[EL] AALS program on "voter suppression"

[Doug Hess]

I'm not aware that it is the case that it will be one sided based on
the title alone. (I.e., the phrase is useful as a category of legal,
policy, and research concern; it could be a panel or workshop at a
conference each year). I keep suggesting that people could give
evidence that it is, but I suspect that it is some past history with
this conference that causes people to state this. In any case, it's
not clear that one has to spend equal time presenting the opposing
viewpoint to each judgment. What is the opposing viewpoint to
suppression through misinformation? Do we need an opposing viewpoint
to be presented at every workshop on each matter of criminal law,
family law, employment law, etc., etc.? Each academic moment cannot be
synoptic. And these are not courtrooms. But apparently people view
this conference, unlike those I am familiar with, as having to have
meet some standards of fair time for all that I'm not aware of. But
I'll shut up on this for now.

But on your other point: Regarding that some people still feel there
is a strong case for Voter ID. I'd like to see what supporters think
the best case is for this. I don't mean a case as to the legality of
it. I mean the case that it's sound policy making. I have the Hans A.
von Spakovsky vs. Justin Levitt issue of the Election Law Journal (Vol
11:1) at home. But I've assumed there are no new arguments in there.
However, I'm willing to look. Still, if there is some other summary of
the best case for this as good policy, I would like to know what it
is. In all honesty. Too date, what I've seen just doesn't pass the
basic tests of Policy Analysis 101.

Douglas R. Hess, PhD
Washington, DC
ph. 202-277-6400
douglasrhess at gmail.com

The information contained in this email is confidential and may
contain proprietary information. It is meant solely for the intended
recipient(s). Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this is
prohibited and may be unlawful.


On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>