Friday, September 28, 2012
Post title: Time for a Quicky.
update: response from Bloomberg:
An expert distinction and a worthy reminder. Thank you, Mike
my response: hey thanks! I'll be watching to see if this gets implemented. A proofreading note. I missed this until I got your response. The headline should read "quickly" not "quicky".
(letter sent to a bloomberg editor.)
Hi. This is a letter about a style question. I think that's what you call them, style books? for issues how words are used in your paper. My concern is with the use of the term "law" to describe statutes that the courts have found unconstitutional, in particular voter ID statutes. Examples from your article:
Wisconsin Top Court Won’t Hear State Voter-ID Case Quicky
By Andrew Harris - Sep 27, 2012 6:25 PM ET
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court denied the state’s request to immediately hear its appeals of two trial court-level rulings invalidating a voter identification law.
“There will be no voter ID law in effect for the presidential election on Nov. 6,” plaintiffs’ lawyer Lester Pines said in a phone interview. [That one's ok because it is a direct quote,and from the plaintiffs.]
Dane County Circuit Judge Richard G. Niess, who presided over the League case, in March ruled the law requiring otherwise eligible voters to present a government-issued photo identification before being allowed to cast their ballots was an unconstitutional burden.
Dane County Judge David Flanagan, who had issued his own temporary order enjoining enforcement earlier that month in a suit brought by the Milwaukee branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, invalidated the law in July after a bench trial.
First-term Governor Scott Walker, a Republican, signed the voter ID measure into law last year.
The fundamental principle of American law, expressed in Marbury v Madison, is that unconstitutional statutes are not law.
Newspapers should report the news in an objective neutral way, or at least maintain a facade of neutrality. When you call the unconstitutional voter ID program a "law", you put your thumb on the scale and slant the story in favor of Walker and Van Hollen. I am a conservative Republican myself, which is why I oppose unconstitutional infrigements on the right to vote such as poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, I can if you like send you a copy of my amicus brief in the Crawford v Marion County case.
I am not saying "that ain't a word"; I am aware people often use the term law to refer to unconstitutional statutes. Words mean what they are used to mean, not what they used to mean, if you can follow that; descriptivism versus prescriptivism. But every newspaper has a style sheet and makes choices about how to use words, and for the above reasons I ask that you avoid using the term "law" when referring to void unconstitutional statutes.
Cordially, Robbin Stewart.
update: response from Bloomberg:
|
1:51 PM (2 minutes ago)
 | | ||
| ||||
my response: hey thanks! I'll be watching to see if this gets implemented. A proofreading note. I missed this until I got your response. The headline should read "quickly" not "quicky".
(letter sent to a bloomberg editor.)
Hi. This is a letter about a style question. I think that's what you call them, style books? for issues how words are used in your paper. My concern is with the use of the term "law" to describe statutes that the courts have found unconstitutional, in particular voter ID statutes. Examples from your article:
Wisconsin Top Court Won’t Hear State Voter-ID Case Quicky
By Andrew Harris - Sep 27, 2012 6:25 PM ET
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court denied the state’s request to immediately hear its appeals of two trial court-level rulings invalidating a voter identification law.
“There will be no voter ID law in effect for the presidential election on Nov. 6,” plaintiffs’ lawyer Lester Pines said in a phone interview. [That one's ok because it is a direct quote,and from the plaintiffs.]
Dane County Circuit Judge Richard G. Niess, who presided over the League case, in March ruled the law requiring otherwise eligible voters to present a government-issued photo identification before being allowed to cast their ballots was an unconstitutional burden.
Dane County Judge David Flanagan, who had issued his own temporary order enjoining enforcement earlier that month in a suit brought by the Milwaukee branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, invalidated the law in July after a bench trial.
First-term Governor Scott Walker, a Republican, signed the voter ID measure into law last year.
The fundamental principle of American law, expressed in Marbury v Madison, is that unconstitutional statutes are not law.
Newspapers should report the news in an objective neutral way, or at least maintain a facade of neutrality. When you call the unconstitutional voter ID program a "law", you put your thumb on the scale and slant the story in favor of Walker and Van Hollen. I am a conservative Republican myself, which is why I oppose unconstitutional infrigements on the right to vote such as poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, I can if you like send you a copy of my amicus brief in the Crawford v Marion County case.
I am not saying "that ain't a word"; I am aware people often use the term law to refer to unconstitutional statutes. Words mean what they are used to mean, not what they used to mean, if you can follow that; descriptivism versus prescriptivism. But every newspaper has a style sheet and makes choices about how to use words, and for the above reasons I ask that you avoid using the term "law" when referring to void unconstitutional statutes.
Cordially, Robbin Stewart.
Comments:
Post a Comment
