[EL] impact of new voting laws

Wed Nov 12 11:20:15 PST 2014

I don't believe that it is as much a case of misinterpretation as 
overreading, and overreading in part because of the deliberately 
provocative way in which some of these posts and reports have been 
headlined and marketed.

And with this I believe I'll bow out of further list discussion, as I 
think both of our points have been made and there's not much value of to 
the list continue this discussion.
On 11/12/14, 11:16 AM, David Ely wrote:
>
> I think you need to re-read what you have written.  You started out by 
> saying that you were not convinced of Wendy Weiser’s conclusions, and 
> then shifted to expressing that it was the conclusions in the 
> political response that you disagreed with. That is fine, and I have 
> no problem with that. However you took the additional step of stating 
> that the Brennen center is somehow responsible for both the political 
> response and your interpretation of their analysis. You could have 
> made your point much more effectively by just focusing on the fact 
> that the analysis was being misinterpreted; that it did not in fact 
> show what was being claimed in the press.
>
> *From:*Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:58 AM
> *To:* David Ely; 'Eric Marshall'
> *Cc:* 'law-election at UCI.edu'
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] impact of new voting laws
>
> That is absolutely not what I am saying. I am not calling for 
> censoring any legitimate questions and findings. I am calling for 
> nuanced research and not overclaiming in the absence of good evidence.
>
> On 11/12/14, 10:54 AM, David Ely wrote:
>
>     I think this is a dangerous attitude for someone studying and
>     teaching election law. Of course a researcher should be careful
>     not to over claim, but there is no over claiming here.  What you
>     are suggesting is that researchers censor legitimate questions and
>     findings in order to avoid a particular political response.
>     Political claims in our system generally have very limited
>     relationship to empirical evidence.  Researchers should focus on
>     the evidence, unless they are specifically studying the political
>     claims.
>
>     *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>     <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>     [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf
>     Of *Rick Hasen
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:24 AM
>     *To:* Eric Marshall
>     *Cc:* law-election at UCI.edu <mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
>     *Subject:* Re: [EL] impact of new voting laws
>
>     No, that's not what I said.  I said that from the Brennan Center
>     "more caution is in order....I think more can be done to be
>     careful in not overclaiming in this area, especially given the
>     predictability of the political response."
>
>     On 11/12/14, 8:17 AM, Eric Marshall wrote:
>
>         I appreciate that response.  So is your concern less with
>         Wendy's post and more how blogs on the left choose to cover it?
>
>         On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Rick Hasen
>         <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
>         I think very highly of the work of the Brennan Center, in
>         terms of its research projects, its public outreach and much,
>         and the quality of its litigation (although I don't always
>         agree with the legal theories the Center advances). I have
>         filed briefs with the Center and worked on projects with them.
>
>         My trouble has been with the p.r. side on this particular
>         issue---the effect of restrictive voting laws on
>         disenfranchisement and election outcomes. It must be clear by
>         now to the Brennan folks that asking suggestive questions in
>         headlines and releases about the effect of these laws gets
>         overhyped by the left, which suggests more caution is in
>         order. That report from the Dish shows how the work of the
>         Center on this issue is being interpreted: " Wendy Weiser of
>         the Brennan Center for Justice even suggests
>         <http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/how-much-difference-did-new-voting-restrictions-make-yesterdays-close-races> that
>         new restrictions may have suppressed enough votes to turn some
>         close races."
>
>         I think more can be done to be careful in not overclaiming in
>         this area, especially given the predictability of the
>         political response.
>
>         I illustrated this point as I toured for my book The Voting
>         Wars, showing how a 2012 Brennan Center report noting that 5
>         million voters "may be impacted" by new restrictive voting
>         rules was predictably hyped by the left (over 2 million of
>         those voters, if I recall correctly were voters who could
>         still vote early but had fewer early voting days to do so). 
>         By the time the issue got to rolling stone, the GOP was
>         disenfranching 5 million voters. Here are the slides:
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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  <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org

-- 
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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141112/325d7c11/attachment.html>