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

81–90 of 484 posts

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

#81

Post by tibbetts »

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?

No, the one clinging to power despite support from a shrinking minority of the electorate.

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

#82

Post by dahart »

endisneigh wrote: post #75
dahart wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn’t make any claim that can actually be proven. Correct, your claim “There’s no conspiracy here” is something you don’t know and can’t prove, therefore is an unjustifiable claim.

Saying there's no conspiracy is not a claim, that's the default position. Look up "null hypothesis" and "burden of proof."

> Saying there’s no conspiracy is not a claim

You fooled me. I’m fine with your later “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy.” But saying “there’s no conspiracy” is indeed a claim in casual speech.

The potential evidence of a conspiracy is that the professors were denied permission to testify, when, as you point out, they’ve been allowed in the past. What changed?

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

#83

Post by runako »

the_snooze wrote: post #67
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.

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 s…

The problem is not at the point of acceptance, it's at the point of issuance. An egregious violator is Alabama, which systematically closed DMVs in Black counties [1].

The point of modern voting suppression is it's designed such that each hurdle on its own looks reasonable to people new to the issue. But the aggregate is intended to suppress voters in a targeted way. The architects of these programs even publicly say as much, it's not a secret.

Without making the direct comparison, it's worth noting that the Jim Crow voter suppression laws similarly evolved from humble beginnings. That's why it's important to watch the trend line, and these laws do not trend in the direction of more voter participation.

1 - https://www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--...

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

#84

Post by endisneigh »

dahart wrote: post #82
endisneigh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying there's no conspiracy is not a claim, that's the default position. Look up "null hypothesis" and "burden of proof."

> Saying there’s no conspiracy is not a claim You fooled me. I’m fine with your later “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy.” But saying “there’s no conspiracy” is indeed a claim in casual speech. The potential evidence of a conspiracy is that the professors were denied permission to testify, when, as you point out, they’ve been allowed in the past. What changed?

We'll have to see what the result of the lawsuit is and the ensuing discovery to know.

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

#86

Post by kodah »

elliekelly wrote: post #10

I have a colleague who does environmental litigation. (Think Erin Brockovich.) They have a big civil case against a large energy company in a southern, “energy-friendly” state. They had an expert witness all lined up - a professor at the (public!) state university. Well this expert happened to be up for tenure and was (allegedly) told in no uncertain terms that, should they testify as an expert witness in this case,…

I'm not surprised. Our schools have become increasingly political institutions in left and right form. The question I have is, as an independent, how do you stave it off completely?

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

#87

Post by pyronik19 »

josefresco wrote: post #33
CoastalCoder wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to nitpick, but calling this un-American strikes me as the No True Scotsman fallacy. I.e., Florida is part of the U.S. So if Florida does it, in at least a small way it is American.

It doesn't represent American ideals, but it does represent the reality of America's current (and past) political and cultural landscape. Making it difficult for certain groups of people to participate in the democratic process is unfortunately a long-standing American tradition.

Insecure elections don't represent American ideals.

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

#88

Post by smnrchrds »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #44
josefresco wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like clear "witness intimidation" aka "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 (b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— (1)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;…

Cannot prove it unless the victim was in a state that allows one party consent audio recording and was recording audio. Although Florida is the only southern state that requires all party consent for recording audio, and I presume the previous poster was talking about Texas. Smartphones have solved the recording audio problem, so presumably it would have been possible.

Even then, they will end up not firing the employee then and there, and instead find an excuse to fire them a couple of months later.

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

#89

Post by pyronik19 »

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #61
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…

If you think the last election was above board I have a bridge to sell you.

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

#90

Post by stronglikedan »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #15
elliekelly wrote: post #10

I have a colleague who does environmental litigation. (Think Erin Brockovich.) They have a big civil case against a large energy company in a southern, “energy-friendly” state. They had an expert witness all lined up - a professor at the (public!) state university. Well this expert happened to be up for tenure and was (allegedly) told in no uncertain terms that, should they testify as an expert witness in this case,…

I'm curious if that approach to eliminating expert witnesses passes legal muster.

Doesn't matter if no one is held accountable. We don't have a "legal" problem in the US. We have an accountability problem, particularly amongst the "elites".
Post reply on HN