washingtonmonthly--2020-09-23--Donald Trump’s Favorite Voting Machines

Donald Trump’s Favorite Voting Machines

As of seven a.m. on the morning of June 9 , here ’ s how Georgia ’ s primary election , with a fancy new electronic voting system , was supposed to work .
Across the state , with roughly half the voters voting by mail , an estimated one million voters would still arrive at their assigned polling places .
After quickly confirming each voter ’ s photo ID , election officials would access the state ’ s new electronic poll ( e-poll ) book—synced in real-time with the state ’ s voter registration base—to verify the voter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s personalized information would be quickly transmitted onto a software-encoded activation card that would be inserted into an ATM-like machine known as a “ ballot-marking device , ” or BMD .
Voters would mark their choices on the BMD ’ s oversized touch screen .
An attached printer would then generate a paper record , summarizing each voter ’ s electoral choices .
Finally , voters would hand these paper printouts back for tabulation and return the activation cards , before leaving the polls .
Quick , secure , easy to use .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) machines that caused electoral controversy in Georgia and elsewhere because they didn ’ t print out paper ballots that can be recounted in case of close or questionable election results , the BMDs produce a paper record .
All of this had been widely touted in a promotional video produced by the office of Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger , with a $ 400,000 TV ad campaign paid for with federal election funds .
Federal funds also financed some of the $ 107 million cost of Georgia ’ s 30,000 new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dominion Voting Systems , one of the nation ’ s two largest voting technology vendors .
Sure , BMDs had their critics , like Marilyn Marks , the president of the Coalition for Good Governance , and Richard DeMillo , a computer science professor at Georgia Tech .
Marks , DeMillo , and a few others had waged a relatively lonely battle in Georgia , arguing , often in court filings , that BMDs have software-related security risks , that the paper ballots aren ’ t truly verifiable , and that it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia voters simply mark their ballots with a pen or a number 2 pencil like voters in most of America—with a voting machine or two reserved at each polling place for people with disabilities and others who might prefer to use them .
Raffensperger ’ s office dismissed such concerns as “ remote , unfounded speculation.
” Then the voting began—and almost everything went wrong .
In hundreds of polling places , especially in and around Atlanta , voters waited in long lines for up to eight hours .
BMDs malfunctioned , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were inserted wrong .
The e-poll books didn ’ t work as advertised .
Many sites hadn ’ t printed out their voter registration lists , or they failed to have enough backup paper ballots available .
How many voters grew so frustrated that they left without voting—disenfranchisement-by-election screw up—will never be known .
Raffensperger , a Republican , blamed Democratic county election officials for botching the rollout .
They blamed him and suspected voter suppression .
Neither Democrats nor Republicans in the state , however , called for the obvious fix : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use hand-marked paper ballots for most voters in the upcoming November general elections .
( A lawsuit to require just that , spearheaded by Marks , is now before a federal judge . )
Georgia wasn ’ t the only place where BMDs failed this spring .
They also did so , spectacularly , in Los Angeles and several jurisdictions in Pennsylvania .
Most of these debacles were overseen by Democrats .
Indeed , Pennsylvania ’ s Democratic secretary of state is now getting an assist from the Trump administration , the RNC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight against the NAACP to require all in-person voters in Philadelphia and two other counties to use BMDs rather than hand-marked paper ballots .
This November , 20 percent of the nation ’ s 200 million registered voters will be directed to cast ballots on BMDs if they go to a polling place—not just in Georgia and Pennsylvania but also in many large counties in Ohio , North Carolina , and Texas .
The chances of more technical meltdowns in these places are real , but that ’ s not the BMD critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario involves the integrity and ultimate verifiability of the vote tallies generated by the machines .
Recall the BMDs ’ printer-generated vote summaries ( technically called “ scanning ballots ” under Georgia law ) .
Voters can review them , though they ’ re not required to , prior to turning them in for tabulation .
The summaries themselves aren ’ t used to determine election winners and losers ; instead , there is a bar code printed on the paper summary , or , as in Georgia , a QR code .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are read by vote-counting machines .
What guarantees the integrity of these tallies ?
How would voters know that the BMD software accurately recorded and translated their choices into those codes and onto the paper ballot receipts ?
And who or what do they trust if there are meaningful discrepancies between the codes and the paper receipts ?
As Emily Levy , founder of Scrutineers , a new networking group for the election integrity movement , puts it , citizens should be asking election officials in universal-use BMD states this very pointed question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prove that these election results are correct , how is it that you think you ’ re going to be able to do that ?
” Let ’ s say the November election is close , and Donald Trump comes up short in Pennsylvania or Georgia or North Carolina , or all of them , and loses the Electoral College vote .
He has already sent every possible signal that he would contest such a result as fraudulent , would refuse to concede , and would litigate ( or worse ) to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfect sense for him and his lawyers to seize on the ambiguities of BMDs to argue that the voting was rigged and illegitimate .
And Democrats would be hard-pressed to prove Trump wrong—especially since some of their own elected officials and allies have been relatively quiet about the BMDs ’ shortcomings , and in some cases have even been at the forefront of pushing for the machines ’ use .
Even in the wake of the Georgia primary debacle , election reform groups like Common Cause and New York University ’ s Brennan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters get hand-marked paper ballots in November .
Instead , they ’ re urging that even more BMDs be supplied , especially in minority districts .
In Pennsylvania , the Democratic secretary of state , Kathy Boockvar is fighting an NAACP lawsuit that seeks to overturn the scandal-tainted decision of Philadelphia County to adopt universal BMD voting .
( In August , the Trump campaign intervened in the case to back Boockvar , though it objected to other demands in the lawsuit , such as expanded vote by mail and early voting ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 election hinges on the verifiability of millions of BMD-generated ballots marked not directly by voters , but by printers obeying the algorithms embedded deep within the machines ’ proprietary software ?
Terms like BMDs and QR codes could end up making the 2000 constitutional crisis over Florida ’ s “ hanging chads ” look like child ’ s play .
In Georgia , skeptical Democrats were simply outnumbered as Republican leaders enacted legislation that required all of Georgia ’ s counties to adopt BMDs .
Local governments didn ’ t even have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But in Los Angeles County , it was prominent Democratic officials , and progressive advocacy groups like Common Cause , that championed a new $ 300 million BMD-based system that failed so spectacularly that California has since mandated that every county mail all their active registered voters a ballot .
There are legitimate reasons for BMDs to play some role in today ’ s elections .
For example , in Los Angeles County , software-programmed BMDs can—if they run properly—give voters the option to view instructions and candidate information in a language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accommodate certain disabled voters for whom the traditional paper ballot isn ’ t a viable option .
Even after the failure of LA County ’ s “ Voting Solutions for All People ” system in March , Kathay Feng , then the executive director of California Common Cause , defended the universal use of BMDs for all voters because it reduced stigma : “ We didn ’ t want to create a separate and unequal system that people with disabilities or language disabilities had to vote on.
” Disability access also remains a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies , along with some , but not all , disability rights groups But ballot-marking devices were originally developed as alternative “ accessible ” voting machines for people with disabilities , not as universal-use equipment foisted on all polling place voters .
This is the BMD critics ’ central complaint .
“ Even if computer-marked paper ballots are necessary to accommodate those who are unable to hand-mark their ballots , it is utterly irresponsible to make them the primary system for all voters , ” Jennifer Cohn , a leading election integrity advocate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not to mention the risks of debuting universal-use BMDs in the middle of an already fraught presidential election year , even if it were not being complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic .
That ’ s the commonsense view of Jim Dickson , the co-chair of the National Council on Independent Living ’ s voting rights committee , and a champion of accessible voting machines for people with disabilities .
“ Trying to install a new voting system for everybody during a presidential election , ” he says , “ is worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Perhaps nothing better illustrates the silence and even complicity of certain Democratic elected officials—and major progressive allies—than what has happened in Pennsylvania .
In early 2018 , Governor Tom Wolf declared that all counties had to jettison their old DRE machines and replace them with ones that used voter-marked paper ballots .
So far , so good .
But where Wolf and his secretary of state , Kathy Boockvar , went astray was in buying into what DeMillo , Cohn , and others deem the “ false equivalency ” at the core @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s foremost election equipment vendors sell both major types of voting systems—ones that revolve around paper ballots hand-marked directly by voters , and the far more complex ( and more software-dependent ) BMD-based systems that also include printers .
Both types are often linked to other error-prone—and , many argue , also potentially hackable—technologies such as e-poll books .
( Indeed , postmortems of the Georgia and LA County problems found that e-poll book was as much at fault for long voter lines as BMDs , if not more . )
But as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typically a higher profit margin when vendors can sell higher-end , more complicated systems .
( In Georgia , for example , the simpler ballot system , also offered by Dominion , would have cost nearly $ 80 million less . )
And by convincing election officials to make all voters use BMDs they could sell whole fleets of the machines .
Central to the vendors ’ strategy was convincing election officials to see BMDs as good , if not superior to , systems that relied on hand-marked paper ballots .
These key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Verified Voting , as well as the Brennan Center and Common Cause .
All three groups , in a major May 2018 advisory report for election officials , emphasized , as many experts continue to do today , the importance of having a voter-marked paper ballot , whether by computer or by hand—based on the now-debunked myth that voters checked those print-outs .
In fact , recent research has shown that 93 percent of voters don ’ t catch BMD errors on the printouts when they do occur , and the system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two-thirds of Pennsylvania ’ s counties eventually chose hand-marked paper ballots with scanners , though they also bought the requisite number of BMDs to comply with federal law on ensuring access to voters needing disability or language assistance .
However , Democratic-led Philadelphia County , along with officials in GOP-leaning Northampton and Cumberland Counties , chose to embrace the more expensive ExpressVote XL BMD model sold by the nation ’ s dominant manufacturer of such equipment , Election Systems , and Software .
These three outlier counties brushed aside expert and citizen objections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security , and near certainty of failures .
For Philadelphia alone , the initial cost was $ 29 million for the 3,750 machines .
( Only later was it revealed that this decision might not have been based solely on the machine ’ s merits ; the nearly $ 3 million in hidden lobbying and campaign donations by the company likely contributed . )
The November 2019 debut of ExpressVote XLs in local elections vindicated critics ’ concerns .
Reuters later exposed that in roughly 40 percent of Philadelphia ’ s polling places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County , according to The New York Times , the system ’ s multiple failures included tallying just 164 votes , out of 55,000 ballots cast , for a leading Democratic judicial candidate .
This face-plant led the county ’ s bipartisan election board to unanimously approve a no-confidence motion for the new equipment .
But Boockvar and the Democratic county executive insisted that Northampton stick with the technology .
Meanwhile , the Democratic Party remained mum at both the state and national levels .
( Spokespeople for the national DNC , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia Democratic Party all declined to answer questions about their voting technology stances for this article . )
Richard Garella , a citizen activist who founded the nonpartisan Protect Our Vote Philly , says that after the Northampton debacle , “ we were expecting major advocacy and political groups including Democrats to see the danger this posed for disaster in November 2020 and to do something about it , and we are disappointed that they didn ’ t. ” The state Democratic Party ’ s tacit acceptance of BMDs was allegedly fueled , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including a newly indicted city councilmember whose protégé led the election board while getting donations from Election Systems and Software .
At the national level , Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is one of only a handful of Democrats who have directly taken on BMDs and the election vendors who promote their use with tactics that have included hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations , trips , and lobbying , as chronicled by NPR and other outlets .
Wyden is a chief co-sponsor of a bill to rein in risky voting equipment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all American voters .
“ An election system is really only as strong as its weakest link .
A single state or a handful of counties can determine the outcome of the 2020 election , ” he says .
Some leading Democrats and progressive voting rights activists at the state and local levels in Georgia , Pennsylvania , and elsewhere have also been fighting the universal use of BMDs .
But while Pennsylvania ’ s NAACP chapter filed a lawsuit against Boockvar ’ s office over the universal-use BMDs and other voting barriers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party has entered the lists in support of the lawsuit .
However , another major party is actively working to thwart it .
The Trump campaign , the RNC , and the Pennsylvania Republican Party filed in late July a motion to intervene in support of Boockvar ’ s effort to insist on the use of BMDs this fall .
“ Right now , Secretary Boockvar is fighting this case alongside the Trump campaign and opposing the NAACP , ” notes John Bonifaz , the president of the reform group Free Speech for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuits around the country .
Legal efforts in Georgia were joined this year by new pandemic-related cases in North Carolina by the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law , and in Texas , where suits were filed in mid-July by the Texas NAACP and Mi Familia Vota .
( Courts in Pennsylvania , Texas , and North Carolina have ruled against these lawsuits in recent weeks , but the civil rights attorneys have either mounted appeals or expect to do so shortly . )
Kristen Clarke , the president of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discriminating impact of this risky voting technology .
Clarke is supporting a lawsuit by the North Carolina NAACP against the rollout of the machines in the Charlotte area , noting , “ It ’ s no coincidence that the gravest problems with outdated and hackable voting equipment are in states with a history of suppressing the votes of people of color.
” Clarke and others point to an example in Shelby County , Tennessee , which includes Memphis .
Republican state legislators and their appointees are trying to force the universal use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a 2015 election , 40 percent of the machine votes from predominantly black precincts weren ’ t counted by the county ’ s central tabulator .
Why are so many Democrats and their allies not vigorously opposing the proliferation of BMDs across the electoral landscape ?
It may be out of fear that even raising such questions might end up reducing turnout by shaking Democratic voters ’ already weak confidence in our election system .
BMD critics say they ’ ve heard this argument—usually voiced privately— but find it specious .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election security reduces voter participation , ” says Lulu Friesdat , the president of Smart Elections , another election integrity group fighting BMDs .
Friesdat cites a 2018 Harris poll showing that voters were , in fact , more likely to vote if they were worried about hacking .
There is clearly an ongoing tension between election integrity proponents focused on accurate and verifiable vote counts and the larger , more influential voting rights groups that emphasize increased turnout and pushing back on laws they view as aimed at voter suppression .
Whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s best-known election watchdog groups haven ’ t been barking very loudly , if at all , about the security risks and logistical dangers of BMDs .
Two of these groups are Verified Voting , based in Pennsylvania , and NYU ’ s Brennan Center .
Both have played prominent roles in helping muffle objections to the BMDs and even have lent their credibility to the promotion and rollout of these systems in Georgia , Pennsylvania , and other key states .
Even before the disaster in Georgia , BMD critics were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in action.
” “ They ’ ve got a passive attitude , ” Marilyn Marks says , “ and just don ’ t consider it a priority.
” She notes that Brennan chose not to support her lawsuit—or even intervene in Georgia when the state board of elections fined the Athens-Clarke County election board $ 5,000 a day for wanting the option to use hand-marked paper ballots instead of BMDs .
Lawrence Norden , director of the Brennan Center ’ s Election Reform program , has also been mostly silent about the negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their widely read and well-respected cybersecurity reports .
While Brennan has been reassuring the public that the old DRE machines generally won ’ t be used this fall in battleground states , when it comes to BMDs , Norden admits , “ it ’ s not been a priority.
” Verified Voting has perhaps done more to help kill paperless DREs than any other national organization .
In early 2019 , it was urging orgia to use hand-marked paper ballots .
But then , critics alleged , it gave the machines its blessing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Raffensperger and Dominion as proving the accuracy and validity of the BMD vote tallies .
That characterization was derided as invalid by two of Verified Voting ’ s election security experts , who then resigned in late 2019 from the organization : Georgia Tech ’ s DeMillo and the board member Dr. Philip Stark , a Berkeley statistics professor , and an elections expert .
Marian Schneider , until recently Verified Voting ’ s president , says of the departed critics , “ We don ’ t agree with them that helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election administration is inherently a bad thing.
” After the resignations and the ensuing negative publicity , Verified Voting clarified last December that it was still firmly opposed to universal-use BMDs .
The situation in Georgia illustrates the risks that trouble-prone voting technology may pose for the November elections and beyond .
The commonsense reforms pushed by Marilyn Marks ’ s group could be widely applied in some swing states before the federal lawsuit is resolved .
One option would be to remove most of the BMDs , give voters the same kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , and then use the scanners already on hand to tabulate them .
Of course , printing millions of additional paper ballots in states like Georgia , Pennsylvania , North Carolina , Ohio , and Texas will cost money .
But surely it would be worth it .
Otherwise , we face the real possibility that Trump ’ s lawyers will be battling Biden ’ s over the legitimacy of the election for weeks or months , while Trump remains in the White House , tweeting about how he won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to steal the election .

As of seven a.m. on the morning of June 9, here’s how Georgia’s primary election, with a fancy new electronic voting system, was supposed to work.
Across the state, with roughly half the voters voting by mail, an estimated one million voters would still arrive at their assigned polling places. After quickly confirming each voter’s photo ID, election officials would access the state’s new electronic poll (e-poll) book—synced in real-time with the state’s voter registration base—to verify the voter’s registration status.
Each voter’s personalized information would be quickly transmitted onto a software-encoded activation card that would be inserted into an ATM-like machine known as a “ballot-marking device,” or BMD. Voters would mark their choices on the BMD’s oversized touch screen. An attached printer would then generate a paper record, summarizing each voter’s electoral choices. Finally, voters would hand these paper printouts back for tabulation and return the activation cards, before leaving the polls.
Quick, secure, easy to use. And unlike old-style direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines that caused electoral controversy in Georgia and elsewhere because they didn’t print out paper ballots that can be recounted in case of close or questionable election results, the BMDs produce a paper record. All of this had been widely touted in a promotional video produced by the office of Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, with a $400,000 TV ad campaign paid for with federal election funds. Federal funds also financed some of the $107 million cost of Georgia’s 30,000 new BMD machines and accessories, purchased from Dominion Voting Systems, one of the nation’s two largest voting technology vendors.
Sure, BMDs had their critics, like Marilyn Marks, the president of the Coalition for Good Governance, and Richard DeMillo, a computer science professor at Georgia Tech. Marks, DeMillo, and a few others had waged a relatively lonely battle in Georgia, arguing, often in court filings, that BMDs have software-related security risks, that the paper ballots aren’t truly verifiable, and that it would be cheaper and less risky to have Georgia voters simply mark their ballots with a pen or a number 2 pencil like voters in most of America—with a voting machine or two reserved at each polling place for people with disabilities and others who might prefer to use them. Raffensperger’s office dismissed such concerns as “remote, unfounded speculation.”
Then the voting began—and almost everything went wrong. In hundreds of polling places, especially in and around Atlanta, voters waited in long lines for up to eight hours. BMDs malfunctioned, and printers broke down. Voters’ cards were inserted wrong. The e-poll books didn’t work as advertised. Many sites hadn’t printed out their voter registration lists, or they failed to have enough backup paper ballots available. How many voters grew so frustrated that they left without voting—disenfranchisement-by-election screw up—will never be known.
Raffensperger, a Republican, blamed Democratic county election officials for botching the rollout. They blamed him and suspected voter suppression. Neither Democrats nor Republicans in the state, however, called for the obvious fix: Get rid of the BMDs and just use hand-marked paper ballots for most voters in the upcoming November general elections. (A lawsuit to require just that, spearheaded by Marks, is now before a federal judge.)
Georgia wasn’t the only place where BMDs failed this spring. They also did so, spectacularly, in Los Angeles and several jurisdictions in Pennsylvania. Most of these debacles were overseen by Democrats. Indeed, Pennsylvania’s Democratic secretary of state is now getting an assist from the Trump administration, the RNC, and state Republicans in her legal fight against the NAACP to require all in-person voters in Philadelphia and two other counties to use BMDs rather than hand-marked paper ballots.
[media-credit name=”Douglas W. Jones/Wikimedia Commons” link=”https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50637533″ align=”alignleft” width=”377″] [/media-credit]
This November, 20 percent of the nation’s 200 million registered voters will be directed to cast ballots on BMDs if they go to a polling place—not just in Georgia and Pennsylvania but also in many large counties in Ohio, North Carolina, and Texas. The chances of more technical meltdowns in these places are real, but that’s not the BMD critics’ biggest concern.
The actual nightmare scenario involves the integrity and ultimate verifiability of the vote tallies generated by the machines. Recall the BMDs’ printer-generated vote summaries (technically called “scanning ballots” under Georgia law). Voters can review them, though they’re not required to, prior to turning them in for tabulation. The summaries themselves aren’t used to determine election winners and losers; instead, there is a bar code printed on the paper summary, or, as in Georgia, a QR code. Unintelligible to the voter, these codes are read by vote-counting machines.
What guarantees the integrity of these tallies? How would voters know that the BMD software accurately recorded and translated their choices into those codes and onto the paper ballot receipts? And who or what do they trust if there are meaningful discrepancies between the codes and the paper receipts?
As Emily Levy, founder of Scrutineers, a new networking group for the election integrity movement, puts it, citizens should be asking election officials in universal-use BMD states this very pointed question: “When you are called upon to prove that these election results are correct, how is it that you think you’re going to be able to do that?”
Let’s say the November election is close, and Donald Trump comes up short in Pennsylvania or Georgia or North Carolina, or all of them, and loses the Electoral College vote. He has already sent every possible signal that he would contest such a result as fraudulent, would refuse to concede, and would litigate (or worse) to stay in office. It would make perfect sense for him and his lawyers to seize on the ambiguities of BMDs to argue that the voting was rigged and illegitimate. And Democrats would be hard-pressed to prove Trump wrong—especially since some of their own elected officials and allies have been relatively quiet about the BMDs’ shortcomings, and in some cases have even been at the forefront of pushing for the machines’ use.
Even in the wake of the Georgia primary debacle, election reform groups like Common Cause and New York University’s Brennan Center aren’t demanding that all voters get hand-marked paper ballots in November. Instead, they’re urging that even more BMDs be supplied, especially in minority districts. In Pennsylvania, the Democratic secretary of state, Kathy Boockvar is fighting an NAACP lawsuit that seeks to overturn the scandal-tainted decision of Philadelphia County to adopt universal BMD voting. (In August, the Trump campaign intervened in the case to back Boockvar, though it objected to other demands in the lawsuit, such as expanded vote by mail and early voting).
What is the risk if the 2020 election hinges on the verifiability of millions of BMD-generated ballots marked not directly by voters, but by printers obeying the algorithms embedded deep within the machines’ proprietary software? Terms like BMDs and QR codes could end up making the 2000 constitutional crisis over Florida’s “hanging chads” look like child’s play.
In Georgia, skeptical Democrats were simply outnumbered as Republican leaders enacted legislation that required all of Georgia’s counties to adopt BMDs. Local governments didn’t even have the option to make their own choice. But in Los Angeles County, it was prominent Democratic officials, and progressive advocacy groups like Common Cause, that championed a new $300 million BMD-based system that failed so spectacularly that California has since mandated that every county mail all their active registered voters a ballot.
There are legitimate reasons for BMDs to play some role in today’s elections. For example, in Los Angeles County, software-programmed BMDs can—if they run properly—give voters the option to view instructions and candidate information in a language other than English. BMDs also can accommodate certain disabled voters for whom the traditional paper ballot isn’t a viable option. Even after the failure of LA County’s “Voting Solutions for All People” system in March, Kathay Feng, then the executive director of California Common Cause, defended the universal use of BMDs for all voters because it reduced stigma: “We didn’t want to create a separate and unequal system that people with disabilities or language disabilities had to vote on.” Disability access also remains a key selling point touted by voting machine companies, along with some, but not all, disability rights groups
But ballot-marking devices were originally developed as alternative “accessible” voting machines for people with disabilities, not as universal-use equipment foisted on all polling place voters. This is the BMD critics’ central complaint. “Even if computer-marked paper ballots are necessary to accommodate those who are unable to hand-mark their ballots, it is utterly irresponsible to make them the primary system for all voters,” Jennifer Cohn, a leading election integrity advocate, and journalist, says.
That’s not to mention the risks of debuting universal-use BMDs in the middle of an already fraught presidential election year, even if it were not being complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s the commonsense view of Jim Dickson, the co-chair of the National Council on Independent Living’s voting rights committee, and a champion of accessible voting machines for people with disabilities. “Trying to install a new voting system for everybody during a presidential election,” he says, “is worse than changing tires on a moving car.”
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the silence and even complicity of certain Democratic elected officials—and major progressive allies—than what has happened in Pennsylvania.
In early 2018, Governor Tom Wolf declared that all counties had to jettison their old DRE machines and replace them with ones that used voter-marked paper ballots. So far, so good. But where Wolf and his secretary of state, Kathy Boockvar, went astray was in buying into what DeMillo, Cohn, and others deem the “false equivalency” at the core of this controversy.
The nation’s foremost election equipment vendors sell both major types of voting systems—ones that revolve around paper ballots hand-marked directly by voters, and the far more complex (and more software-dependent) BMD-based systems that also include printers. Both types are often linked to other error-prone—and, many argue, also potentially hackable—technologies such as e-poll books. (Indeed, postmortems of the Georgia and LA County problems found that e-poll book was as much at fault for long voter lines as BMDs, if not more.)
But as with new automobiles, there’s typically a higher profit margin when vendors can sell higher-end, more complicated systems. (In Georgia, for example, the simpler ballot system, also offered by Dominion, would have cost nearly $80 million less.) And by convincing election officials to make all voters use BMDs they could sell whole fleets of the machines.
Central to the vendors’ strategy was convincing election officials to see BMDs as good, if not superior to, systems that relied on hand-marked paper ballots. These key players included a prominent Philadelphia-based national organization, Verified Voting, as well as the Brennan Center and Common Cause. All three groups, in a major May 2018 advisory report for election officials, emphasized, as many experts continue to do today, the importance of having a voter-marked paper ballot, whether by computer or by hand—based on the now-debunked myth that voters checked those print-outs. In fact, recent research has shown that 93 percent of voters don’t catch BMD errors on the printouts when they do occur, and the system may be especially susceptible to hacking.
Two-thirds of Pennsylvania’s counties eventually chose hand-marked paper ballots with scanners, though they also bought the requisite number of BMDs to comply with federal law on ensuring access to voters needing disability or language assistance. However, Democratic-led Philadelphia County, along with officials in GOP-leaning Northampton and Cumberland Counties, chose to embrace the more expensive ExpressVote XL BMD model sold by the nation’s dominant manufacturer of such equipment, Election Systems, and Software.
These three outlier counties brushed aside expert and citizen objections over the XL’s cost, security, and near certainty of failures. For Philadelphia alone, the initial cost was $29 million for the 3,750 machines. (Only later was it revealed that this decision might not have been based solely on the machine’s merits; the nearly $3 million in hidden lobbying and campaign donations by the company likely contributed.)
The November 2019 debut of ExpressVote XLs in local elections vindicated critics’ concerns. Reuters later exposed that in roughly 40 percent of Philadelphia’s polling places, the machines malfunctioned. In Northampton County, according to The New York Times, the system’s multiple failures included tallying just 164 votes, out of 55,000 ballots cast, for a leading Democratic judicial candidate.
This face-plant led the county’s bipartisan election board to unanimously approve a no-confidence motion for the new equipment. But Boockvar and the Democratic county executive insisted that Northampton stick with the technology. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party remained mum at both the state and national levels. (Spokespeople for the national DNC, the Pennsylvania secretary of state, and the Georgia Democratic Party all declined to answer questions about their voting technology stances for this article.)
Richard Garella, a citizen activist who founded the nonpartisan Protect Our Vote Philly, says that after the Northampton debacle, “we were expecting major advocacy and political groups including Democrats to see the danger this posed for disaster in November 2020 and to do something about it, and we are disappointed that they didn’t.” The state Democratic Party’s tacit acceptance of BMDs was allegedly fueled, he argues, by influential Philadelphia pols, including a newly indicted city councilmember whose protégé led the election board while getting donations from Election Systems and Software.
At the national level, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is one of only a handful of Democrats who have directly taken on BMDs and the election vendors who promote their use with tactics that have included hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations, trips, and lobbying, as chronicled by NPR and other outlets. Wyden is a chief co-sponsor of a bill to rein in risky voting equipment while requiring a hand-marked ballot option for all American voters. “An election system is really only as strong as its weakest link. A single state or a handful of counties can determine the outcome of the 2020 election,” he says.
Some leading Democrats and progressive voting rights activists at the state and local levels in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere have also been fighting the universal use of BMDs. But while Pennsylvania’s NAACP chapter filed a lawsuit against Boockvar’s office over the universal-use BMDs and other voting barriers, neither the state or national Democratic Party has entered the lists in support of the lawsuit. However, another major party is actively working to thwart it. The Trump campaign, the RNC, and the Pennsylvania Republican Party filed in late July a motion to intervene in support of Boockvar’s effort to insist on the use of BMDs this fall.
“Right now, Secretary Boockvar is fighting this case alongside the Trump campaign and opposing the NAACP,” notes John Bonifaz, the president of the reform group Free Speech for People, which is coordinating several similar lawsuits around the country.
Legal efforts in Georgia were joined this year by new pandemic-related cases in North Carolina by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and in Texas, where suits were filed in mid-July by the Texas NAACP and Mi Familia Vota. (Courts in Pennsylvania, Texas, and North Carolina have ruled against these lawsuits in recent weeks, but the civil rights attorneys have either mounted appeals or expect to do so shortly.) Kristen Clarke, the president of the Lawyers’ Committee, clearly sees the discriminating impact of this risky voting technology. Clarke is supporting a lawsuit by the North Carolina NAACP against the rollout of the machines in the Charlotte area, noting, “It’s no coincidence that the gravest problems with outdated and hackable voting equipment are in states with a history of suppressing the votes of people of color.” Clarke and others point to an example in Shelby County, Tennessee, which includes Memphis. Republican state legislators and their appointees are trying to force the universal use of BMDs in that predominantly black county—where, in a 2015 election, 40 percent of the machine votes from predominantly black precincts weren’t counted by the county’s central tabulator.
Why are so many Democrats and their allies not vigorously opposing the proliferation of BMDs across the electoral landscape? It may be out of fear that even raising such questions might end up reducing turnout by shaking Democratic voters’ already weak confidence in our election system. BMD critics say they’ve heard this argument—usually voiced privately— but find it specious. “There is no indication that talking about election security reduces voter participation,” says Lulu Friesdat, the president of Smart Elections, another election integrity group fighting BMDs. Friesdat cites a 2018 Harris poll showing that voters were, in fact, more likely to vote if they were worried about hacking.
There is clearly an ongoing tension between election integrity proponents focused on accurate and verifiable vote counts and the larger, more influential voting rights groups that emphasize increased turnout and pushing back on laws they view as aimed at voter suppression.
Whatever the reason, several of the nation’s best-known election watchdog groups haven’t been barking very loudly, if at all, about the security risks and logistical dangers of BMDs. Two of these groups are Verified Voting, based in Pennsylvania, and NYU’s Brennan Center. Both have played prominent roles in helping muffle objections to the BMDs and even have lent their credibility to the promotion and rollout of these systems in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and other key states.
Even before the disaster in Georgia, BMD critics were characterizing the Brennan Center as “missing in action.” “They’ve got a passive attitude,” Marilyn Marks says, “and just don’t consider it a priority.” She notes that Brennan chose not to support her lawsuit—or even intervene in Georgia when the state board of elections fined the Athens-Clarke County election board $5,000 a day for wanting the option to use hand-marked paper ballots instead of BMDs.
Lawrence Norden, director of the Brennan Center’s Election Reform program, has also been mostly silent about the negative press and malfunctions of BMD-based systems in their widely read and well-respected cybersecurity reports. While Brennan has been reassuring the public that the old DRE machines generally won’t be used this fall in battleground states, when it comes to BMDs, Norden admits, “it’s not been a priority.”
Verified Voting has perhaps done more to help kill paperless DREs than any other national organization. In early 2019, it was urging Ge orgia to use hand-marked paper ballots. But then, critics alleged, it gave the machines its blessing by participating in audits that were touted by Raffensperger and Dominion as proving the accuracy and validity of the BMD vote tallies.
That characterization was derided as invalid by two of Verified Voting’s election security experts, who then resigned in late 2019 from the organization: Georgia Tech’s DeMillo and the board member Dr. Philip Stark, a Berkeley statistics professor, and an elections expert. Marian Schneider, until recently Verified Voting’s president, says of the departed critics, “We don’t agree with them that helping elected officials do a better job at election administration is inherently a bad thing.” After the resignations and the ensuing negative publicity, Verified Voting clarified last December that it was still firmly opposed to universal-use BMDs.
The situation in Georgia illustrates the risks that trouble-prone voting technology may pose for the November elections and beyond. The commonsense reforms pushed by Marilyn Marks’s group could be widely applied in some swing states before the federal lawsuit is resolved. One option would be to remove most of the BMDs, give voters the same kind of paper ballots being sent to absentee voters, and then use the scanners already on hand to tabulate them.
Of course, printing millions of additional paper ballots in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas will cost money. But surely it would be worth it. Otherwise, we face the real possibility that Trump’s lawyers will be battling Biden’s over the legitimacy of the election for weeks or months, while Trump remains in the White House, tweeting about how he won’t let Democrats and voting machine companies collude to steal the election.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-23--How Republicans and the Media Are Feeding the QAnon Frenzy About Child Sex Trafficking

Anyone who has followed the conspiracy theory QAnon , in all its varieties , knows that its followers are obsessed .
They believe that a cabal of demonic pedophiles is in control of world affairs .
For them , Donald Trump is the hero that has come to initiate the “ storm ” that will save the children and free the globe from these evil forces .
The notion of a secretive power in charge of world affairs has been the foundation for conspiracy theories for decades , if not centuries .
QAnon has added the idea that the enemies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manipulate world affairs , but are also pedophiles with enough free time to run a global sex trafficking operation .
The question is why they would go beyond , say , Jewish blood libel to kiddie porn .
Given that projection lays behind most obsessions , it is tempting to speculate that this is sublimation .
But there is a more basic answer .
As Eric Levitz points out , the QAnon conspiracy theories have found a home with many Christian nationalists .
Their world view embraces the idea that the issues we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an epic battle between good and evil .
You might remember that a few months ago Franklin Graham and talk-show host Eric Metaxas agreed that those who oppose Trump are under the influence of “ demonic forces.
” It is hard to imagine anything more demonic and evil than child sex traffickers .
Child exploitation allows the QAnoners to paint those who disagree with their nonsense as evil because , at a minimum , they don ’ t care about youth being trafficked .
Of course , no rational human being would go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tool to use against an opponent—which is exactly what the National Republican Campaign Committee is doing .
Take a look at the ad they ’ re running against Rep. Tom Malinowski , a freshman Democrat from New Jersey , fighting to hold on to his seat in a swing district .
The ad begins by claiming that “ around every corner , sex offenders are living among us.
” It goes on to claim that Malinowski “ tried to make it easier for predators to hide in the shadows ” by opposing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all a lie .
Before being elected to Congress , Malinowski worked at Human Rights Watch and served as assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights in the Obama administration .
As journalist Michael Isikoff noted , there is no evidence that he has “ ever done anything to protect sexual predators or lobbied against the sex offender registry.
” In running ads like this , the NRCC is feeding the frenzy created by QAnon which fabricates Democratic ties to predators and child sex traffickers .
I expect we ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days .
We ’ ve also recently seen some major media outlets buy into the frenzy about child sex trafficking Almost a month ago , you might have seen a headline from the Associated Press ( which was picked up by outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times ) that read , “ Missing Children Rescued in Georgia Sex Trafficking Bust.
” It was immediately spread by right-wingers on social media , who questioned why the bust wasn ’ t the biggest story in the country .
Thanks to some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ busts myths about sex trafficking—we now know what really happened .
Those news reports didn ’ t tell us that the U.S. Marshall Service collaborated with local law enforcement from 15 Georgia counties and six other states to locate “ critically missing ” children in an operation that lasted over two weeks .
In other words , this was a broad effort to track down some of the 2,300 children who go missing every day across the country—not an attempt to bust a sex trafficking ring .
That truth about this operation isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ garners headlines .
What some Americans don ’ t want to know is that the vast majority of young people who fit the definition of being trafficked are runaways ( or throwaways ) who are escaping dysfunctional homes—most often those provided via foster care .
Over 99 percent of missing children return home , usually within a few days .
For those who don ’ t , trading sex for a place to stay is often the only alternative to sleeping on the streets .
The fact is that child sexual abuse is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with over 50,000 cases substantiated every year , according to the Rape , Abuse and Incest National Network .
But for all of those who are only horrified when hearing tales about major sex trafficking rings , here is the data that should be seared in their brains .
As we ’ ve learned , the sexual abuse of children by acquaintances almost always comes at the hands of someone they trust—priests , ministers , coaches , etc .
All too often adults who knew about the abuse looked away or tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to suggest that the kind of child trafficking we associate with those words is non-existent .
That is being made clear by what has been documented about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell .
But if our interest is actually in protecting children , why is it that the 93 percent who are abused by a family member or acquaintance don ’ t elicit the same level of outrage ?
Whether it ’ s QAnon or the NRCC , we are in the midst of an effort to exploit children who are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more emotionally satisfying than beginning to tackle the complex array of issues that affect children .
For those of you who would like to do something to address this issue , it is important to know that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act , which was originally passed in 1974 , contains funding for runaway and homeless youth shelters and a national network that coordinates their efforts .
As part of his proposal for criminal justice reform , Joe Biden wants to increase funding for the legislation from $ 176 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The national network also maintains a list of local programs that could benefit from volunteers and financial support .

Anyone who has followed the conspiracy theory QAnon, in all its varieties, knows that its followers are obsessed. They believe that a cabal of demonic pedophiles is in control of world affairs. For them, Donald Trump is the hero that has come to initiate the “storm” that will save the children and free the globe from these evil forces.
The notion of a secretive power in charge of world affairs has been the foundation for conspiracy theories for decades, if not centuries. QAnon has added the idea that the enemies of freedom are not content just to manipulate world affairs, but are also pedophiles with enough free time to run a global sex trafficking operation. The question is why they would go beyond, say, Jewish blood libel to kiddie porn.
Given that projection lays behind most obsessions, it is tempting to speculate that this is sublimation. But there is a more basic answer. As Eric Levitz points out, the QAnon conspiracy theories have found a home with many Christian nationalists. Their world view embraces the idea that the issues we face are not complex, but simply an epic battle between good and evil. You might remember that a few months ago Franklin Graham and talk-show host Eric Metaxas agreed that those who oppose Trump are under the influence of “demonic forces.” It is hard to imagine anything more demonic and evil than child sex traffickers.
Child exploitation allows the QAnoners to paint those who disagree with their nonsense as evil because, at a minimum, they don’t care about youth being trafficked. Of course, no rational human being would go there, but it becomes a powerful tool to use against an opponent—which is exactly what the National Republican Campaign Committee is doing. Take a look at the ad they’re running against Rep. Tom Malinowski, a freshman Democrat from New Jersey, fighting to hold on to his seat in a swing district.
The ad begins by claiming that “around every corner, sex offenders are living among us.” It goes on to claim that Malinowski “tried to make it easier for predators to hide in the shadows” by opposing the national sex offender registry. That is all a lie. Before being elected to Congress, Malinowski worked at Human Rights Watch and served as assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights in the Obama administration. As journalist Michael Isikoff noted, there is no evidence that he has “ever done anything to protect sexual predators or lobbied against the sex offender registry.” In running ads like this, the NRCC is feeding the frenzy created by QAnon which fabricates Democratic ties to predators and child sex traffickers. I expect we’ll see more of this in the coming days.
We’ve also recently seen some major media outlets buy into the frenzy about child sex trafficking Almost a month ago, you might have seen a headline from the Associated Press (which was picked up by outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times) that read, “Missing Children Rescued in Georgia Sex Trafficking Bust.” It was immediately spread by right-wingers on social media, who questioned why the bust wasn’t the biggest story in the country.
Thanks to some great reporting by journalist Michael Hobbes—who regularly busts myths about sex trafficking—we now know what really happened. Those news reports didn’t tell us that the U.S. Marshall Service collaborated with local law enforcement from 15 Georgia counties and six other states to locate “critically missing” children in an operation that lasted over two weeks. In other words, this was a broad effort to track down some of the 2,300 children who go missing every day across the country—not an attempt to bust a sex trafficking ring.
Of the 65 they located, 39 were “recovered,” meaning they were removed from whatever situation they were in — which could be anything from living on the streets to crashing on a friend’s couch to staying with a parent who didn’t have custody rights. The other 26 cases were closed without the child being “recovered.” Albright [a human trafficking and law enforcement consultant] said this could mean that another agency, such as Child Protective Services, found them — or that they had been home all along.
That truth about this operation isn’t the kind of story that garners headlines. What some Americans don’t want to know is that the vast majority of young people who fit the definition of being trafficked are runaways (or throwaways) who are escaping dysfunctional homes—most often those provided via foster care. Over 99 percent of missing children return home, usually within a few days. For those who don’t, trading sex for a place to stay is often the only alternative to sleeping on the streets.
The fact is that child sexual abuse is a serious problem in this country, with over 50,000 cases substantiated every year, according to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. But for all of those who are only horrified when hearing tales about major sex trafficking rings, here is the data that should be seared in their brains.
As we’ve learned, the sexual abuse of children by acquaintances almost always comes at the hands of someone they trust—priests, ministers, coaches, etc. All too often adults who knew about the abuse looked away or tried to protect the offender.
None of this is to suggest that the kind of child trafficking we associate with those words is non-existent. That is being made clear by what has been documented about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. But if our interest is actually in protecting children, why is it that the 93 percent who are abused by a family member or acquaintance don’t elicit the same level of outrage?
Whether it’s QAnon or the NRCC, we are in the midst of an effort to exploit children who are being abused because pointing to an evil cabal is more emotionally satisfying than beginning to tackle the complex array of issues that affect children.
For those of you who would like to do something to address this issue, it is important to know that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which was originally passed in 1974, contains funding for runaway and homeless youth shelters and a national network that coordinates their efforts. As part of his proposal for criminal justice reform, Joe Biden wants to increase funding for the legislation from $176 million per year to $1 billion. The national network also maintains a list of local programs that could benefit from volunteers and financial support.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-23--What If the Election Brings Chaos Instead of Normalcy?

With America so divided politically and upended by the pandemic there ’ s a widespread thirst for normalcy .
We want to leave home without a mask , go back to the office , put the kids on the school bus .
The year started with our president awaiting trial for committing impeachable offenses .
It saw the world grapple with volcanos , earthquakes , floods , wildfires , locusts , and the emergence of a global pandemic .
And this was all in the first 100 days .
Throughout it all , one hope has lingered .
In November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to retain Donald Trump as its president .
But , if 2020 stays true to its nature , the election won ’ t bring clarity , but a true constitutional crisis .
Barton Gellman , writing in the Atlantic , explains how events might unfold if there isn ’ t a clear winner on Election Night : The Twentieth Amendment is crystal clear that the president ’ s term in office “ shall end ” at noon on January 20 , but two men could show up to be sworn in .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tools and power of the presidency already in hand… …We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote , but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way .
Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “ in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.
” Since the late 19th century , every state has ceded the decision to its voters .
Even so , the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “ can take back the power to appoint electors.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so has not been tested for well over a century .
Trump may test this .
According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels , the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority .
With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud , Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly .
The longer Trump succeeds in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires .
If Trump wins the most Electoral College votes , these maneuvers will be unnecessary , and he will ungraciously accept Joe Biden ’ s concession .
However , if he is clearly behind or slightly ahead but predicted to lose once all the mail-in , absentee and provisional ballots are counted , this strategy of manipulating the election in selected states could be utilized .
Imagine Iowa , where the polls show a deadlocked race and the Republicans control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mansion .
Rather than concede that he has narrowly lost the state , Trump-loyal state legislators could have the Biden electors thrown out and declare him the winner .
Their excuse would be that irregularities in the vote make it impossible to determine who actually had the most support .
Obviously , Democrats across the country wouldn ’ t accept this .
But the plan doesn ’ t contemplate acceptance .
The point is to stay in power despite losing , and that requires a willingness to rely on the power of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden has expressed confidence that the military will escort Trump out of the White House if he is defeated and refuses to leave .
That ’ s probably a safe bet .
But what if the election is truly undecided because it ’ s unclear that it was constitutionally impermissible for , say , the Iowa legislature to choose their pro-Trump electors ?
Will the military not defer to the Courts ?
The country is crying out for normalcy , but time and again it gets chaos .
It some ways , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extend this chaos all the way to Inauguration Day in January 2021 .
Why would this year from hell be content with staying within its own boundaries ?

With America so divided politically and upended by the pandemic there’s a widespread thirst for normalcy. We want to leave home without a mask, go back to the office, put the kids on the school bus.
The year started with our president awaiting trial for committing impeachable offenses. It saw the world grapple with volcanos, earthquakes, floods, wildfires, locusts, and the emergence of a global pandemic. And this was all in the first 100 days.
Throughout it all, one hope has lingered. In November, America will vote on whether or not to retain Donald Trump as its president.
But, if 2020 stays true to its nature, the election won’t bring clarity, but a true constitutional crisis.
Barton Gellman, writing in the Atlantic, explains how events might unfold if there isn’t a clear winner on Election Night:
The Twentieth Amendment is crystal clear that the president’s term in office “shall end” at noon on January 20, but two men could show up to be sworn in. One of them would arrive with all the tools and power of the presidency already in hand… …We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century. Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.
If Trump wins the most Electoral College votes, these maneuvers will be unnecessary, and he will ungraciously accept Joe Biden’s concession. However, if he is clearly behind or slightly ahead but predicted to lose once all the mail-in, absentee and provisional ballots are counted, this strategy of manipulating the election in selected states could be utilized.
Imagine Iowa, where the polls show a deadlocked race and the Republicans control the legislature and the governor’s mansion. Rather than concede that he has narrowly lost the state, Trump-loyal state legislators could have the Biden electors thrown out and declare him the winner. Their excuse would be that irregularities in the vote make it impossible to determine who actually had the most support.
Obviously, Democrats across the country wouldn’t accept this. But the plan doesn’t contemplate acceptance. The point is to stay in power despite losing, and that requires a willingness to rely on the power of the state to crush all resistance.
Joe Biden has expressed confidence that the military will escort Trump out of the White House if he is defeated and refuses to leave. That’s probably a safe bet. But what if the election is truly undecided because it’s unclear that it was constitutionally impermissible for, say, the Iowa legislature to choose their pro-Trump electors?
Will the military not defer to the Courts?
The country is crying out for normalcy, but time and again it gets chaos. It some ways, it seems completely on brand for 2020 to extend this chaos all the way to Inauguration Day in January 2021. Why would this year from hell be content with staying within its own boundaries?


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-24--The Postal Service’s Nightmare Election Scenario

It ’ s October 20 , two weeks before Election Day .
The double whammy that epidemiologists have feared strikes : Coronavirus infections surge as temperatures drop and people are staying indoors .
At the same time , flu season takes hold .
America ’ s healthcare system risks becoming overwhelmed .
And an institution with thousands of workers susceptible to the virus is devastatingly impacted : the U.S .
Postal Service .
Just as the volume of mail increases because of an election in which more people will vote by mail than any other in American history , letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to interact with each other in enclosed spaces and with the public—start getting sick .
Healthy USPS employees naturally become scared , deciding not to come to work , as many did in the winter and spring .
The decline in staff at that crucial time leads to mail delays and chaos for elections officials .
This is the nightmare scenario that postal union leaders delivered to USPS executives on September 17 , urging administrative officials—such as the chief operations officer for mail processing and the vice president for labor relations —to plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its workforce fall victim to a second surge of the virus in the days before the election .
In other words , without Donald Trump lifting a finger , he could get precisely what he wants : Dysfunction and disorder in the USPS , enabling him to claim vindication that vote by mail doesn ’ t work ; to push for disenfranchising countless voters who cast ballots by mail ; and possibly to assert , if it looks like he is losing , that the election is being rigged and that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temporarily crippling the postal service isn ’ t idle speculation .
In March , for instance , when New York City was the epicenter of the pandemic , a Bronx mailman died of the virus .
More postal deaths followed around the country .
USPS leadership soon received frantic emails from mail carriers and their spouses nationwide begging the agency to protect its staff—who were on the front line of delivering medicines , supplies , and benefits checks—with more and better personal protective equipment and keep vulnerable workers out of harm ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents recently obtained by The Washington Post .
One local union leader urged the Postal Service to temporarily suspend operations in New York City .
It was no surprise , then , that mail delivery slowed down dramatically , at a time when more people were relying on the mail than usual because of physical distancing , and the USPS was experiencing severe staff shortages .
To address the emergency , the Postal Service reached a memorandum of understanding with the major postal unions to allow for extended paid sick leave for letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the USPS to hire temporary workers to fill the void .
That helped in March , but the problem still persists .
This year , nearly 35,000 postal workers have missed work due to being quarantined because of the virus , according to USPS data .
As the American Enterprise Institute ’ s Kevin Kosar points out , that ’ s more than 5.5 percent of the agency ’ s workforce .
Given the volume of increased mail expected for the election , the unions floated another idea with USPS management last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers who could replace anyone who gets sick in the three weeks before the election .
If implemented , it could ensure that any potential spike in infections among USPS workers does not prevent ballots from being delivered and counted on time .
This plan , too , is not speculative .
It ’ s what the USPS actually does every November and December for the holiday season , when there is an uptick in mail delivery .
“ We have a system in place that we use at Christmas time when we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a little extra money and provide extra capacity , ” a postal union official told me .
It ’ s an effective way to avoid logjams at local post offices and processing centers .
One of the benefits of calling up retirees for the election , the official told me , is that it would avoid losing time training new workers .
Instead , the reserve members would be prepared to start right away .
Will USPS management adopt this idea ?
Skepticism , of course , is more than a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s hand-picked postmaster general Louis DeJoy who imposed cost-cutting measures that slowed down the mail this summer .
But the ensuing public outcry , the threatened lawsuits , and the beating DeJoy took when testifying on Capitol Hill , may have led to a more cooperative mood in his office .
At the meeting with the unions last week , USPS management agreed to extend the MOUs from last spring , which was set to expire last Friday , authorizing the hiring of more temporary workers .
Postal union leaders are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reserve worker plan , too .
But it ’ s an issue that the press and the public need to keep an eye on over the next week or two and raise a fuss about if the idea is slow-walked or rejected .
The USPS already knows how to create a reserve workforce to make the holidays a success .
There ’ s no reason it shouldn ’ t do the same for the elections .

It’s October 20, two weeks before Election Day. The double whammy that epidemiologists have feared strikes: Coronavirus infections surge as temperatures drop and people are staying indoors. At the same time, flu season takes hold. America’s healthcare system risks becoming overwhelmed. And an institution with thousands of workers susceptible to the virus is devastatingly impacted: the U.S. Postal Service.
Just as the volume of mail increases because of an election in which more people will vote by mail than any other in American history, letter carriers and postal workers—whose jobs require them to interact with each other in enclosed spaces and with the public—start getting sick. Healthy USPS employees naturally become scared, deciding not to come to work, as many did in the winter and spring. The decline in staff at that crucial time leads to mail delays and chaos for elections officials.
This is the nightmare scenario that postal union leaders delivered to USPS executives on September 17, urging administrative officials—such as the chief operations officer for mail processing and the vice president for labor relations —to plan for what might happen if large swaths of its workforce fall victim to a second surge of the virus in the days before the election.
In other words, without Donald Trump lifting a finger, he could get precisely what he wants: Dysfunction and disorder in the USPS, enabling him to claim vindication that vote by mail doesn’t work; to push for disenfranchising countless voters who cast ballots by mail; and possibly to assert, if it looks like he is losing, that the election is being rigged and that he should stay in power.
A virus temporarily crippling the postal service isn’t idle speculation. In March, for instance, when New York City was the epicenter of the pandemic, a Bronx mailman died of the virus. More postal deaths followed around the country. USPS leadership soon received frantic emails from mail carriers and their spouses nationwide begging the agency to protect its staff—who were on the front line of delivering medicines, supplies, and benefits checks—with more and better personal protective equipment and keep vulnerable workers out of harm’s way, according to a raft of documents recently obtained by The Washington Post. One local union leader urged the Postal Service to temporarily suspend operations in New York City.
It was no surprise, then, that mail delivery slowed down dramatically, at a time when more people were relying on the mail than usual because of physical distancing, and the USPS was experiencing severe staff shortages. To address the emergency, the Postal Service reached a memorandum of understanding with the major postal unions to allow for extended paid sick leave for letter carriers and postal workers—and to allow for the USPS to hire temporary workers to fill the void.
That helped in March, but the problem still persists. This year, nearly 35,000 postal workers have missed work due to being quarantined because of the virus, according to USPS data. As the American Enterprise Institute’s Kevin Kosar points out, that’s more than 5.5 percent of the agency’s workforce.
Given the volume of increased mail expected for the election, the unions floated another idea with USPS management last week: create a reserve of retired USPS workers who could replace anyone who gets sick in the three weeks before the election. If implemented, it could ensure that any potential spike in infections among USPS workers does not prevent ballots from being delivered and counted on time.
This plan, too, is not speculative. It’s what the USPS actually does every November and December for the holiday season, when there is an uptick in mail delivery. “We have a system in place that we use at Christmas time when we bring in retired members who want to make a little extra money and provide extra capacity,” a postal union official told me. It’s an effective way to avoid logjams at local post offices and processing centers.
One of the benefits of calling up retirees for the election, the official told me, is that it would avoid losing time training new workers. Instead, the reserve members would be prepared to start right away.
Will USPS management adopt this idea? Skepticism, of course, is more than a little warranted. After all, it was Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a Trump mega-donor, who imposed cost-cutting measures that slowed down the mail this summer. But the ensuing public outcry, the threatened lawsuits, and the beating DeJoy took when testifying on Capitol Hill, may have led to a more cooperative mood in his office. At the meeting with the unions last week, USPS management agreed to extend the MOUs from last spring, which was set to expire last Friday, authorizing the hiring of more temporary workers.
Postal union leaders are cautiously optimistic that management will greenlight the reserve worker plan, too. But it’s an issue that the press and the public need to keep an eye on over the next week or two and raise a fuss about if the idea is slow-walked or rejected. The USPS already knows how to create a reserve workforce to make the holidays a success. There’s no reason it shouldn’t do the same for the elections.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-24--Why Texas Republicans Are Suing Their Own Governor

As of September 24 , FiveThirtyEight has Donald Trump leading Joe Biden in Texas by 1.7 points .
A perusal of recent surveys shows a tied race in the Lone Star state .
When either candidate leads , it is within the margin of error .
As I wrote in June 2019 , the contours of American politics will be permanently changed if Texas turns blue , and conservatives see the danger .
That ’ s the backdrop for understanding why the Texas Republican Party is suing its own governor in an effort to curtail early and mail-in voting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lawsuit over his extension of early voting for the November election from prominent members of his own party — including state party Chair Allen West , Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and members of the Texas Legislature .
In July , Abbott added six days to the early voting period , moving the start date up to Oct. 13 from Oct. 19 , citing the coronavirus pandemic .
In the lawsuit , filed Wednesday with the state Supreme Court , Abbott ’ s intraparty critics say the move defied election law that requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day before the election .
It is the latest legal challenge to Abbott ’ s emergency powers , which he has wielded aggressively in dealing with the pandemic .
As Texas Monthly explains , Gov .
Abbott also changed an odd provision that prevents voters from submitting their early ballots to a voting clerk before Election Day .
Abbott made this drop-off option available throughout the early voting period and the lawsuit challenges him on this front as well .
These accommodations to the COVID-19 pandemic should modestly increase turnout , but Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In another uniquely Texas twist , only those 65 and older can vote-by-mail by default When the Dems tried to extend this privilege to all Texans , the state Supreme Court rejected their arguments .
With Trump running even with Biden , the Texas GOP opposes Abbott ’ s effort to boost voter participation .
Looser voting restrictions would likely mean more young and minority voters , endangering not only the president but opening the door for big Democratic gains in the state .
Sen. John Cornyn , the Republican , is up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ripe to flip blue .
The Senate race between Cornyn and Air Force veteran MJ Hegar looks only modestly competitive in the polls , but the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ( DSCC ) has invested heavily , indicating they think the seat is winnable .
Perhaps , their optimism is bolstered by what Ally Mutnick of Politico described as “ staggeringly high Democratic turnout in the Texas suburbs ” in the March primary .
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ( DCCC ) is targeting 10 Republican-held House seats , five of which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cook Political Report .
Two more are in their Lean Republican category .
In the unlikely event the Democrats win all seven competitive contests , the Texas congressional delegation will go from 23 Republicans and 13 Democrats to 20 Democrats and 16 Republicans .
Democrats might even win control of the Texas House of Representatives – a seismic achievement because they would have a big say in the 2020 Census redistricting process .
The state party is targeting nine Republican-held districts carried by Beto O ’ Rourke in his 2018 Senate race against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same number of seats they need to have a majority .
Texas Republican Party chairman Allen West , a former Florida congressman and a favorite of the Tea Party , is therefore facing political Armageddon .
A Trump defeat in Texas would be bad , but unlikely to affect the outcome of the national election .
Cornyn ’ s Senate seat in more important , however , as is the party ’ s majority in the state ’ s congressional delegation .
Worst of all would be having to negotiate with Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal district lines .
The GOP ’ s current losses are happening despite very favorable maps .
Fairer districts would compound the Republicans ’ problems , especially with the blue drift in the suburbs and the ever-increasing diversity of the electorate .
Abbott understands this , and he opposed the Democrats ’ efforts to increase absentee voting .
But even his modest efforts to help Texans vote in a time of COVID are too much for the state party .
So , it ’ s understandable that West is suing his own governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s unexpected weakness in the Lone Star State is putting the party at risk a wipeout , and it might not be something they can recover from down the line .

As of September 24, FiveThirtyEight has Donald Trump leading Joe Biden in Texas by 1.7 points. A perusal of recent surveys shows a tied race in the Lone Star state. When either candidate leads, it is within the margin of error. As I wrote in June 2019, the contours of American politics will be permanently changed if Texas turns blue, and conservatives see the danger.
That’s the backdrop for understanding why the Texas Republican Party is suing its own governor in an effort to curtail early and mail-in voting.
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is facing a lawsuit over his extension of early voting for the November election from prominent members of his own party — including state party Chair Allen West, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and members of the Texas Legislature. In July, Abbott added six days to the early voting period, moving the start date up to Oct. 13 from Oct. 19, citing the coronavirus pandemic. In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday with the state Supreme Court, Abbott’s intraparty critics say the move defied election law that requires early voting to start on the 17th day before the election. It is the latest legal challenge to Abbott’s emergency powers, which he has wielded aggressively in dealing with the pandemic.
As Texas Monthly explains, Gov. Abbott also changed an odd provision that prevents voters from submitting their early ballots to a voting clerk before Election Day. Abbott made this drop-off option available throughout the early voting period and the lawsuit challenges him on this front as well.
These accommodations to the COVID-19 pandemic should modestly increase turnout, but Democrats wanted to make voting even easier. In another uniquely Texas twist, only those 65 and older can vote-by-mail by default When the Dems tried to extend this privilege to all Texans, the state Supreme Court rejected their arguments.
With Trump running even with Biden, the Texas GOP opposes Abbott’s effort to boost voter participation. Looser voting restrictions would likely mean more young and minority voters, endangering not only the president but opening the door for big Democratic gains in the state. Sen. John Cornyn, the Republican, is up for reelection and several House seats are ripe to flip blue.
The Senate race between Cornyn and Air Force veteran MJ Hegar looks only modestly competitive in the polls, but the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has invested heavily, indicating they think the seat is winnable. Perhaps, their optimism is bolstered by what Ally Mutnick of Politico described as “staggeringly high Democratic turnout in the Texas suburbs” in the March primary.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is targeting 10 Republican-held House seats, five of which are rated Lean Democratic or toss-up by the Cook Political Report. Two more are in their Lean Republican category. In the unlikely event the Democrats win all seven competitive contests, the Texas congressional delegation will go from 23 Republicans and 13 Democrats to 20 Democrats and 16 Republicans.
Democrats might even win control of the Texas House of Representatives – a seismic achievement because they would have a big say in the 2020 Census redistricting process. The state party is targeting nine Republican-held districts carried by Beto O’Rourke in his 2018 Senate race against Ted Cruz and Democrats, which is the same number of seats they need to have a majority.
Texas Republican Party chairman Allen West, a former Florida congressman and a favorite of the Tea Party, is therefore facing political Armageddon. A Trump defeat in Texas would be bad, but unlikely to affect the outcome of the national election. Cornyn’s Senate seat in more important, however, as is the party’s majority in the state’s congressional delegation. Worst of all would be having to negotiate with Democrats over the drawing of new state and federal district lines. The GOP’s current losses are happening despite very favorable maps. Fairer districts would compound the Republicans’ problems, especially with the blue drift in the suburbs and the ever-increasing diversity of the electorate.
Abbott understands this, and he opposed the Democrats’ efforts to increase absentee voting. But even his modest efforts to help Texans vote in a time of COVID are too much for the state party. So, it’s understandable that West is suing his own governor in an effort to suppress turnout. Trump’s unexpected weakness in the Lone Star State is putting the party at risk a wipeout, and it might not be something they can recover from down the line.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-25--A Post Office: If You Can Keep It

A Post Office: If You Can Keep It

Every citizen has an interest in maintaining the widest possible access to the polls so we all should come to the defense of the post office .
But nonprofits have a special obligation to defend this essential American institution .
Nonprofits rely on the post office for a variety of special needs and services .
Even in an age of online solicitations , many nonprofits take advantage of special subsidized postage rates that enable charities to communicate with their constituents and raise money from potential donors .
The American Cancer Society paid one firm over $ 35 million in 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forms .
Even if we sometimes lament the way they pile up in our homes , those solicitation letters are really the lifeblood of so much good work in this country .
.
According to Independent Sector , nonprofits typically make up 10 percent of all U.S .
Postal Service mail volume , amounting to a whopping 154 billion mail pieces per year .
In a global pandemic , nonprofits depend upon the postal service even more .
Nonprofit constituents – members , clients , patients , parents , subscribers – lean on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And don ’ t underestimate the contribution nonprofits make to the national economy , not just in terms of their good works in health care , education , and other areas but also in their economic might .
Nonprofits employ over 12 million workers .
In some states like North Dakota , they constitute over 15 percent of the labor force .
All totaled , the nonprofit sector contributed an estimated $ 1 trillion to the US economy in 2016 , composing 5.6 percent of the country ’ s gross domestic product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for themselves and the communities they serve .
In that regard , we ’ d be a strong proponent of any and all nonprofits weighing in with their representatives to make sure they are well informed of the value the postal service has .
We want the USPS to continue being a strong institution for civil society , ” says Dan Cardinali , the CEO of Independent Sector : “ Given the magnitude of the pandemic , we want every government institution to be well-funded and operating at its absolute height in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector.
“ The leadership of the USPS – Postmaster General DeJoy and his colleagues on the Board of Governors – argue that their dramatic policy changes – reductions in staffing and sharp limitations in overtime , along with the dismantling of equipment – are all steps to make the organization more competitive .
Critics of the post office have long argued that it should operate more like a business .
But it ’ s not a business .
It ’ s a public service .
Your first clue is right there in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the commitment of universal service , delivering mail affordably is sacrosanct .
It costs 55 cents to mail a letter from Barrow , Alaska to Boca Raton , Florida .
That ’ s not a profitable business decision but it is essential if we ’ re to have one fixed rate for First Class postage stamps .
If you ’ ve ever filled out a shipping label for FedEx or UPS , you know that there is no box to claim your subsidized nonprofit rate as there is the USPS .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Where have we heard that before ?
It ’ s the common refrain heard by many nonprofit leaders .
But for any organization with a public service mission , narrow metrics of profit and loss can ’ t govern all we do .
If there ’ s a positive outcome from this unwanted spotlight on the mail system , it may be that we are forced to acknowledge how much we rely on a service and how popular it is .
According to the Pew Research Center , 91 percent of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
It is one of the few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on .
Let ’ s appreciate the ways in which this service helped to shape America as a more informed and egalitarian nation .
The post office today carries the DNA that Ben Franklin provided as the first postmaster of the United States and even before that , as postmaster of the colonies .
Franklin was famously a man of letters and science and he saw the post office as instrumental in disseminating knowledge .
But even more so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biography , Benjamin Franklin : An American Life , the postal service “ furthered Franklin ’ s conception of the disparate American colonies as a potentially unified nation with shared interests and needs.
” It ’ s hard to comprehend just how radical was the notion of a United States Postal Service , beginning with the Post Office Act of 1792 .
It aimed to provide universal service at a modest price to all recipients across the burgeoning states and territories .
( It ’ s important to note the obvious caveat that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extend to Black or Native American people . )
The scale of postal expansion was vast , growing from 75 locations in 1790 to 8,450 in 1830 , according to Richard John in his authoritative account of the early post office , Spreading the News : The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse .
Measured another way , the post office at that time was by far the largest function of the federal government , employing nearly 8,800 workers of a total federal workforce of less than 12,000 .
Beyond the concept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also sought to expand the reach and distribution of newspapers , delivering subscriptions at a greatly reduced rate and even further allowing each newspaper to send a copy to every other newspaper for free , such that by the 1840s each newspaper was receiving on average 4300 other newspapers per year .
By another important measure , in 1832 newspapers provided just 15 percent of postal revenue , but they made up 95 percent of the weight , as noted in the aptly titled “ Spreading the News.
” What are we to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of the post office ?
At the founding of our nation , faced with myriad demands , wise leaders invested heavily in a vast expansion of our capacity to deliver information to the widest possible audience .
Once we get past the momentary assault on our postal service , philanthropy and government should consider ways in which we too can invest in a media ecosystem that is as ambitious and egalitarian as the early post office .
We can start by greatly expanding affordable access to broadband , providing free or low-cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afford expensive digital subscriptions .
And we should deliver subsidized rural broadband the same way we have provided mail services to far-flung recipients .
At various times in our history , philanthropy too has played a vital role in greatly expanding the quality and reach of information in our media ecosystem , most notably in the early 1960s when the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation provided early support for what became a greatly expanded federal commitment to public broadcasting , with the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Digital Public Infrastructure , a recent essay published by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University , media scholar Ethan Zuckerman calls for philanthropy and government to explore ways to establish robust information services that reach large audiences with quality information but do not abuse the trust and privacy of users .
Zuckerman suggests the possibility of taxation on existing information services that make money through invasive advertising practices , to create subsidized public service information resources , including funds for journalism .
As Zuckerman says , “ Public service digital media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be possible .
What is the media environment we want ?
” In the meantime , nonprofits and foundations should come to the aid of a post office under siege .
At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 , Ben Franklin was reportedly asked what kind of government was created and he is said to have replied , “ A republic , if you can keep it.
” The same might be said of our beloved postal service today .

Every citizen has an interest in maintaining the widest possible access to the polls so we all should come to the defense of the post office. But nonprofits have a special obligation to defend this essential American institution.
Nonprofits rely on the post office for a variety of special needs and services. Even in an age of online solicitations, many nonprofits take advantage of special subsidized postage rates that enable charities to communicate with their constituents and raise money from potential donors. The American Cancer Society paid one firm over $35 million in 2019 for direct mail strategy according to IRS forms. Even if we sometimes lament the way they pile up in our homes, those solicitation letters are really the lifeblood of so much good work in this country.
According to Independent Sector, nonprofits typically make up 10 percent of all U.S. Postal Service mail volume, amounting to a whopping 154 billion mail pieces per year. In a global pandemic, nonprofits depend upon the postal service even more. Nonprofit constituents – members, clients, patients, parents, subscribers – lean on the USPS to keep a social distance. And don’t underestimate the contribution nonprofits make to the national economy, not just in terms of their good works in health care, education, and other areas but also in their economic might. Nonprofits employ over 12 million workers. In some states like North Dakota, they constitute over 15 percent of the labor force. All totaled, the nonprofit sector contributed an estimated $1 trillion to the US economy in 2016, composing 5.6 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.
“We encourage all nonprofits to advocate for themselves and the communities they serve. In that regard, we’d be a strong proponent of any and all nonprofits weighing in with their representatives to make sure they are well informed of the value the postal service has. We want the USPS to continue being a strong institution for civil society,” says Dan Cardinali, the CEO of Independent Sector:
“Given the magnitude of the pandemic, we want every government institution to be well-funded and operating at its absolute height in order to serve American communities and the nonprofit sector.“
The leadership of the USPS – Postmaster General DeJoy and his colleagues on the Board of Governors – argue that their dramatic policy changes – reductions in staffing and sharp limitations in overtime, along with the dismantling of equipment – are all steps to make the organization more competitive. Critics of the post office have long argued that it should operate more like a business. But it’s not a business. It’s a public service. Your first clue is right there in the name, the United States Postal Service. And the commitment of universal service, delivering mail affordably is sacrosanct. It costs 55 cents to mail a letter from Barrow, Alaska to Boca Raton, Florida. That’s not a profitable business decision but it is essential if we’re to have one fixed rate for First Class postage stamps.
If you’ve ever filled out a shipping label for FedEx or UPS, you know that there is no box to claim your subsidized nonprofit rate as there is the USPS.
Running the post office like a business; Where have we heard that before? It’s the common refrain heard by many nonprofit leaders. But for any organization with a public service mission, narrow metrics of profit and loss can’t govern all we do.
If there’s a positive outcome from this unwanted spotlight on the mail system, it may be that we are forced to acknowledge how much we rely on a service and how popular it is. According to the Pew Research Center, 91 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the post office. It is one of the few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on.
Let’s appreciate the ways in which this service helped to shape America as a more informed and egalitarian nation.
The post office today carries the DNA that Ben Franklin provided as the first postmaster of the United States and even before that, as postmaster of the colonies. Franklin was famously a man of letters and science and he saw the post office as instrumental in disseminating knowledge. But even more so, as Walter Isaacson notes in his biography, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, the postal service “furthered Franklin’s conception of the disparate American colonies as a potentially unified nation with shared interests and needs.”
It’s hard to comprehend just how radical was the notion of a United States Postal Service, beginning with the Post Office Act of 1792. It aimed to provide universal service at a modest price to all recipients across the burgeoning states and territories. (It’s important to note the obvious caveat that universal service in those days did not extend to Black or Native American people.) The scale of postal expansion was vast, growing from 75 locations in 1790 to 8,450 in 1830, according to Richard John in his authoritative account of the early post office, Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse. Measured another way, the post office at that time was by far the largest function of the federal government, employing nearly 8,800 workers of a total federal workforce of less than 12,000.
Beyond the concept of universal service, the postal system also sought to expand the reach and distribution of newspapers, delivering subscriptions at a greatly reduced rate and even further allowing each newspaper to send a copy to every other newspaper for free, such that by the 1840s each newspaper was receiving on average 4300 other newspapers per year. By another important measure, in 1832 newspapers provided just 15 percent of postal revenue, but they made up 95 percent of the weight, as noted in the aptly titled “Spreading the News.”
What are we to infer from this critical chapter in the history of the post office? At the founding of our nation, faced with myriad demands, wise leaders invested heavily in a vast expansion of our capacity to deliver information to the widest possible audience.
Once we get past the momentary assault on our postal service, philanthropy and government should consider ways in which we too can invest in a media ecosystem that is as ambitious and egalitarian as the early post office. We can start by greatly expanding affordable access to broadband, providing free or low-cost access for those who can’t afford expensive digital subscriptions. And we should deliver subsidized rural broadband the same way we have provided mail services to far-flung recipients.
At various times in our history, philanthropy too has played a vital role in greatly expanding the quality and reach of information in our media ecosystem, most notably in the early 1960s when the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation provided early support for what became a greatly expanded federal commitment to public broadcasting, with the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting Service.
In The Case for Digital Public Infrastructure, a recent essay published by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, media scholar Ethan Zuckerman calls for philanthropy and government to explore ways to establish robust information services that reach large audiences with quality information but do not abuse the trust and privacy of users. Zuckerman suggests the possibility of taxation on existing information services that make money through invasive advertising practices, to create subsidized public service information resources, including funds for journalism.
As Zuckerman says, “Public service digital media offers us the opportunity to imagine what could be possible. What is the media environment we want?”
In the meantime, nonprofits and foundations should come to the aid of a post office under siege. At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Ben Franklin was reportedly asked what kind of government was created and he is said to have replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” The same might be said of our beloved postal service today.
James Walker provided research assistance.