  The classical Arrow's Theorem answers "how can $n$ voters obtain a collective
preference on a set of outcomes, if they have to obey certain constraints?" We
give an analogue in the judgment aggregation framework of List and Pettit,
answering "how can $n$ judges obtain a collective judgment on a set of logical
propositions, if they have to obey certain constraints?" We abstract this
notion with the concept of "normal pairs" of functions on the Hamming cube,
which we analyze with Fourier analysis and elementary combinatorics. We obtain
judgment aggregation results in the special case of "symbol-complete" agendas
and compare them with existing theorems in the literature. Amusingly, the
non-dictatorial classes of functions that arise are precisely the classical
logical functions OR, AND, and XOR.
