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

181–190 of 484 posts

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

#181

Post by kodah »

vageli wrote: post #161
lotsofpulp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Is this true even when gathering evidence of a…

California has the same law as Florida.

Edit: the laws are the same, and you can't use an illegal recording in a court -- expressly. If you try to give an illegal recording to the news you'll likely get taken in civil court.

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

#182

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #110
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,…

Which calls into question the perception of authority and freedom from bias that academia tends to have. We should all be a little more skeptical. Nobody should be above scrutiny based on their job title or profession, their prior work, or anything else.

I'm curious as how this relates to the topic at hand.

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

#183

Post by yardie »

nradov wrote: post #140
SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anything about Virginia, but based on your comment alone I see clearly what the problem is. What you described is a system that disenfranchises everyone that satisfies tree simple rules: doesn't drive, don't travel internationally, and don't work for a large company. E.g. urban poor service-industry worker (outside of chains, no restaurant issues employer IDs).

Any citizen or legal resident can obtain a state Real ID compliant card even if they don't drive, travel, or work. Most states offer reduced or free fees for low income individuals. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification...

If voting is a right and voting requires ID then it should be on the government to cover the costs of providing that burden.

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

#184

Post by ameister14 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #119
ameister14 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's clear, actually. If they are testifying as UF professors, they might be acting in the course of their duties because they are representing the university. I think that's the argument, anyway, and why if they testify just as concerned citizens there would be no way to stop them.

They're being forbidden by the university to testify. How can testifying be one of their official duties?

I think that they're being forbidden by the university from testifying as expert witnesses using their capacities as professors of the university.

I could be wrong but it looks like they can testify as citizens, but not paid experts.

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

#185

Post by matthewdgreen »

_-david-_ wrote: post #164
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.

You should look at Democratic states. Illinois looks quite gerrymandered as well. I think Maryland (maybe?) was quite bad as well. This is a bipartisan thing. It just so happens that Republicans have the majority of states.

At a national level, Senate Democrats have been trying to pass laws that place general limits on the practice. It would be nice for "both sides" arguments if some version of this project enjoyed bipartisan support: unfortunately it does not.

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

_-david-_ wrote: post #164
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.

You should look at Democratic states. Illinois looks quite gerrymandered as well. I think Maryland (maybe?) was quite bad as well. This is a bipartisan thing. It just so happens that Republicans have the majority of states.

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by whatthesmack »

cmh89 wrote: post #157
philjohn wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Need a citation on that. UK has universal mail-in-voting for any reason. Some US states also have universal mail-in-voting, and have done for some time. The counterpoint to "make sure elections don't have sources of fraud" is that you need to strike a balance - the right to vote is sacrosanct (and in some cases was hard won) so any laws that pretend to be about election integrity, but are in fact a way to suppress vo…

My state in the US (Oregon) has had universal mail-in voting for two decades and we don't have any voter fraud to speak of. There isn't really a debate here. Anyone complaining about voter fraud is uninformed or purposefully making a bad faith argument in order to justify voter disenfranchisement.

> we don't have any voter fraud to speak of

You probably mean you're not aware of any voter fraud.

The whole objective of fraud is to have it not be discovered, so it's possible fraud has in fact been occurring and it has not yet been discovered (and/or nobody in a position to do so is interested in discovering it).

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

#188

Post by bastardoperator »

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?

Yes... Apparently someone at UF is super scared they might be too honest.

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

#189

Post by Frondo »

runako wrote: post #83
the_snooze wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is also why, until the Roberts court gutted the VRA, the courts looked at outcomes of policies and not just intent -- anyone can say the intent was to stop fraud, but if the outcomes are suppression, that used to matter. No more, and that's why state legislatures have jumped at the chance to enact so many laws that "stop fraud" (a problem for which there has not been, and still does not have, any evidence.)

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

#190

Post by cmh89 »

andrew_ wrote: post #159
Miner49er wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why make voting harder and more expensive then it already is?

Apologies for replying to your question with a question. What is hard and expensive about voting today? I'm interested in your experiences on the topic, as I've personally not had a voting experience that was hard or expensive. For what it's worth, I'm considered a minority in the U.S.

It depends on where you are. In my state (Oregon), voting is easy and secure. We vote by mail as a default and if you move and don't get your ballot, you can go to any voting office and request all the way up until when polls close on election day.

Now, if you are in republican held states like Alabama or Georgia, it's going to be a different story. republicans use several methods to disenfranchise voters, voter ID is just one of them.

1. republicans always aim to have the shortest polling hours possible. This benefits them because their base tends to be older and more time/ability to vote during the day. Working-class voters are especially impacted by this because if they can even get time off during the day, they probably will have to pay for the privilege of voting in the form of sacrificing hours at work and getting a reduced paycheck.

2. The second thing republicans do is close polling stations in areas they don't expect a lot of support. This creates massive wait times for folks who are more likely to vote Democrat.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smartphone-data-s...

Those hourly workers who are already sacrificing money to vote have to take even more time off to cast their ballot.

3. Another tactic is voter roll purges. A lot of folks don't know that they've been unenrolled from the voter rolls till they show up on election day. This particularly effects renters who might not realize they aren't registered at their current address, and miss mail regarding it because its sent to their former address.

4. republicans will also just shamelessly attempt to discourage Democratic turnout. For example, Georgia got rid of voting early Sunday morning to put a damper on the 'Souls to Polls' movement. There is no rationalization for this. They didn't even bother to lie about it. They just wanted to squash a successful Black get-out-the-vote initiative.

Post reply on HN