Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 484 posts

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#51

Post by endisneigh »

dahart wrote: post #47
endisneigh wrote: post #16

this doesn't sound like a big deal. UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university. in other words, they can testify for free, or they cannot use their the fact that they're UF professors as part of their credentials without prior approval, or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves. the article itself admits t…

> UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.” > in other words, they can testify for free No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?

> No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.”

No, I didn't.

"or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves."

> No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?

They were denied to testify as expert witnesses, yes.

Professor Smith in the article has testified with UF's permission before in two suits against the State of Florida government in 2018.

This time Smith is being denied. There's no evidence of a conspiracy here.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/gruv...

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#52

Post by freshpots »

poorjohnmacafee wrote: post #40

Most countries, including EU nations, ban mail-in voting minus exceptions like living abroad, these laws being passed because of discovered fraud in elections. Election integrity is the difference between democracy and a one-party state. Every citizen should be bending over backwards to make sure our elections dont have sources of fraud.

Not discovered fraud. Fears of frauds, stoked by some with nefarious intentions. Why are you making factually incorrect claims?

A number of countries, with competent government leaders and institutions, use it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#53

Post by throwaway0a5e »

notreallyserio wrote: post #46
f154hfds wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a curious non-Floridian, what about the bill is objectionable? I think I found the text here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/90/BillText/er/HT... I personally find issue with the idea of convicts being unilaterally disbarred from voting while I also feel that verifying the identification of the voter is pretty crucial to a believable vote. But I didn't read the whole thing. There might be more objectio…

There’s a real risk that voter ID laws could bar more legitimate voters than illegitimate. If you feel there were, say, 1000 fraudulent votes but that voter ID legislation would prevent 10000 legitimate votes, would that be an acceptable trade off? I say no. And from what I have read in the past the ratio is far worse.

>would that be an acceptable trade off?

Depends on the margins of victory perception of the fraud among the other voters.

If people widely consider the elections to be illegitimate high participation doesn't do anything to solve that.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#54

Post by themitigating »

jtbayly wrote: post #50
ianai wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. With all the anti-democratic practices being rolled out across the states it’s pretty scary to imagine things even a year from now and a long time forward. Life threats against election officials and all the way up to Senators. Gerrymandering. Even the SCOTUS is biased. Seems civics in the US are about to be rigged for one party rule.

Which party? Presumably the one that has control of the House, Senate, and Oval Office?

He's talking about states

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#55

Post by dahart »

endisneigh wrote: post #51
dahart wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.” > in other words, they can testify for free No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?

> No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.” No, I didn't. "or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves." > No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea? They were denied to testify as expert witnesses, yes. Professor Smith in the art…

I saw your mention of conflict of interest down lower, but you did in fact leave the conflict of interest out of your first summary sentence, the part before “in other words”. It definitely leaves the wrong initial impression, and leaves a discrepancy between the two explanations on either side of “in other words”.

> There's no conspiracy here.

What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting.

*edit BTW, while I agree you should have used “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy” from the start, and I normally endorse editing comments to improve clarity, your edit here seems misleading to make without comment. It changes the context of our entire conversation below. Leave it as-is, or add an edit explaining you meant “no evidence”.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#56

Post by throwawayboise »

notreallyserio wrote: post #46
f154hfds wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a curious non-Floridian, what about the bill is objectionable? I think I found the text here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/90/BillText/er/HT... I personally find issue with the idea of convicts being unilaterally disbarred from voting while I also feel that verifying the identification of the voter is pretty crucial to a believable vote. But I didn't read the whole thing. There might be more objectio…

There’s a real risk that voter ID laws could bar more legitimate voters than illegitimate. If you feel there were, say, 1000 fraudulent votes but that voter ID legislation would prevent 10000 legitimate votes, would that be an acceptable trade off? I say no. And from what I have read in the past the ratio is far worse.

I mean, I have needed ID to vote for 30 years. I don't understand the objection to making some effort to verify that the person presenting himself as J. Random Voter is actually who he says he is.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#57

Post by [deleted] »

f154hfds wrote: post #20
josefresco wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a "voting rights professor" to tell you what they're doing in Florida is undemocratic, un-American and 100% politically motivated.

As a curious non-Floridian, what about the bill is objectionable? I think I found the text here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/90/BillText/er/HT... I personally find issue with the idea of convicts being unilaterally disbarred from voting while I also feel that verifying the identification of the voter is pretty crucial to a believable vote. But I didn't read the whole thing. There might be more objectio…

[deleted]

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#58

Post by alistairSH »

jtbayly wrote: post #50
ianai wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. With all the anti-democratic practices being rolled out across the states it’s pretty scary to imagine things even a year from now and a long time forward. Life threats against election officials and all the way up to Senators. Gerrymandering. Even the SCOTUS is biased. Seems civics in the US are about to be rigged for one party rule.

Which party? Presumably the one that has control of the House, Senate, and Oval Office?

GOP has the majority of state governors. GOP has the majority of state legislatures.

Both of the above are currently drawing Congressional districts based on the latest census data.

Both of the above are currently rolling out voting rules that are nominally about preventing fraud (of which there is zero evidence of anything widespread) but will impact the ability of people to vote.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#59

Post by ceejayoz »

throwawayboise wrote: post #56
notreallyserio wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a real risk that voter ID laws could bar more legitimate voters than illegitimate. If you feel there were, say, 1000 fraudulent votes but that voter ID legislation would prevent 10000 legitimate votes, would that be an acceptable trade off? I say no. And from what I have read in the past the ratio is far worse.

I mean, I have needed ID to vote for 30 years. I don't understand the objection to making some effort to verify that the person presenting himself as J. Random Voter is actually who he says he is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a...

> For Settles to get one of those, his name has to match his birth certificate — and it doesn’t. In 1964, when he was 14, his mother married and changed his last name. After Texas passed a new voter-ID law, officials told Settles he had to show them his name-change certificate from 1964 to qualify for a new identification card to vote.

> So with the help of several lawyers, Settles tried to find it, searching records in courthouses in the D.C. area, where he grew up. But they could not find it. To obtain a new document changing his name to the one he has used for 51 years, Settles has to go to court, a process that would cost him more than $250 — more than he is willing to pay.

That's a pretty clear illegal poll tax, if you ask me.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#60

Post by obelos »

endisneigh wrote: post #34
obelos wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organizations that aren't the government. State universities are public institutions, not private ones.

really? which private entities explicitly or historically have allowed a member to testify against either the entity itself or another entity that funds the one in which the member of a part of? even whistleblowers generally quit before testifying, or are expected to not necessarily retain their rights as a member afterwards. there's really no incentive for an organization to explicitly allow a member to testify agai…

Yes, really. State schools are public institutions. Their employees are public employees. As public institutions, they are not legally permitted to enact policy that infringes 1A rights. A private school could have more leeway on this—subject to employment law, union contracts, etc—but a public school is very limited. A public professor could be censured for expressing testimony that, for example, reveals that they are likely to treat students in a biased way. If they testify with something like “Racial minorities and women aren't qualified to have a right to vote,” that impugns their ostensible fair treatment of their students and fellow faculty, and that is actionable. But testifying about how a state's voting policies disenfranchise legitimate portions of its population? Not at all actionable. Testifying that election integrity demands that certain practices be established even though practically speaking it could result in disenfranchisement of certain minorities? Also not actionable.
Post reply on HN