[EL] AALS program on "voter suppression"

[Doug Hess]

Mark wrote:
"I have no objection to use of the term in the title of the program,
if it is paired with the other way of looking at recent legislation
and other actions, namely that they may help to protect the integrity
of our voting system and enhance voters' confidence in it."

Ok, but if the panel is about voter ID, I think you've stated that you
agree there's very little benefit to it as a policy. (Right? I think
you said in the past that it could only be justified as a way to
reassure the public and that you thought that was weak justification.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.) If so, and especially if you also
agree with Rick and I (and many others) that some people wish to use
voter ID to suppress votes, then what is an alternate view worth
spending much time at all on? One doesn't need to spend much time
looking at it the other way to make the points that people like Justin
and many others have made repeatedly, and made very well.

In short, I don't think it's intellectually fair, honest, or necessary
to give an opposing side equal time in academic settings when their
point has been repeatedly discredited. I mean, being a scholar DOES
mean taking sides (contrary to what somebody said in a previous post
on this topic). It just means that you are expected to be trained in
and to deliver quality arguments for your conclusions and judgments
(e.g., evolution is sound science; being gay is not a mental illness;
voter ID is not sound policy and some people are supporting it as a
hurdle targeting certain groups of voters; this list-serv is useful;
Washington, Lincoln, and FDR, etc. were better presidents than Ford,
Carter, and Bush (both of them)).

Again, I'm not sure what other policy matters they might cover...nor
how these workshops usually unfold...so my previous caveats apply.

FYI, Hans V.S. has a short column fulminating against this panel as
well in the National Review (online edition).

-Doug