truthout--2020-09-17--A Conservative Lawyer Is Holding Voter Fraud Meetings With Republicans Only

Starting in early spring , as the coronavirus took hold , a conservative lawyer at the forefront of raising alarms about voting by mail held multiple private briefings exclusively for Republican state election officials , according to previously unreported public records .
The lawyer , the Heritage Foundation ’ s Hans von Spakovsky , is a leading purveyor of the notion that voter fraud is rampant , claims that have been largely discredited .
Among the participants in these meetings has been an official from the office of Georgia ’ s secretary of state ; the secretary , Brad Raffensperger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by contending that 1,000 Georgians had voted twice in elections this year .
GOP congressional staffers and a Trump administration appointee have also joined in these meetings , which were open to officials from states across the country , including Missouri and Nevada , the records show .
No Democratic state election officials appear to have been invited .
The “ goal ” of the meetings , held remotely , is to “ gather the chief state election officials together to strategize on advancing their shared goal of ensuring the integrity of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” an invitation to an early August event reads .
Most of the states declined to comment on the meetings , and it ’ s not clear what specifically was discussed .
Von Spakovsky is highly influential in conservative circles .
He has sent invitees copies of his published essays pushing for in-person voting and culling voter rolls as absentee balloting expands amid the pandemic , a situation that von Spakovsky argued will “ make fraud far easier.
” The meetings come as voting access has become one of the central flashpoints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans are expected to vote by mail this year than ever before because of the health risks posed by COVID-19 .
President Donald Trump has repeatedly and baselessly asserted that mail-in voting is rife with problems .
Echoing von Spakovsky , he asserted on Twitter in July that the upcoming presidential vote will be the “ most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history.
” Experts have said voting by mail carries little risk of fraud .
Since it is widely believed that more Democractic voters will vote by mail than Republicans , von @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , could suppress Democratic turnout in one of the most consequential presidential elections in a generation .
Secretaries of state , who oversee statewide voting and work with county election officials , have broad leeway to act in ways that can limit or expand the franchise .
While most are partisan elected officials , they are expected to carry out policies that benefit everyone .
The Heritage Foundation did not make von Spakovsky available for an interview and didn ’ t address detailed questions about the meetings .
In a statement , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scott , said election security was “ crucial to our country ’ s future.
” “ The Heritage Foundation is committed to making sure elections are free and fair , ” he said .
“ Every eligible voter ’ s vote should be counted and not canceled out by fraudulent acts.
” The remote gatherings are an outgrowth of private , in-person meetings von Spakovsky has held with Republican election authorities each year since Trump took office , the records show .
Participants have hailed from at least a dozen states , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typically dovetail with the national conference of secretaries of state in Washington , D.C. , and take place at Heritage ’ s headquarters .
Those pre-pandemic meetings did not primarily address voting by mail .
Jonathan Diaz , a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center , a nonpartisan voting rights group , said it ’ s one thing for von Spakovsky to make dubious claims of voter fraud in public but “ another thing entirely for him to be circumventing official channels and making these presentations in private , where they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added that election authorities need to be “ transparent about the information they ’ re relying on to make decisions about the ballot.
” Von Spakovsky has hosted at least two of these remote meetings in recent months .
In April , there was an hourlong “ Election Administration Forum Conference Call ” that covered , in part , the expansion of mail-in voting and “ ways to message these concerns to your constituents , ” according to the invitation .
The event included the ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one of whom went on to work for the Trump campaign two months later .
An August meeting , conducted through a secure , virtual video conferencing platform , was scheduled to last for two hours , according to an invitation .
A staffer from the Georgia secretary of state ’ s office participated in the April call .
Before that , the secretary himself , Raffensperger , met with von Spakovsky in the summer of 2019 at Raffensperger ’ s request .
At the Georgian Club in Atlanta , the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s voting machines , according to Raffensperger ’ s deputy , Jordan Fuchs .
That statute contributed to problems during what was widely viewed as a troubled June primary .
This month , around the time Raffensperger went public about double voting concerns in his state , he also appealed a federal judge ’ s ruling that the state must count absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day , the kind of policy change von Spakovsky has argued Democrats are using to “ game the system ” ahead of November .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the ultimate voter integrity activist , ” Fuchs told ProPublica .
While von Spakovsky “ hasn ’ t driven any policy decisions ” that have taken place under the secretary , Fuchs said that she briefed von Spakovsky on her office ’ s actions regarding double voting and absentee ballots .
There are indications that von Spakovsky has been influential within the Trump administration as well .
During the August virtual briefing , state election administrators were told that Cameron Quinn , a Department of Homeland Security official , would now be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” according to emails that a participant from Washington state sent to his colleagues .
Quinn has worked as an elections official in Virginia with von Spakovsky and has co-taught a law school course with him .
During the meeting , she provided her cellphone number to the attendees .
The announcement of her role apparently came as a surprise to Washington officials , including the state ’ s director of elections , the emails show .
The director , a member of a five-person committee that regularly interacts with DHS over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there is a point of contact within the agency — and it ’ s not Quinn .
It turned out Quinn participated in the meeting without notifying her new boss beforehand , according to people familiar with the matter .
Her appointment to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency , a division within DHS that monitors election systems for foreign hacking attempts and communicates with state officials about them , had only been announced within the agency a day earlier , they said .
It ’ s not clear whether Quinn is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A division spokeswoman confirmed Quinn was not yet an employee in the division at the time she participated in the meeting but declined to answer additional questions .
Beyond Quinn , it ’ s not clear whether any executive branch officials have participated in von Spakovsky ’ s remote briefings .
But in 2019 , during his annual in-person gathering , the then-head of the Department of Justice ’ s Civil Rights Division , John Gore , and its chief of staff and counsel , Omeed Assefi , attended in their official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The division is responsible for protecting the rights of voters .
An agenda from the event shows that Gore and von Spakovsky led an hourlong discussion on “ election reforms in the states and messaging and update on civil rights division , U.S. Department of Justice.
” “ This is highly inappropriate , ” Vanita Gupta , who ran the division under President Barack Obama , told ProPublica .
“ That kind of closed-door session , where a head of the Civil Rights Division is secretly speaking about enforcement with partisan state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t accountable to just one party.
” Gore declined to comment on what took place at the event or if he ’ d attended other von Spakovsky meetings in the past as head of the Civil Rights Division .
The Justice Department didn ’ t respond to questions about the Civil Rights Division ’ s involvement in the meeting or Gore ’ s presentation at the 2019 event .
At the Heritage Foundation , von Spakovsky maintains a database of voter fraud cases and , emails show , regularly urges secretaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the moment , the database encompasses some 1,300 cases , stretching over a period that begins in 1982 .
As Reuters recently noted , billions of ballots were cast during that time .
Von Spakovksy ’ s writings on voter fraud carry the veneer of academic research .
But when he was questioned about his work in a trial two years ago , he testified that none of it has undergone the stringent vetting process of peer review .
The judge in that case dismissed his testimony , saying it was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and included “ false assertions.
” Before coming to the Heritage Foundation , von Spakovsky served on both the Federal Election Commission and in the Department of Justice ’ s Civil Rights Division , where he drew scrutiny after approving a voter ID law in Georgia that a federal judge likened to a Jim Crow-style poll tax .
In May 2017 , Trump appointed von Spakovsky to a voter fraud commission that disbanded less than a year later without producing any evidence of voter fraud .

Starting in early spring, as the coronavirus took hold, a conservative lawyer at the forefront of raising alarms about voting by mail held multiple private briefings exclusively for Republican state election officials, according to previously unreported public records.
The lawyer, the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, is a leading purveyor of the notion that voter fraud is rampant, claims that have been largely discredited.
Among the participants in these meetings has been an official from the office of Georgia’s secretary of state; the secretary, Brad Raffensperger, recently elevated concerns about voter fraud by contending that 1,000 Georgians had voted twice in elections this year.
GOP congressional staffers and a Trump administration appointee have also joined in these meetings, which were open to officials from states across the country, including Missouri and Nevada, the records show. No Democratic state election officials appear to have been invited.
The “goal” of the meetings, held remotely, is to “gather the chief state election officials together to strategize on advancing their shared goal of ensuring the integrity of the elections they administer in their home states,” an invitation to an early August event reads.
Most of the states declined to comment on the meetings, and it’s not clear what specifically was discussed. Von Spakovsky is highly influential in conservative circles. He has sent invitees copies of his published essays pushing for in-person voting and culling voter rolls as absentee balloting expands amid the pandemic, a situation that von Spakovsky argued will “make fraud far easier.”
The meetings come as voting access has become one of the central flashpoints of the upcoming presidential election. More Americans are expected to vote by mail this year than ever before because of the health risks posed by COVID-19. President Donald Trump has repeatedly and baselessly asserted that mail-in voting is rife with problems. Echoing von Spakovsky, he asserted on Twitter in July that the upcoming presidential vote will be the “most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history.”
Experts have said voting by mail carries little risk of fraud. Since it is widely believed that more Democractic voters will vote by mail than Republicans, von Spakovsky’s proposals, if adopted, could suppress Democratic turnout in one of the most consequential presidential elections in a generation.
Secretaries of state, who oversee statewide voting and work with county election officials, have broad leeway to act in ways that can limit or expand the franchise. While most are partisan elected officials, they are expected to carry out policies that benefit everyone.
The Heritage Foundation did not make von Spakovsky available for an interview and didn’t address detailed questions about the meetings. In a statement, the nonprofit’s media director, Greg Scott, said election security was “crucial to our country’s future.”
“The Heritage Foundation is committed to making sure elections are free and fair,” he said. “Every eligible voter’s vote should be counted and not canceled out by fraudulent acts.”
Obtained and highlighted by ProPublica
The remote gatherings are an outgrowth of private, in-person meetings von Spakovsky has held with Republican election authorities each year since Trump took office, the records show. Participants have hailed from at least a dozen states, including battlegrounds like Ohio and Georgia. They typically dovetail with the national conference of secretaries of state in Washington, D.C., and take place at Heritage’s headquarters. Those pre-pandemic meetings did not primarily address voting by mail.
Jonathan Diaz, a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan voting rights group, said it’s one thing for von Spakovsky to make dubious claims of voter fraud in public but “another thing entirely for him to be circumventing official channels and making these presentations in private, where they’re not subject to public scrutiny.”
Diaz added that election authorities need to be “transparent about the information they’re relying on to make decisions about the ballot.”
Von Spakovsky has hosted at least two of these remote meetings in recent months. In April, there was an hourlong “Election Administration Forum Conference Call” that covered, in part, the expansion of mail-in voting and “ways to message these concerns to your constituents,” according to the invitation. The event included the ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives committee that oversees elections and five staffers, one of whom went on to work for the Trump campaign two months later. An August meeting, conducted through a secure, virtual video conferencing platform, was scheduled to last for two hours, according to an invitation.
A staffer from the Georgia secretary of state’s office participated in the April call. Before that, the secretary himself, Raffensperger, met with von Spakovsky in the summer of 2019 at Raffensperger’s request. At the Georgian Club in Atlanta, the two discussed a new law that involved replacing the state’s voting machines, according to Raffensperger’s deputy, Jordan Fuchs. That statute contributed to problems during what was widely viewed as a troubled June primary.
This month, around the time Raffensperger went public about double voting concerns in his state, he also appealed a federal judge’s ruling that the state must count absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day, the kind of policy change von Spakovsky has argued Democrats are using to “game the system” ahead of November.
“Hans, to our office, is the ultimate voter integrity activist,” Fuchs told ProPublica. While von Spakovsky “hasn’t driven any policy decisions” that have taken place under the secretary, Fuchs said that she briefed von Spakovsky on her office’s actions regarding double voting and absentee ballots.
There are indications that von Spakovsky has been influential within the Trump administration as well. During the August virtual briefing, state election administrators were told that Cameron Quinn, a Department of Homeland Security official, would now be their “liaison to the election community,” according to emails that a participant from Washington state sent to his colleagues.
Quinn has worked as an elections official in Virginia with von Spakovsky and has co-taught a law school course with him. During the meeting, she provided her cellphone number to the attendees.
The announcement of her role apparently came as a surprise to Washington officials, including the state’s director of elections, the emails show. The director, a member of a five-person committee that regularly interacts with DHS over election security matters, told her colleagues that there is a point of contact within the agency — and it’s not Quinn.
It turned out Quinn participated in the meeting without notifying her new boss beforehand, according to people familiar with the matter. Her appointment to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a division within DHS that monitors election systems for foreign hacking attempts and communicates with state officials about them, had only been announced within the agency a day earlier, they said.
It’s not clear whether Quinn is still in contact with state elections officials. A division spokeswoman confirmed Quinn was not yet an employee in the division at the time she participated in the meeting but declined to answer additional questions.
Beyond Quinn, it’s not clear whether any executive branch officials have participated in von Spakovsky’s remote briefings. But in 2019, during his annual in-person gathering, the then-head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, John Gore, and its chief of staff and counsel, Omeed Assefi, attended in their official capacities, according to an attendee list.
The division is responsible for protecting the rights of voters. An agenda from the event shows that Gore and von Spakovsky led an hourlong discussion on “election reforms in the states and messaging and update on civil rights division, U.S. Department of Justice.”
“This is highly inappropriate,” Vanita Gupta, who ran the division under President Barack Obama, told ProPublica. “That kind of closed-door session, where a head of the Civil Rights Division is secretly speaking about enforcement with partisan state officials, is unprecedented. The DOJ isn’t accountable to just one party.”
Gore declined to comment on what took place at the event or if he’d attended other von Spakovsky meetings in the past as head of the Civil Rights Division. The Justice Department didn’t respond to questions about the Civil Rights Division’s involvement in the meeting or Gore’s presentation at the 2019 event.
At the Heritage Foundation, von Spakovsky maintains a database of voter fraud cases and, emails show, regularly urges secretaries of state to contribute to it. At the moment, the database encompasses some 1,300 cases, stretching over a period that begins in 1982. As Reuters recently noted, billions of ballots were cast during that time.
Von Spakovksy’s writings on voter fraud carry the veneer of academic research. But when he was questioned about his work in a trial two years ago, he testified that none of it has undergone the stringent vetting process of peer review. The judge in that case dismissed his testimony, saying it was “premised on several misleading and unsupported examples” and included “false assertions.”
Before coming to the Heritage Foundation, von Spakovsky served on both the Federal Election Commission and in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, where he drew scrutiny after approving a voter ID law in Georgia that a federal judge likened to a Jim Crow-style poll tax. In May 2017, Trump appointed von Spakovsky to a voter fraud commission that disbanded less than a year later without producing any evidence of voter fraud.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-17--A New Jersey Law Makes a Clean Environment a Right. Other States Should Follow.

On August 27 , the New Jersey legislature approved a far-reaching new environmental justice bill intended to reduce the harmful effects of pollution in low-income communities and communities of color .
Gov .
Phil Murphy has announced he will sign the bill into law on September 18 .
The new law establishes a right to a clean environment for all New Jersey residents , stating : “ all New Jersey residents , regardless of income , race , ethnicity , color , or national origin have a right to live , work , and recreate in a clean and healthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , “ no community should bear a disproportionate share of the adverse environmental and public health consequences that accompany the State ’ s economic growth.
” The law acknowledges that , “ historically , New Jersey ’ s low-income communities and communities of color have been subject to a disproportionately high number of environmental and public health stressors , including pollution from numerous industrial , commercial and governmental facilities located in those communities ” resulting in “ increased adverse health effects including , but not limited to , asthma , cancer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and developmental disorders.
” “ Children are especially vulnerable to the adverse health effects caused by pollution , and such health effects may severely limit a child ’ s potential for future success , ” the law says .
The law requires an “ environmental justice impact statement ” to accompany every application for a permit to build or expand a facility , or to renew an existing facility permit , in any “ overburdened community ” in New Jersey .
The law defines an “ overburdened community ” as any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block groups , ” as defined by the federal Census Bureau , in which at least 35 percent of households qualify as low-income , or at least 40 percent identify as minority or members of a state-recognized tribal community , or at least 40 percent of households have limited proficiency in the English language .
The law defines low-income as any household at or below twice the poverty threshold reported annually by the Census Bureau .
The law requires the state ’ s Department of Environmental Protection ( NJ DEP ) to publish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website , to be updated at least every two years .
The law defines “ facility ” to mean any “ major source of air pollution ” as defined in the federal Clean Air Act .
Further , the definition explicitly includes garbage incinerators , sludge processors , sewage treatment plants , solid waste transfer stations , large recyclers , scrap metal processors and landfills .
Certain medical waste incinerators , including those run by hospitals and universities , are exempt .
The law states that , “ it is in the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to limit the future placement and expansion of such facilities in overburdened communities.
” According to the new law , each environmental justice impact statement submitted with a permit application must assess “ the potential environmental and public health stressors ” associated with the facility .
This includes any such stressor “ that can not be avoided if the permit is granted ” and “ the environmental and public health stressors already borne by the overburdened community as a result of existing conditions located in or affecting the overburdened community.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stressors ” as “ concentrated areas of air pollution , mobile sources of air pollution , contaminated sites , solid waste facilities , recycling facilities , scrap yards , and point sources of water pollution.
” Importantly , the law also defines “ environmental or public health stressors ” as “ conditions that may cause potential public health impacts , including , but not limited to , asthma , cancer , elevated blood lead levels , cardiovascular disease , and developmental problems.
” Abundant medical literature indicates that those conditions will be mainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like noise , dust , hazardous chemicals , heat , ozone and diesel fumes .
The social determinants of health include jobs and joblessness , income , social exclusion , racial , ethnic and gender equity , early childhood development , housing , access to affordable food , recreational opportunities , transportation , and more .
In sum , an environmental justice impact statement will examine existing chemical , physical and social conditions that affect the public health and the health of the natural world in a burdened community , combined with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proposed facility would add on top of what ’ s already present in the burdened community .
The term for such an evaluation is a “ cumulative impacts assessment ” of a facility .
The federal Council on Environmental Quality issued guidance for “ cumulative impacts assessment ” in 1997 , and the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued related guidance in 2003 .
The NJ DEP ’ s Environmental Justice Advisory Council issued its own “ Strategies for Addressing Cumulative Impacts in Environmental Justice Communities ” in 2009 .
( Disclosure : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report . )
After the environmental justice statement has been handed to the NJ DEP and placed on the department ’ s website , the applicant for the permit will schedule , advertise 60 days in advance , and then hold a public hearing in the overburdened community , giving all attendees opportunity for “ meaningful public participation.
” The law does not define meaningful public participation .
After reviewing the environment justice impact assessment , along with comments and all other relevant data , the NJ DEP will make a decision about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the decision is for the department to determine whether stressors added by the proposed facility , in combination with existing stressors , will cause “ or contribute to ” stressors “ in the overburdened community that are higher than those borne by other communities within the State , county , or other geographic unit of analysis as determined by the department.
” The geographic unit for comparison will be specified in departmental rules or regulations not yet written .
If the permit is for a new facility and the geographic comparison shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overburdened community to become more burdened than other communities , then the NJ DEP can outright deny the requested permit .
Alternatively , the NJ DEP can declare that the proposed new facility will “ serve a compelling public interest in the community where it is to be located ” and can then impose conditions on the construction and operation of the new facility “ to protect public health.
” Of course , the legislation has its limitations .
Because it does not give the NJ DEP authority to outright deny permits for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and because it does not give residents in an “ overburdened community ” the authority to deny all such permits by majority vote , it seems very likely that overburdened communities will continue to be somewhat overburdened with pollution until existing polluters choose to cease operations .
In addition , the definition of an “ overburdened ” community highlights income disparities but the law is otherwise silent on that particular social problem .
Nevertheless , the law is a very significant step toward realizing the goal of environmental justice laid out in 1991 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request to expand an existing facility or to renew an existing permit , even if the geographic comparison indicates a problem for the overburdened community , the NJ DEP can not deny a permit .
It can only impose new restrictions on the construction and operation of the facility to “ protect public health.
” However , the legislation is a marked step forward on an issue that activists have been pushing to address for decades .
It seems apparent that recent nationwide outpouring of support for the Black Lives Matter movement played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jersey legislature to enact this progressive legislation .
The New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance ( NJEJA ) has been pressing for enactment of a strong environmental justice law for 10 years with tepid support from potential allies and the legislature itself .
However , this summer , 165 organizations joined the Ironbound Community Corp in Newark and NJEJA in signing a letter to the New Jersey Assembly urging passage of the new law .
Labor , faith , social justice , community and environmental organizations all signed on .
It was “ an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representing hundreds of thousands of New Jersey residents , ” InsiderNJ reported .
In April 2018 , Governor Phil Murphy had issued Executive Order 23 requiring the NJ DEP to develop guidance for all executive branch state agencies “ for the consideration of Environmental Justice in implementing their statutory and regulatory responsibilities.
” The guidance was supposed to be completed by January 18 , 2019 , but almost 20 months later , the DEP website lists the guidance document as still “ pending.
” In November 2019 , an article on NorthJersey.com pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhetoric about environmental justice doesn ’ t always match his actions.
” Two days later , NorthJersey.com followed up with an editorial calling on the governor to beef up his “ lukewarm approach ” to environmental justice .
This summer , the governor staked out a bold position on environmental justice in an op-ed in the Newark Star-Ledger , the state ’ s largest newspaper .
“ Our environmental laws fail to provide equal protection under the law , ” the op-ed said .
“ Residents in our urban areas suffer from adverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of residents elsewhere .
The facts on this are clear , ” the governor wrote with co-author Catherine McCabe , New Jersey ’ s commissioner of environmental protection .
For many , the facts on this had been clear since at least 1987 , when Benjamin Chavis and Charles Lee published “ Toxic Waste and Race in the United States , ” revealing that hazardous waste materials of all kinds were disproportionately being dumped near homes , schools and workplaces in communities of color , affecting children as well as their parents and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activism and persistence of Black Lives Matter and its staunch allies like NJEJA to bring things to a boil and get this far-reaching legislation done .
Now that New Jersey has broken this ground , other states can follow .
Environmental injustice is visible everywhere , if we look .

On August 27, the New Jersey legislature approved a far-reaching new environmental justice bill intended to reduce the harmful effects of pollution in low-income communities and communities of color. Gov. Phil Murphy has announced he will sign the bill into law on September 18.
The new law establishes a right to a clean environment for all New Jersey residents, stating: “all New Jersey residents, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, color, or national origin have a right to live, work, and recreate in a clean and healthy environment.” Further, the law states that, “no community should bear a disproportionate share of the adverse environmental and public health consequences that accompany the State’s economic growth.”
The law acknowledges that, “historically, New Jersey’s low-income communities and communities of color have been subject to a disproportionately high number of environmental and public health stressors, including pollution from numerous industrial, commercial and governmental facilities located in those communities” resulting in “increased adverse health effects including, but not limited to, asthma, cancer, elevated blood lead levels, cardiovascular disease, and developmental disorders.”
“Children are especially vulnerable to the adverse health effects caused by pollution, and such health effects may severely limit a child’s potential for future success,” the law says.
The law requires an “environmental justice impact statement” to accompany every application for a permit to build or expand a facility, or to renew an existing facility permit, in any “overburdened community” in New Jersey.
The law defines an “overburdened community” as any of New Jersey’s 6,320 “census block groups,” as defined by the federal Census Bureau, in which at least 35 percent of households qualify as low-income, or at least 40 percent identify as minority or members of a state-recognized tribal community, or at least 40 percent of households have limited proficiency in the English language. The law defines low-income as any household at or below twice the poverty threshold reported annually by the Census Bureau.
The law requires the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) to publish a list of overburdened communities on its website, to be updated at least every two years.
The law defines “facility” to mean any “major source of air pollution” as defined in the federal Clean Air Act. Further, the definition explicitly includes garbage incinerators, sludge processors, sewage treatment plants, solid waste transfer stations, large recyclers, scrap metal processors and landfills. Certain medical waste incinerators, including those run by hospitals and universities, are exempt.
The law states that, “it is in the public interest for the State, where appropriate, to limit the future placement and expansion of such facilities in overburdened communities.”
According to the new law, each environmental justice impact statement submitted with a permit application must assess “the potential environmental and public health stressors” associated with the facility. This includes any such stressor “that cannot be avoided if the permit is granted” and “the environmental and public health stressors already borne by the overburdened community as a result of existing conditions located in or affecting the overburdened community.” The law defines “environmental or public health stressors” as “concentrated areas of air pollution, mobile sources of air pollution, contaminated sites, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities, scrap yards, and point sources of water pollution.”
Importantly, the law also defines “environmental or public health stressors” as “conditions that may cause potential public health impacts, including, but not limited to, asthma, cancer, elevated blood lead levels, cardiovascular disease, and developmental problems.” Abundant medical literature indicates that those conditions will be mainly social, in combination with environmental stressors like noise, dust, hazardous chemicals, heat, ozone and diesel fumes. The social determinants of health include jobs and joblessness, income, social exclusion, racial, ethnic and gender equity, early childhood development, housing, access to affordable food, recreational opportunities, transportation, and more.
In sum, an environmental justice impact statement will examine existing chemical, physical and social conditions that affect the public health and the health of the natural world in a burdened community, combined with the additional stressors (if any) that the proposed facility would add on top of what’s already present in the burdened community.
The term for such an evaluation is a “cumulative impacts assessment” of a facility. The federal Council on Environmental Quality issued guidance for “cumulative impacts assessment” in 1997, and the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued related guidance in 2003. The NJ DEP’s Environmental Justice Advisory Council issued its own “Strategies for Addressing Cumulative Impacts in Environmental Justice Communities” in 2009. (Disclosure: I served as an advisor for that report.)
After the environmental justice statement has been handed to the NJ DEP and placed on the department’s website, the applicant for the permit will schedule, advertise 60 days in advance, and then hold a public hearing in the overburdened community, giving all attendees opportunity for “meaningful public participation.” The law does not define meaningful public participation.
After reviewing the environment justice impact assessment, along with comments and all other relevant data, the NJ DEP will make a decision about the requested permit.
The first step in the decision is for the department to determine whether stressors added by the proposed facility, in combination with existing stressors, will cause “or contribute to” stressors “in the overburdened community that are higher than those borne by other communities within the State, county, or other geographic unit of analysis as determined by the department.” The geographic unit for comparison will be specified in departmental rules or regulations not yet written.
If the permit is for a new facility and the geographic comparison shows that the proposed facility will cause the overburdened community to become more burdened than other communities, then the NJ DEP can outright deny the requested permit. Alternatively, the NJ DEP can declare that the proposed new facility will “serve a compelling public interest in the community where it is to be located” and can then impose conditions on the construction and operation of the new facility “to protect public health.”
Of course, the legislation has its limitations. Because it does not give the NJ DEP authority to outright deny permits for renewal or expansion of existing facilities, and because it does not give residents in an “overburdened community” the authority to deny all such permits by majority vote, it seems very likely that overburdened communities will continue to be somewhat overburdened with pollution until existing polluters choose to cease operations. In addition, the definition of an “overburdened” community highlights income disparities but the law is otherwise silent on that particular social problem. Nevertheless, the law is a very significant step toward realizing the goal of environmental justice laid out in 1991.
In the case of a permit request to expand an existing facility or to renew an existing permit, even if the geographic comparison indicates a problem for the overburdened community, the NJ DEP cannot deny a permit. It can only impose new restrictions on the construction and operation of the facility to “protect public health.”
However, the legislation is a marked step forward on an issue that activists have been pushing to address for decades. It seems apparent that recent nationwide outpouring of support for the Black Lives Matter movement played an important role in convincing the New Jersey legislature to enact this progressive legislation. The New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA) has been pressing for enactment of a strong environmental justice law for 10 years with tepid support from potential allies and the legislature itself. However, this summer, 165 organizations joined the Ironbound Community Corp in Newark and NJEJA in signing a letter to the New Jersey Assembly urging passage of the new law. Labor, faith, social justice, community and environmental organizations all signed on. It was “an incredibly powerful array of over 165 organizations representing hundreds of thousands of New Jersey residents,” InsiderNJ reported.
In April 2018, Governor Phil Murphy had issued Executive Order 23 requiring the NJ DEP to develop guidance for all executive branch state agencies “for the consideration of Environmental Justice in implementing their statutory and regulatory responsibilities.” The guidance was supposed to be completed by January 18, 2019, but almost 20 months later, the DEP website lists the guidance document as still “pending.” In November 2019, an article on NorthJersey.com pointed out that the governor’s “rhetoric about environmental justice doesn’t always match his actions.” Two days later, NorthJersey.com followed up with an editorial calling on the governor to beef up his “lukewarm approach” to environmental justice.
This summer, the governor staked out a bold position on environmental justice in an op-ed in the Newark Star-Ledger, the state’s largest newspaper. “Our environmental laws fail to provide equal protection under the law,” the op-ed said. “Residents in our urban areas suffer from adverse health conditions at rates many times that of residents elsewhere. The facts on this are clear,” the governor wrote with co-author Catherine McCabe, New Jersey’s commissioner of environmental protection.
For many, the facts on this had been clear since at least 1987, when Benjamin Chavis and Charles Lee published “Toxic Waste and Race in the United States,” revealing that hazardous waste materials of all kinds were disproportionately being dumped near homes, schools and workplaces in communities of color, affecting children as well as their parents and grandparents. But it took the bold activism and persistence of Black Lives Matter and its staunch allies like NJEJA to bring things to a boil and get this far-reaching legislation done. Now that New Jersey has broken this ground, other states can follow. Environmental injustice is visible everywhere, if we look.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-18--The White House Blocked USPS Plans to Deliver Masks to Every Household

The United States Postal Service ( USPS ) drafted plans to deliver hundreds of millions of masks for use against coronavirus to every household in the country this spring — but the idea was ultimately turned down by the White House .
Working in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services , around 650 million reusable cotton face masks could have been sent out , amounting to five masks for every household in the U.S. , according to a draft plan offered up by the USPS .
The idea was rejected by the Trump administration , which claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the early days of the pandemic .
“ There was concern from some in the White House Domestic Policy Council and the office of the vice president that households receiving masks might create concern or panic , ” an official in the administration told The Washington Post .
Information about the plan offered by the USPS was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from American Oversight , a nonprofit watchdog group .
“ The Postal Service connects every single person in America , and the president could have used it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t , ” American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers said .
“ An opportunity to deliver science-based public health tools to every person in the country was lost.
” If adopted , the plan could have also signaled the seriousness of the pandemic to residents throughout the U.S. “ Giving out masks to everyone doesn ’ t mean that people will necessarily wear them , but it does send a strong message that mask wearing is a public health imperative , ” Leana Wen , public health professor at George Washington University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sending masks out by mail , the White House instead delivered hundreds of millions of masks to the administration ’ s “ Project : America Strong , ” which sent them to more limited sectors , such as private companies , health care groups , and to community and religious organizations across the country .
A number of studies have demonstrated that a significant number of coronavirus infections in the U.S. could have been prevented if universal mask wearing was mandated in the earlier stages of the pandemic .
A study published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that these mandates in 15 states plus Washington , D.C. , prevented hundreds of thousands from contracting the disease .
A separate study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also determined that a national mask mandate beginning on April 1 would have brought the cumulative number of deaths from coronavirus by June 1 down by 40 percent .
In spite of recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) on wearing masks , President Trump has remained a skeptic on their efficacy to prevent the spread of COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic in the U.S. , Trump refused to be seen in public wearing a mask , sending a message to his base of supporters that wearing them wasn ’ t an important public health measure .
He also gave reasons , some of which appeared to be based in vanity , such as expressing concern in April over what other world leaders might think of him .
“ I just don ’ t want to be doing — I don ’ t know , somehow sitting in the Oval Office behind that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Desk , I think wearing a face mask as I greet presidents , prime ministers , dictators , kings , queens .
I don ’ t know , somehow , I don ’ t see it for myself , ” Trump said .
The president also appeared to view wearing masks as a political statement , telling The Wall Street Journal in June that he believed they were worn to spite him and show disapproval of his presidency .
In July , Trump finally appeared in public wearing a mask .
Yet during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he answered questions from voters , he still expressed skepticism about wearing them .
“ There are people that don ’ t think masks are good , ” Trump insisted .
Later in the week , CDC Director Robert Redfield contradicted Trump ’ s claims , stating there was “ clear scientific evidence ” that masks help to prevent the spread of COVID-19 .
“ I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent and if I don ’ t get an immune response , the vaccine ’ s not going to protect me , this face mask will , ” Redfield said during Senate testimony on Wednesday .

The Trump administration missed a chance to send “public health tools to every person in the country,” critics contend.
The United States Postal Service (USPS) drafted plans to deliver hundreds of millions of masks for use against coronavirus to every household in the country this spring — but the idea was ultimately turned down by the White House.
Working in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services, around 650 million reusable cotton face masks could have been sent out, amounting to five masks for every household in the U.S., according to a draft plan offered up by the USPS. The idea was rejected by the Trump administration, which claimed it sought to avoid frightening the public in the early days of the pandemic.
“There was concern from some in the White House Domestic Policy Council and the office of the vice president that households receiving masks might create concern or panic,” an official in the administration told The Washington Post.
Information about the plan offered by the USPS was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from American Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group.
“The Postal Service connects every single person in America, and the president could have used it for public health, but he didn’t,” American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers said. “An opportunity to deliver science-based public health tools to every person in the country was lost.”
If adopted, the plan could have also signaled the seriousness of the pandemic to residents throughout the U.S.
“Giving out masks to everyone doesn’t mean that people will necessarily wear them, but it does send a strong message that mask wearing is a public health imperative,” Leana Wen, public health professor at George Washington University, said to ABC News.
Instead of sending masks out by mail, the White House instead delivered hundreds of millions of masks to the administration’s “Project: America Strong,” which sent them to more limited sectors, such as private companies, health care groups, and to community and religious organizations across the country.
A number of studies have demonstrated that a significant number of coronavirus infections in the U.S. could have been prevented if universal mask wearing was mandated in the earlier stages of the pandemic. A study published in Health Affairs, for instance, found that these mandates in 15 states plus Washington, D.C., prevented hundreds of thousands from contracting the disease. A separate study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also determined that a national mask mandate beginning on April 1 would have brought the cumulative number of deaths from coronavirus by June 1 down by 40 percent.
In spite of recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on wearing masks, President Trump has remained a skeptic on their efficacy to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
For the first several months of the pandemic in the U.S., Trump refused to be seen in public wearing a mask, sending a message to his base of supporters that wearing them wasn’t an important public health measure. He also gave reasons, some of which appeared to be based in vanity, such as expressing concern in April over what other world leaders might think of him.
“I just don’t want to be doing — I don’t know, somehow sitting in the Oval Office behind that beautiful Resolute Desk, the great Resolute Desk, I think wearing a face mask as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens. I don’t know, somehow, I don’t see it for myself,” Trump said.
The president also appeared to view wearing masks as a political statement, telling The Wall Street Journal in June that he believed they were worn to spite him and show disapproval of his presidency.
In July, Trump finally appeared in public wearing a mask. Yet during a town hall event on Tuesday where he answered questions from voters, he still expressed skepticism about wearing them.
“There are people that don’t think masks are good,” Trump insisted.
Later in the week, CDC Director Robert Redfield contradicted Trump’s claims, stating there was “clear scientific evidence” that masks help to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
“I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70 percent and if I don’t get an immune response, the vaccine’s not going to protect me, this face mask will,” Redfield said during Senate testimony on Wednesday.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-18--Trump Accused Howard Zinn of “Propaganda.” But Zinn Was Right About US History.

This week President Trump described the work of the legendary historian Howard Zinn , who died in 2010 , as “ propaganda ” meant to “ make students ashamed of their own history.
” But Zinn believed the opposite , that teaching the unvarnished truth about history was the best way to combat propaganda and unexamined received wisdom .
We air excerpts from a 2009 interview with Zinn in which he explained his approach to education .
“ We should be honest with young people ; we should not deceive them .
We should be honest about the history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We end today ’ s show with the words of the late historian Howard Zinn .
On Thursday , President Trump lashed out at educators who teach about the U.S. history of slavery and racism , announcing a so-called patriotic education plan to combat what he called “ toxic propaganda ” in schools .
Trump called the teaching of critical race theory a “ form of child abuse , ” lashed out at the 1619 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times which reexamines the legacy of slavery .
Trump also directly criticized Howard Zinn during his speech at the National Archives Museum in Washington , D.C. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP : The left-wing rioting and mayhem are the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools .
It ’ s gone on far too long .
Our children are instructed from propaganda tracts , like those of Howard Zinn , that try to make students ashamed of their own history .
AMY GOODMAN : So , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zinn appearing on Democracy Now !
less than a year before he died .
He just published A Young People ’ s History of the United States .
I asked him to respond to a question he had frequently been asked about his work : Is it right to be so critical of the government ’ s policies , of the traditional heroes of the country ?
HOWARD ZINN : It ’ s true that people have asked that question again and again .
You know , should we tell kids that Columbus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great hero , that Columbus mutilated Indians and kidnapped them and killed them in pursuit of gold ?
Should we tell people that Theodore Roosevelt , who is held up as one of our great presidents , was really a warmonger who loved military exploits and who congratulated an American general who committed a massacre in the Philippines ?
Should we tell young people that ?
And I think the answer is : We should be honest with young people ; we should not deceive them .
We should be honest about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should be not only taking down the traditional heroes like Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt , but we should be giving young people an alternate set of heroes .
Instead of Theodore Roosevelt , tell them about Mark Twain .
Mark Twain — well , Mark Twain , everybody learns about as the author of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn , but when we go to school , we don ’ t learn about Mark Twain as the vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League .
We aren ’ t told that Mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massacre in the Philippines .
No .
We want to give young people ideal figures like Helen Keller .
And I remember learning about Helen Keller .
Everybody learns about Helen Keller , you know , a disabled person who overcame her handicaps and became famous .
But people don ’ t learn in school and young people don ’ t learn in school what we want them to learn when we do books like A Young People ’ s History of the United States , that Helen Keller was a socialist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to cross a picket line that was picketing a theater showing a play about her .
And so , there are these alternate heroes in American history .
There ’ s Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses .
There are the heroes of the civil rights movement .
There are a lot of people who are obscure , who are not known .
We have it in this Young People ’ s History .
We have a young hero who was sitting on the bus in Montgomery , Alabama , refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that was before Rosa Parks .
I mean , Rosa Parks is justifiably famous for refusing to leave her seat , and she got arrested , and that was the beginning of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and really the beginning of a great movement in the South .
But this 15-year-old girl did it first .
And so , we have a lot of — we are trying to bring a lot of these obscure people back into the forefront of our attention and inspire young people to say , “ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOODMAN : That ’ s Howard Zinn appearing on Democracy Now !
in 2009 .
Howard Zinn was attacked by President Trump on Thursday .
The Zinn Education Project criticized Trump ’ s call for “ patriotic education.
” The project tweeted , “ So what explains the rebellions in 1676 , 1680 , 1786 , 1831 , 1859 , & more by Native Americans , enslaved Africans , coal miners , & more ?
# HowardZinn wasn ’ t alive then , ” unquote .
To see our full interview with Howard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as all of our interviews with Howard Zinn over the years .
And that does it for our broadcast .
Democracy Now !
is produced with Renée Feltz , Mike Burke , Deena Guzder , Libby Rainey , Nermeen Shaikh , María Taracena , Carla Wills , Tami Woronoff , Charina Nadura , Sam Alcoff , Tey-Marie Astudillo , John Hamilton , Robby Karran , Hany Massoud and Adriano Contreras .
Our general manager is Julie Crosby .
Special thanks to Becca Staley , Miriam Barnard , Paul Powell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gran , Denis Moynihan , David Prude .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Thanks so much for joining us .

This week President Trump described the work of the legendary historian Howard Zinn, who died in 2010, as “propaganda” meant to “make students ashamed of their own history.” But Zinn believed the opposite, that teaching the unvarnished truth about history was the best way to combat propaganda and unexamined received wisdom. We air excerpts from a 2009 interview with Zinn in which he explained his approach to education. “We should be honest with young people; we should not deceive them. We should be honest about the history of our country,” Zinn said.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We end today’s show with the words of the late historian Howard Zinn. On Thursday, President Trump lashed out at educators who teach about the U.S. history of slavery and racism, announcing a so-called patriotic education plan to combat what he called “toxic propaganda” in schools. Trump called the teaching of critical race theory a “form of child abuse,” lashed out at the 1619 Project, the Pulitzer Prize-winning series by The New York Times which reexamines the legacy of slavery. Trump also directly criticized Howard Zinn during his speech at the National Archives Museum in Washington, D.C.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The left-wing rioting and mayhem are the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools. It’s gone on far too long. Our children are instructed from propaganda tracts, like those of Howard Zinn, that try to make students ashamed of their own history.
AMY GOODMAN: So, we’re turning back now to 2009, Howard Zinn appearing on Democracy Now! less than a year before he died. He just published A Young People’s History of the United States. I asked him to respond to a question he had frequently been asked about his work: Is it right to be so critical of the government’s policies, of the traditional heroes of the country?
HOWARD ZINN: It’s true that people have asked that question again and again. You know, should we tell kids that Columbus, whom they have been told was a great hero, that Columbus mutilated Indians and kidnapped them and killed them in pursuit of gold? Should we tell people that Theodore Roosevelt, who is held up as one of our great presidents, was really a warmonger who loved military exploits and who congratulated an American general who committed a massacre in the Philippines? Should we tell young people that? And I think the answer is: We should be honest with young people; we should not deceive them. We should be honest about the history of our country. And we should be not only taking down the traditional heroes like Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, but we should be giving young people an alternate set of heroes. Instead of Theodore Roosevelt, tell them about Mark Twain. Mark Twain — well, Mark Twain, everybody learns about as the author of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, but when we go to school, we don’t learn about Mark Twain as the vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League. We aren’t told that Mark Twain denounced Theodore Roosevelt for approving this massacre in the Philippines. No. We want to give young people ideal figures like Helen Keller. And I remember learning about Helen Keller. Everybody learns about Helen Keller, you know, a disabled person who overcame her handicaps and became famous. But people don’t learn in school and young people don’t learn in school what we want them to learn when we do books like A Young People’s History of the United States, that Helen Keller was a socialist. She was a labor organizer. She refused to cross a picket line that was picketing a theater showing a play about her. And so, there are these alternate heroes in American history. There’s Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses. There are the heroes of the civil rights movement. There are a lot of people who are obscure, who are not known. We have it in this Young People’s History. We have a young hero who was sitting on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama, refused to leave the front of the bus. And that was before Rosa Parks. I mean, Rosa Parks is justifiably famous for refusing to leave her seat, and she got arrested, and that was the beginning of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and really the beginning of a great movement in the South. But this 15-year-old girl did it first. And so, we have a lot of — we are trying to bring a lot of these obscure people back into the forefront of our attention and inspire young people to say, “This is the way to live.”
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Howard Zinn appearing on Democracy Now! in 2009. Howard Zinn was attacked by President Trump on Thursday. The Zinn Education Project criticized Trump’s call for “patriotic education.” The project tweeted, “So what explains the rebellions in 1676, 1680, 1786, 1831, 1859, & more by Native Americans, enslaved Africans, coal miners, & more? #HowardZinn wasn’t alive then,” unquote.
To see our full interview with Howard Zinn, you can go to democracynow.org, as well as all of our interviews with Howard Zinn over the years.
And that does it for our broadcast. Democracy Now! is produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Libby Rainey, Nermeen Shaikh, María Taracena, Carla Wills, Tami Woronoff, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud and Adriano Contreras. Our general manager is Julie Crosby. Special thanks to Becca Staley, Miriam Barnard, Paul Powell, Mike DiFilippo, Miguel Nogueira, Hugh Gran, Denis Moynihan, David Prude. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us.


truthout--2020-09-18--TikTok and WeChat Apps Banned by Trump Administration Starting This Sunday

The Trump administration announced a ban on downloading two popular social media apps owned by China-based corporations starting this Sunday , citing national security and consumer privacy concerns .
WeChat and TikTok will be banned from being downloaded in app stores starting this Sunday , per a Department of Commerce order issued on Friday .
Further restrictions on WeChat will also be implemented , including bans on use of the app ’ s code , functions and services .
A similar ban on the functional uses of TikTok will take effect starting November 12 , unless the app is sold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the President ’ s direction , we have taken significant action to combat China ’ s malicious collection of American citizens ’ personal data , while promoting our national values , democratic rules-based norms , and aggressive enforcement of U.S. laws and regulations , ” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said .
TikTok has long said that it does not provide users ’ information to the Chinese government .
In a lawsuit it filed against an executive order from President Trump last month , the company claimed it took “ extraordinary ” steps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state surveillance .
The Trump administration ’ s targeting of the app “ is not based on a bona fide national emergency and authorizes the prohibition of activities that have not been found to pose ‘ an unusual and extraordinary threat , ' ” the company said in the lawsuit .
Forbes Senior Editor Abram Brown suggested that Trump ’ s targeting of TikTok may stem from an apparent prank played on a campaign rally held in Tulsa , Oklahoma , on June 20 .
Registration for the event was held online , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in droves in order to mislead campaign officials , who then set extremely high expectations for turnout .
Many have speculated that that was the reason why the rally was sparsely attended .
The Trump campaign denied the idea that false TikTok registrations affected turnout , saying that they weed out “ phony ticket requests ” for their events and rallies .
Instead , the campaign blamed protesters for blocking entry for rally-goers to the BOK Center , though those claims were proven to be false .
Some security experts have criticized the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app , arguing that there is a significant lack of proof that data is being collected by Beijing directly through people using the product .
Some experts have conceded the threat is a real possibility , but that the actions by the White House are otherwise extreme reactions lacking tangible evidence to back up such moves .
The American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) condemned the order from the Trump administration banning WeChat and TikTok on Friday , arguing that the action was in violation of the Constitution .
“ This order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States by restricting their ability to communicate and conduct important transactions on the two social media platforms , ” Hina Shamsi , director of the ACLU ’ s National Security Project , said in a statement .
“ The order also harms the privacy and security of millions of existing TikTok and WeChat users in the United States by blocking software updates , which can fix vulnerabilities and make the apps more secure.
” Shamsi argued that if privacy concerns were important to the administration , it should push for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and strong consumer data privacy legislation ” instead of using executive action to ban the apps .
Other social media companies engage in extreme levels of data harvesting , including Facebook and Twitter , who use the information for targeted advertising on their platforms .
Such actions have not warranted similar outcry from the Trump administration .
The U.S. government has also long engaged in data collection against its own citizens .
Earlier this month , the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a National Security Agency phone data-collection program , exposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was illegal and possibly unconstitutional under the law .

Use of the TikTok app by those who already have it will be banned starting November 12, unless the company can be sold.
The Trump administration announced a ban on downloading two popular social media apps owned by China-based corporations starting this Sunday, citing national security and consumer privacy concerns.
WeChat and TikTok will be banned from being downloaded in app stores starting this Sunday, per a Department of Commerce order issued on Friday. Further restrictions on WeChat will also be implemented, including bans on use of the app’s code, functions and services.
A similar ban on the functional uses of TikTok will take effect starting November 12, unless the app is sold to the U.S.-based company Oracle.
“At the President’s direction, we have taken significant action to combat China’s malicious collection of American citizens’ personal data, while promoting our national values, democratic rules-based norms, and aggressive enforcement of U.S. laws and regulations,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said.
TikTok has long said that it does not provide users’ information to the Chinese government. In a lawsuit it filed against an executive order from President Trump last month, the company claimed it took “extraordinary” steps to protect users’ personal information from state surveillance.
The Trump administration’s targeting of the app “is not based on a bona fide national emergency and authorizes the prohibition of activities that have not been found to pose ‘an unusual and extraordinary threat,'” the company said in the lawsuit.
Forbes Senior Editor Abram Brown suggested that Trump’s targeting of TikTok may stem from an apparent prank played on a campaign rally held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on June 20. Registration for the event was held online, and many users of TikTok purposely registered in droves in order to mislead campaign officials, who then set extremely high expectations for turnout. Many have speculated that that was the reason why the rally was sparsely attended.
The Trump campaign denied the idea that false TikTok registrations affected turnout, saying that they weed out “phony ticket requests” for their events and rallies. Instead, the campaign blamed protesters for blocking entry for rally-goers to the BOK Center, though those claims were proven to be false.
Some security experts have criticized the administration’s moves to block the app, arguing that there is a significant lack of proof that data is being collected by Beijing directly through people using the product. Some experts have conceded the threat is a real possibility, but that the actions by the White House are otherwise extreme reactions lacking tangible evidence to back up such moves.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the order from the Trump administration banning WeChat and TikTok on Friday, arguing that the action was in violation of the Constitution.
“This order violates the First Amendment rights of people in the United States by restricting their ability to communicate and conduct important transactions on the two social media platforms,” Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a statement. “The order also harms the privacy and security of millions of existing TikTok and WeChat users in the United States by blocking software updates, which can fix vulnerabilities and make the apps more secure.”
Shamsi argued that if privacy concerns were important to the administration, it should push for Congress to “enact comprehensive surveillance reform and strong consumer data privacy legislation” instead of using executive action to ban the apps.
Other social media companies engage in extreme levels of data harvesting, including Facebook and Twitter, who use the information for targeted advertising on their platforms. Such actions have not warranted similar outcry from the Trump administration.
The U.S. government has also long engaged in data collection against its own citizens. Earlier this month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a National Security Agency phone data-collection program, exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden seven years ago, was illegal and possibly unconstitutional under the law.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-18--Toxic Wildfire Haze Leaves Damage Long After It Clears

Seeley Lake , Montana — When researchers arrived in this town tucked in the Northern Rockies three years ago , they could still smell the smoke a day after it cleared from devastating wildfires .
Their plan was to chart how long it took for people to recover from living for seven weeks surrounded by relentless smoke .
They still don ’ t know , because most residents haven ’ t recovered .
In fact , they ’ ve gotten worse .
Forest fires had funneled hazardous air into Seeley Lake , a town of fewer than 2,000 people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was so bad that on some days the monitoring stations couldn ’ t measure the extent of the pollution .
The intensity of the smoke and the length of time residents had been trapped in it were unprecedented , prompting county officials to issue their first evacuation orders due to smoke , not fire risk .
Many people stayed .
That made Seeley Lake an ideal place to track the long-term health of people inundated by wildfire pollution .
So far , researchers have found that people ’ s lung capacity declined in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cleared .
Chris Migliaccio , an immunologist with the University of Montana , and his team found the percentage of residents whose lung function sank below normal thresholds more than doubled in the first year after the fire and remained low a year after that .
While it ’ s long been known that smoke can be dangerous when in the thick of it — triggering asthma attacks , cardiac arrests , hospitalizations and more — the Seeley Lake research confirmed what public health experts feared : Wildfire haze can have consequences long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t bode well for the 78 million people in the western United States now confronting historic wildfires .
Toxic air from fires has blanketed California and the Pacific Northwest for weeks now , causing some of the world ’ s worst air quality .
California fires have burned roughly 2.3 million acres so far this year , and the wildfire season isn ’ t over yet .
Oregon estimates 500,000 people in the state have been under a notice to either prepare to evacuate or leave .
Smoke from the West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Europe .
Extreme wildfires are predicted to become a regular occurrence due to climate change .
And , as more people increasingly settle in fire-prone places , the risks increase .
That ’ s shifted wildfires from being a perennial reality for rural mountain towns to becoming an annual threat for areas across the West .
Dr. Perry Hystad , an associate professor in the College of Health and Human Sciences at Oregon State University , said the Seeley Lake research offers unique insights into wildfire smoke ’ s impact , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He said similar studies are likely to follow because of this fire season .
“ This is the question that everybody is asking , ” Hystad said .
“ ‘ I ’ ve been sitting in smoke for two weeks , how concerned should I be ?
’ ” Migliaccio wants to know whether the lung damage he saw in Seeley Lake is reversible — or even treatable .
( Think of an inhaler for asthma or other medication that prevents swollen airways . )
But those discoveries will have to wait .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return to Seeley Lake this year because of the coronavirus pandemic .
Migliaccio said more research is needed on whether wildfire smoke damages organs besides the lungs , and whether routine exposure makes people more susceptible to diseases .
The combination of the fire season and the pandemic has spurred other questions as well , like whether heavy smoke exposure could lead to more COVID-19 deaths .
A recent study showed a spike in influenza cases following major fire seasons .
“ Now you have the combination of flu season and COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ How are all these things going to interact come late fall or winter ?
” Seeley Lake has long known smoke .
It sits in a narrow valley between vast stretches of thick forests .
On a recent September day , Boyd Gossard stood on his back porch and pointed toward the mountains that were ablaze in 2017 .
Gossard , 80 , expects to have some summer days veiled in haze .
But that year , he said , he could hardly see his neighbor ’ s house a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve seen a lot of smoke in my career , ” said Gossard , who worked in timber management and served as a wildland firefighter .
“ But having to just live in it like this was very different .
It got to you after a while.
” When Missoula County health officials urged people to leave town and flee the hazardous smoke , many residents stayed close to home .
Some said their jobs wouldn ’ t let them leave .
Others didn ’ t have a place to go — or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials warned those who stayed to avoid exercising and breathing too hard , to remain inside and to follow steps to make their homes as smoke-free as possible .
The health department also worked to get air filters to those who needed them most .
But when flames got too close , some people had to sleep outside in campsites on the other side of town .
One of the known dangers of smoke is particulate matter .
Smaller than the width of a human hair , it can bypass a body ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lu Hu , an atmospheric chemist with the University of Montana , said air quality reports are based on how much of that pollution is in the air .
“ It ’ s like lead ; there ’ s no safe level , but still we have a safety measure for what ’ s allowable , ” Hu said .
“ Some things kill you fast and some things kill you slowly.
” While air quality measurements can gauge the overall amount of pollution , they can ’ t assess which specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collaborating with other scientists to better predict how smoke travels and what pollutants people actually breathe .
He said smoke ’ s chemistry changes based on how far it travels and what ’ s burning , among other factors .
Over the past few years , teams of researchers drove trucks along fire lines to collect smoke samples .
Other scientists boarded cargo planes and flew into smoke plumes to take samples right from a fire ’ s source .
Still others stationed at a mountain lookout captured smoke drifting in from nearby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Missoula site logged data over two summers .
Bob Yokelson , a longtime smoke researcher with the University of Montana , said scientists are getting closer to understanding its contents .
And , he said , “ it ’ s not all bad news.
” Temperature and sunlight can change some pollutants over time .
Some dangerous particles seem to disappear .
But others , such as ozone , can increase as smoke ages .
Yokelson said scientists are still a long way from determining a safe level of exposure to the 100-odd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete the circle by measuring not only what ’ s in smoke , but measuring what ’ s happening to the people who breathe it , ” Yokelson said .
“ That ’ s where the future of health research on smoke is going to go.
” Coping With Nowhere to Flee In the meantime , those studying wildland smoke hope what they ’ ve learned so far can better prepare people to live in the haze when evacuation isn ’ t an option .
Joan Wollan , 82 , was one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stayed put during the 2017 fire because her house at the time sat on a border of the evacuation zone .
The air made her eyes burn and her husband cough .
She ordered air filters to create cleaner air inside her home , which helped .
On a recent day , the air in Wollan ’ s new neighborhood in Missoula turned that familiar gray-orange as traces of fires from elsewhere appeared .
Local health officials warned that western Montana could get hit by some of the worst air quality the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If it got bad enough , Wollan said , she ’ d get the filters out of storage or look for a way to get to cleaner air — “ if there is someplace in Montana that isn ’ t smoky .
”

Seeley Lake, Montana — When researchers arrived in this town tucked in the Northern Rockies three years ago, they could still smell the smoke a day after it cleared from devastating wildfires. Their plan was to chart how long it took for people to recover from living for seven weeks surrounded by relentless smoke.
They still don’t know, because most residents haven’t recovered. In fact, they’ve gotten worse.
Forest fires had funneled hazardous air into Seeley Lake, a town of fewer than 2,000 people, for 49 days. The air quality was so bad that on some days the monitoring stations couldn’t measure the extent of the pollution. The intensity of the smoke and the length of time residents had been trapped in it were unprecedented, prompting county officials to issue their first evacuation orders due to smoke, not fire risk.
Many people stayed. That made Seeley Lake an ideal place to track the long-term health of people inundated by wildfire pollution.
So far, researchers have found that people’s lung capacity declined in the first two years after the smoke cleared. Chris Migliaccio, an immunologist with the University of Montana, and his team found the percentage of residents whose lung function sank below normal thresholds more than doubled in the first year after the fire and remained low a year after that.
“There’s something wrong there,” Migliaccio said.
While it’s long been known that smoke can be dangerous when in the thick of it — triggering asthma attacks, cardiac arrests, hospitalizations and more — the Seeley Lake research confirmed what public health experts feared: Wildfire haze can have consequences long after it’s gone.
That doesn’t bode well for the 78 million people in the western United States now confronting historic wildfires.
Toxic air from fires has blanketed California and the Pacific Northwest for weeks now, causing some of the world’s worst air quality. California fires have burned roughly 2.3 million acres so far this year, and the wildfire season isn’t over yet. Oregon estimates 500,000 people in the state have been under a notice to either prepare to evacuate or leave. Smoke from the West Coast blazes has drifted as far away as Europe.
Extreme wildfires are predicted to become a regular occurrence due to climate change. And, as more people increasingly settle in fire-prone places, the risks increase. That’s shifted wildfires from being a perennial reality for rural mountain towns to becoming an annual threat for areas across the West.
Dr. Perry Hystad, an associate professor in the College of Health and Human Sciences at Oregon State University, said the Seeley Lake research offers unique insights into wildfire smoke’s impact, which until recently had largely been unexplored. He said similar studies are likely to follow because of this fire season.
“This is the question that everybody is asking,” Hystad said. “‘I’ve been sitting in smoke for two weeks, how concerned should I be?’”
Migliaccio wants to know whether the lung damage he saw in Seeley Lake is reversible — or even treatable. (Think of an inhaler for asthma or other medication that prevents swollen airways.)
But those discoveries will have to wait. The team hasn’t been able to return to Seeley Lake this year because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Migliaccio said more research is needed on whether wildfire smoke damages organs besides the lungs, and whether routine exposure makes people more susceptible to diseases.
The combination of the fire season and the pandemic has spurred other questions as well, like whether heavy smoke exposure could lead to more COVID-19 deaths. A recent study showed a spike in influenza cases following major fire seasons.
“Now you have the combination of flu season and COVID and the wildfires,” Migliaccio said. “How are all these things going to interact come late fall or winter?”
A Case Study
Seeley Lake has long known smoke. It sits in a narrow valley between vast stretches of thick forests.
On a recent September day, Boyd Gossard stood on his back porch and pointed toward the mountains that were ablaze in 2017.
Gossard, 80, expects to have some summer days veiled in haze. But that year, he said, he could hardly see his neighbor’s house a few hundred feet away.
“I’ve seen a lot of smoke in my career,” said Gossard, who worked in timber management and served as a wildland firefighter. “But having to just live in it like this was very different. It got to you after a while.”
When Missoula County health officials urged people to leave town and flee the hazardous smoke, many residents stayed close to home. Some said their jobs wouldn’t let them leave. Others didn’t have a place to go — or the money to get there.
Health officials warned those who stayed to avoid exercising and breathing too hard, to remain inside and to follow steps to make their homes as smoke-free as possible. The health department also worked to get air filters to those who needed them most.
But when flames got too close, some people had to sleep outside in campsites on the other side of town.
Understanding the Science of Smoke
One of the known dangers of smoke is particulate matter. Smaller than the width of a human hair, it can bypass a body’s defenses, lodging deep into lungs. Lu Hu, an atmospheric chemist with the University of Montana, said air quality reports are based on how much of that pollution is in the air.
“It’s like lead; there’s no safe level, but still we have a safety measure for what’s allowable,” Hu said. “Some things kill you fast and some things kill you slowly.”
While air quality measurements can gauge the overall amount of pollution, they can’t assess which specific toxins people are inhaling. Hu is collaborating with other scientists to better predict how smoke travels and what pollutants people actually breathe.
He said smoke’s chemistry changes based on how far it travels and what’s burning, among other factors.
Over the past few years, teams of researchers drove trucks along fire lines to collect smoke samples. Other scientists boarded cargo planes and flew into smoke plumes to take samples right from a fire’s source. Still others stationed at a mountain lookout captured smoke drifting in from nearby fires. And ground-level machines at a Missoula site logged data over two summers.
Bob Yokelson, a longtime smoke researcher with the University of Montana, said scientists are getting closer to understanding its contents. And, he said, “it’s not all bad news.”
Temperature and sunlight can change some pollutants over time. Some dangerous particles seem to disappear. But others, such as ozone, can increase as smoke ages.
Yokelson said scientists are still a long way from determining a safe level of exposure to the 100-odd pollutants in smoke.
“We can complete the circle by measuring not only what’s in smoke, but measuring what’s happening to the people who breathe it,” Yokelson said. “That’s where the future of health research on smoke is going to go.”
Coping With Nowhere to Flee
In the meantime, those studying wildland smoke hope what they’ve learned so far can better prepare people to live in the haze when evacuation isn’t an option.
Joan Wollan, 82, was one of the Seeley Lake study participants. She stayed put during the 2017 fire because her house at the time sat on a border of the evacuation zone.
The air made her eyes burn and her husband cough. She ordered air filters to create cleaner air inside her home, which helped.
On a recent day, the air in Wollan’s new neighborhood in Missoula turned that familiar gray-orange as traces of fires from elsewhere appeared. Local health officials warned that western Montana could get hit by some of the worst air quality the state had seen since those 2017 fires.
If it got bad enough, Wollan said, she’d get the filters out of storage or look for a way to get to cleaner air — “if there is someplace in Montana that isn’t smoky.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-18--Judge Denounces USPS Changes as Effort to Sabotage Election and Orders Reversal

A federal judge late Thursday issued a nationwide injunction temporarily blocking and reversing dramatic changes to mail operations imposed in recent months by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy , slamming the policies as a “ politically motivated attack ” on the U.S .
Postal Service that — if allowed to stand — would disenfranchise voters in November .
“ Although not necessarily apparent on the surface , at the heart of DeJoy ’ s and the Postal Service ’ s actions is voter disenfranchisement , ” wrote Judge Stanley Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , largely granting a request by 14 states for a court order halting the postmaster general ’ s sweeping changes .
Bastian said that based on President Donald Trump ’ s repeated and ongoing attacks on mail-in voting , it is “ easy to conclude ” that DeJoy ’ s changes are part of “ an intentional effort ” by the White House to “ disrupt and challenge the legitimacy of upcoming local , state , and federal elections , especially given that 72 % of the decommissioned high-speed mail sorting machines… were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most votes in 2016.
” The judge ’ s ruling requires the USPS to immediately stop instructing postal workers to leave mail behind in order to leave for their trips at set times , continue treating all election mail as First Class mail , and return or reconnect any sorting machines deemed essential for efficient processing of election mail .
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson , who led the coalition of states in suing the Postal Service , celebrated the ruling as a major victory that “ protects a critical institution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Washington Post , USPS spokesman Dave Partenheimer said the agency is “ exploring our legal options ” following the nationwide injunction .
“ There should be no doubt that the Postal Service is ready and committed to handle whatever volume of election mail it receives , ” said Partenheimer .
“ Our number one priority is to deliver election mail on-time.
” Pointing to statistics showing that “ there has been a drastic decrease in delivery rates , ” Bastian dismissed the USPS leadership ’ s “ remarkable position that nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s approach to election mail from past years.
” An investigation led by Sen. Gary Peters ( D-Mich. ) , the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee , found that “ on-time mail delivery fell abruptly following Postmaster General DeJoy ’ s July 2020 directives ordering operational changes to mail service and delivery.
” “ By the second week of August 2020 , on-time delivery of First Class mail nationwide had fallen nearly 10 percentage points compared to the week preceding the changes , ” reads a report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ This means approximately 85 million more deliveries were late in a single week , compared to what the late deliveries would have been that week under on-time delivery rates before the changes.
” In a statement late Thursday , Peters applauded Bastian ’ s ruling as further confirmation that “ Postmaster General DeJoy ’ s changes were directly responsible for slowing down the mail for seniors , veterans , small businesses , and other Americans.
” “ While today ’ s ruling is a welcome development , ” said Peters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push Mr. DeJoy to ensure the Postal Service returns to providing reliable , on-time delivery and pass my legislation that would reverse changes to the Postal Service during the pandemic and provide necessary funding for the Postal Service during this crisis .
”

The judge slammed DeJoy’s policies as a “politically motivated attack” on the U.S. Postal Service.
A federal judge late Thursday issued a nationwide injunction temporarily blocking and reversing dramatic changes to mail operations imposed in recent months by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, slamming the policies as a “politically motivated attack” on the U.S. Postal Service that — if allowed to stand — would disenfranchise voters in November.
“Although not necessarily apparent on the surface, at the heart of DeJoy’s and the Postal Service’s actions is voter disenfranchisement,” wrote Judge Stanley Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in a 13-page ruling (pdf), largely granting a request by 14 states for a court order halting the postmaster general’s sweeping changes.
Bastian said that based on President Donald Trump’s repeated and ongoing attacks on mail-in voting, it is “easy to conclude” that DeJoy’s changes are part of “an intentional effort” by the White House to “disrupt and challenge the legitimacy of upcoming local, state, and federal elections, especially given that 72% of the decommissioned high-speed mail sorting machines… were located in counties where Hillary Clinton received the most votes in 2016.”
The judge’s ruling requires the USPS to immediately stop instructing postal workers to leave mail behind in order to leave for their trips at set times, continue treating all election mail as First Class mail, and return or reconnect any sorting machines deemed essential for efficient processing of election mail.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who led the coalition of states in suing the Postal Service, celebrated the ruling as a major victory that “protects a critical institution for our country.”
In a statement to the Washington Post, USPS spokesman Dave Partenheimer said the agency is “exploring our legal options” following the nationwide injunction.
“There should be no doubt that the Postal Service is ready and committed to handle whatever volume of election mail it receives,” said Partenheimer. “Our number one priority is to deliver election mail on-time.”
Huge victory for democracy and for all Americans that rely on this critical institution. https://t.co/8NpyWTFBJH — Bob Ferguson (@BobFergusonAG) September 17, 2020
Pointing to statistics showing that “there has been a drastic decrease in delivery rates,” Bastian dismissed the USPS leadership’s “remarkable position that nothing has changed in the Postal Service’s approach to election mail from past years.”
An investigation led by Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, found that “on-time mail delivery fell abruptly following Postmaster General DeJoy’s July 2020 directives ordering operational changes to mail service and delivery.”
“By the second week of August 2020, on-time delivery of First Class mail nationwide had fallen nearly 10 percentage points compared to the week preceding the changes,” reads a report (pdf) Peters released this week. “This means approximately 85 million more deliveries were late in a single week, compared to what the late deliveries would have been that week under on-time delivery rates before the changes.”
In a statement late Thursday, Peters applauded Bastian’s ruling as further confirmation that “Postmaster General DeJoy’s changes were directly responsible for slowing down the mail for seniors, veterans, small businesses, and other Americans.”
“While today’s ruling is a welcome development,” said Peters, “I will continue to work to push Mr. DeJoy to ensure the Postal Service returns to providing reliable, on-time delivery and pass my legislation that would reverse changes to the Postal Service during the pandemic and provide necessary funding for the Postal Service during this crisis.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.