reserved=0> to
> the Supreme Court, Alabama is arguing (though they try to avoid putting it
> this way) that when considering the question of the requirement to draw
> another majority-minority district, a jurisdiction can’t go out of its way
> to do so by doing things like breaking up county lines or not following
> other traditional redistricting criteria. It can only draw a
> majority-minority district if it is really easy to do so *ignoring race. *If
> one has to ignore some of these traditional redistricting criteria to make
> a VRA district, Alabama argues, one is making race the predominant factor
> in redistricting and therefore engaging in an unconstitutional racial
> gerrymander.
>
> There are two possible upshots if this argument is accepted: (1) the VRA
> is severely weakened because of what I’ll call the *Shaw*fication of
> Section 2: making compliance with the VRA itself inherently suspect as
> unconstitutional. That would mean many fewer VRA districts; or (2) the VRA
> itself is unconstitutional as applied to most redistricting and compliance
> cannot serve as a compelling interest to justify drawing what would
> otherwise be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. On this second point,
> there could well today be 5 Justices who agree with that viewpoint, given
> the change in personnel on the Court from when Justice O’Connor was on the
> Court in the 1990s and believed VRA compliance could overcome a *Shaw* claim.
> (In all of the *Shaw* cases, the Court has found that arguments by states
> that they had to draw some districts to comply with the VRA were faulty
> because they were based on a faulty reading of what the VRA requires.)
>
> Both of these arguments are dangerous, inconsistent with precedent, and
> would represent a reinterpretation of the Voting Rights Act as a way to
> squelch minority voting rights even more. It would be a bookend to this
> past summer’s Supreme Court *Brnovich* decision
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2021%2F07%2F01%2Fopinion%2Fsupreme-court-rulings-arizona-california.html&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856839346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=NzgJjVjdQckQfcAbAKJK6pMw6m9B4DObgysRIIrPI7c%3D&reserved=0>
>  that seriously weakened
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fhasen-testimony-senate-brnovich-final.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856839346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=cam8t2H6Bd9aUkDeZaX08uKz78A07xpgivnO1V4NI7o%3D&reserved=0>Section
> 2 of the Voting Rights Act in cases *outside* the redistricting context.
> The briefs of respondents (here
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2FDocketPDF%2F21%2F21A375%2F212091%2F20220202120835521_FINAL%2520SCOTUS%2520Milligan%2520A.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856839346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=mlMGTcZf1eWOljVzSh%2B69KOATe3jMoKG8VjKDlhm1QQ%3D&reserved=0>
>  and here
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2FDocketPDF%2F21%2F21A376%2F212078%2F20220202114143530_Caster%2520-%2520Stay%2520Opposition.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856839346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=KsX0LjGhVp%2FCPlKpLMYdK26ahYQNZWW83TygL0Nggew%3D&reserved=0>)
> are strong on why Alabama is all wrong in its analysis under existing
> precedent.
>
> Could the Court use this case to further eviscerate the Voting Rights Act?
> It certainly could. It would be very, very bad for voting rights and
> representation in the U.S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rick Hasen
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.uci.edu%2Ffaculty%2Ffull-time%2Fhasen%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856839346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=om08wVQqqPO9H0b4WfjZWDrnpQO%2FtCUiaWyMQ6rbCUM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>
> Co-Director, Fair Elections and Free Speech Center
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.uci.edu%2Fcenters%2Ffefs%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856839346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Wl1U8nYyrZEJCOkI4tY5HWSINE0oXjIH6zYv%2FF%2FV0mw%3D&reserved=0>
>
> UC Irvine School of Law
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>
> 949.824.3072 - office
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>
> Election Law Blog
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856839346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=O0t995xqV34fbu2NdJAG2snK7dvTR7aCn9aJ3qeDl98%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Coming March 2022: Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons Our
> Politics—and How to Cure It
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyalebooks.yale.edu%2Fbook%2F9780300259377%2Fcheap-speech&data=04%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7Ce43cd683e77b4dff2cd708d9e75e9cd7%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637795216856839346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=UEVlcgbzXoV4Z5apSEf8J9hDfV5Hhgnjpk%2FoqUhqQ2g%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> CAUTION: This email was sent from someone outside of the university. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> 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
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
*Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos*
Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
nstephanopoulos at law.harvard.edu
(617) 998-1753
https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/11787/Stephanopoulos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20220204/a5bb3b7f/attachment.html>