UPDATE: You can find the entire document here.
A bit of spin from the McConnell plaintiffs There has been much
talk about the spin put on the lower court decision by the reform community.
I note the following in the McConnell response: "[W]ishful press statements
not withstanding, even a cursory reading of the district court's judgment
demonstrates that the plaintiffs, not the defendants, prevailed
far more substantially below."
Rick Hasen wrote:
McConnell Plaintiffs File Response
to Government Motion to Expedite Consideration of the BCRA Appeal in the
Supreme Court The McConnell plaintiffs agree with the government and
the BCRA sponsor-intervenors that the Court should note probable jurisdiction
over the cases on June 5 and that it should set a special oral argument in
early September. These plaintiffs disagree with the number and format of
briefing, suggesting mostly following the usual rules of briefing, with the
first briefs due July 8. The plaintiffs also disagree with the intervenors'
suggestion that the Court should not note probable jurisdiction over some
of the issues raised by the plaintiffs. They characterize the intervenors'
position as "inexplicably belligerent."
"Libertarians: Keep Bush off ballots;
GOP trying to bend state election law on deadlines" The Lincoln Courier
offers this
report. (Thanks to the reader for passing this along.)
"Greens Consider Standing Behind Democrats in '04"
The Washington Post has this
report.
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlaw.blogspot.com
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlaw.blogspot.com