On January 21, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker, an Obama appointee, enjoined the policy of the University of Florida relative to its faculty becoming expert witnesses in voting rights cases, and other cases against state government. The policy requires the faculty to get advance permission before testifying against the state.

The decision starts with a discussion of a renowned university in Hong Kong, and how the Chinese government has persuaded the Hong Kong University to muzzle its faculty. The decision then shows how something similar has happened in Florida. Here is the 76-page decision in Austin v University of Florida Board of Trustees, n.d., 1:21cv-184. Thanks to the Institute for Free Speech for this news.

New Mexico State Senator Bill Tallman (D-Albuquerque) has introduced SJR 1, a proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate the ability of parties to have nominees for congress and state office. Like the similar bills in other states, if enacted, it would make it extremely difficult for minor parties to remain ballot-qualified. They would need to perform very well in the presidential race. Here is the text. It is unclear whether it would permit write-ins in the general election.

Senator Tallman is in his second term and is age 81 years.

On January 18, Kells Hetherington filed this brief in his lawsuit against the Florida law that makes it a crime for candidates for non-partisan school boards to reveal their party membership during the campaign. He was fined $500 for saying that he is a “lifelong Republican.” Later the fine was reduced to $200. Hetherington v Madden, n.d., 3:21cv-671.

The Florida law is in section 106.143(3) of the election code. The last sentence is, “A candidate for nonpartisan office is prohibited from campaigning based on party affiliation.”

So far, the government’s defense of the law has been procedural, claiming that Hetherington sued the wrong defendant, and arguing that facts about Florida school boards mentioned in the plaintiff’s brief should be stricken, because the plaintiff cited Ballotpedia, and the government’s brief argues that references to websites like Ballotpedia are just “hearsay”.