ONLY allowing the public to give their opinion and leave open the possibility of veto creates effective and transparent outcomes
Wexler 8 (Lesley, Professor of Law – Florida State University and Former Debater – University of Michigan, “Human Rights Impact Assessments: An Immigration Case Study”, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 285, Winter, Lexis)
n211 Id. at 182. On the procedural side, public inclusion in decision making may be intrinsically valuable regardless of how or whether it affects the substantive outcome. According to this theory, governmental decision making gains democratic legitimacy by making itself transparent and open to criticism. While this may be a valuable end in itself, it tells us little about the particular value of opening human rights review to public comment. n212 See introduction. n213 Beth Lyon, New International Human Rights Standards on Unauthorized Immigrant Worker Rights: Seizing an Opportunity to Pull Governments Out of the Shadows, 10 REFUGEES & HUMAN RTS. 551, 567-68 (2005). n214 One of the main critiques of EISs is that they tend to ignore the public's values in favor of the experts' values. Robin Gregory, Ralph Keeney, & Detlof von Winterfeldt, Adapting the Environmental Impact Statement Process to Inform Decision makers, 11 J. POI.' Y ANALYSIS & MGMT. 58, 59-60 (1992).