alternet--2020-10-21--These ballot measures will shape voting rights for years to come

One common refrain this year amid Trump 's unprecedented assault on free and fair elections is that democracy itself is on the ballot .
That 's literally the case in many cities and states across the country , with voters set to decide on dozens of ballot measures that will determine who can vote and how elections will work for years to come .
Daily Kos Elections has compiled a spreadsheet that catalogs 24 different measures on a variety of topics related to elections , some placed on the ballot by voters and some by state lawmakers .
Below we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures and whether they could have a positive or negative impact on fair elections going forward .
2020 was poised to be another big year for initiatives to expand voting rights and fight largely Republican gerrymandering after reformers successfully passed measures to overcome hostile GOP legislatures in Michigan and elsewhere in 2018 .
However , after the pandemic hit , courts around the country issued rulings hostile to direct democracy by making it nearly impossible to collect the signatures needed to get measures onto the ballot .
Nevertheless , a number states are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affecting the workings of democracy this year .
Missouri , New Jersey , and Virginia are all voting on measures that affect redistricting .
In Missouri , Republicans placed a misleading amendment on the ballot that would effectively gut a reform that voters overwhelmingly passed in 2018 to make legislative redistricting fairer , trying to trick voters into repealing the reform by attaching token ethics reforms .
In New Jersey , Democrats have put an amendment on the ballot to delay legislative redistricting until the 2023 elections if the release of census data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect incumbents from having to run in new districts for an extra two years to the detriment of New Jersey 's growing Asian and Latino populations , whose rightful share of representation would be delayed if the amendment passes .
In an extremely unusual move in Virginia , the state 's Democratic legislature allowed an amendment to pass with GOP support that would see Democrats surrender their own power to gerrymander and instead create a bipartisan commission appointed half by legislators from both parties and the other half chosen by retired judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican legislators and includes some flaws , but on the whole it should lead to relatively nonpartisan districts for Congress and the state legislature after 2020 if it becomes law .
Efforts to replace the existing electoral system with something that more faithfully implements voters ' preferences are on the ballot in several jurisdictions .
These measures take aim at the existing system of plurality-winner elections that can see a third candidate play `` spoiler '' and cost the runner-up a victory .
They all aim to ensure majority rule , but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect .
In Alaska and Massachusetts , voters could adopt variants of instant-runoff voting ( also known as ranked-choice voting ) in congressional and state elections .
This system , which Maine adopted in 2016 and expanded in 2019 , lets voters rank their preferences and sequentially eliminates the last-place finisher by reassigning their votes to each voter 's subsequent preference until one candidate attains a majority .
Such systems cut down on the spoiler problem and help to protect majority rule .
Alaska 's measure would use a variant where the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance to an instant-runoff general election .
( It would use a regular instant-runoff for the presidency . )
A more novel reform to plurality-winner elections is going before voters in St. Louis , Missouri .
This approach would adopt a variation of so-called `` approval voting , '' letting voters cast up to one vote for each candidate and having whichever two candidates receive the most votes in the first round advance to the general election .
This system aims to avoid some of the complications of instant-runoff voting but is largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting , which has a long history both domestically at the local level and abroad .
A Florida initiative that would implement a top two `` primary '' for state-level elections could have disastrous effects for partisan fairness and Black and Latino representation .
This system is in use in California and Washington and has seen major parties get shut out of winnable general elections solely because their vote was split between too many candidates in the primary .
It could also make it much harder for Black voters especially to elect their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could invalidate it for that reason .
Finally , Mississippi 's GOP-led legislature , in the face of a lawsuit , has placed an amendment on the ballot to repeal part of its 1890 Jim Crow constitution that created an Electoral College-esque system for determining the winner in elections for governor and other statewide executive offices .
This system has been further strained by GOP gerrymandering , such that it would be impossible for Democrats and the Black voters who support them to ever win statewide .
This reform would require majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ method that is not ideal but is nevertheless fairer than the status quo .
Republicans across the country have gerrymandered their maps and passed widespread restrictions on voting , leaving direct democracy as a critical tool for fighting back against these efforts to entrench GOP minority rule .
Republicans have responded by trying to restrict the initiative process to preserve their power and have advanced measures in Arkansas , Florida , and North Dakota that would make it harder for reformers to place new measures of their own on the ballot in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Florida are supporting amendments that would rewrite their constitutions to emphasize that only citizens may vote .
While these measures would have no effect on the status quo , they would prevent local governments from experimenting with letting legal permanent residents who lack citizenship still vote in local elections , something a handful of small localities in the U.S. and many European democracies already allow .
Lowering the voting age to 16 is an idea that has quietly grown in popularity in recent years .
A handful of small localities already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a majority of the House Democratic caucus voted in favor of doing so federally last year .
A number of foreign democracies such as Austria and Brazil already allow 16-year-olds to vote , and San Francisco could become the first major city in America to lower the voting age to 16 in local elections .
Just to the east , the city of Oakland could lower the voting age for school board elections , and all of California could join a growing number of states letting 17-year-olds vote in primaries if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Puerto Rico will once again vote on whether to become a state , and while the measure is not legally binding , it could spur Congress to act on passing an admission bill if Democrats retake the Senate and eliminate the filibuster .
Statehood would mean that more than 3 million American citizens would gain representation in the House and Senate .
It would also modestly mitigate the upper chamber 's bias against voters of color and potentially lessen its partisan bias toward the GOP , too .
The National Popular Vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state 's votes in the Electoral College to the national popular vote winner if states with a majority of electoral votes sign on , has gained steam since Trump 's election in 2016 and saw Colorado become the first swing state to join in 2019 .
However , Colorado Republicans have fought back by putting an initiative on the ballot to repeal the law joining the compact .
The outcome of the vote could encourage Democrats in other swing states to follow Colorado 's lead , or deter them .
While nearly every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some form , Nevada could go even further by enshrining the right to vote in its constitution using modernized language to protect certain methods of voting access .
California , meanwhile , could expand voting rights to tens of thousands of citizens on parole for a felony conviction , joining 18 other states that do n't disenfranchise anyone not in prison .
Finally , Oregon is one of the last states that allows individuals to donate unlimited sums of money directly to candidates in state elections , but that may soon change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year overturned a precedent that had barred limits on campaign contributions , and now Democrats have placed an amendment on the ballot to codify lawmakers ' ability to regulate campaign donations and ensure that the existence of such limits and disclosure requirements is n't dependent upon the ever-changing composition of the courts .
Below you can find a table summarizing all 24 ballot measures we 're tracking , and you can find a spreadsheet version of it here .

One common refrain this year amid Trump's unprecedented assault on free and fair elections is that democracy itself is on the ballot. That's literally the case in many cities and states across the country, with voters set to decide on dozens of ballot measures that will determine who can vote and how elections will work for years to come.
Daily Kos Elections has compiled a spreadsheet that catalogs 24 different measures on a variety of topics related to elections, some placed on the ballot by voters and some by state lawmakers. Below we'll explore some of the most important measures and whether they could have a positive or negative impact on fair elections going forward. 2020 was poised to be another big year for initiatives to expand voting rights and fight largely Republican gerrymandering after reformers successfully passed measures to overcome hostile GOP legislatures in Michigan and elsewhere in 2018. However, after the pandemic hit, courts around the country issued rulings hostile to direct democracy by making it nearly impossible to collect the signatures needed to get measures onto the ballot. Nevertheless, a number states are still poised to vote on key issues affecting the workings of democracy this year.
Gerrymandering and Redistricting Reform
Missouri, New Jersey, and Virginia are all voting on measures that affect redistricting. In Missouri, Republicans placed a misleading amendment on the ballot that would effectively gut a reform that voters overwhelmingly passed in 2018 to make legislative redistricting fairer, trying to trick voters into repealing the reform by attaching token ethics reforms.
In New Jersey, Democrats have put an amendment on the ballot to delay legislative redistricting until the 2023 elections if the release of census data is delayed. The move is intended to protect incumbents from having to run in new districts for an extra two years to the detriment of New Jersey's growing Asian and Latino populations, whose rightful share of representation would be delayed if the amendment passes.
In an extremely unusual move in Virginia, the state's Democratic legislature allowed an amendment to pass with GOP support that would see Democrats surrender their own power to gerrymander and instead create a bipartisan commission appointed half by legislators from both parties and the other half chosen by retired judges. This reform was a compromise with Republican legislators and includes some flaws, but on the whole it should lead to relatively nonpartisan districts for Congress and the state legislature after 2020 if it becomes law.
Electoral System Reform
Efforts to replace the existing electoral system with something that more faithfully implements voters' preferences are on the ballot in several jurisdictions. These measures take aim at the existing system of plurality-winner elections that can see a third candidate play "spoiler" and cost the runner-up a victory. They all aim to ensure majority rule, but not all may end up having a positive effect.
In Alaska and Massachusetts, voters could adopt variants of instant-runoff voting (also known as ranked-choice voting) in congressional and state elections. This system, which Maine adopted in 2016 and expanded in 2019, lets voters rank their preferences and sequentially eliminates the last-place finisher by reassigning their votes to each voter's subsequent preference until one candidate attains a majority. Such systems cut down on the spoiler problem and help to protect majority rule. Alaska's measure would use a variant where the top four finishers in an all-party primary would advance to an instant-runoff general election. (It would use a regular instant-runoff for the presidency.)
A more novel reform to plurality-winner elections is going before voters in St. Louis, Missouri. This approach would adopt a variation of so-called "approval voting," letting voters cast up to one vote for each candidate and having whichever two candidates receive the most votes in the first round advance to the general election. This system aims to avoid some of the complications of instant-runoff voting but is largely untested in real elections, unlike instant-runoff voting, which has a long history both domestically at the local level and abroad.
A Florida initiative that would implement a top two "primary" for state-level elections could have disastrous effects for partisan fairness and Black and Latino representation. This system is in use in California and Washington and has seen major parties get shut out of winnable general elections solely because their vote was split between too many candidates in the primary. It could also make it much harder for Black voters especially to elect their chosen candidates and is facing a lawsuit that could invalidate it for that reason.
Finally, Mississippi's GOP-led legislature, in the face of a lawsuit, has placed an amendment on the ballot to repeal part of its 1890 Jim Crow constitution that created an Electoral College-esque system for determining the winner in elections for governor and other statewide executive offices. This system has been further strained by GOP gerrymandering, such that it would be impossible for Democrats and the Black voters who support them to ever win statewide. This reform would require majority support to avoid a runoff, a method that is not ideal but is nevertheless fairer than the status quo.
Restrictions on the Ballot Initiative Process
Republicans across the country have gerrymandered their maps and passed widespread restrictions on voting, leaving direct democracy as a critical tool for fighting back against these efforts to entrench GOP minority rule. Republicans have responded by trying to restrict the initiative process to preserve their power and have advanced measures in Arkansas, Florida, and North Dakota that would make it harder for reformers to place new measures of their own on the ballot in the future.
Bans on Noncitizen Voting
Republicans in Alabama, Colorado, and Florida are supporting amendments that would rewrite their constitutions to emphasize that only citizens may vote. While these measures would have no effect on the status quo, they would prevent local governments from experimenting with letting legal permanent residents who lack citizenship still vote in local elections, something a handful of small localities in the U.S. and many European democracies already allow.
Efforts to Lower the Voting Age
Lowering the voting age to 16 is an idea that has quietly grown in popularity in recent years. A handful of small localities already allow the practice in local elections, and a majority of the House Democratic caucus voted in favor of doing so federally last year. A number of foreign democracies such as Austria and Brazil already allow 16-year-olds to vote, and San Francisco could become the first major city in America to lower the voting age to 16 in local elections. Just to the east, the city of Oakland could lower the voting age for school board elections, and all of California could join a growing number of states letting 17-year-olds vote in primaries if they'll turn 18 by the general election.
Other Measures
Puerto Rico will once again vote on whether to become a state, and while the measure is not legally binding, it could spur Congress to act on passing an admission bill if Democrats retake the Senate and eliminate the filibuster. Statehood would mean that more than 3 million American citizens would gain representation in the House and Senate. It would also modestly mitigate the upper chamber's bias against voters of color and potentially lessen its partisan bias toward the GOP, too.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would assign a state's votes in the Electoral College to the national popular vote winner if states with a majority of electoral votes sign on, has gained steam since Trump's election in 2016 and saw Colorado become the first swing state to join in 2019. However, Colorado Republicans have fought back by putting an initiative on the ballot to repeal the law joining the compact. The outcome of the vote could encourage Democrats in other swing states to follow Colorado's lead, or deter them.
While nearly every state constitution protects the right to vote in some form, Nevada could go even further by enshrining the right to vote in its constitution using modernized language to protect certain methods of voting access. California, meanwhile, could expand voting rights to tens of thousands of citizens on parole for a felony conviction, joining 18 other states that don't disenfranchise anyone not in prison.
Finally, Oregon is one of the last states that allows individuals to donate unlimited sums of money directly to candidates in state elections, but that may soon change. A state Supreme Court ruling earlier this year overturned a precedent that had barred limits on campaign contributions, and now Democrats have placed an amendment on the ballot to codify lawmakers' ability to regulate campaign donations and ensure that the existence of such limits and disclosure requirements isn't dependent upon the ever-changing composition of the courts.
Below you can find a table summarizing all 24 ballot measures we're tracking, and you can find a spreadsheet version of it here.


alternet--2020-10-22--FBI reveals Iran and Russia are targeting the election — but there were several glaring omissions

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Christopher Wray announced on Wednesday in a last-minute press briefing that both Iran and Russia have obtained voter registration information and have `` taken specific actions to influence public opinion . ''
In particular , Ratcliffe said that Iran has been found to have sent `` spoofed emails designed to intimidate voters , incite social unrest , and damage President Trump . ''
He seemed to be referring to an incident described in a Washington Post story published right before the conference , which said the U.S. has concluded that Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right-wing group the Proud Boys to Democratic voters .
The messages appeared to target Democrats using data from digital databases known as `` voter files , '' some of which are commercially available .
They told recipients the Proud Boys were `` in possession of all your information '' and instructed voters to change their party registration and cast their ballots for Trump .
It 's not exactly clear the intent behind the emails .
Ratcliffe , a partisan Republican put in place by President Donald Trump because he wanted a crony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give contradicting explanations .
If the emails were intended to intimidate Democratic voters out of voting , that would presumably help Trump .
But if the emails were meant as a false flag , designed to make Trump supporters look dangerous , then that would `` damage President Trump , '' as Ratcliffe said .
It 's hard to see how Iran could have intended both outcomes .
It 's troubling that his explanation was this unclear , especially since he does n't have a reputation for independence and credibility .
( Ratcliffe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefing , refusing to give the press any opportunity to clarify their remarks . )
The other aim , though , seems quite plausible — the emails were designed to sow doubt , fear , and confusion about the election and its security .
When Wray spoke , he encouraged viewers to trust in the American election system .
`` You should be confident that your vote counts , '' Wray said .
`` Early , unverified claims to the contrary should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism .
We encourage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from reliable sources , namely , your state election officials .
And to be thoughtful , careful , and discerning consumers of information online . ''
He added : `` We are not going to tolerate foreign interference in our elections or any criminal activity that threatens the sanctity of your vote or undermines public confidence in the outcome of the election . ''
Neither Wray nor Ratcliffe mentioned any details about how Russia is interfering in the election or what it might use voter registration data for .
It 's not clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't have any details about Russian interference or if it is simply unwilling to share them for whatever reason .
This , too , is concerning , because the despite Ratcliffe 's claim that foreign election interference is n't a `` partisan '' issue , Trump himself has repeatedly tried to cover up Russia 's intervention in 2016 on his behalf .
There 's no way to be confident that is n't happening now .
But there was another even more glaring omission in the pair 's comments .
Neither mentioned the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or anyone else — is by far the greatest threat to the credibility of the election .
He has been fueling bogus conspiracy theories that the election is going to be `` rigged '' for months , and he has called mail-in ballots a `` hoax . ''
So there was something ridiculous about the press conference emphasizing the threat of foreign election interference , especially as Ratcliffe name-checked the president as authorizing the intelligence community 's efforts to protect American democracy .
`` The president has instructed me to keep the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
`` We will not tolerate foreign interference in our elections . ''
Wray 's remarks about `` early , unverified '' claims that votes wo n't count , and that state election officials are the most reliable sources of information about the process , could be read as an implicit rebuke to the president .
Trump has repeatedly contradicted local election officials in trying to spread doubt about the integrity of the vote .
And in urging Americans to be `` thoughtful , careful , and discerning consumers of information online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling them to be the opposite of Trump , who has spread absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theories on Twitter recently .
When asked to defend himself at an NBC News town hall , he said simply : `` l put it out there , people can decide for themselves . ''

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Christopher Wray announced on Wednesday in a last-minute press briefing that both Iran and Russia have obtained voter registration information and have "taken specific actions to influence public opinion."
In particular, Ratcliffe said that Iran has been found to have sent "spoofed emails designed to intimidate voters, incite social unrest, and damage President Trump." He seemed to be referring to an incident described in a Washington Post story published right before the conference, which said the U.S. has concluded that Iran had sent emails pretending to be from the right-wing group the Proud Boys to Democratic voters.
The Post explained:
The messages appeared to target Democrats using data from digital databases known as "voter files," some of which are commercially available. They told recipients the Proud Boys were "in possession of all your information" and instructed voters to change their party registration and cast their ballots for Trump.
It's not exactly clear the intent behind the emails. Ratcliffe, a partisan Republican put in place by President Donald Trump because he wanted a crony leading the intelligence community, seemed to give contradicting explanations. If the emails were intended to intimidate Democratic voters out of voting, that would presumably help Trump. But if the emails were meant as a false flag, designed to make Trump supporters look dangerous, then that would "damage President Trump," as Ratcliffe said. It's hard to see how Iran could have intended both outcomes. It's troubling that his explanation was this unclear, especially since he doesn't have a reputation for independence and credibility. (Ratcliffe and Wray took no questions at the briefing, refusing to give the press any opportunity to clarify their remarks.)
The other aim, though, seems quite plausible — the emails were designed to sow doubt, fear, and confusion about the election and its security. When Wray spoke, he encouraged viewers to trust in the American election system.
"You should be confident that your vote counts," Wray said. "Early, unverified claims to the contrary should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. We encourage everyone to seek election and voting information from reliable sources, namely, your state election officials. And to be thoughtful, careful, and discerning consumers of information online."
He added: "We are not going to tolerate foreign interference in our elections or any criminal activity that threatens the sanctity of your vote or undermines public confidence in the outcome of the election."
Neither Wray nor Ratcliffe mentioned any details about how Russia is interfering in the election or what it might use voter registration data for. It's not clear whether that's because the FBI doesn't have any details about Russian interference or if it is simply unwilling to share them for whatever reason. This, too, is concerning, because the despite Ratcliffe's claim that foreign election interference isn't a "partisan" issue, Trump himself has repeatedly tried to cover up Russia's intervention in 2016 on his behalf. There's no way to be confident that isn't happening now.
But there was another even more glaring omission in the pair's comments. Neither mentioned the fact that Trump — not Russia, Iran, or anyone else — is by far the greatest threat to the credibility of the election. He has been fueling bogus conspiracy theories that the election is going to be "rigged" for months, and he has called mail-in ballots a "hoax." So there was something ridiculous about the press conference emphasizing the threat of foreign election interference, especially as Ratcliffe name-checked the president as authorizing the intelligence community's efforts to protect American democracy.
"The president has instructed me to keep the country informed as appropriate," Ratcliffe said. "We will not tolerate foreign interference in our elections."
Wray's remarks about "early, unverified" claims that votes won't count, and that state election officials are the most reliable sources of information about the process, could be read as an implicit rebuke to the president. Trump has repeatedly contradicted local election officials in trying to spread doubt about the integrity of the vote.
And in urging Americans to be "thoughtful, careful, and discerning consumers of information online," Wray was, essentially, telling them to be the opposite of Trump, who has spread absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theories on Twitter recently. When asked to defend himself at an NBC News town hall, he said simply: "l put it out there, people can decide for themselves."


alternet--2020-10-22--Progressive journalism faces uphill battle as conservatives bankroll free right-wing propaganda site

Progressive journalism faces uphill battle as conservatives bankroll free right-wing propaganda sites

A new report highlights the decline in liberal journalism outlets over the last 15 years with more than 25 % of America 's newspaper publications and news communities slowly becoming `` news deserts '' amid the rise of right-wing publications .
A report titled , `` The Expanding News Desert , '' released by the University of North Carolina 's Hussman School of Journalism and Media which revealed statistics about the decline in publications and the disappearance of nearly half of the journalists in the United States .
According to the report , thousands of communities are now being described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically-charged journalism attempts to take centerstage .
Another issue that contributes to the war on journalism is the fast-paced production of algorithmically generated content .
In 2019 , the Lansing State Journal became aware of a website called , The Lansing Sun .
At first glance , the website looked like a typical news outlet , but a closer look revealed that the site was , in fact , part of a network of sites baring only the appearance of an actual community news outlet .
Additional reports expounded on Columbia University 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 450 websites in a network of local and business news organizations , each distributing thousands of algorithmically generated articles and a smaller number of reported stories . ''
By August of 2019 , the network of pseudo news outlets had expanded to more than 1,200 websites .
In fact , The New York Times recently revealed a former journalist by the name of Brian Timpone was behind the rise of the `` pay-for-play '' network which fuels the spread of right-wing propoganda .
`` Employees at the Illinois Opportunity Project , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles about specific Republican politicians in Illinois .
The group has paid $ 441,000 to Mr. Timpone 's companies , according to the nonprofit 's tax records . ''
- The New York Times According to one report , the ongoing scheme further perpetuates the war on `` the entire concept of media literacy . ''
`` The scheme takes advantage of how profit-chasing has blown up the entire concept of 'media literacy . '
When your local paper 's website is as larded up with spammy-looking ad crud as an illegal Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not possibly look any less 'real . '
And as newspapers die and people get more and more of their news from social media , fewer people recognize which news 'brands ' are supposed to be 'trustworthy . '
As these types of platforms continue to rise , American journalism is at stake .

A new report highlights the decline in liberal journalism outlets over the last 15 years with more than 25% of America's newspaper publications and news communities slowly becoming "news deserts" amid the rise of right-wing publications.
A report titled, "The Expanding News Desert," released by the University of North Carolina's Hussman School of Journalism and Media which revealed statistics about the decline in publications and the disappearance of nearly half of the journalists in the United States. According to the report, thousands of communities are now being described as "news deserts" as paid politically-charged journalism attempts to take centerstage.
Another issue that contributes to the war on journalism is the fast-paced production of algorithmically generated content. In 2019, the Lansing State Journal became aware of a website called, The Lansing Sun. At first glance, the website looked like a typical news outlet, but a closer look revealed that the site was, in fact, part of a network of sites baring only the appearance of an actual community news outlet.
Additional reports expounded on Columbia University's Tow Center's reporting of "at least 450 websites in a network of local and business news organizations, each distributing thousands of algorithmically generated articles and a smaller number of reported stories."
By August of 2019, the network of pseudo news outlets had expanded to more than 1,200 websites. In fact, The New York Times recently revealed a former journalist by the name of Brian Timpone was behind the rise of the "pay-for-play" network which fuels the spread of right-wing propoganda.
"Employees at the Illinois Opportunity Project, a conservative advocacy group, requested dozens of articles about specific Republican politicians in Illinois. The group has paid $441,000 to Mr. Timpone's companies, according to the nonprofit's tax records." - The New York Times
According to one report, the ongoing scheme further perpetuates the war on "the entire concept of media literacy."
"The scheme takes advantage of how profit-chasing has blown up the entire concept of 'media literacy.' When your local paper's website is as larded up with spammy-looking ad crud as an illegal Monday Night Football stream, these spare sites cannot possibly look any less 'real.' And as newspapers die and people get more and more of their news from social media, fewer people recognize which news 'brands' are supposed to be 'trustworthy.'
As these types of platforms continue to rise, American journalism is at stake.


alternet--2020-10-22--Lindsey Graham calls for investigation into flood of donations to defeat him

In May 2019 , Democrat Jaime Harrison formally launched a U.S. Senate campaign in South Carolina to challenge incumbent Lindsey Graham , a man who is simultaneously one of the most powerful people in government and one of the most despised politicians in the country .
From the start , Harrison has faced an uphill battle in South Carolina .
Challenging the head of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee in a state that falls in the deeply red column is n't for the faint of heart .
No doubt Lindsey Graham and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell thought his reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on other battleground races .
But Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell underestimated just how angry the actual silent majority truly is after four years of watching Lindsey Graham act like Donald Trump 's lap dog , protecting Trump from criminal investigations and stealing three Supreme Court seats along the way .
In short , Graham and McConnell underestimated YOU and our collective rage .
In the past year , Jaime Harrison received a tsunami of small donations , flooding the Harrison campaign with record-breaking donations that have topped $ 86 million , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News to beg Sean Hannity 's audience for money .
He even used the Senate Judiciary Committee pulpit during a hearing on Amy Coney Barrett 's Supreme Court nomination to complain about all the money , issuing a plea from inside the Senate building ( a big no-no ) to ask for donations to help him because he was delivering the Barrett nomination to the Senate , despite the public outcry .
It was not only pathetic , but it might have run afoul of the law , which `` prohibits soliciting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
In fact , Graham is so upset at the record donations that came into the South Carolina race that he has indicated he wants an investigation after the election .
In an interview with The Hill , Graham whined , `` Where 's all this money coming from ActBlue coming from ?
How easy would it be to just have a bunch of pre-paid credit cards ? ''
Yes , Lindsey Graham , I suppose it is entirely possible a shadowy , powerful Black Lives Matter foundation with secret billions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cards and made tens of thousands of $ 37 donations ( the average Harrison donation ) , one at a time , to unseat you .
Why ca n't Lindsey Graham just accept that not only is he personally deeply unpopular , but so is the Republican agenda ?
It is n't like we did n't try to tell him .
We called his offices .
We showed up at town halls .
We showed up in Washington , D.C. We even chased him in airports when we he refused to hear us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us at the ballot box on Nov. 3 and so will his corrupted colleagues .
And even if Lindsey Graham survives this challenge , we will be back for the next .
You can take that to the bank .
In the meantime , let 's keep pissing off Lindsey Graham with our small donations .
Our Daily Kos Elections team has compiled a list of 17 state legislative candidates from Arizona , Texas , North Carolina , and Michigan who need the most help as we head down the final stretch .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lindsey 's demise , but these races are every bit as critical or even more so than South Carolina 's because these state legislatures control the boundaries of congressional districts , something Republicans have successfully used to slice and dice our blue districts , gerrymandering our states into Republican-controlled havens that give people like Lindsey Graham undue power over the majority .
Afterward , you can send Lindsey Graham a copy of your donation as evidence for his `` investigation '' at campaign @ lindseygraham.com .
Bless his heart .

In May 2019, Democrat Jaime Harrison formally launched a U.S. Senate campaign in South Carolina to challenge incumbent Lindsey Graham, a man who is simultaneously one of the most powerful people in government and one of the most despised politicians in the country.
From the start, Harrison has faced an uphill battle in South Carolina. Challenging the head of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee in a state that falls in the deeply red column isn't for the faint of heart. No doubt Lindsey Graham and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell thought his reelection was in the bag and they could focus on other battleground races. But Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell underestimated just how angry the actual silent majority truly is after four years of watching Lindsey Graham act like Donald Trump's lap dog, protecting Trump from criminal investigations and stealing three Supreme Court seats along the way.
In short, Graham and McConnell underestimated YOU and our collective rage.
In the past year, Jaime Harrison received a tsunami of small donations, flooding the Harrison campaign with record-breaking donations that have topped $86 million, forcing Graham to appear almost nightly on Fox News to beg Sean Hannity's audience for money. He even used the Senate Judiciary Committee pulpit during a hearing on Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination to complain about all the money, issuing a plea from inside the Senate building (a big no-no) to ask for donations to help him because he was delivering the Barrett nomination to the Senate, despite the public outcry. It was not only pathetic, but it might have run afoul of the law, which "prohibits soliciting or receiving campaign contributions on federal property."
In fact, Graham is so upset at the record donations that came into the South Carolina race that he has indicated he wants an investigation after the election.
In an interview with The Hill, Graham whined, "Where's all this money coming from ActBlue coming from? How easy would it be to just have a bunch of pre-paid credit cards?"
Yes, Lindsey Graham, I suppose it is entirely possible a shadowy, powerful Black Lives Matter foundation with secret billions in the bank loaded up pre-paid 'antifa' cards and made tens of thousands of $37 donations (the average Harrison donation), one at a time, to unseat you.
Why can't Lindsey Graham just accept that not only is he personally deeply unpopular, but so is the Republican agenda? It isn't like we didn't try to tell him. We called his offices. We showed up at town halls. We showed up in Washington, D.C. We even chased him in airports when we he refused to hear us anywhere else. But he will hear us at the ballot box on Nov. 3 and so will his corrupted colleagues. And even if Lindsey Graham survives this challenge, we will be back for the next. You can take that to the bank.
In the meantime, let's keep pissing off Lindsey Graham with our small donations. Our Daily Kos Elections team has compiled a list of 17 state legislative candidates from Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, and Michigan who need the most help as we head down the final stretch. Sure it feels good to donate to Lindsey's demise, but these races are every bit as critical or even more so than South Carolina's because these state legislatures control the boundaries of congressional districts, something Republicans have successfully used to slice and dice our blue districts, gerrymandering our states into Republican-controlled havens that give people like Lindsey Graham undue power over the majority.
Afterward, you can send Lindsey Graham a copy of your donation as evidence for his "investigation" at campaign@lindseygraham.com. Bless his heart.


alternet--2020-10-22--Why one neurology expert says Trump’s ‘forward-leaning posture’ and ‘body tics’ are cause for seriou

Why one neurology expert says Trump’s ‘forward-leaning posture’ and ‘body tics’ are cause for serious concern

A professor of Neurology at George Washington University says he believes there may be legitimate concerns over President Donald J. Trump 's `` forward-listing posture '' that goes beyond the comical memes and gif responses normally shared on social media .
`` I know something about political figures and observable signs of illness from afar , '' Richard E. Cytowic M.D .
wrote in Psychology Today .
`` … The American public deserves an accurate account of our president 's health . ''
`` While most frequently observed in Parkinson 's Disease , the bent posture so evident in Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dementia , movement disorders of the basal ganglia , and as the side effect of certain medications , '' Cytowic continued .
`` Also noted are the sudden , jerking movements of Trump 's right arm .
Since they occur only on one side , the prefix `` hemi '' is applied , while `` ballistic '' means sudden or flinging in the manner of a projectile .
Trump 's hemiballistic arm movements are evident in news clips from Memorial Day ( also here via C-Span ) at the Tomb of the Unknown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and forward tilt .
He is seen to grab his wayward arm with the left one in an effort to keep it under control . ''
President Trump at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day .
While Trump `` aced '' a 10-minute mental status screening in August , Cytowic said `` the test is one an average adult should easily pass .
To a neurologist , his way of walking , posture , and jerky movements are concerning and in want of explanation . ''
According to Cytowic , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balance and gait issues similar to those observed in Trump can have degenerative brain disease in the frontal lobes , such as fronto-temporal dementia or Pick 's Disease .
Other possibilities are normal pressure hydrocephalus , sensory ataxia , peripheral neuropathy , small lacunar strokes in the basal ganglia , supranuclear palsy , the effects of too many medications , and Parkinson 's Disease , which can begin on one side and also show early cognitive impairment . ''
Regardless , `` The president is a public figure whose judgment we must trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American public is entitled to know about his neurological health given the enormous responsibilities placed on our Commander in Chief . ''

A professor of Neurology at George Washington University says he believes there may be legitimate concerns over President Donald J. Trump's "forward-listing posture" that goes beyond the comical memes and gif responses normally shared on social media.
"I know something about political figures and observable signs of illness from afar," Richard E. Cytowic M.D. wrote in Psychology Today. "… The American public deserves an accurate account of our president's health."
"While most frequently observed in Parkinson's Disease, the bent posture so evident in Trump may also be seen in Alzheimer's Dementia, movement disorders of the basal ganglia, and as the side effect of certain medications," Cytowic continued. "Also noted are the sudden, jerking movements of Trump's right arm. Since they occur only on one side, the prefix "hemi" is applied, while "ballistic" means sudden or flinging in the manner of a projectile. Trump's hemiballistic arm movements are evident in news clips from Memorial Day (also here via C-Span) at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, as are his uncontrolled swaying and forward tilt. He is seen to grab his wayward arm with the left one in an effort to keep it under control."
President Trump at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day. youtu.be
While Trump "aced" a 10-minute mental status screening in August, Cytowic said "the test is one an average adult should easily pass. To a neurologist, his way of walking, posture, and jerky movements are concerning and in want of explanation."
According to Cytowic, "It is true that individuals who have balance and gait issues similar to those observed in Trump can have degenerative brain disease in the frontal lobes, such as fronto-temporal dementia or Pick's Disease. Other possibilities are normal pressure hydrocephalus, sensory ataxia, peripheral neuropathy, small lacunar strokes in the basal ganglia, supranuclear palsy, the effects of too many medications, and Parkinson's Disease, which can begin on one side and also show early cognitive impairment."
Regardless, "The president is a public figure whose judgment we must trust," Cytowic said. "The American public is entitled to know about his neurological health given the enormous responsibilities placed on our Commander in Chief."


alternet--2020-10-22--Watch: Maine Republican stuns debate moderators and opponent with blatantly racist commentary

Incumbent Democrat Chellie Pingree of Maine is facing Republican challenger Jay Allen , for her 1st District seat in a couple of weeks .
On Tuesday night , the two faced off in a debate .
Many issues were covered in the debate : public health , where Allen blamed nursing homes for not following the `` rules '' of public health , while also trying to say that mandating mask wearing was not a good public health policy .
Rep. Pingree mentioned that wearing a mask was , at the very least , `` a benevolent act for everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone would refuse to wear one anyway .
She also explained that the concept of `` low risk , '' during these times is relative and therefore mask wearing is very important for everyone to participate in .
This was the tenor of the First Congressional District Debate .
Oh , Jay Allen also wore a tie with an American flag pattern all over it , talked about creating a social security sliding scale that would get rid of some people 's social security benefits , and was not able to give an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Affordable Care Act .
Super classy stuff .
But this was all overshadowed when race and law enforcement 's relationship to race came up .
Allen began by bringing up some tangled sentence about law enforcement personnel having Black friends and other white people have Black friends .
Seriously .
The point was that we already have laws that say you can not discriminate against Black people and so there is n't systemic racism .
`` People in general are not racist . ''
He then blamed issues in the Black community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An old , factually incorrect , and racist trope .
Then moderators asked about `` qualified immunity '' laws that give law enforcement blank checks to brutalize citizens with impunity .
Rep. Pingree explained that there are inequities in our society that fall along racial lines and to deny that is a non-starter in trying to fix it .
She spoke about the need for programs that helped disadvantaged groups of citizens and her support for a task force that would look into modifying `` immunity laws '' for police as they frequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malfeasance and accountability .
Allen wanted to jump in to give his two-racist cents and talk about how police are awesome and … that , I guess ?
He then explained that there are programs for disadvantaged groups already .
He must be talking about the ones that Republican politicians in Maine have been attacking and cutting funding from for about a decade .
He then went on to give what is arguably the most concise racist logic about law enforcement 's use of violence against Black people you will ever read .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying was that Black people are more likely to be shot by police because Allen thinks the Black family unit has eroded , Allen went full-blown bananas cuckoo clock .
Everyone took a slight pause there , trying to compute the confusing racist man with the American flag tie .
Later on Allen called into question the science behind climate change .
Just more of the Grand Old Party 's stale greatest hits .

Incumbent Democrat Chellie Pingree of Maine is facing Republican challenger Jay Allen, for her 1st District seat in a couple of weeks. On Tuesday night, the two faced off in a debate. Many issues were covered in the debate: public health, where Allen blamed nursing homes for not following the "rules" of public health, while also trying to say that mandating mask wearing was not a good public health policy. Rep. Pingree mentioned that wearing a mask was, at the very least, "a benevolent act for everyone else," and wondered aloud why anyone would refuse to wear one anyway. She also explained that the concept of "low risk," during these times is relative and therefore mask wearing is very important for everyone to participate in.
This was the tenor of the First Congressional District Debate. Oh, Jay Allen also wore a tie with an American flag pattern all over it, talked about creating a social security sliding scale that would get rid of some people's social security benefits, and was not able to give an actual replacement solution to getting rid of the Affordable Care Act. Super classy stuff. But this was all overshadowed when race and law enforcement's relationship to race came up.
Allen began by bringing up some tangled sentence about law enforcement personnel having Black friends and other white people have Black friends. Seriously. The point was that we already have laws that say you cannot discriminate against Black people and so there isn't systemic racism. "People in general are not racist." He then blamed issues in the Black community on homes "without fathers." An old, factually incorrect, and racist trope. Then moderators asked about "qualified immunity" laws that give law enforcement blank checks to brutalize citizens with impunity.
Rep. Pingree explained that there are inequities in our society that fall along racial lines and to deny that is a non-starter in trying to fix it. She spoke about the need for programs that helped disadvantaged groups of citizens and her support for a task force that would look into modifying "immunity laws" for police as they frequently become great obstacles in investigations of police malfeasance and accountability.
Allen wanted to jump in to give his two-racist cents and talk about how police are awesome and … that, I guess? He then explained that there are programs for disadvantaged groups already. He must be talking about the ones that Republican politicians in Maine have been attacking and cutting funding from for about a decade. He then went on to give what is arguably the most concise racist logic about law enforcement's use of violence against Black people you will ever read. When asked if what he was basically saying was that Black people are more likely to be shot by police because Allen thinks the Black family unit has eroded, Allen went full-blown bananas cuckoo clock.
JAY ALLEN: No. They [police] are less likely. Because they know that if they shoot a Black person then they will face an inquisition if they shoot that Black person. So they have to be pretty sure that that Black person needs to be shot.
[Gulp]
Everyone took a slight pause there, trying to compute the confusing racist man with the American flag tie. Later on Allen called into question the science behind climate change. Just more of the Grand Old Party's stale greatest hits.


alternet--2020-10-22--How to stop Trump from stealing the election: Robert Reich

Trump is likely to claim that mail-in ballots , made necessary by the pandemic , are rife with `` fraud like you 've never seen , '' as he alleged during his debate with Joe Biden – although it 's been shown that Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit voter fraud .
So we should expect him to dispute election results in any Republican-led state he loses by a small margin – such as Arizona , Florida , Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , or Wisconsin .
The 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate gets a majority of the votes in the Electoral College needed to win the presidency ( now 270 ) – because , for example , Trump contests votes in several key states – the decision about who 'll be president goes to the House , where each of the nation 's 50 states gets one vote .
That means less-populous Republican-dominated states like Alaska ( with one House member , who 's a Republican ) would have the same clout as large Democratic states like California ( with 53 House members , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So if the decision goes to the House , Trump has the advantage right now : 26 of state congressional delegations in the House are now controlled by Republicans , and 22 by Democrats ( two — Pennsylvania and Michigan — are essentially tied ) .
But he wo n't necessarily keep that advantage after the election .
If the decision goes to the House , it would be made by lawmakers elected in November , who will be sworn in on January 3 – three days before they 'll convene to decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is focusing on races that could tip the balance of state delegations – not just in Pennsylvania and Michigan but any others within reach .
`` It 's sad we have to plan this way , '' she wrote recently , `` but it 's what we must do to ensure the election is not stolen . ''
The targets are Alaska ( where replacing the one House member , now a Republican , with a Democrat , would result in a vote for Biden ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now tied , so flipping one would be enough ) , Florida ( now 14 Republicans and 13 Democrats , but 3 Republicans are retiring ) and Michigan ( where Republicans now have 6 members and Democrats 7 ) .
Congress has decided contested elections only three times in U.S. history , in 1801 , 1825 , and 1877 .
But we might face another because Donald Trump will stop at nothing to retain his power .
That 's why it 's even more critical for you to vote .
Make this a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the ballot , and stop Trump from stealing this election .
How to Stop Trump from Stealing the Election | Robert Reich

Trump is likely to claim that mail-in ballots, made necessary by the pandemic, are rife with "fraud like you've never seen," as he alleged during his debate with Joe Biden – although it's been shown that Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit voter fraud.
So we should expect him to dispute election results in any Republican-led state he loses by a small margin – such as Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin.
The 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides that if state electors deadlock or neither candidate gets a majority of the votes in the Electoral College needed to win the presidency (now 270) – because, for example, Trump contests votes in several key states – the decision about who'll be president goes to the House, where each of the nation's 50 states gets one vote.
That means less-populous Republican-dominated states like Alaska (with one House member, who's a Republican) would have the same clout as large Democratic states like California (with 53 House members, 45 of whom are Democrats).
So if the decision goes to the House, Trump has the advantage right now: 26 of state congressional delegations in the House are now controlled by Republicans, and 22 by Democrats (two — Pennsylvania and Michigan — are essentially tied).
But he won't necessarily keep that advantage after the election. If the decision goes to the House, it would be made by lawmakers elected in November, who will be sworn in on January 3 – three days before they'll convene to decide the winner of the election.
Which is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is focusing on races that could tip the balance of state delegations – not just in Pennsylvania and Michigan but any others within reach. "It's sad we have to plan this way," she wrote recently, "but it's what we must do to ensure the election is not stolen."
The targets are Alaska (where replacing the one House member, now a Republican, with a Democrat, would result in a vote for Biden), Montana (ditto), Pennsylvania (now tied, so flipping one would be enough), Florida (now 14 Republicans and 13 Democrats, but 3 Republicans are retiring) and Michigan (where Republicans now have 6 members and Democrats 7).
Congress has decided contested elections only three times in U.S. history, in 1801, 1825, and 1877. But we might face another because Donald Trump will stop at nothing to retain his power.
That's why it's even more critical for you to vote. Make this a blowout victory for Joe Biden and Democrats down the ballot, and stop Trump from stealing this election.
Watch:


alternet--2020-10-22--'Disturbingly Kafkaesque': Judge slams Betsy DeVos for denying 94% of student debt forgiveness claim

'Disturbingly Kafkaesque': Judge slams Betsy DeVos for denying 94% of student debt forgiveness claims

Arguing that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos had undermined the agreement , a federal judge on Tuesday denied approval for a class action settlement over the Trump administration 's handling of a student debt forgiveness program .
U.S. District Judge William Alsup said DeVos had subverted the agreement by rejecting tens of thousands of applications from defrauded students without adequate explanation , Politico first reported .
Alsup , a Bill Clinton appointee , threatened to block DeVos from denying any additional applications , calling the denial notices `` potentially unlawful '' and the process faced by borrowers `` disturbingly Kafkaesque @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to speed up the processing of about 160,000 backlogged applications , some of which had been pending for years .
DeVos has thus far denied 94 % of applications , approving just 4,400 claims while denying 74,000 others , according to Alsup .
The department told borrowers they could appeal the decision but did not say why it had denied the applications , the judge said .
`` All may not be entitled to relief , but all are entitled to a comprehensible answer , '' Alsup wrote .
`` For 18 months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the grounds that such answers required backbreaking effort and , thus , substantial time .
Now , the secretary has begun issuing decisions at breakneck speed .
But most are a perfunctory 'insufficient evidence ' — without explanation . ''
Alsup also said he would consider requiring DeVos to be deposed in a probe of the administration 's handling of the claims and authorized depositions for up to five Education Department officials .
The judge granted preliminary approval for the settlement in May , requiring the department to process the backlogged claims within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ processing the applications , hundreds of students objected to the settlement .
About 650 people attended a virtual hearing to raise concerns about the settlement earlier this month .
`` Students came together to speak up for themselves and show the court the massive scope of the trauma they have endured at the hands of the Department of Education , and the courts are listening , '' Eileen Connor , the legal director at Harvard Law School 's Project on Predatory Student Lending , which represents the students , told Politico .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of litigation in which we depose Department of Education officials to explain their actions under oath . ''
Alsup noted in his ruling that the Obama administration had approved more than 99 % of `` borrower defense '' claims , which allow students to seek debt relief if they were defrauded by for-profit colleges .
Under DeVos , the department has rejected 89.9 % of applications .
The Department of Education said it is `` studying the ruling . ''
`` It 's important to understand that no claim is 'denied . '
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimant was n't enrolled in an eligible program at an eligible date , '' department spokeswoman Angela Morabito told The Hill .
`` Others claims do n't demonstrate financial harm .
Just because a claim was filed does not make it valid and eligible for taxpayer-funded relief .
The department is following the publicly available process for resolving claims as quickly as possible , so those students who are eligible and were harmed get the relief they deserve . ''
DeVos revised rules related to the borrower defense program in 2019 , prompting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bill blocking the policy .
`` These for-profit colleges are the coronavirus of higher education , '' Sen. Dick Durbin , D-Ill. , said at the time , adding that DeVos ' rules made it `` extremely difficult , if not impossible , for students to find relief . ''
But President Donald Trump vetoed the bill and allowed DeVos to implement the new rules in July .
Rep. Susie Lee , D-Nev. , the lead sponsor of the bill , said Trump 's veto `` sent a message to the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predatory schools than protecting defrauded students and veterans . ''
DeVos has repeatedly run afoul of the courts in the borrower defense litigation .
Last year , a judge held the education secretary in contempt for violating a court order by trying to collect debt payments from thousands of students defrauded by for-profit colleges .
`` At best , it is gross negligence , '' U.S. Magistrate Jude Sallie Kim said at the time .
`` At worst , it 's an intentional flouting of my order . ''
Arne Duncan , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former President Barack Obama , said DeVos `` consistently chooses the powerful over the vulnerable . ''
`` Luckily , she is not very good at it , '' he added , `` and very consistently loses in court . ''

Arguing that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos had undermined the agreement, a federal judge on Tuesday denied approval for a class action settlement over the Trump administration's handling of a student debt forgiveness program.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup said DeVos had subverted the agreement by rejecting tens of thousands of applications from defrauded students without adequate explanation, Politico first reported.
Alsup, a Bill Clinton appointee, threatened to block DeVos from denying any additional applications, calling the denial notices "potentially unlawful" and the process faced by borrowers "disturbingly Kafkaesque."
The May settlement required DeVos to speed up the processing of about 160,000 backlogged applications, some of which had been pending for years. DeVos has thus far denied 94% of applications, approving just 4,400 claims while denying 74,000 others, according to Alsup. The department told borrowers they could appeal the decision but did not say why it had denied the applications, the judge said.
"All may not be entitled to relief, but all are entitled to a comprehensible answer," Alsup wrote. "For 18 months, the secretary refused, largely on the grounds that such answers required backbreaking effort and, thus, substantial time. Now, the secretary has begun issuing decisions at breakneck speed. But most are a perfunctory 'insufficient evidence' — without explanation."
Alsup also said he would consider requiring DeVos to be deposed in a probe of the administration's handling of the claims and authorized depositions for up to five Education Department officials.
The judge granted preliminary approval for the settlement in May, requiring the department to process the backlogged claims within 18 months. As the department began processing the applications, hundreds of students objected to the settlement. About 650 people attended a virtual hearing to raise concerns about the settlement earlier this month.
"Students came together to speak up for themselves and show the court the massive scope of the trauma they have endured at the hands of the Department of Education, and the courts are listening," Eileen Connor, the legal director at Harvard Law School's Project on Predatory Student Lending, which represents the students, told Politico. "We look forward to the next stage of litigation in which we depose Department of Education officials to explain their actions under oath."
Alsup noted in his ruling that the Obama administration had approved more than 99% of "borrower defense" claims, which allow students to seek debt relief if they were defrauded by for-profit colleges. Under DeVos, the department has rejected 89.9% of applications.
The Department of Education said it is "studying the ruling."
"It's important to understand that no claim is 'denied.' Many are simply ineligible, because the claimant wasn't enrolled in an eligible program at an eligible date," department spokeswoman Angela Morabito told The Hill. "Others claims don't demonstrate financial harm. Just because a claim was filed does not make it valid and eligible for taxpayer-funded relief. The department is following the publicly available process for resolving claims as quickly as possible, so those students who are eligible and were harmed get the relief they deserve."
DeVos revised rules related to the borrower defense program in 2019, prompting some Republicans to join Democrats to pass a bill blocking the policy.
"These for-profit colleges are the coronavirus of higher education," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said at the time, adding that DeVos' rules made it "extremely difficult, if not impossible, for students to find relief."
But President Donald Trump vetoed the bill and allowed DeVos to implement the new rules in July.
Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev., the lead sponsor of the bill, said Trump's veto "sent a message to the American people that he cares more about enriching predatory schools than protecting defrauded students and veterans."
DeVos has repeatedly run afoul of the courts in the borrower defense litigation. Last year, a judge held the education secretary in contempt for violating a court order by trying to collect debt payments from thousands of students defrauded by for-profit colleges.
"At best, it is gross negligence," U.S. Magistrate Jude Sallie Kim said at the time. "At worst, it's an intentional flouting of my order."
Arne Duncan, who served as the secretary of education under former President Barack Obama, said DeVos "consistently chooses the powerful over the vulnerable."
"Luckily, she is not very good at it," he added, "and very consistently loses in court."


alternet--2020-10-22--Why Democrats and experts think Amy Coney Barrett is key to the attack on Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act has seen dozens of legal challenges , but it could now be at its most vulnerable , many health policy scholars and advocates believe .
And this is after a Republican-dominated Senate could n't kill it , Republican governors who refused to expand Medicaid could n't end it , and two prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings kept it alive .
The law is up for another challenge Nov. 10 , 2020 , once again before the U.S. Supreme Court .
The issue is whether the elimination of a tax penalty for failing to have health insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It involves a legal issue called severability , and it 's anyone 's guess about how the court will decide .
But Republicans have high hopes that the court will strike down the law .
One of President Trump 's campaign promises in 2016 was to “ repeal and replace the disaster of Obamacare . ''
The makeup of the court that day will be different from the court that originally agreed on March 2 , 2020 to hear the case .
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept. 18 , 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Republicans in Congress – most of whom vehemently oppose the law – are aiming to confirm a justice in record time to replace her .
Ginsburg consistently voted in favor of the ACA .
Given Republican challenges to the law over 10 years , health care advocates and Democrats are concerned .
That is not only because of the speed with which Republicans are moving to seat a new justice .
Health policy experts and those who back the law are concerned that the nominee , Judge Amy Coney Barrett , may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice John Roberts wrote a majority opinion in the 5-4 decision in 2012 upholding the ACA , Barrett wrote in a legal journal that Roberts had “ pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute . ''
On Oct. 13 , Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin asked Barrett in congressional hearings about her views on the ACA .
She replied by saying , in part , that “ I am not hostile to the ACA . ''
We hope these articles from our archive will help you understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case that led to Nov. 10 This latest challenge began when Republican attorneys general or governors of 20 states , led by Texas , challenged the legality of the ACA in 2018 based on the 2017 tax law .
( That first case was Texas v. U.S. ) In December 2018 , a Texas judge ruled in favor of the Republican challenge .
A previous landmark case in 2012 had ruled that the penalty for not having insurance was basically a tax .
And because the 2017 tax law zeroed out that penalty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ACA was unconstitutional .
Simon Haeder and Valarie Blake explained in this article : Democratic leaders and many others were stunned .
In response to O'Connor 's ruling , states led by Democratic governors and attorneys general jumped in and appealed the Texas ruling .
A year later , in December 2019 , a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit essentially split the issue raised in O'Connor 's ruling in two .
The matter remained unsettled and seemed destined for the U.S. Supreme Court .
On March 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreed to review the case .
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Sept. 18 , 2020 .
On Sept. 24 , 2020 , President Trump issued an executive order that aims to replace parts of the ACA , should the Supreme Court strike down the law .
On Sept. 26 , President Trump announced his intention to nominate Amy Coney Barrett , who has served as an appeals court judge for three years , to fill Ginsburg 's seat .
Trump has been steadfast in his resistance to the ACA , which , among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with preexisting conditions .
This is a very popular component of the health care law .
In his Sept. 24 executive order , Trump tried to assure the American public that they would still be able to obtain insurance , regardless of preexisting conditions , even without the ACA .
Haeder had this to say : Editor 's note : This article is a roundup of articles from The Conversation 's archives .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Lynne Anderson, The Conversation
The Affordable Care Act has seen dozens of legal challenges, but it could now be at its most vulnerable, many health policy scholars and advocates believe. And this is after a Republican-dominated Senate couldn't kill it, Republican governors who refused to expand Medicaid couldn't end it, and two prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings kept it alive.
The law is up for another challenge Nov. 10, 2020, once again before the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue is whether the elimination of a tax penalty for failing to have health insurance now makes the entire law unconstitutional. It involves a legal issue called severability, and it's anyone's guess about how the court will decide. But Republicans have high hopes that the court will strike down the law. One of President Trump's campaign promises in 2016 was to “repeal and replace the disaster of Obamacare."
The makeup of the court that day will be different from the court that originally agreed on March 2, 2020 to hear the case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept. 18, 2020, leaving the Supreme Court with eight justices. Republicans in Congress – most of whom vehemently oppose the law – are aiming to confirm a justice in record time to replace her. Ginsburg consistently voted in favor of the ACA. Given Republican challenges to the law over 10 years, health care advocates and Democrats are concerned.
That is not only because of the speed with which Republicans are moving to seat a new justice. Health policy experts and those who back the law are concerned that the nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, may not back the law. After Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a majority opinion in the 5-4 decision in 2012 upholding the ACA, Barrett wrote in a legal journal that Roberts had “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute." On Oct. 13, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin asked Barrett in congressional hearings about her views on the ACA. She replied by saying, in part, that “I am not hostile to the ACA."
Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifying before Congress.
The current case is called California v. Texas.
We hope these articles from our archive will help you understand the complicated developments.
1. The case that led to Nov. 10
This latest challenge began when Republican attorneys general or governors of 20 states, led by Texas, challenged the legality of the ACA in 2018 based on the 2017 tax law. (That first case was Texas v. U.S.) In December 2018, a Texas judge ruled in favor of the Republican challenge. A previous landmark case in 2012 had ruled that the penalty for not having insurance was basically a tax. And because the 2017 tax law zeroed out that penalty, the judge ruled, the entire ACA was unconstitutional.
Simon Haeder and Valarie Blake explained in this article:
(Judge Reed) O'Connor suggested that people will feel nonetheless beholden to follow the law even without the penalty…Next, O'Connor held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as a tax. With Congress reducing the individual mandate penalty to zero in the 2017 tax bill, the plaintiffs in the Texas case argue it no longer functions as such.
2. The second ruling
Democratic leaders and many others were stunned. In response to O'Connor's ruling, states led by Democratic governors and attorneys general jumped in and appealed the Texas ruling. A year later, in December 2019, a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit essentially split the issue raised in O'Connor's ruling in two. The matter remained unsettled and seemed destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Haeder explains in this article:
The Fifth Circuit Appeals Court on Dec. 18, 2019 agreed with regard to the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate. The judges punted, however, on the crucial question of severability by tasking the original judge to reexamine what parts of the ACA should fall with it.
While the verdict left the ACA standing for now, it added potentially years of uncertainty. An ultimate showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court appears inevitable.
On March 2, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Sept. 18, 2020. On Sept. 24, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order that aims to replace parts of the ACA, should the Supreme Court strike down the law. On Sept. 26, President Trump announced his intention to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, who has served as an appeals court judge for three years, to fill Ginsburg's seat.
3. The recent executive order
Trump has been steadfast in his resistance to the ACA, which, among other things, includes protections for people with preexisting conditions. This is a very popular component of the health care law. In his Sept. 24 executive order, Trump tried to assure the American public that they would still be able to obtain insurance, regardless of preexisting conditions, even without the ACA.
Haeder had this to say:
When it comes to Trump's executive order, the topic that received the most public attention – the guarantee that “Americans with preexisting conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates" – carries no legal weight nor clear explanation of how it would be achieved or funded.
More generally, after years of promising a detailed plan, the America-First Healthcare Plan focuses primarily on past actions. It also spends just 491 words on laying out a set of objectives – lower costs, better care and more choice – yet does not provide a mechanism or road map for how to implement them.
Editor's note: This article is a roundup of articles from The Conversation's archives.
Lynne Anderson, Senior Health + Medicine Editor, The Conversation
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-10-22--How sexist abuse of women in Congress amounts to political violence

From plans to kidnap Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 's being called a “ f—ing b— '' by her colleague Rep. Ted Yoho , it 's been a nasty year for women in American politics .
Now , some women who 've been targets of such misogyny want to put this problem on the congressional agenda .
On Sept. 24 , House Democrats Rashida Tlaib , Ocasio-Cortez , Ilhan Omar , Ayanna Pressley and Jackie Speier introduced a resolution – a largely symbolic congressional statement that carries no legal weight but provides moral support on certain issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a global phenomenon .
House Resolution 1151 , which is currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee , calls on the government to take steps to mitigate this violence in the United States and abroad .
Violence is often equated with physical injury , but in policy and academic research the term is defined more broadly to mean a violation of integrity .
Violence is any act that harms a person 's autonomy , dignity , self-determination and value as a human being .
H.R .
1151 marks an important moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of American women are running for and winning public office , their growing political power has been met with death and rape threats , sexist abuse and disparagement – including by the president of the United States himself .
Such attacks undermine not only gender equality but hurt democracy itself , my research shows .
Tlaib was the first to enter the term “ violence against women in politics '' into the congressional record , with a one-minute floor speech in March .
Calling it a “ global problem , '' she emphasized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States .
My family and I constantly face death threats and harassment . ''
In July , after Rep. Yoho 's crude and sexist insult on the steps of the U.S. Capitol , Ocasio-Cortez also addressed gender-based violence in the House .
In a widely reported speech , she said “ this issue is not about one incident . ''
Ocasio-Cortez described what happened to her as a “ cultural '' problem – one in which men feel entitled to “ accost women without remorse and with a sense of impunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many women on Capitol Hill .
On July 22 , the Democratic Women 's Caucus issued a statement declaring “ foul and personal attacks meant to intimidate or silence women can not be tolerated . ''
The next month , more than 100 women lawmakers , including Democratic women in Congress and female parliamentarians from Germany , Pakistan , South Africa and beyond , sent a letter to Facebook urging the social media company to more quickly delete abusive and threatening posts against female candidates and remove digitally manipulated images – like “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that spread disinformation about female politicians .
Shortly after , the anti-workplace-harassment group Time 's Up Now launched a new campaign , # WeHaveHerBack , calling on news media to avoid gender and racial stereotypes in covering female candidates during the 2020 election cycle .
Efforts to silence women in political spaces cause collateral damage for democracy , studies show .
Violence restricts the scope of political debate , disrupts political work and deters women from entering public service .
That , in fact , is the goal of political violence .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewpoints through assaults on candidates and partisan voter intimidation .
Misogyny adds another level to political violence .
As I explain in my new book , “ Violence against Women in Politics , '' sexist attacks against female politicians are not only driven by policy differences .
They also question women 's rights , as women , to participate in the political process at all .
The most common form of violence against women in politics is psychological violence like death threats and online abuse , according to data from international organizations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement has exposed , sexual violence is also a problem in U.S. state legislatures and elected assemblies around the world .
Actual physical violence against women in politics is rare , but it does occur .
The assassination of Brazilian city councilwoman Marielle Franco in 2018 and the attempted murder of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011 are examples .
When targeting women of color like Franco , such attacks often reflect a combination of sexism and racism .
Rep. Jackie Speier has called the violence she and her colleagues have experienced in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
The perpetrators need not be men : Women themselves may internalize sexism – and racism – and deploy it against other women .
In September , Marjorie Taylor Greene , a Republican congressional candidate from Georgia , uploaded a threatening photo to Facebook in which she was holding a gun alongside images of Reps. Ocasio-Cortez , Omar and Tlaib , all women of color .
Facebook soon removed the threatening image .
[ Deep knowledge , daily .
Sign up for The Conversation 's newsletter . ]
Violence should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights , says Rep. Pressley .
“ We have every right to do our jobs , '' she said on Sept. 24 , “ and represent our communities without fearing for our safety . ''
Mona Lena Krook , Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Women & Politics Ph.D .
Program , Rutgers University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Mona Lena Krook, Rutgers University
From plans to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's being called a “f—ing b—" by her colleague Rep. Ted Yoho, it's been a nasty year for women in American politics.
Now, some women who've been targets of such misogyny want to put this problem on the congressional agenda.
On Sept. 24, House Democrats Rashida Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Jackie Speier introduced a resolution – a largely symbolic congressional statement that carries no legal weight but provides moral support on certain issues – recognizing violence against women in politics as a global phenomenon. House Resolution 1151, which is currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee, calls on the government to take steps to mitigate this violence in the United States and abroad.
Violence is often equated with physical injury, but in policy and academic research the term is defined more broadly to mean a violation of integrity. Violence is any act that harms a person's autonomy, dignity, self-determination and value as a human being.
H.R. 1151 marks an important moment in American politics. As record numbers of American women are running for and winning public office, their growing political power has been met with death and rape threats, sexist abuse and disparagement – including by the president of the United States himself.
Such attacks undermine not only gender equality but hurt democracy itself, my research shows.
Growing visibility in American politics
Tlaib was the first to enter the term “violence against women in politics" into the congressional record, with a one-minute floor speech in March. Calling it a “global problem," she emphasized, “I also mean here in the United States. My family and I constantly face death threats and harassment."
In July, after Rep. Yoho's crude and sexist insult on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, Ocasio-Cortez also addressed gender-based violence in the House. In a widely reported speech, she said “this issue is not about one incident."
Ocasio-Cortez described what happened to her as a “cultural" problem – one in which men feel entitled to “accost women without remorse and with a sense of impunity."
Her remarks apparently resonated with many women on Capitol Hill. On July 22, the Democratic Women's Caucus issued a statement declaring “foul and personal attacks meant to intimidate or silence women cannot be tolerated."
The next month, more than 100 women lawmakers, including Democratic women in Congress and female parliamentarians from Germany, Pakistan, South Africa and beyond, sent a letter to Facebook urging the social media company to more quickly delete abusive and threatening posts against female candidates and remove digitally manipulated images – like “deepfake" videos of Nancy Pelosi – that spread disinformation about female politicians.
Shortly after, the anti-workplace-harassment group Time's Up Now launched a new campaign, #WeHaveHerBack, calling on news media to avoid gender and racial stereotypes in covering female candidates during the 2020 election cycle.
Political violence against women
Efforts to silence women in political spaces cause collateral damage for democracy, studies show. Violence restricts the scope of political debate, disrupts political work and deters women from entering public service.
That, in fact, is the goal of political violence. It seeks to exclude or suppress opposing political viewpoints through assaults on candidates and partisan voter intimidation.
Misogyny adds another level to political violence. As I explain in my new book, “Violence against Women in Politics," sexist attacks against female politicians are not only driven by policy differences. They also question women's rights, as women, to participate in the political process at all.
The most common form of violence against women in politics is psychological violence like death threats and online abuse, according to data from international organizations and scholars. But as the #MeToo movement has exposed, sexual violence is also a problem in U.S. state legislatures and elected assemblies around the world.
Actual physical violence against women in politics is rare, but it does occur.
The assassination of Brazilian city councilwoman Marielle Franco in 2018 and the attempted murder of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011 are examples. When targeting women of color like Franco, such attacks often reflect a combination of sexism and racism.
Costs to democracy and gender equality
Rep. Jackie Speier has called the violence she and her colleagues have experienced in Congress a form of “weaponized sexism."
The perpetrators need not be men: Women themselves may internalize sexism – and racism – and deploy it against other women.
In September, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican congressional candidate from Georgia, uploaded a threatening photo to Facebook in which she was holding a gun alongside images of Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and Tlaib, all women of color. Facebook soon removed the threatening image.
[Deep knowledge, daily.Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]
Violence should not be the cost of exercising women's political rights, says Rep. Pressley.
“We have every right to do our jobs," she said on Sept. 24, “and represent our communities without fearing for our safety."
Mona Lena Krook, Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Women & Politics Ph.D. Program, Rutgers University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.