A glance at the first paragraph of Dan Tokaji's article makes clear that he does NOT claim that the election was stolen.  Dan reports on an article by Robert Kennedy, Jr., which makes this claim.  Dan expressly rejects Kennedy's interpretation of the evidence.  

Richard Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
Co-Director, NYU Center on Law and Security
NYU School of Law
212 998-6377

Rick Hasen <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu> 6/3/2006 11:56 AM >>>

Two From the Los Angeles Times
The newspaper offers Measure Would Bar Out-of-Town Money in Humboldt County Races. A snippet: "If [Measure T] passes and then survives an almost inevitable legal challenge, it would bar donations to local candidates or initiatives by any out-of-town corporation. That would cover almost all of the world's companies. As defined in the measure, a 'non local' corporation is one with even a single employee, director or shareholder outside the county. However, the measure would allow labor unions with just one Humboldt County member to donate freely."
It also offers Ballot Firm's Ties to Venezuela Criticized, which begins: "Some American officials worry that Sequoia Voting Systems' foreign link could compromise the integrity of the U.S. election process."
Tokaji Answers the Call
Dan Tokaji, whose views on this I respect more than anyone else, has written article claiming that the 2004 presidential election was stolen in Ohio. A snippet:

Read Dan's thorough analysis.


Section 203 Hearing Postponed Again
See this notice from the Senate Judiciary Committee.



-- Rick HasenWilliam H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of LawLoyola Law School919 Albany StreetLos Angeles, CA  90015-1211(213)736-1466(213)380-3769 - faxrick.hasen@lls.eduhttp://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org