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

61–70 of 484 posts

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

#61

Post by sonotathrowaway »

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.

The biggest threat to democracy has occurred from people who espouse language just like this, in several recent instances: the insurrection attempt on January 6th, where conspirators attempted to use violence to overturn a free and fair election, in Michigan, where factions of that same ideology planned the kidnapping and public execution of democratically elected leaders, and spates of domestic terrorism across the United States, notably in California and Minneapolis, where far right paramilitary fighters firebombed police stations and executed federal officers.

It’s always concerning to see such hardline rhetoric being propagated without being disputed, especially as it just implicitly assumes that completely unfounded claims of fraud are being used to push extremist agendas which have been found in multiple jurisdictions to be little more than re-enactments of 1960’s era disenfranchisement.

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

#62

Post by throwaway0a5e »

obelos wrote: post #12
twofornone wrote: post #3

>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law. Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?

It is none of U of F's business whether or not their testimony is politically biased.

It is so far as U of F is willing/unwilling to have its reputation put on a particular side of a particular political issue.

Frankly, I think "if you're getting paid you can't use our name" is a sane policy for all issues on which professors may testify.

It shouldn't be hard to imagine the shoe being on the other foot and some energy company paying professors to testify that some new environmental law is asinine. But of course just because it's not hard to imagine doesn't mean everybody participating in the discussion doesn't have the amount of cognitive dissonance that prevents doing that. It is 2021 after all.

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

#63

Post by endisneigh »

obelos wrote: post #60
endisneigh wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

We'll have to see how the lawsuit pans out, but I doubt you're right here. Public institutions are in no way obligated to let their members serve as expert witnesses in their capacity as an employee. See Garcetti v. Ceballos.

However nothing is stopping them from testifying against the institution in their capacity as a private citizen. This is why whistleblowing is possible.

UF is saying they cannot be expert witnesses affiliated with the university per their process explicitly outlined in the article.

It would be another thing if they were trying to testify in another capacity and UF was trying to stop them.

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

#64

Post by endisneigh »

dahart wrote: post #55
endisneigh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 un…

> 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.

I already showed you a link. The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights).

If you have proof showing there's a conspiracy I'd love to see.

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

#65

Post by aigo »

productivepizza wrote: post #48
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.

Can you provide links with information on countries that have discovered election fraud and banned mail-in voting? I could not find anything with a quick google search.

In the UK we did discover some postal voting fraud in a 2014 local election in an area of London called Tower Hamlets. We did not ban postal voting as a result.

We have, however, imported a voter ID law from the US which was recently passed by the Johnson government, despite no voter impersonation occurring in Tower Hamlets (or anywhere else really). Previously, no ID was required.

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

#66

Post by dr-detroit »

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.

its a fraud if we dont for for the orange israelite Drumph

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

#67

Post by the_snooze »

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.

When it comes to voter ID, the devil is in the details. I'm a poll worker in Virginia and think our ID laws are pretty fair. We accept driver's licenses and passports, sure, but we also take employer photo ID, any current Virginia school ID, and even old Virginia driver's licenses up to a year after expiration. If a state gives affordances like these to make it easy for people to fulfill the ID requirement, I don't see what the problem is.

And I don't think fraud is a particularly good reason to be for voter ID. The ID requirement seems to speed the line along. We don't need people to spell out their names, especially for non-native English speakers with uncommon or foreign names. The security argument for voter ID strikes me as bogus, but it has a place for efficiency and accessibility.

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

#68

Post by dahart »

endisneigh wrote: post #64
dahart wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 un…

> 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. I already showed you a link. The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights). If you have proof showing there's a conspiracy I'd love…

I have no proof, just like you have no proof. I was talking about a possible state conspiracy, with the university being complicit in this particular case. Just because the university allowed it before doesn’t mean that the state hasn’t abused it’s power here, and that the university is too afraid to stand up to it.

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

#69

Post by ameister14 »

gpm wrote: post #39
rayiner wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more complicated than that. State actors have have certain freedom to restrict speech when acting in their capacity as private employers: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-473

That doesn't justify the post I was replying to at all...

Really? You were saying that the public university is subject to 1st amendment restrictions in this instance, that case says it could be otherwise.

From the note: "In a 5-to-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that speech by a public official is only protected if it is engaged in as a private citizen, not if it is expressed as part of the official's public duties."

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

#70

Post by endisneigh »

dahart wrote: post #68
endisneigh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I already showed you a link. The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights). If you have proof showing there's a conspiracy I'd love…

I have no proof, just like you have no proof. I was talking about a possible state conspiracy, with the university being complicit in this particular case. Just because the university allowed it before doesn’t mean that the state hasn’t abused it’s power here, and that the university is too afraid to stand up to it.

Proof of what? I didn't make any claim that can actually be proven.

My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state.

There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.

Post reply on HN