Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 3/24/11
From: Bill Maurer
Date: 3/24/2011, 5:23 PM
To: Craig Holman
CC: "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

Finally, something everyone on this list agrees on!  Good luck, professor.

Bill Maurer

On Mar 24, 2011, at 4:24 PM, "Craig Holman" <holman@aol.com> wrote:

I join in that toast as well.
Congrats Rick -- and the news caught me by surprise.

Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20003
TEL: (202) 454-5182
CEL: (202) 905-7413
FAX: (202) 547-7392
Holman@aol.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hasen <hasenr@gmail.com>
To: Lowenstein, Daniel <lowenstein@law.ucla.edu>
Cc: 'Election Law' <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Sent: Thu, Mar 24, 2011 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 3/24/11

Thanks to Dan, and to everyone on and off the list, who have sent congratulatory messages and warm wishes.

Rick

On 3/24/2011 11:08 AM, Lowenstein, Daniel wrote:
            Perhaps the close and valued working relation I have had with Rick for two decades entitles me to speak for all in joining Sean in congratulating both Rick and UC Irvine on this move.  This also is an appropriate occasion to renew our thanks for the remarkable service Rick has provided to our field of study. 
 
            Now, therefore, let us all lift our virtual glasses and drink an appreciative toast to Rick at this happy time of transition!
 
 
Best,
 
Daniel Lowenstein
Director
UCLA Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
310-825-5148
lowenstein@law.ucla.edu
 
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Sean Parnell
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 9:02 AM
To: rick.hasen@lls.edu; 'Election Law'
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 3/24/11
 
Congratulations to Rick on his move!
 
Also, I’ve heard reported (not saying I believe/agree) that it’s a partisan split in the House ethics committee that’s preventing the Maxine Waters matter from moving forward. I’m wondering if the answer wouldn’t be to just eliminate the 5-5 “balance” on the Committee and allow the majority to have a few more slots, which would prevent this sort of partisan gridlock (or at least the perception thereof)? Seems like I’ve heard something like this proposed before in a separate but related context, proposed in fact by some of the very people who wrote the letter being reported on.
 
What could possibly be the downside to this common-sense proposal to eliminate gridlock at such an important body as the ethics committee?
 
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA  22310
(703) 894-6800 phone
(703) 894-6813 direct
(703) 894-6811 fax

--
Rick Hasen
Visiting Professor
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen@law.uci.edu

William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
_______________________________________________


election-law mailing list


election-law@mailman.lls.edu


http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law