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

141–150 of 484 posts

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

#141

Post by isoskeles »

ceejayoz wrote: post #59
throwawayboise wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pretty clear not an illegal poll tax since this man is an edge case who uses a name with no proof. It’s sad that this is ultimately his mother’s fault, and he can’t ask her for the $250 to fix this.

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

#142

Post by bgorman »

alistairSH wrote: post #58
jtbayly wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course there is zero evidence of Voter fraud. States don’t even check for dead voters or voters who moved out of state. Diebold designs black box systems that aren’t audited by hackers.

Saying there is no evidence of voter fraud is like refusing to get an MRI and saying there is no evidence of cancer.

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

#143

Post by mankyd »

ajay-b wrote: post #138

That’s… Wow, since when can someone bar someone else from testifying in court? I thought it was the pursuit of truth?

Expert witnesses are hired as contractors; paid for their testimony.

If they were being subpoenaed - compelled to be a witness - I am sure the matter would be different.

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

#144

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ianai wrote: post #36
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,…

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.

> Seems civics in the US are about to be rigged for one party rule.

The good news is that it doesn't actually work that way. First past the post results in a two party system. Nobody can gerrymander that away.

Drawing the lines different affects what party platforms need to be in order to get half of the seats, but there will still be two parties and they will still each control the government half of the time.

Which isn't to say that it doesn't matter, but the thing it does is different than the thing you think it does. Even the party drawing the lines is reshaping what they'll need their own positions to be in order to win.

If you really want to fix it, replace first past the post with range voting. Good luck gerrymandering that. Might even solve polarization by getting rid of the poles.

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

#145

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

blululu wrote: post #9
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?

The simple answer is yes. You could make some elaborate post-modernist point about the impossibility of a value neutral perspective, and there is some merit to such claims, but there are also clear mathematical criteria that can be used to asses the fairness of a voting/districting scheme. This is as unbiased of a criteria as one can establish for voting rights and districting (unless your idea of bias is simply, def…

> there are also clear mathematical criteria that can be used to asses the fairness of a voting/districting scheme

I think this illustrates how bias thrives in generalities - with as little evidence as is necessary to advance the agenda.

Deep examination of nuances leads to an organic, comprehensive understanding, one that is rocky soil for bias.

As example: Ideological media relentlessly push preformed talking points to prevent viewers from contemplating an issue beyond the desired scope.

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

#146

Post by ceejayoz »

isoskeles wrote: post #141
ceejayoz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pretty clear not an illegal poll tax since this man is an edge case who uses a name with no proof. It’s sad that this is ultimately his mother’s fault, and he can’t ask her for the $250 to fix this.

It's his mother's fault for not anticipating a policy half a century into the future?

Are you prepared to similarly be declared an edge case and not permitted your Constitutional rights?

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

#147

Post by educaysean »

ceejayoz wrote: post #139
educaysean wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't speak for the rest of us please. I personally believe there to be a massive societal disadvantage to the existence of "educational institutions" with hidden political agendas.

You can believe anything you like, and it's a little silly to read "we" in my comment as "without even a single individual exception". We, society , currently elect representatives who see fit to continue funding a public educational system of schools and universities, which can be inferred to be a general acceptance of their value.

And we, the society, are outraged at the blatant abuse of power we are witnessing in this article. We are shocked by how our current system may have critical vulnerabilities that compromise it's ability to deliver the education it promised, and are ready to discuss which aspect of the status quo may need to be improved upon.

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

#148

Post by analog31 »

scohesc wrote: post #132
alistairSH wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is what I don't understand. Why can't legislators be proactive when it comes to protecting voting rights? We don't need to see any evidence of fraud to ensure the safety of voting rights.

Gerrymandering erases any hope that they will take up a genuine interest in voting rights when they can just manipulate the entire system in their own favor.

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

#149

Post by klyrs »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #62
obelos wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem here is that U of F is engaging in censorship and witness intimidation. Your prejudice that their testimony will be "biased" is quite irrelevant to the first amendment question at hand.

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

#150

Post by briffle »

alistairSH wrote: post #58
jtbayly wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oregon just got a new House Rep member, and if you look at the new maps it has created, its pretty obvious this isn't a one party problem.
Post reply on HN