[EL] AALS program on "voter suppression"

[Joe La Rue]

Doug,

Perhaps the problem is that some of us on "the other side" do not believe
"our side" has been as discredited as you do. And, while I agree with you
that being a scholar necessarily involves taking sides, it seems that an
academic presentation should present both sides to a contentious policy
debate and allow the listeners to sift through the facts and determine
where the truth lies. It should not pretend that only one side exists.

Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.



On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Doug Hess <douglasrhess at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120906/4e88cab8/attachment.html>