[EL] AALS program on "voter suppression"

Thu Sep 6 15:12:01 PDT 2012

This is the last thing I intend to say about this subject on this list. No one knows whether the program will be one-sided (other than perhaps the people who put it together and the participants). As far as I can tell, the participants have not been announced. No one on this list seems to have known anything about it, which strikes me as very odd. Many AALS programs are not even-handed. This one may be, but the title does not give me any reason to think so. The program was organized by the AALS committee on professional development. That also strikes me as odd, though perhaps the remit of that committee is broader than its name suggests. 

I haven't been a strong proponent of voter id laws. A reasonable case can be made for them as a way to deal with a potential vulnerability of the voting system and a way to enhance voters' confidence in the system. They should be coupled with programs to make it easy to get id, and with provisional voting that will allow legal votes to be counted without the voters being subjected to onerous post-voting requirements.

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law

-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Hess
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:00 PM
To: Joe La Rue
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] AALS program on "voter suppression"

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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election