University of Florida blocks professors from testifying in voting rights case challenging state's restrictive election law

• The University of Florida has barred three professors from testifying in a key voting rights case.
• Three political scientists have been blocked from speaking against Florida's restrictive voting law.

The University of Florida has blocked three professors from testifying on behalf of plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state's new restrictive voting law, attorneys said in a court filing, according to The New York Times.

In what is seen as an extraordinary move, university officials informed the professors that because the school is a publicly-funded state institution, taking part in such a legal challenge against Florida "is adverse to U.F.'s interests" and could not be authorized. Critics contend that the action imperils academic freedom and raises concerns about the First Amendment.

The university stated that the three political scientists - Daniel A. Smith, Michael McDonald, and Sharon Wright Austin - could create "a conflict of interest to the executive branch" if they spoke against the law in court.

In the court filing, the attorneys wanted to question Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has strongly backed the new voting law, on whether he played a role in the decision, according to the Times report.

DeSantis has pushed back against questioning, stating that any discussions about the law are protected from disclosure and fall underprivileged conversations.

However, the attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that the federal concerns in the lawsuit - which pertain to whether the new law is racially discriminatory against minorities - negate any protections under the purview of Florida.

When contacted by The Times, two university representatives said that they could not offer a statement on pending litigation, and DeSantis's office did not provide an immediate response.

According to The Times, the move is a "marked turnabout" for the University of Florida, which "has routinely allowed academic experts to offer expert testimony in lawsuits, even when they oppose the interests of the political party in power."

In 2018, Smith testified in two voting-rights lawsuits against the GOP-controlled state government - one of the legal challenges resulted in a settlement that made Florida offer Spanish-language ballots for Latino voters in 31 counties, and the other suit struck down a state-issued ban on early-voting polling sites on state college campuses.

However, the university shifted course after voting-rights organizations sued earlier this year to block the voting law passed by the GOP-dominated legislature and signed into law by DeSantis. The law restricts the use of ballot drop boxes, tightens rules to receive absentee ballots, and adds additional requirements for voter registration drives, among other measures.

The plaintiffs allege that the new law targets Black and Latino voters, along with voters with disabilities.

Henry Reichman, a professor emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay, told The Times that the state's action was "crazy."

"The whole purpose of a university and academic freedom is to allow scholars free rein to conduct research," he said. "The ultimate logic of this is that you can be an expert in the United States, except in the state where you're actually working and being paid by the state."