FROM THE PRESIDENTS DESK
May 2025
A recent attack on the League by a politician in response to receipt of our advocacy positions on education brings the question of what, if any, response is in order. It is important in determining whether a response is warranted to consider whether the attack was publicized or limited to the League itself and whether it was fact-based or an opinion devoid of factual support.
Josh Williams’ statements were directed at the LWV-TLC and our advocacy positions on education. No intelligent interpretation of these positions could support such a venomous response to the League. As it lacks any factual basis, any attempts to disprove his position or change his mind through factual argument would be fruitless. You cannot modify an extremist’s view or defend against such a distorted and baseless position through factual argument.
The LWV has often been subject to baseless, irrational attacks when our actions and/or policies are not in accord with a politician’s partisan position. When called “evil” “a menace” and with “no reason to exist”, by a politician/governor disappointed with the election of Warren G. Harding who attributed his win to the League and to giving the women the right to vote, Carrie Chapman, our founder, observed that this politician “was so over-reaching facts as to be amusingly ridiculous. She did not abandon the principle of non-partisanship so critical to the mission and reputation of the League by engaging him in an argument with facts, as his position lacked any basis in fact.
Neither should we feel compelled to defend our positions which are well-thought out policies arrived at by consensus after research and investigation and based in fact. If Mr. Williams’ attack had contained misstatements of facts, it would behoove us to correct him, however, his statements are conclusory, non-fact based opinions.
To attempt to alter such deeply entrenched animus toward the League through fact-based argument could only serve to provide him with confirmation of his false narrative that the League is biased and partisan.
In conclusion, after much thought and study of the history and mission of the League, I do not believe that a response is in accord with our purposes to encourage and facilitate exercise of the vote, to educate voters on issues of great national import and to protect the democratic process.
Rosemarie Barciz, Co-President
Bonnie Bishop, Co-President