[EL] AALS program on "voter suppression"

Wed Sep 5 14:22:32 PDT 2012

1) Rick writes "The term "voter suppression" is one used only by the
left to describe a host of laws which have been put in place in the
name of promoting election integrity or preventing fraud."

That strikes me as factually incorrect. There are many kinds of
suppression that existed well before the current ID policy debate and
some are used (or alleged) to this day. One obvious example would be
false announcements about changes in election dates or ballot places
to discourage voting.

(BTW, why did you toss in the word "left" to describe people that use
the phrase? I'm sure many judges, lawyers, social scientists,
reporters, etc. who have used the phrase have political beliefs that
range across the board.)

2) You state there is voter suppression intent behind the ID debate
and that there is not. Ok, different people pushing the same policy
can have varying motives for, and understanding of, that policy. That
is a simple truism. But if you admit that some people promote this
policy (or others)  "out of an intent to suppress votes," then it
seems that the term is useful and valid.

3) Regarding the fact that "suppression" could be used to mean
"intent,"  "policy outcome," or both: I agree that there's an issue
there regarding precision in language, but it doesn't mean that
reasonable use of the term regarding cases of intentional suppression
(or knowingly intending to suppress) is a problem. Moreover, it is not
enough to object to using the term "voter suppression" to refer to
outcomes of policy regardless of intent. But if that is disallowed, it
seems agreeing that there is, at a minimum, intentional efforts at
suppression means a panel or workshop on it is perfectly logical.
What would you have them call a discussion of intentional efforts to
deny voting to eligible voters?

In short, I feel I must be missing something, but I don't see what it
is. It seems pretty clear cut. Voter suppression is the correct term
for behavior that is alleged to exist, has been addressed by court
cases and law for some time, has been shown to exist in various forms,
and for a possible outcome of policy. I just don't understand the
negative reaction to the term at all. It seems to me that objecting to
the phrase is far more problematic than use of the term is
tendentious. Indeed, your (and Mark's) response denies accommodation
to a great many people who are using the term in one of several plain
senses, as in your own phrase "Those people are not trying to suppress
anyone's vote, even if that may be an effect."

Doug

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
> I think it is pretty clear that the term "voter suppression" is one used
> only by the left to describe a host of laws which have been put in place in
> the name of promoting election integrity or preventing fraud.  One may be
> skeptical (as I am) of whether these laws do much to promote election
> integrity or prevent fraud.  I also believe that some, but not all, the
> people who support such laws do so out of an intent to suppress votes likely
> to skew Democratic.  (I have considerable doubts as to whether these laws
> actually suppress many Democratic votes---see chapter 3 of my book.)  But
> many people support these laws out of a (perhaps misguided) belief they are
> necessary to prevent fraud.  Those people are not trying to suppress
> anyone's vote, even if that may be an effect.
>
> But my bottom line is that to use the politically charged language of "voter
> suppression" in the context of an academic conference is a big
> mistake---signaling that the AALS, or at least the panel organizers, have
> taken sides in a very contentious debate.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
> On 9/5/12 12:31 PM, Doug Hess wrote:
>>
>> Regarding the announcement of a Professional Development Hot Topic
>> Workshop on "Voter Suppression and the 2012 Election":
>>
>> I don't know what "professional development workshop" means for the
>> AALS, but if there are lawyers working on making sure people do not
>> face discrimination or other illegal barriers at the ballot box, then
>> I don't see what the objection is. Why is it considered unsuitable to
>> describe something, even if you think it is very rare? There are cases
>> of voter suppression out there instigated by various groups in various
>> states. Courts have ruled on these issues. A variety of historians and
>> other academics have also documented these cases. A great many civil
>> rights groups participate in coalitions, working groups, etc. on these
>> issues. Although you may think the phrase is used too broadly (i.e.,
>> to cover  points of disagreement on election policy), I don't see  why
>> you should assume at the outset that the term should not be used.
>>
>> Is there something about AALS workshops that make this more
>> objectionable than what it appears on the surface? I guess I'm
>> thinking of this title from the point of view of an social science
>> conference. People could debate the existence (or not) as well as the
>> nature, scope, consequences, etc. of any suppression under a panel
>> with that name. But even if the workshop is to train or educate people
>> about the possibility of voter suppression, are you really telling me
>> that you don't think there has been ANY in recent years?
>>
>> Sorry if there is some history to AALS that I don't "get" that makes
>> Mark and Rick skeptical or put-off by this title. It seems straight
>> forward: voter suppression happens, lawyers should discuss it.
>>
>> Can you explain why this is an inappropriate title? It may be a great
>> workshop or a horrible one, but the title alone does not seemt to
>> indicate anything other than a general category of law...one that is
>> in the press alot and that will come up in 2012.
>>
>> -Doug
>>
>> As background, a snippet from Mark's original post:
>>
>> "I wonder whether it is appropriate for the AALS to use the phrase
>> “Voter Suppression” in the description of the program. That seems to
>> presuppose that proponents of voter id laws and perhaps other voting
>> regulations (such as active review of voter rolls to eliminate dead or
>> ineligible persons) are engaged in voter suppression. it also makes me
>> wonder whether the program will be at all balanced. You would hardly
>> want to balance a program by including people who want to engage in
>> voter suppression, would you? I’d think inclusion of the phrase
>> “voting integrity”  would have signaled a more balanced approach. I’m
>> also not sure that this topic is ordinarily one that a “Professional
>> Development” committee would deal with. Perhaps the scope of that
>> committee’s responsibilities is broader than the name suggests.
>>
>> MarkS. Scarberry
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
> Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>