Recorded on Thursday, October 14, 2010, the first Annual Al Meyerhoff Public Interest Lecture, delivered by Connie Rice, Esq.

Connie Rice, an outspoken litigator and co-founder of the public policy and legal action group Advancement Project, has very clear views on equal rights and our democracy. She has spent her career fighting for social justice, urban peace, equal opportunity and upward mobility for the poor and disadvantaged, or as Rice and her colleagues call them, "those left behind in America."

Richard Lazarus is the Howard J. and Katherine W. Aibel Professor of Law at Harvard University, where he teaches Environmental Law, Natural Resources Law, Supreme Court Advocacy, and Torts.

In this inaugural lecture recorded on February 7, 2012 for the Center on Land, Environment, & Natural Resources (CLEANR) at UCI Law, Prof. Lazarus reflected on his experiences as Executive Director of the President's Commission to investigate the Gulf Oil Spill, focusing on the political challenges of running the Commission, the Commission's findings, and subsequent events and lessons related to the disaster.

Prof. Lazarus graduated from Harvard Law School in 1979, and he has a B.S. in Chemistry and a B.A. in economics from the University of Illinois, where he focused on environmental issues.

Election Law Symposium recorded September 14, 2012.

For many years, especially since the 2000 presidential election controversy, scholars have debated whether nonpartisan actors should replace partisan actors or a bipartisan commission in administering elections, conducting redistricting, and policing the campaign finance system. Some states recently have adopted more nonpartisan models, including California's redistricting commission and Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board, although most states have retained partisan or bipartisan control.

This symposium, sponsored by the UC Irvine School of Law, the UC Irvine Law Review, and the UCI Center for the Study of Democracy will offer empirical, legal, normative, theoretical, and historical perspectives on the use of partisanship in the agencies governing election administration, redistricting, and campaign finance laws. How should the success or failure of such institutions be assessed? Are nonpartisan agencies normatively preferable to partisan and bipartisan agencies in achieving the goals of the political system? What explains why jurisdictions adopt or fail to adopt nonpartisan institutions? The symposium will bring together leading scholars in the field of election law and political science to consider such questions in the weeks leading up to the presidential election of 2012.

Immigration Law

Symposium

February 17-18, 2011

University of California, Irvine
School of Law

Our labor markets rely heavily on unauthorized workers, yet the law affords these workers only modest workplace protections. Restrictionists condemn sanctuary cities while praising Arizona's S.B. 1070.

Immigrants' rights advocates argue that localities should be allowed to opt out of Secure Communities while battling local anti-immigrant ordinances on preemption grounds. Immigration enforcement efforts are promoted as necessary to restore the rule of law, yet ongoing enforcement efforts sometimes unfold with apparent disregard for due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

What are the sources of these impossible choices and contradictory impulses? Can the law be used to alleviate these tensions, or must we look beyond law’s boundaries? Is political compromise the only answer, or will one agenda emerge to the exclusion of others? Is change destined to be incremental or are there opportunities for sweeping overhaul? These are just some of the questions this symposium hoped to answer.

Co-sponsored by UC Irvine's Center in Law, Society, and Culture and Center for Research on Immigration, Population and Public Policy

Our labor markets rely heavily on unauthorized workers, yet the law affords these workers only modest workplace protections. Restrictionists condemn sanctuary cities while praising Arizona's S.B. 1070.

Immigrants' rights advocates argue that localities should be allowed to opt out of Secure Communities while battling local anti-immigrant ordinances on preemption grounds. Immigration enforcement efforts are promoted as necessary to restore the rule of law, yet ongoing enforcement efforts sometimes unfold with apparent disregard for due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

What are the sources of these impossible choices and contradictory impulses? Can the law be used to alleviate these tensions, or must we look beyond law’s boundaries? Is political compromise the only answer, or will one agenda emerge to the exclusion of others? Is change destined to be incremental or are there opportunities for sweeping overhaul? These are just some of the questions this symposium hoped to answer.

"First Amendment in a Multicultural Society"

A lecture delivered by UCI Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky on February 11, 2010 as part of the Campus Conversations Series sponsored by UCI’s Office of Equal Opportunity & Diversity. Dean Chemerinsky, author of four books, Federal Jurisdiction, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, Constitutional Law and Interpreting the Constitution, was named by Legal Affairs as one of "the top 20 legal thinkers in America." He has frequently argued appellate cases before the United States Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeals; and he has testified many times before congressional and state legislative committees. He regularly serves as a commentator on legal issues for national and local media.

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn't happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It's more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics — and raises some important ethical questions.

Immigration Law Symposium

February 17-18, 2011

University of California, Irvine
School of Law

Our labor markets rely heavily on unauthorized workers, yet the law affords these workers only modest workplace protections. Restrictionists condemn sanctuary cities while praising Arizona's S.B. 1070.

Immigrants' rights advocates argue that localities should be allowed to opt out of Secure Communities while battling local anti-immigrant ordinances on preemption grounds. Immigration enforcement efforts are promoted as necessary to restore the rule of law, yet ongoing enforcement efforts sometimes unfold with apparent disregard for due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

What are the sources of these impossible choices and contradictory impulses? Can the law be used to alleviate these tensions, or must we look beyond law’s boundaries? Is political compromise the only answer, or will one agenda emerge to the exclusion of others? Is change destined to be incremental or are there opportunities for sweeping overhaul? These are just some of the questions this symposium hoped to answer.

Co-sponsored by UC Irvine's Center in Law, Society, and Culture and Center for Research on Immigration, Population and Public Policy

Our labor markets rely heavily on unauthorized workers, yet the law affords these workers only modest workplace protections. Restrictionists condemn sanctuary cities while praising Arizona's S.B. 1070.

Immigrants' rights advocates argue that localities should be allowed to opt out of Secure Communities while battling local anti-immigrant ordinances on preemption grounds. Immigration enforcement efforts are promoted as necessary to restore the rule of law, yet ongoing enforcement efforts sometimes unfold with apparent disregard for due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

What are the sources of these impossible choices and contradictory impulses? Can the law be used to alleviate these tensions, or must we look beyond law’s boundaries? Is political compromise the only answer, or will one agenda emerge to the exclusion of others? Is change destined to be incremental or are there opportunities for sweeping overhaul? These are just some of the questions this symposium hoped to answer.

Immigration Law Symposium

February 17-18, 2011

University of California, Irvine
School of Law

Our labor markets rely heavily on unauthorized workers, yet the law affords these workers only modest workplace protections. Restrictionists condemn sanctuary cities while praising Arizona's S.B. 1070.

Immigrants' rights advocates argue that localities should be allowed to opt out of Secure Communities while battling local anti-immigrant ordinances on preemption grounds. Immigration enforcement efforts are promoted as necessary to restore the rule of law, yet ongoing enforcement efforts sometimes unfold with apparent disregard for due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

What are the sources of these impossible choices and contradictory impulses? Can the law be used to alleviate these tensions, or must we look beyond law’s boundaries? Is political compromise the only answer, or will one agenda emerge to the exclusion of others? Is change destined to be incremental or are there opportunities for sweeping overhaul? These are just some of the questions this symposium hoped to answer.

Co-sponsored by UC Irvine's Center in Law, Society, and Culture and Center for Research on Immigration, Population and Public Policy

Immigration Law Symposium

February 17-18, 2011

University of California, Irvine
School of Law

Our labor markets rely heavily on unauthorized workers, yet the law affords these workers only modest workplace protections. Restrictionists condemn sanctuary cities while praising Arizona's S.B. 1070.

Immigrants' rights advocates argue that localities should be allowed to opt out of Secure Communities while battling local anti-immigrant ordinances on preemption grounds. Immigration enforcement efforts are promoted as necessary to restore the rule of law, yet ongoing enforcement efforts sometimes unfold with apparent disregard for due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

What are the sources of these impossible choices and contradictory impulses? Can the law be used to alleviate these tensions, or must we look beyond law’s boundaries? Is political compromise the only answer, or will one agenda emerge to the exclusion of others? Is change destined to be incremental or are there opportunities for sweeping overhaul? These are just some of the questions this symposium hoped to answer.

Co-sponsored by UC Irvine's Center in Law, Society, and Culture and Center for Research on Immigration, Population and Public Policy