[EL] Al Jazeera America article on voter suppression

Wed Oct 29 13:44:08 PDT 2014

It says “more to heart,” not dismissed.  I still listened to your arguments about voting, I was just less persuaded because of a characteristic of the forum that is directly relevant to the issue.

It is like someone published an article about how bad Hondas are in a magazine published by Trabant.  Their points about Hondas having too much road noise seem less substantive when the Trabant’s doors fall off and I have to use a dipstick for the gas gauge.

Rest assured, I’ll continue to read your work and agree and disagree depending on the strength of your arguments, regardless of where they are published.

From: Schultz, David A. [mailto:dschultz at hamline.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:21 PM
To: Bill Maurer; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Al Jazeera America article on voter suppression

Read this sentence of yours:  "I would have taken your points more to heart if they weren’t made in a forum originating from a country where no one can vote."  With it you simply discounted everything  I tried to argue and which you seemed to want to agree with.  Essentially,  to use the language of law, with this sentence you are estopped from arguing that who the author or publisher is, they are not a factor in determining whether the argument is cogent.  This sentence really tells me that I am dismissed  simply because of where I chose to publish.

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org<mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>> wrote:
Are you saying people can vote in Qatar?  I don’t get it.

From: Schultz, David A. [mailto:dschultz at hamline.edu<mailto:dschultz at hamline.edu>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:16 PM
To: Bill Maurer
Cc: George Korbel; John W. Farrell; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Al Jazeera America article on voter suppression

Bill:

Whatever good things you said in you e-mail you retracted effectively with your final sentence.

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org<mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>> wrote:
Professor,

I agree, which is why I’ve fought intrusive disclosure laws for years.  This is not simply a question of people shouting “Koch!” or “Soros!,” however.  This is the outlet of a country where its citizens lack the most basic civil liberties.  That struck me as an unusual, and counterproductive, place to make an argument about the franchise and raises the question of why they would publish an article about problems with the franchise in the U.S. when they have no franchise at all in the outlet’s country of origin.  Note that I’ve not said that I disagree with you because I disagree with your position.  In fact, I’ve not said whether I agree or disagree, or a little of both.  In that regard, I would be similarly concerned with someone who is anti-regulation of campaign financing making an argument in any forum provided by any government that does not permit free and fair elections.  The state-run outlets of many countries may contain articles with excellent points about civil liberties in the U.S.—when they address the mote in their own eye, I will take those points more seriously.  That’s why I take articles about civil liberties in the CBC, the BBC, or the NHK seriously.

Also, I don’t technically think that that is the ad hominem fallacy as ad hominem is not fallacious when it concerns actions that contradict the subject’s words—to use an example from formal logic class.

I also share your concern with rhetoric and I assume you share my negative reaction to people using over-the-top phrases when discussing a complex topic like voting rights.

In sum, I read your article about the franchise.  I would have taken your points more to heart if they weren’t made in a forum originating from a country where no one can vote.

Best regards,

Bill

From: Schultz, David A. [mailto:dschultz at hamline.edu<mailto:dschultz at hamline.edu>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:21 PM
To: Bill Maurer
Cc: George Korbel; John W. Farrell; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Al Jazeera America article on voter suppression

Alas, the discourse on this listserv seems no better than the dreary state of political debate and journalism that dominates American politics  today.
Take any formal logic class or one on debating and one of the most basic rules is that ad hominems are not  good arguments.  By that, you do not refute someone's argument simply by calling them a name or by dismissing their position by saying that work for such and such group or are a member of some particular organization.  Instead, you need to specific the flaws in someone's argument, not impune  someone's character, to refute an argument.  Essentially that is what I see going on here--challenging the Al Jazerra  article or my op-ed by simply dismissing them by saying who they represent or who they are owned by.  This is such a poor way to argue.   However, this is the sorry state of American politics, but I expect more from members of this listserv.
One of the things so wrong with the quality of political discourse in America is confusing name calling, identity, or membership with logical  reasoning.  Democrats simply dismiss claims by Republicans as wrong by saying what do you expect from the GOP.  Or vice-versa.  We see  people simply call people names or insult them, using that as the last or maybe first resort argument instead of engaging the debate on merits.  We teach our children--at least I hope we still do--that name calling is wrong.  The law supposedly tells us that guilt by association is wrong.  Yet there seems something powerful in human nature to refute by dismissal or name calling, and such a trend seems to be encouraged or at least dominates current political discourse.
Over the years I have debated many people, including several on this listserv.    I do my best not to resort to these tactics but often see such reciprocity not returned either in debates with me or others.  I see simply dismissals or labeling used as wins to win arguments.  It reminds me when Lucy used to call Charlie Brown a "blockhead."  Even blockheads can be right and simply calling them blockheads does not win the argument.  It may be a lot to create enemies and polarize politics, but it is not constructive at all as a way to debate.  I still old-fashioned enough to believe in the John Stuart Mill idea that we inquiry to find the truth.  Argument by ad hominem is not the way to do that.  Can't this listserv do better than that?

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org<mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>> wrote:
If this is so straightforward and objective, and the network and its owners are simply acting on a desire to expand the ability of people to vote, please point out al Jazeera pieces on the complete disenfranchisement of 2 million Qataris.  That would seem to be an obvious issue deserving attention from an internationally respected news source.

I wasn’t put off by his exercise of the First Amendment, btw.  I was put off by the rhetoric.  I fully support any author’s First Amendment right to be unpersuasive.

From: George Korbel [mailto:korbellaw at hotmail.com<mailto:korbellaw at hotmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:29 AM
To: Bill Maurer
Cc: Greg P. Magarian; Jeff Hauser; John W. Farrell; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>

Subject: Re: [EL] Al Jazeera America article on voter suppression

Dr Maurer

Well the article of which complai was written by a professor at the Hamline University law school in Minneapolis. I cannot conceive of something that is more Apple pie than a professor at a Midwestern mid American twin cities law school. The author is a member of this board and the fact that he expressed his views in an op ed in an internationally respected news source hardly associates his views with a middle eastern royal family.   The middle west is not the Middle East.

And as far as you being off put by his exercise of the first amendment--that is the beauty of the concept of our founding fathers.  That pesky first amendment sometimes puts us all off.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 29, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org<mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>> wrote:
I also read the story.  I found it interesting but was put off by its editorial rhetoric.

As for the independence of the stories the network runs, the Guardian reported on this issue recently.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/30/al-jazeera-independence-questioned-qatar

From: Greg P. Magarian [mailto:gpmagarian at wulaw.wustl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:58 AM
To: Jeff Hauser; Bill Maurer
Cc: John W. Farrell; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: RE: [EL] Al Jazeera America article on voter suppression

You’re ascribing a news story, wholesale, to the news outlet’s owners.  The byline on the story credits Greg Palast, a U.S.-born journalist who primarily works in the U.K.  Palast is not a member of the Qatari monarchy.

At a structural level, concerns about media ownership are, IMHO, quite valid.  If we’re talking about a particular story, written by a respected, widely-published member of a profession that prizes operational independence, questions based on ownership might still be valid.  But a question and a sweeping dismissal, entirely free of substantive analysis, are two different things.

If you think the story is wrong on its merits, say why.  If you have a basis for arguing that the owners of al Jazeera exercise stifling editorial control over news stories, share it.  For that matter, you might explain why, even if we ascribe Palast’s story to the Qatari monarchy, an entity that doesn’t practice democracy can’t offer a useful critique of democratic practices.

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 Jeff Hauser
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:44 AM
To: Bill Maurer
Cc: John W. Farrell; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Al Jazeera America article on voter suppression

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2011/07/11/saudi-investor-alwaleed-news-corps-news-of-the-world-was-a-rotten-apple/

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org<mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>> wrote:
The Unification Church is not a country.  The more proper analogy would be whether I found articles from them about theology persuasive.

I would think that anybody would find it laughable to be lectured on the narrowness of our franchise by a media outlet owned by a royal family that does not permit any elections (at least as far as I can tell).  Regardless of where one stands on voter ID, I can’t take criticism by absolute monarchs on how we conduct elections seriously.

From: John W. Farrell [mailto:jfarrell at mccandlishlawyers.com<mailto:jfarrell at mccandlishlawyers.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:25 AM
To: Bill Maurer
Cc: Schultz, David A.; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Al Jazeera America article on voter suppression

Do you ask the same question about stories in the Washington Times?

John W. Farrell
Attorney at Law

[McCandlish & Lillard]<http://mccandlishlawyers.com/>

11350 Random Hills Road | Suite 500
Fairfax, Virginia 22030-7421
direct (703) 934-1182<tel:%28703%29%20934-1182> | cell (703) 507-1182<tel:%28703%29%20507-1182>

website<http://mccandlishlawyers.com/> | bio<http://mccandlishlawyers.com/attorney/john-w-farrell/> | vCard<http://www.dynasend.com/signatures/vcard/jfarrell-at-mccandlishlawyers.com.vcf> | map<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=11350+Random+Hills+Road,+Fairfax,+VA+22030&hl=en&ll=38.857288,-77.338471&spn=0.028874,0.038409&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.206892,78.662109&vpsrc=6&hnear=11350+Random+Hills+Rd,+Fairfax,+Virginia+22030&t=m&z=15> | email<mailto:jfarrell at mccandlishlawyers.com>

[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/mccandlaw>[Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/McCandlishLillard>[LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/mccandlish-&-lillard-p.c.>[YouTube]<http://www.youtube.com/user/McCandlishLillard>

This email is not intended, nor shall it be deemed, unless otherwise expressly provided in writing, to (1) constitute or provide legal advice or counsel, unless the recipient already has an attorney-client relationship with the firm or me; (2) create an attorney-client relationship; or (3) contain my electronic, or other implied, signature.

On Oct 29, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Bill Maurer wrote:

A story on voting rights from a media outlet owned by the royal family of Qatar raises the question of how broad was the franchise that voted them into office?

Bill

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 Schultz, David A.
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:10 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Al Jazeera America article on voter suppression

A good article today in  Al Jazeera America on voter suppression along with  my accompanying op-ed on the topic.

http://projects.aljazeera.com/2014/double-voters/index.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/2014-midterm-electionsgopvotersuppressiondemocrats.html
--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858<tel:651.523.2858> (voice)
651.523.3170<tel:651.523.3170> (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
________________________________

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

________________________________

Spam
Not spam
Forget previous vote

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

Spam
Not spam
Forget previous vote

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

--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858<tel:651.523.2858> (voice)
651.523.3170<tel:651.523.3170> (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
________________________________

Spam
Not spam
Forget previous vote

--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858<tel:651.523.2858> (voice)
651.523.3170<tel:651.523.3170> (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
________________________________

Spam<about:blank>
Not spam<about:blank>
Forget previous vote<about:blank>

--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09N98kMzs&m=52a5f5e59c5c&t=20141029&c=s>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09N98kMzs&m=52a5f5e59c5c&t=20141029&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09N98kMzs&m=52a5f5e59c5c&t=20141029&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141029/f19a6720/attachment.html>