Talk:Baca v. Hickenlooper

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Per the last line of the section "Litigation" in the article "Faithless Electors in the United States Presidential Election, 2016" and its footnote 37, four electors from Washington state were fined $1000 each". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C500:72A6:34BA:8345:A40D:8466 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baca v. Hickenlooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161122235026/http://www.hamiltonelectors.com/ to http://www.hamiltonelectors.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baca v. Colorado Department of State[edit]

This case is the same case as the Baca v. Colorado Department of State case. Now that the 10th Circuit has issued an opinion under the latter name, there is no need for a separate article and this one should simply be redirected. ~~ Shirahadasha (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: This case represents an earlier stage in the proceedings (it was called by this name at a motion for preliminary injunction). But there is only one case, and there only needs to be one article. Shirahadasha (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially now that the other case has reached the Supreme Court. I will merge when I get a chance, or someone else can go for it. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]