washingtonmonthly--2020-10-26--Introduction: Can Journalism Be Saved?

Introduction: Can Journalism Be Saved?

The economic collapse of journalism in America is hard to exaggerate .
Between 2004 and the end of 2019 , about 2,100 newspapers—one in four—closed , according to a University of North Carolina study .
While several hundred digital-only news sites sprung up during that period , they were far too few and small to fill the growing void .
And that was before the pandemic decimated news outlets even further .
The vibrancy of cable news networks and a few national publications—some , such as The Washington Post and The Atlantic , owned by billionaires—masks the broader catastrophe .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ quality national magazines like Governing and Pacific Standard to large layoffs at online outlets like BuzzFeed and VICE .
But the greatest shrinkage is happening at the local level , among large metropolitan dailies , neighborhood and small-town weeklies , and outlets that have long covered Black , Hispanic , and other minority and ethnic communities .
As of last year , two-thirds of counties in America lacked a local daily newspaper .
Half had only one newspaper , often just a weekly .
And more than 200—mostly poor , rural counties—had none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain are often what are referred to as ghost papers , with few staff and little local reporting .
( Local TV news has declined far less , but tends to cover stories that newspapers originate , and with less depth . )
It is equally hard to exaggerate how destructive this decline has been to the fabric and functioning of American democracy .
One study found that in communities where newspapers close and there are no reporters keeping an eye on the decisions of local officials , municipal government wages , deficits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news outlets tend to be far more trusted by readers on both sides of the political aisle than national publications .
When they disappear , citizens turn to national news sources , often partisan ones , or rely on social media for information .
The result is more party-line voting and small-town residents mobilizing against mythical antifa infiltrations .
Indeed , as this magazine has reported , the rise of authoritarian politics in America correlates to an alarming degree with the waning of local news .
The decline of the journalism business is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in the news , which is robust , but by the collapse of the advertising-based model that has traditionally paid for news gathering .
The problem began two decades ago , when papers started losing classified ads to digital sites like Craigslist and eBay .
To compete , print outlets built extensive web operations to tap the growing digital advertising market—only to see that market cornered by two monopolistic tech platforms .
By 2018 , Google and Facebook were sucking up 58 percent of all digital advertising revenues at the national level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to The Wall Street Journal .
While the problem of journalism ’ s economic decline , and its eroding effects on democracy , has been well documented , surprisingly little work has been done to sleuth out practical solutions—especially by journalists , who , one would think , would have a strong professional incentive to do so .
( Half of all newspaper jobs have disappeared since 2008 , according to a study by the Pew Research Center , about the same rate of decline as in textile manufacturing . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to consider fixes that might involve the use of government resources or power when it ’ s their job to hold the government accountable .
The Washington Monthly is not so reluctant .
In this issue , we identify and describe several ways government can be used to reinvigorate the economics of journalism without jeopardizing editorial independence—just as the Founding Fathers did when they created a postal system that subsidized the spread of newspapers in the first century of U.S. history .
Steven Waldman makes the case that today , every American should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local news subscription , membership , or donation to build a new era of what he calls “ civic news.
” Phillip Longman argues that journalism ’ s advertising-based business model can be revived using a combination of tougher privacy and anti-discrimination laws and a return to traditional standards of antitrust enforcement .
These policy changes would not only recharge traditional news enterprises , they would also supercharge and protect the kinds of innovative new models we profile in this package .
Anne Kim shows how journalists of color are diversifying media by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports on promising early experiments with cooperatively owned business models for digital news media .
And Grace Gedye investigates efforts by firms like Spotify to corner the podcasting market , one of the few product lines that bring in growing advertising dollars for independent media outlets .
Any hope of reinforcing our wobbly democracy will require a free and energetic press .
But for that to happen , all of us , including members of the fourth estate , will need to get over our reluctance to consider carefully using the power of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s plight .
The Washington Monthly would like to thank Knight Foundation for sponsoring this special issue .

This story is part of a package exploring how to rescue and revitalize journalism. Read the rest of the pieces here. And, if you enjoy what you’re reading, please consider making a donation—we’re a nonprofit media organization and rely on the support of our readers.
The economic collapse of journalism in America is hard to exaggerate. Between 2004 and the end of 2019, about 2,100 newspapers—one in four—closed, according to a University of North Carolina study. While several hundred digital-only news sites sprung up during that period, they were far too few and small to fill the growing void. And that was before the pandemic decimated news outlets even further.
The vibrancy of cable news networks and a few national publications—some, such as The Washington Post and The Atlantic, owned by billionaires—masks the broader catastrophe. The damage ranges from the shutting-down of quality national magazines like Governing and Pacific Standard to large layoffs at online outlets like BuzzFeed and VICE. But the greatest shrinkage is happening at the local level, among large metropolitan dailies, neighborhood and small-town weeklies, and outlets that have long covered Black, Hispanic, and other minority and ethnic communities. As of last year, two-thirds of counties in America lacked a local daily newspaper. Half had only one newspaper, often just a weekly. And more than 200—mostly poor, rural counties—had none at all. Those news outlets that remain are often what are referred to as ghost papers, with few staff and little local reporting. (Local TV news has declined far less, but tends to cover stories that newspapers originate, and with less depth.)
It is equally hard to exaggerate how destructive this decline has been to the fabric and functioning of American democracy. One study found that in communities where newspapers close and there are no reporters keeping an eye on the decisions of local officials, municipal government wages, deficits, and borrowing costs rise. Local news outlets tend to be far more trusted by readers on both sides of the political aisle than national publications. When they disappear, citizens turn to national news sources, often partisan ones, or rely on social media for information. The result is more party-line voting and small-town residents mobilizing against mythical antifa infiltrations. Indeed, as this magazine has reported, the rise of authoritarian politics in America correlates to an alarming degree with the waning of local news.
The decline of the journalism business is not being driven by a lack of interest in the news, which is robust, but by the collapse of the advertising-based model that has traditionally paid for news gathering. The problem began two decades ago, when papers started losing classified ads to digital sites like Craigslist and eBay. To compete, print outlets built extensive web operations to tap the growing digital advertising market—only to see that market cornered by two monopolistic tech platforms. By 2018, Google and Facebook were sucking up 58 percent of all digital advertising revenues at the national level, and 77 percent in local markets, according to The Wall Street Journal.
While the problem of journalism’s economic decline, and its eroding effects on democracy, has been well documented, surprisingly little work has been done to sleuth out practical solutions—especially by journalists, who, one would think, would have a strong professional incentive to do so. (Half of all newspaper jobs have disappeared since 2008, according to a study by the Pew Research Center, about the same rate of decline as in textile manufacturing.) Journalists, however, are understandably hesitant to consider fixes that might involve the use of government resources or power when it’s their job to hold the government accountable.
The Washington Monthly is not so reluctant. In this issue, we identify and describe several ways government can be used to reinvigorate the economics of journalism without jeopardizing editorial independence—just as the Founding Fathers did when they created a postal system that subsidized the spread of newspapers in the first century of U.S. history. Steven Waldman makes the case that today, every American should receive a refundable tax credit for a local news subscription, membership, or donation to build a new era of what he calls “civic news.” Phillip Longman argues that journalism’s advertising-based business model can be revived using a combination of tougher privacy and anti-discrimination laws and a return to traditional standards of antitrust enforcement.
These policy changes would not only recharge traditional news enterprises, they would also supercharge and protect the kinds of innovative new models we profile in this package. Anne Kim shows how journalists of color are diversifying media by forming their own outlets. Matt Connolly reports on promising early experiments with cooperatively owned business models for digital news media. And Grace Gedye investigates efforts by firms like Spotify to corner the podcasting market, one of the few product lines that bring in growing advertising dollars for independent media outlets.
Any hope of reinforcing our wobbly democracy will require a free and energetic press. But for that to happen, all of us, including members of the fourth estate, will need to get over our reluctance to consider carefully using the power of democratic government to solve the press’s plight.
The Washington Monthly would like to thank Knight Foundation for sponsoring this special issue.


Independent Judiciary, RIP

“ A lot of what we ’ ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election , ” Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) told the Senate Sunday night as he shoved the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett toward a vote .
“ They won ’ t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.
” In the pantheon of snotty quotes from American history , this one will , I predict , have some staying power .
It is comparable to Commodore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be damned !
” or Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ’ s callous “ Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
” All three are taunts by the powerful , boasts that they can do whatever they choose to those on the outside—workers , consumers , the ( supposedly ) intellectually disabled .
All claim impregnability for rule by a merciless elite .
“ You count for nothing , ” they imply .
“ We own the present—and we own the future.
” History tends—amid great suffering , to be sure—to give the eventual lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , in one way , correct What is about to be done with the Barrett nomination will not easily be undone .
Indeed , it will take work , generosity , and creativity to rectify what is happening to the independent judiciary in the United States .
Whatever role the Supreme Court plays in American life in the decades to come—whether it sits as the dead hand of the legal right , poised to strangle progressive legislation and individual rights , or is properly reformed by a Democratic administration—it will never be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its life , it was flawed but respected arbiter of law and the Constitution , cursed by some but accepted by all .
If We the People accept without serious reform this new marsupial court as it is being contemptuously thrown to us .
Why equivocate ?
This rushed , farcical nomination is a direct contradiction of every solemn assurance that McConnell and others in his party gave the nation four years ago , not a bizarre happenstance .
It is a page straight out of the playbook of countries like Hungary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a previously independent judiciary has , by fair means or foul , been brought under the authoritarian boot .
If this be incivility , by God , make the most of it .
We lawyers can , in the bleak times ahead , play the parlor game of asking when the idea of independent justice began to disappear .
In my mind , the first signs appeared in 2000 , when , with a rationale so cynical that it resembles not so much judicial reasoning as an upraised middle finger , the conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W. Bush as “ winner ” of the presidential election .
“ Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year ’ s Presidential election , ” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent in that case , “ the identity of the loser is perfectly clear .
It is the Nation ’ s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
” We can disagree about which Roberts Court opinions fit into the ensuing downward arc : Citizens United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over to the wealthy and “ dark money ” ; Shelby County v. Holder and other assaults on the right to vote ; Janus v. AFSCME and other cases that invented the “ First Amendment ” attack on unions and worker protections on the job .
But the masterpiece of anti-democratic assault began in February 2016 , with the death of Antonin Scalia and President Obama ’ s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland ( a well-liked moderate whom top Republicans had previously promised to confirm ) to fill his seat .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened with Scalia ’ s seat , the Court had three more very old people on it .
Elementary actuarial science made clear a new court would be shaped by the winner of that November ’ s election .
Senate history and confidential norms suggested that , whoever controlled the Senate , President Obama ’ s nominee should be considered .
If there was an argument against confirmation , then ( as with the nomination , in June of 1968 , of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice ) opponents were free to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filibuster , as they did half-a century ago until Fortas at last withdrew .
This is how the system is supposed to work .
Nominate , advise , and consent or not .
But by 2016 , the American right—the megadonors , the dark money groups , the Judicial Crisis Network and the Federalist Society—coveted total control of the Court .
And so was born , out of thin air , the “ rule ” that presidents in their final year of office could not nominate a Justice .
The pretense was so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at solemn farce—seemed on the verge of cracking up , like comedians in a misfiring skit on “ Saturday Night Live.
” The seat was partisan property , McConnell and the Republicans said .
Donald Trump joined in : “ I think the next president should make the pick , and I think they shouldn ’ t go forward , and I believe I ’ m pretty much in line with what the Republicans are saying , ” he said on March 16 .
This , just to be clear , was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of any pretense of normality and marked the Court as a potential Republican governing partner , a target for hostile takeover .
That suggestion became explicit when candidate Trump promised that the reversal of Roe v. Wade “ will happen automatically , in my opinion , because I am putting pro-life justices on the court.
” To underscore the point , Trump released a list of these potential “ pro-life justice.
” That seat was filled by Neil Gorsuch .
In that case , there was the pretense of normality .
Gorsuch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , condescending way , at least pretended to answer questions from Senators of both parties at judiciary hearings .
Next , in 2018 , came Brett Kavanaugh , and farce turned dead serious .
Even before hearings began , the White House announced there wasn ’ t time to turn over to the Judiciary Committee documents that would show Kavanaugh ’ s record as a George W. Bush staffer .
The answer , of course , would have been to delay the confirmation hearings—but there was an election coming ( do you sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans sensed ( probably wrongly ) a winning issue in forcing a vote .
They also had a nominee designed to their specifications : Kavanaugh made no secret of his extremism on issues of gun safety , reproductive choice , and executive power .
Their haste lost any shred of decency when accusations—highly credible ones—emerged suggesting that the nominee had , as a teenager , committed sexual assault .
Kavanaugh ’ s response was one of the most extraordinary performances in the history of the judiciary—a snarling , threatening , vile and overtly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ title to a seat he treated as property .
Witnesses were proffered to corroborate Christine Blasey Ford ’ s charge .
But a phony FBI “ investigation ” refused even to hear them , and on October 5 , 2018 , this wretched simulacrum of a judge was wedged onto the Court .
Which brings us to September of this year—another election year , another display of banana republic partisan muscle .
Before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could even be buried , Trump had nominated a woman who seems likely to undo her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been reversed because—because , this time , the Republican party , which had demanded delay in 2016 , now saw advantage in indecent haste .
There was no pretense of vetting ; the nominee essentially rolled her eyes at Democrats ’ questions .
She knew—they knew—the entire country knew—that the fix was in .
She would be seated ; she would be seated before the election ; and she would not promise not to take us full circle , to a potential Bush v. Gore coup d ’ état even more disastrous than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played out , I mourned—not for the first time—the idea of a Court that was property of the nation , not of party ; that sought justice , not ideological advantage ; that earned a nation ’ s respect , not its gaping horror .
We shall not look upon its like again .

“A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election,” Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told the Senate Sunday night as he shoved the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett toward a vote. “They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”
In the pantheon of snotty quotes from American history, this one will, I predict, have some staying power. It is comparable to Commodore Vanderbilt’s immortal “The public be damned!” or Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s callous “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
All three are taunts by the powerful, boasts that they can do whatever they choose to those on the outside—workers, consumers, the (supposedly) intellectually disabled. All claim impregnability for rule by a merciless elite. “You count for nothing,” they imply. “We own the present—and we own the future.”
History tends—amid great suffering, to be sure—to give the eventual lie to such brutal fanfaronade. But McConnell is, in one way, correct.
What is about to be done with the Barrett nomination will not easily be undone. Indeed, it will take work, generosity, and creativity to rectify what is happening to the independent judiciary in the United States.
Whatever role the Supreme Court plays in American life in the decades to come—whether it sits as the dead hand of the legal right, poised to strangle progressive legislation and individual rights, or is properly reformed by a Democratic administration—it will never be what it was before. For much of its life, it was flawed but respected arbiter of law and the Constitution, cursed by some but accepted by all.
If We the People accept without serious reform this new marsupial court as it is being contemptuously thrown to us, we do not deserve self-government.
Why equivocate? This rushed, farcical nomination is a direct contradiction of every solemn assurance that McConnell and others in his party gave the nation four years ago, not a bizarre happenstance. It is a page straight out of the playbook of countries like Hungary, Poland, and Venezuela, where a previously independent judiciary has, by fair means or foul, been brought under the authoritarian boot.
If this be incivility, by God, make the most of it.
We lawyers can, in the bleak times ahead, play the parlor game of asking when the idea of independent justice began to disappear. In my mind, the first signs appeared in 2000, when, with a rationale so cynical that it resembles not so much judicial reasoning as an upraised middle finger, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court installed George W. Bush as “winner” of the presidential election. “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent in that case, “the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
We can disagree about which Roberts Court opinions fit into the ensuing downward arc: Citizens United and the other cases that turned politics over to the wealthy and “dark money”; Shelby County v. Holder and other assaults on the right to vote; Janus v. AFSCME and other cases that invented the “First Amendment” attack on unions and worker protections on the job.
But the masterpiece of anti-democratic assault began in February 2016, with the death of Antonin Scalia and President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland (a well-liked moderate whom top Republicans had previously promised to confirm) to fill his seat. It was obvious at the time that, whatever happened with Scalia’s seat, the Court had three more very old people on it. Elementary actuarial science made clear a new court would be shaped by the winner of that November’s election. Senate history and confidential norms suggested that, whoever controlled the Senate, President Obama’s nominee should be considered. If there was an argument against confirmation, then (as with the nomination, in June of 1968, of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice) opponents were free to make their case, and even to filibuster, as they did half-a century ago until Fortas at last withdrew.
This is how the system is supposed to work. Nominate, advise, and consent or not.
But by 2016, the American right—the megadonors, the dark money groups, the Judicial Crisis Network and the Federalist Society—coveted total control of the Court. And so was born, out of thin air, the “rule” that presidents in their final year of office could not nominate a Justice. The pretense was so bald that at times the participants—though aiming at solemn farce—seemed on the verge of cracking up, like comedians in a misfiring skit on “Saturday Night Live.”
The seat was partisan property, McConnell and the Republicans said. Donald Trump joined in: “I think the next president should make the pick, and I think they shouldn’t go forward, and I believe I’m pretty much in line with what the Republicans are saying,” he said on March 16.
This, just to be clear, was the “stolen seat.” It signaled the end of any pretense of normality and marked the Court as a potential Republican governing partner, a target for hostile takeover. That suggestion became explicit when candidate Trump promised that the reversal of Roe v. Wade “will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court.” To underscore the point, Trump released a list of these potential “pro-life justice.”
That seat was filled by Neil Gorsuch. In that case, there was the pretense of normality. Gorsuch was vetted, and in his elephantine, condescending way, at least pretended to answer questions from Senators of both parties at judiciary hearings.
Next, in 2018, came Brett Kavanaugh, and farce turned dead serious. Even before hearings began, the White House announced there wasn’t time to turn over to the Judiciary Committee documents that would show Kavanaugh’s record as a George W. Bush staffer. The answer, of course, would have been to delay the confirmation hearings—but there was an election coming (do you sense a theme here?) and the Republicans sensed (probably wrongly) a winning issue in forcing a vote. They also had a nominee designed to their specifications: Kavanaugh made no secret of his extremism on issues of gun safety, reproductive choice, and executive power.
Their haste lost any shred of decency when accusations—highly credible ones—emerged suggesting that the nominee had, as a teenager, committed sexual assault. Kavanaugh’s response was one of the most extraordinary performances in the history of the judiciary—a snarling, threatening, vile and overtly partisan assault on anyone who challenged his title to a seat he treated as property. Witnesses were proffered to corroborate Christine Blasey Ford’s charge. But a phony FBI “investigation” refused even to hear them, and on October 5, 2018, this wretched simulacrum of a judge was wedged onto the Court.
Which brings us to September of this year—another election year, another display of banana republic partisan muscle. Before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could even be buried, Trump had nominated a woman who seems likely to undo her entire legacy; and election-year rules had been reversed because—because, this time, the Republican party, which had demanded delay in 2016, now saw advantage in indecent haste.
There was no pretense of vetting; the nominee essentially rolled her eyes at Democrats’ questions. She knew—they knew—the entire country knew—that the fix was in. She would be seated; she would be seated before the election; and she would not promise not to take us full circle, to a potential Bush v. Gore coup d’état even more disastrous than the first.
As this vile mummery played out, I mourned—not for the first time—the idea of a Court that was property of the nation, not of party; that sought justice, not ideological advantage; that earned a nation’s respect, not its gaping horror.
We shall not look upon its like again.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-27--Justice Barrett is Seated and Voting Cases Just Got Scarier

Two weeks before Election Day , the U.S. Supreme Court , by a tie vote , affirmed a pro-voting rights decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court .
Drawing on the state ’ s constitution , the Pennsylvania court ordered the state to count mail ballots mailed by November 3 and received within three days after that date .
The state ’ s constitution protects voting rights far more strongly than the U.S. Constitution , the majority said , and thus required adjustments for the chaotic combination of a pandemic and a sluggish if not sabotaged postal system .
That ruling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to vote and for the authority of state courts .
That victory may be short-lived .
In an order issued Monday , the Supreme Court ruled , 5-3 , against allowing the same kind of extended deadline in Wisconsin .
The difference ?
The lower-court order that the Supreme Court crushed was issued by a federal , not a state court .
That was apparently dispositive to Chief Justice John Roberts , who had voted against staying the Pennsylvania court .
The defeat for Wisconsin voters is likely final .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday , the Republican Party and its leaders were back at the Supreme Court , asking the Court to examine the ballot-deadline and strike it down .
There are two reasons for concern about Pennsylvania ’ s second bite at the apple .
The first is that ( as I wrote last week ) , the Pennsylvania Republicans ’ arguments are both outlandish and dangerous .
But , on the evidence of the Wisconsin case , that hasn ’ t stopped at least one Justice , Brett Kavanaugh , from embracing them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin State Legislature endorses the Republicans ’ far-right notion that state courts , interpreting state statutes in light of state constitutions , are nonetheless subject to being overruled by federal courts who disagree with their reading of state law .
Indeed , the argument is more extreme than that .
State legislatures ( of necessity run by partisan majorities ) have sole authority over all aspects of federal elections , the argument runs .
State legislatures pass the statutes , but state courts have no jurisdiction to interpret them or examine them by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kavanaugh ’ s opinion is drawn from the opinion of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore .
The re-emergence of that cursed travesty is particularly ominous in October 2020 .
That ’ s because , unless the election on Nov. 3 produces a Democratic landslide , Republican lawyers will ask federal courts to shut down the counting of ballots they deem illegitimate .
The stage is set for Bush v. Gore : The Sequel .
More ominously still , the 4-4 Court that allowed the late-ballot deadline in Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in a ceremony with all the elegance and solemnity of a late-night wedding at the Little Neon Chapel in Las Vegas , Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in an associate justice of the Supreme Court , filling the ninth seat , left empty by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
As the Court has changed , so has the Pennsylvania case .
Earlier this month , the Republican plaintiffs were asking the Supreme Court to step into the case before hearing it .
That is , they wanted an emergency stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justices could consider whether to hear the case .
Now they are back asking the Court to hear it and to decide it without argument—which could mean a decision this week .
But if the Court refuses that , they ’ ve asked for an order to “ segregate ” ballots that arrive by Election Day from those that arrive after it .
That , in effect , would freeze the count in Pennsylvania until the new nine-justice court can decide the issue—perhaps after emergency Bush v. Gore-style oral arguments .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the entire nationwide presidential election will turn on Pennsylvania ’ s 20 electoral votes .
The Justices will decide the case knowing full well that , for the second time in 20 years , they will be picking the president of their choice .
Chief Justice John Roberts ( no friend of voting rights ) had voted to allow the Pennsylvania extension to take effect .
However , he voted with the majority to shut down the Wisconsin ballot extension .
He wrote separately to make clear his commitment to the authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was from an order of a federal district court , he noted .
However , “ the Pennsylvania applications implicated the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions , ” while “ this case involves federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes.
” That question involves “ [ d ] ifferent bodies of law and different precedents.
” In other words , Roberts ’ s vote may be at least up for grabs .
But , John Roberts , meet 2020 .
There are nine justices now .
The Chief ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are past , and all eyes are on Justice Barrett .
She would not promise to recuse from cases involving the man by whose side she stood as recently as Monday night .
Former Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig—as hard-right a conservative jurist as I have ever met—warned in The Washington Post on October 17 that the Supreme Court ’ s own caselaw suggested that her recusal was required .
But recusal in the abstract is one thing .
If the White House hangs in the balance , she may remember that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort during her confirmation .
In the past four weeks , many people wondered how it is that Barrett , claiming virtue , has been willing to wade into this tawdry banana-republic charade ; we may learn the truth about Barrett ’ s character much sooner than expected .

Two weeks before Election Day, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a tie vote, affirmed a pro-voting rights decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Drawing on the state’s constitution, the Pennsylvania court ordered the state to count mail ballots mailed by November 3 and received within three days after that date. The state’s constitution protects voting rights far more strongly than the U.S. Constitution, the majority said, and thus required adjustments for the chaotic combination of a pandemic and a sluggish if not sabotaged postal system.
That ruling was a small victory both for the right to vote and for the authority of state courts. That victory may be short-lived. In an order issued Monday, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-3, against allowing the same kind of extended deadline in Wisconsin. The difference? The lower-court order that the Supreme Court crushed was issued by a federal, not a state court. That was apparently dispositive to Chief Justice John Roberts, who had voted against staying the Pennsylvania court.
The defeat for Wisconsin voters is likely final. But the victory for Pennsylvanians is not.
Last Friday, the Republican Party and its leaders were back at the Supreme Court, asking the Court to examine the ballot-deadline and strike it down. There are two reasons for concern about Pennsylvania’s second bite at the apple. The first is that (as I wrote last week), the Pennsylvania Republicans’ arguments are both outlandish and dangerous. But, on the evidence of the Wisconsin case, that hasn’t stopped at least one Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, from embracing them. His concurrence in Democratic National Committee v. Wisconsin State Legislature endorses the Republicans’ far-right notion that state courts, interpreting state statutes in light of state constitutions, are nonetheless subject to being overruled by federal courts who disagree with their reading of state law. Indeed, the argument is more extreme than that. State legislatures (of necessity run by partisan majorities) have sole authority over all aspects of federal elections, the argument runs. State legislatures pass the statutes, but state courts have no jurisdiction to interpret them or examine them by the light of their state constitutions.
Kavanaugh’s opinion is drawn from the opinion of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore. The re-emergence of that cursed travesty is particularly ominous in October 2020. That’s because, unless the election on Nov. 3 produces a Democratic landslide, Republican lawyers will ask federal courts to shut down the counting of ballots they deem illegitimate. The stage is set for Bush v. Gore: The Sequel.
More ominously still, the 4-4 Court that allowed the late-ballot deadline in Pennsylvania is no more. On Monday night, in a ceremony with all the elegance and solemnity of a late-night wedding at the Little Neon Chapel in Las Vegas, Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in an associate justice of the Supreme Court, filling the ninth seat, left empty by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
As the Court has changed, so has the Pennsylvania case. Earlier this month, the Republican plaintiffs were asking the Supreme Court to step into the case before hearing it. That is, they wanted an emergency stay of the state court order even before the Justices could consider whether to hear the case. Now they are back asking the Court to hear it and to decide it without argument—which could mean a decision this week. But if the Court refuses that, they’ve asked for an order to “segregate” ballots that arrive by Election Day from those that arrive after it.
That, in effect, would freeze the count in Pennsylvania until the new nine-justice court can decide the issue—perhaps after emergency Bush v. Gore-style oral arguments. And if that happens, it is possible that the entire nationwide presidential election will turn on Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes. The Justices will decide the case knowing full well that, for the second time in 20 years, they will be picking the president of their choice.
Chief Justice John Roberts (no friend of voting rights) had voted to allow the Pennsylvania extension to take effect. However, he voted with the majority to shut down the Wisconsin ballot extension. He wrote separately to make clear his commitment to the authority of state courts. The Wisconsin appeal was from an order of a federal district court, he noted. However, “the Pennsylvania applications implicated the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions,” while “this case involves federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes.” That question involves “[d]ifferent bodies of law and different precedents.”
In other words, Roberts’s vote may be at least up for grabs.
But, John Roberts, meet 2020. There are nine justices now. The Chief’s days as the “swing Justice” are past, and all eyes are on Justice Barrett. She would not promise to recuse from cases involving the man by whose side she stood as recently as Monday night.
Former Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig—as hard-right a conservative jurist as I have ever met—warned in The Washington Post on October 17 that the Supreme Court’s own caselaw suggested that her recusal was required. But recusal in the abstract is one thing. If the White House hangs in the balance, she may remember that she refused to promise anything of the sort during her confirmation.
In the past four weeks, many people wondered how it is that Barrett, claiming virtue, has been willing to wade into this tawdry banana-republic charade; we may learn the truth about Barrett’s character much sooner than expected.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-27--Despite the Uncertainties, All Signs Favor Biden

Mark McKinnon began his political career working as a campaign and media strategist for Texas Democrats before befriending George W. Bush , switching sides , and helping “ 43 ” win two presidential races .
Now he ’ s the co-creator , co-executive producer , and co-host of Showtime ‘ s The Circus : Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth , After interviewing polling expert Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report for the latest episode of The Circus , McKinnon , with years of experience , “ came away with the sense that Trump is not just toast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a poker metaphor : In the last election , Trump won by pulling an inside straight .
This time he ’ ll need nothing short of a royal flush—by pulling an ace from his sleeve.
” McKinnon may be wrong , but despite many uncertainties , the preponderance of the evidence suggests that he ’ s right .
Trump is burnt toast .
The biggest wildcard is the COVID-19 pandemic , which has unsettled both election laws and voter behavior , with results that are hard to predict .
Many states have greatly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee voting .
Democrats , more heedful of medical advice and social distancing , are voting early , particularly by mail , at a much higher rate than Republicans .
This has built the Dems a healthy lead in the votes already cast , which is a huge advantage .
A vote already counted is one less you have to drag to the polls on Nov. 3 The Republicans comfort themselves with the pleasing notion that they ’ ll have a correspondingly higher share of in-person voters .
Maybe .
But the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high , which may depress the Election Day vote and foil their hopes of catching up , plus long-lines could prove a deterrent to actually casting ballots .
It ’ s not just early voting results that suggest that President Trump is way behind .
One week out from Election Day , FiveThirtyEight and JHKForecasts both give Joe Biden an 88 percent chance of winning the presidency , while The Economist puts the odds at 96 percent .
It seems that the only thing that can save Trump now is a huge polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be wrong .
One way they might err is if many Democratic voters simply aren ’ t counted because of various legal machinations .
With the Supreme Court issuing a 5-3 ruling on Monday disallowing late-arriving mail ballots in Wisconsin , Democrats have a very legitimate concern that the Republicans could use litigation to squeeze out a victory in the state .
Yet , there aren ’ t many more states that have deadline extensions for the Supreme Court to adjudicate .
While tossed Democratic ballots could confound the pollsters , so could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes .
What seems to be a very high turnout is good news for Democrats in many ways .
Consider the turnout models the pollsters are using .
Harry Enten of CNN says that robust early voting patterns are consistent with the polls showing Biden with a solid lead .
High overall turnout is often thought to benefit the Democrats , and a FiveThirtyEight model estimates that a record 154 million Americans will cast a vote in 2020 .
Whether this helps Biden or not , it ’ s likely to make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ A lot of problems in polling can come from trying to figure out which voters are more likely to actually turn out and vote…If turnout is higher , the likely voter universe has a better chance of matching the registered voter universe.
” What about the youth vote ?
If the pollster ’ s likely voter models are still off , it could be due to the youth vote .
Young voters are underrepresented in the early vote , but that ’ s to be expected .
U.S. Census Bureau data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18-24 turned out in 2016 , even as overall participation was 61 percent .
Polling models generally reflect this expectation , so lagging youth numbers are not obvious reasons to doubt the forecasts .
Yet , an Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School national survey of 18 to 29 year-olds released Monday found that young voters are just as enthused about voting in 2020 as they were during Barack Obama ’ s initial run for the presidency in 2008 .
This group prefers Biden to Trump by an eyepopping 63 to 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out late at a higher than expected numbers , the pollsters are underestimating Biden ’ s strength .
In looking for hidden factors that could help Trump exceed expectations , David Siders of Politico noted , “ Republican registration has ticked up in key states at the same time Democratic field operations were in hibernation ” due to concerns about the pandemic .
The result is a boost of white , non-college-educated voters in the states that put Trump over the top in 2016 : Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and Michigan .
Does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spell doom for Democrats ?
Sure , there ’ s reason to worry .
Non-college whites are essential to the GOP base .
Republican registration drives naturally focus on demographics and regions where they have a big advantage .
With Democrats largely shelving their door-knocking and other in-person efforts , and Republicans boosting their base , the new registrations skew toward white working-class and rural voters .
Here ’ s the catch : New registrants are notoriously unreliable voters .
They require a dedicated Get-Out-the-Vote effort to mobilize so that pollsters may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get from these folks .
It may take a lot of money ( which the Trump campaign is short on ) and effort ( which is hard to gin up in the time of COVID ) .
Another factor that could help Trump and should concern Democrats is higher than expected support from black and Latino men , which has been detected in enough different polls to be considered a real thing .
It ’ s the key reason the latest New York Times/Siena poll of Texas projects Trump will win there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ factoring this in , it ’ s not clear how it could help Trump do better than projected .
The Democrats ’ understandably remain concerned .
Voter suppression could cost them , either through long lines or delayed mail delivery , that results in Supreme Court-supported trashing of legitimate ballots .
There could be pressure from Trump and the Republicans to stop the counting before it is completed .
But Democrats shouldn ’ t be too worried that the polls are off , at least as a measure of voter intentions .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should worry .
If the youth vote turns out at a rate commensurate with their declared enthusiasm , this will swamp any benefit he gets out of Republican registration drives .
The Democrats have a big advantage in votes already cast , so the uptick in COVID-19 cases is likely to dissuade more Republicans than Democrats from risking in-person voting on Election Day .
A huge overall turnout usually benefits the Democrats and makes it less probable that the likely voter universe is different from the actual voter universe .
If you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burnt toast , consider where the candidates are spending the last week campaigning .
Biden is visiting Georgia and Iowa , while his running mate Kamala Harris campaigns in Texas .
Meanwhile , Trump is going to Nebraska and Arizona , while Pence will visit North and South Carolina .
In short , Democrats have a shot at painting the map blue , and Republicans are defensively trying to preserve their red bastions .

Mark McKinnon began his political career working as a campaign and media strategist for Texas Democrats before befriending George W. Bush, switching sides, and helping “43” win two presidential races. Now he’s the co-creator, co-executive producer, and co-host of Showtime‘s The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth, After interviewing polling expert Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report for the latest episode of The Circus, McKinnon, with years of experience, “came away with the sense that Trump is not just toast, but burnt toast. To use a poker metaphor: In the last election, Trump won by pulling an inside straight. This time he’ll need nothing short of a royal flush—by pulling an ace from his sleeve.”
McKinnon may be wrong, but despite many uncertainties, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that he’s right. Trump is burnt toast.
The biggest wildcard is the COVID-19 pandemic, which has unsettled both election laws and voter behavior, with results that are hard to predict. Many states have greatly expanded early voting options, including excuse-free absentee voting. Democrats, more heedful of medical advice and social distancing, are voting early, particularly by mail, at a much higher rate than Republicans. This has built the Dems a healthy lead in the votes already cast, which is a huge advantage. A vote already counted is one less you have to drag to the polls on Nov. 3
The Republicans comfort themselves with the pleasing notion that they’ll have a correspondingly higher share of in-person voters. Maybe. But the COVID-19 infection rate is growing to an all-time high, which may depress the Election Day vote and foil their hopes of catching up, plus long-lines could prove a deterrent to actually casting ballots.
It’s not just early voting results that suggest that President Trump is way behind. One week out from Election Day, FiveThirtyEight and JHKForecasts both give Joe Biden an 88 percent chance of winning the presidency, while The Economist puts the odds at 96 percent. It seems that the only thing that can save Trump now is a huge polling error.
Sure, the polls could be wrong. One way they might err is if many Democratic voters simply aren’t counted because of various legal machinations. With the Supreme Court issuing a 5-3 ruling on Monday disallowing late-arriving mail ballots in Wisconsin, Democrats have a very legitimate concern that the Republicans could use litigation to squeeze out a victory in the state. Yet, there aren’t many more states that have deadline extensions for the Supreme Court to adjudicate. While tossed Democratic ballots could confound the pollsters, so could a pandemic-related drop-off in Election Day Republican votes.
What seems to be a very high turnout is good news for Democrats in many ways. Consider the turnout models the pollsters are using. Harry Enten of CNN says that robust early voting patterns are consistent with the polls showing Biden with a solid lead.
High overall turnout is often thought to benefit the Democrats, and a FiveThirtyEight model estimates that a record 154 million Americans will cast a vote in 2020. Whether this helps Biden or not, it’s likely to make the polls more accurate. As Enten explains, “A lot of problems in polling can come from trying to figure out which voters are more likely to actually turn out and vote…If turnout is higher, the likely voter universe has a better chance of matching the registered voter universe.”
What about the youth vote? If the pollster’s likely voter models are still off, it could be due to the youth vote. Young voters are underrepresented in the early vote, but that’s to be expected. U.S. Census Bureau data say only 43 percent of voters aged 18-24 turned out in 2016, even as overall participation was 61 percent. Polling models generally reflect this expectation, so lagging youth numbers are not obvious reasons to doubt the forecasts.
Yet, an Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School national survey of 18 to 29 year-olds released Monday found that young voters are just as enthused about voting in 2020 as they were during Barack Obama’s initial run for the presidency in 2008. This group prefers Biden to Trump by an eyepopping 63 to 25 percent margin, so if they turn out late at a higher than expected numbers, the pollsters are underestimating Biden’s strength.
In looking for hidden factors that could help Trump exceed expectations, David Siders of Politico noted, “Republican registration has ticked up in key states at the same time Democratic field operations were in hibernation” due to concerns about the pandemic. The result is a boost of white, non-college-educated voters in the states that put Trump over the top in 2016: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Does the uptick in white working-class voter registration spell doom for Democrats? Sure, there’s reason to worry. Non-college whites are essential to the GOP base. Republican registration drives naturally focus on demographics and regions where they have a big advantage. With Democrats largely shelving their door-knocking and other in-person efforts, and Republicans boosting their base, the new registrations skew toward white working-class and rural voters.
Here’s the catch: New registrants are notoriously unreliable voters. They require a dedicated Get-Out-the-Vote effort to mobilize so that pollsters may be underestimating the level of turnout Trump will get from these folks. It may take a lot of money (which the Trump campaign is short on) and effort (which is hard to gin up in the time of COVID).
Another factor that could help Trump and should concern Democrats is higher than expected support from black and Latino men, which has been detected in enough different polls to be considered a real thing. It’s the key reason the latest New York Times/Siena poll of Texas projects Trump will win there. But, if the pollsters are already factoring this in, it’s not clear how it could help Trump do better than projected.
The Democrats’ understandably remain concerned. Voter suppression could cost them, either through long lines or delayed mail delivery, that results in Supreme Court-supported trashing of legitimate ballots. There could be pressure from Trump and the Republicans to stop the counting before it is completed. But Democrats shouldn’t be too worried that the polls are off, at least as a measure of voter intentions.
If anything, it’s Trump who should worry. If the youth vote turns out at a rate commensurate with their declared enthusiasm, this will swamp any benefit he gets out of Republican registration drives. The Democrats have a big advantage in votes already cast, so the uptick in COVID-19 cases is likely to dissuade more Republicans than Democrats from risking in-person voting on Election Day. A huge overall turnout usually benefits the Democrats and makes it less probable that the likely voter universe is different from the actual voter universe.
If you’re still in doubt that Trump is burnt toast, consider where the candidates are spending the last week campaigning. Biden is visiting Georgia and Iowa, while his running mate Kamala Harris campaigns in Texas. Meanwhile, Trump is going to Nebraska and Arizona, while Pence will visit North and South Carolina. In short, Democrats have a shot at painting the map blue, and Republicans are defensively trying to preserve their red bastions.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-27--Early Voting Spells Trouble for Republicans. Here’s Why.

So far , the big news from the 2020 election is turnout .
As of Tuesday , over 67 million people have already voted .
Given the pandemic , early voting might not be surprising .
Millions of voters want to avoid the health risk of crowded polling stations .
But as CNN reporter Harry Enten noted , polls have found this to be the steadiest presidential race on record .
Most voters made up their minds a long time ago .
There ’ s no reason to wait to cast a ballot .
Pundits will try to suss out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the truth is , not much .
Knowing how many people have voted doesn ’ t tell us how they voted .
Even data from the few states that report party registration offers few clues .
Voters don ’ t tend to change their registration , even when they change allegiances .
If most early votes come from Democrats , we know that most Republicans plan to wait until election day to vote .
Both sides have sold this election as one of the most important in this country ’ s history—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high all over the country .
So we can expect a surge from Republicans next week .
With all of those caveats , there is some important information we can glean from early voting .
Trump ’ s attempt to stir up an October surprise about Joe Biden and his son was not only ineffective , it probably came too late , given the number of people who had already voted by the time the bogus charges landed .
That goes for anything the Republicans might try to pull this last week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI Director James Comey ’ s famed announcement about Hillary Clinton ’ s emails 11 days before the 2016 election , which led to Clinton ’ s lead cratering and Trump ’ s support surging—especially in the Rust Belt states that he went on to win .
With the steadiest presidential election in our history already underway , we ’ re not going to see a repeat of that .
One of the encouraging pieces of news from the early vote is that young people , who have traditionally waited until the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots early .
According to data compiled by TargetSmart , an industry leader in political data and its applications , the 18-29-year-old share of the early vote is up 31 % from 2016 .
They predict that the youth vote could match or even exceed their turnout in the 2008 election , the second-largest youth voter turnout in American history .
The big news about early voting , however , is coming out of Texas , where almost 8 million voters have already cast their ballots .
Forecasters now predict that 12 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that saw just over 8.5 million in 2016 , calling all polls in that state into question .
When it comes to youth voting in 2020 , Texas leads the nation .
According to Tufts University , 750,000 voters under the age of 30 have already gone to the polls in Texas ( compared to just over 100,000 by this time in 2016 ) .
In a poll recently released by the Dallas Morning News and the University of Texas at Tyler , 18-24-year-olds in Texas favor the former vice president by 63 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big story about early voting in Texas is that there are now three counties that have actually surpassed the total number of votes cast in 2016 : Hays ( suburban Austin ) , Denton ( suburban Dallas-Ft. Worth ) , and Williamson ( suburban Austin ) .
Two of those counties—Denton and Williamson—are in the top ten fastest-growing counties in Texas .
The surge in early votes from counties with soaring populations is bad news for Republicans .
Here ’ s why : Following the 2018 midterms , researchers Richard Murray and Renee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a political fault line had developed between three metro areas ( Houston , Austin , and Dallas-Ft. Worth ) and the rest of the state .
They calculated that in 1980 , the 27 counties in the metropolitan areas cast about 55 % of the state ’ s votes .
By the 2018 election , that number had soared to 69 % .
Conversely , in the state ’ s 199 non-urban counties , which have become the foundation of the Republican Party , they ’ d fallen from about 37 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 23 % in 2018 .
From the above chart , note that Collin—a historically Republican stronghold northeast of Dallas—is the second-fastest-growing county in Texas .
That provides some context for this tweet from a former GOP consultant .
While some of that 24 percent may represent long-time residents who have simply decided to go to the polls for the first time , the majority are probably new to the county , which is why they don ’ t have a voting history .
Texas Republicans can ’ t afford to lose any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surge in early votes from the suburban metro districts has prompted a last-minute visit to the state from the Democratic vice presidential nominee , Senator Kamala Harris .
It is unlikely that the Biden-Harris team would need Texas to reach 270 electoral votes , but a win in the Lone Star state would ensure a landslide .

So far, the big news from the 2020 election is turnout. As of Tuesday, over 67 million people have already voted. Given the pandemic, early voting might not be surprising. Millions of voters want to avoid the health risk of crowded polling stations. But as CNN reporter Harry Enten noted, polls have found this to be the steadiest presidential race on record. Most voters made up their minds a long time ago. There’s no reason to wait to cast a ballot.
Pundits will try to suss out what this early vote tells us. But the truth is, not much. Knowing how many people have voted doesn’t tell us how they voted. Even data from the few states that report party registration offers few clues. Voters don’t tend to change their registration, even when they change allegiances.
If most early votes come from Democrats, we know that most Republicans plan to wait until election day to vote. Both sides have sold this election as one of the most important in this country’s history—and rightly so. Commitment to vote is high all over the country. So we can expect a surge from Republicans next week.
With all of those caveats, there is some important information we can glean from early voting. Trump’s attempt to stir up an October surprise about Joe Biden and his son was not only ineffective, it probably came too late, given the number of people who had already voted by the time the bogus charges landed. That goes for anything the Republicans might try to pull this last week.
Some Democrats have feared a repeat of FBI Director James Comey’s famed announcement about Hillary Clinton’s emails 11 days before the 2016 election, which led to Clinton’s lead cratering and Trump’s support surging—especially in the Rust Belt states that he went on to win. With the steadiest presidential election in our history already underway, we’re not going to see a repeat of that.
One of the encouraging pieces of news from the early vote is that young people, who have traditionally waited until the last minute to vote, are casting their ballots early. According to data compiled by TargetSmart, an industry leader in political data and its applications, the 18-29-year-old share of the early vote is up 31% from 2016. They predict that the youth vote could match or even exceed their turnout in the 2008 election, the second-largest youth voter turnout in American history.
The big news about early voting, however, is coming out of Texas, where almost 8 million voters have already cast their ballots. Forecasters now predict that 12 million votes could be cast in a state that saw just over 8.5 million in 2016, calling all polls in that state into question.
When it comes to youth voting in 2020, Texas leads the nation. According to Tufts University, 750,000 voters under the age of 30 have already gone to the polls in Texas (compared to just over 100,000 by this time in 2016). In a poll recently released by the Dallas Morning News and the University of Texas at Tyler, 18-24-year-olds in Texas favor the former vice president by 63 points (78-15).
The other big story about early voting in Texas is that there are now three counties that have actually surpassed the total number of votes cast in 2016: Hays (suburban Austin), Denton (suburban Dallas-Ft. Worth), and Williamson (suburban Austin). Two of those counties—Denton and Williamson—are in the top ten fastest-growing counties in Texas.
The surge in early votes from counties with soaring populations is bad news for Republicans. Here’s why: Following the 2018 midterms, researchers Richard Murray and Renee Cross from the University of Houston explained that a political fault line had developed between three metro areas (Houston, Austin, and Dallas-Ft. Worth) and the rest of the state. They calculated that in 1980, the 27 counties in the metropolitan areas cast about 55% of the state’s votes. By the 2018 election, that number had soared to 69%. Conversely, in the state’s 199 non-urban counties, which have become the foundation of the Republican Party, they’d fallen from about 37% of the vote in 1980 to just over 23% in 2018.
From the above chart, note that Collin—a historically Republican stronghold northeast of Dallas—is the second-fastest-growing county in Texas. That provides some context for this tweet from a former GOP consultant.
While some of that 24 percent may represent long-time residents who have simply decided to go to the polls for the first time, the majority are probably new to the county, which is why they don’t have a voting history.
Texas Republicans can’t afford to lose any more ground, which is why the surge in early votes from the suburban metro districts has prompted a last-minute visit to the state from the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Senator Kamala Harris. It is unlikely that the Biden-Harris team would need Texas to reach 270 electoral votes, but a win in the Lone Star state would ensure a landslide.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-27--Louis DeJoy’s October Surprise

Louis DeJoy’s October Surprise

Wisconsin , North Carolina , and South Carolina are among the most closely watched states in the 2020 election , for good reason .
The first two , as swing states , could affect who wins the White House , while the latter two have close Senate races that could determine which party controls Congress .
They also have something else in common : the dubious distinction of being among the handful of states that require a witness signature on absentee ballots .
As a security matter , demanding a second signature on a mail-in ballot is “ utterly useless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oregon Secretary of State , and a Washington Monthly contributing editor .
Vote-by-mail systems in nearly all states already check voter ’ s signatures against voter registration records , so requiring a witness signature amounts to a “ superfluous and unnecessary obstacle to voters , ” he adds .
The requirement is particularly burdensome for older voters who live alone and have difficulty finding witnesses , especially in the middle of a surging pandemic .
Understandably fearful of leaving their homes to find a co-signer , these voters are forced either to mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and risk having them thrown out or not vote at all if they can ’ t find someone to sign for them .
That ’ s why state courts over the last several months have overturned witness signature mandates in Rhode Island , Virginia , Minnesota , and Alaska .
Yet such restrictions are still on the books in Wisconsin , North Carolina , and South Carolina .
Sure enough , that has already created problems .
In North Carolina , for instance , the Associated Press reported last month that “ lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information has emerged as the leading cause of ballots being set aside before being counted in North Carolina , with problems disproportionately affecting Black voters in the state.
” In past elections , the requirement has not been much of a problem because few people in these states voted absentee and , if they did , they had a handy workaround .
They could get their local letter carriers to co-sign their ballots or ask a clerk at their local post office to do so .
In this election cycle , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote by mail—absentee ballot requests in Wisconsin , for instance , have more than doubled compared to 2016—but , in a much under-covered move , the U.S .
Postal Service under Donald Trump ’ s handpicked Postmaster General Louis DeJoy issued an order this summer forbidding Postal Service employees from providing witness signatures on voters ’ absentee ballots .
Over the last several weeks , postal union officials have pushed DeJoy ’ s top lieutenants to rescind the prohibition .
They ’ ve argued that it ’ s a service that letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more necessary than ever in an election marked by COVID-19 and record levels of absentee voting .
Last week , however , the USPS national management refused a final plea from the unions to reverse the order .
That could have major implications .
Presidential polling margins in North Carolina and Wisconsin are narrow : +1.8 for Biden in the former , +4.6 for Biden in the latter , according to the latest Real Clear Politics average .
And the Senate races in South Carolina between Lindsey Graham and Jaime Harrison and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cal Cunningham are similarly close .
If enough voters are impacted by the witness signature requirement in those states , it could influence the outcome of the election .
In mid-July , USPS issued the order forbidding postal employees from co-signing mail-in ballots , according to Vice .
This was around the same time that DeJoy was enacting policies that dramatically slowed mail delivery , including eliminating overtime for postal service employees and getting rid of sorting machines in processing centers nationwide .
“ As the 2020 election cycle continues , customers may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as witnesses , ” warns an August 18 memo sent by USPS headquarters to postal employees .
“ The Postal Service should not provide a witness signature in their official capacity.
” ( Emphasis theirs . )
After a backlash from lawmakers and activists—and lawsuits from multiple state attorneys general—DeJoy paused most of the cost-cutting measures his office announced in July until after the election .
But the order barring USPS employees from providing witness signatures got nowhere near as much attention from DeJoy ’ s critics—possibly because its effects would only be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It remains in force .
The only organizations that have tried to get USPS to drop the rule have been the four major postal unions—the American Postal Workers Union , the National Association of Letter Carriers , the National Rural Letter Carriers Association , and the National Postal Mail Handlers Union .
They have been conducting weekly meetings since early this summer with the Postal Service ’ s national leadership to ensure a smooth vote-by-mail election .
During an October 15 meeting , union representatives pushed DeJoy ’ s senior advisers to reverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting is well underway across the country .
One week later , on October 22 , the officials said they would not undo the order , citing the need for operational efficiency—the same rationale DeJoy used to defend USPS ’ s other moves , like limiting overtime pay , that he later suspended—and that it was too late in the process to initiate a policy change .
Those arguments infuriated APWU President Mark Dimondstein .
“ It ’ s an insult to postal workers—to think we can ’ t do this , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the most trusted agency .
I mean , we process passports , for crying out loud .
Why wouldn ’ t we be able to help people cast their ballot ?
” The Postal Service also claims that the ban on co-signing ballots is a longstanding policy .
“ Postal Employees are prohibited from serving as witnesses in their official capacity while on duty , due in part to the potential operational impacts , ” David Partenheimer , a USPS spokesman , told me .
“ This policy has not changed.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the policy existed before the election , I got no response .
Officials from the National Association of Letter Carriers have gone scouring through old records in recent weeks and could find no trace of the policy before this summer .
The assertion that the ban on USPS employees co-signing absentee ballots is a longstanding one was certainly news to voters in Alaska , where residents in remote parts of the state have relied on the service for decades .
In August , elections officials were stunned when they received an influx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carriers told them they could no longer sign their ballots .
“ Sooo [ sic ] I went to the post office to mail my absentee ballot , and even tho [ sic ] it says very clearly on the instructions that postal officials can sign your witness affidavit , the folks working the counter downtown said they were not allowed , ” wrote one voter on Twitter .
“ Why ?
” The state ’ s elections director then reached out to the Postal Service for clarification .
Within 24 hours , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has never , never , in my 40 years of dealing with this , ever been an issue , ” Jim Raymond , the branch manager of the National Association of Letter Carrier ’ s district that covers the Anchorage area , told me .
Luckily for Alaskans , the state ’ s Supreme Court ruled this month that voters wouldn ’ t need a witness signature to cast absentee ballots in that state .
Voters in Wisconsin , North Carolina , and South Carolina will not be so fortunate .
Elections officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me that until July , they had never heard of a rule banning postal employees from co-signing ballots .
How the ban might affect election outcomes will be hard to know , even after November 3 .
Neither the USPS nor elections boards have ever bothered to keep track of how many ballots are co-signed by postal workers .
Moreover , the real measure of the ban ’ s impact would involve calculating how many voters in those key states , many of them voting by mail for the first time , might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had that option been available and publicized by USPS , campaigns , elections boards , and the media .
Instead , of course , the opposite is the case .
What ’ s clear is that if USPS leadership wanted to limit the number of mail-in ballots without incurring provable blame , this would be a good way to do it .

Wisconsin, North Carolina, and South Carolina are among the most closely watched states in the 2020 election, for good reason. The first two, as swing states, could affect who wins the White House, while the latter two have close Senate races that could determine which party controls Congress. They also have something else in common: the dubious distinction of being among the handful of states that require a witness signature on absentee ballots.
As a security matter, demanding a second signature on a mail-in ballot is “utterly useless,” notes Phil Keisling, former Oregon Secretary of State, and a Washington Monthly contributing editor. Vote-by-mail systems in nearly all states already check voter’s signatures against voter registration records, so requiring a witness signature amounts to a “superfluous and unnecessary obstacle to voters,” he adds.
The requirement is particularly burdensome for older voters who live alone and have difficulty finding witnesses, especially in the middle of a surging pandemic. Understandably fearful of leaving their homes to find a co-signer, these voters are forced either to mail in their ballots without a second signature and risk having them thrown out or not vote at all if they can’t find someone to sign for them. That’s why state courts over the last several months have overturned witness signature mandates in Rhode Island, Virginia, Minnesota, and Alaska. Yet such restrictions are still on the books in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Sure enough, that has already created problems. In North Carolina, for instance, the Associated Press reported last month that “lack of a witness signature or other witness information has emerged as the leading cause of ballots being set aside before being counted in North Carolina, with problems disproportionately affecting Black voters in the state.”
In past elections, the requirement has not been much of a problem because few people in these states voted absentee and, if they did, they had a handy workaround. They could get their local letter carriers to co-sign their ballots or ask a clerk at their local post office to do so.
In this election cycle, however, not only are vastly more residents choosing to vote by mail—absentee ballot requests in Wisconsin, for instance, have more than doubled compared to 2016—but, in a much under-covered move, the U.S. Postal Service under Postmaster General Louis DeJoy issued an order this summer forbidding Postal Service employees from providing witness signatures on voters’ absentee ballots.
Over the last several weeks, postal union officials have pushed DeJoy’s top lieutenants to rescind the prohibition. They’ve argued that it’s a service that letter carriers and clerks have long offered and is more necessary than ever in an election marked by COVID-19 and record levels of absentee voting. Last week, however, the USPS national management refused a final plea from the unions to reverse the order.
That could have major implications. Presidential polling margins in North Carolina and Wisconsin are narrow: +1.8 for Biden in the former, +4.6 for Biden in the latter, according to the latest Real Clear Politics average. And the Senate races in South Carolina between Lindsey Graham and Jaime Harrison and in North Carolina between Thom Tillis and Cal Cunningham are similarly close. If enough voters are impacted by the witness signature requirement in those states, it could influence the outcome of the election.
In mid-July, USPS issued the order forbidding postal employees from co-signing mail-in ballots, according to Vice. This was around the same time that DeJoy was enacting policies that dramatically slowed mail delivery. “As the 2020 election cycle continues, customers may ask retail clerks to sign mail-ballot envelopes as witnesses,” warns an August 18 memo sent by USPS headquarters to postal employees. “The Postal Service should not provide a witness signature in their official capacity.” (Emphasis theirs.)
After a backlash from lawmakers and activists—and lawsuits from multiple state attorneys general—DeJoy paused most of the USPS’s cost-cutting measures, including getting rid of sorting machines in processing centers and blue mail boxes nationwide, until after the election. But the order barring USPS employees from providing witness signatures got nowhere near as much attention from DeJoy’s critics—possibly because its effects would only be felt in a handful of states. It remains in force.
The only organizations that have tried to get USPS to drop the rule have been the four major postal unions—the American Postal Workers Union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, and the National Postal Mail Handlers Union. They have been conducting weekly meetings since early this summer with the Postal Service’s national leadership to ensure a smooth vote-by-mail election. During an October 15 meeting, union representatives pushed DeJoy’s senior advisers to reverse the witness signature order, especially since voting is well underway across the country.
One week later, on October 22, the officials said they would not undo the order, citing the need for operational efficiency—the same rationale DeJoy used to defend some of the USPS’s other moves—and that it was too late in the process to initiate a policy change. Those arguments infuriated APWU President Mark Dimondstein. “It’s an insult to postal workers—to think we can’t do this,” he told me. “It’s the most trusted agency. I mean, we process passports, for crying out loud. Why wouldn’t we be able to help people cast their ballot?”
The Postal Service also claims that the ban on co-signing ballots is a longstanding policy. “Postal Employees are prohibited from serving as witnesses in their official capacity while on duty, due in part to the potential operational impacts,” David Partenheimer, a USPS spokesman, told me. “This policy has not changed.” When I asked him to provide evidence that the policy existed before the election, I got no response. Officials from the National Association of Letter Carriers have gone scouring through old records in recent weeks and could find no trace of the policy before this summer.
The assertion that the ban on USPS employees co-signing absentee ballots is a longstanding one was certainly news to voters in Alaska, where residents in remote parts of the state have relied on the service for decades. In August, elections officials were stunned when they received an influx of complaints from customers saying their letter carriers told them they could no longer sign their ballots. “Sooo [sic] I went to the post office to mail my absentee ballot, and even tho [sic] it says very clearly on the instructions that postal officials can sign your witness affidavit, the folks working the counter downtown said they were not allowed,” wrote one voter on Twitter. “Why?”
The state’s elections director then reached out to the Postal Service for clarification. Within 24 hours, USPS confirmed the order. “There has never, never, in my 40 years of dealing with this, ever been an issue,” Jim Raymond, the branch manager of the National Association of Letter Carrier’s district that covers the Anchorage area, told me.
Luckily for Alaskans, the state’s Supreme Court ruled this month that voters wouldn’t need a witness signature to cast absentee ballots in that state. Voters in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and South Carolina will not be so fortunate. Elections officials in all three of those states told me that until July, they had never heard of a rule banning postal employees from co-signing ballots.
How the ban might affect election outcomes will be hard to know, even after November 3. Neither the USPS nor elections boards have ever bothered to keep track of how many ballots are co-signed by postal workers. Moreover, the real measure of the ban’s impact would involve calculating how many voters in those key states, many of them voting by mail for the first time, might have asked a postal worker for help had that option been available and publicized by USPS, campaigns, elections boards, and the media. Instead, of course, the opposite is the case. What’s clear is that if USPS leadership wanted to limit the number of mail-in ballots without incurring provable blame, this would be a good way to do it.