truthout--2020-05-25--Why Veterans Are Particularly Vulnerable to the Coronavirus Pandemic

As the nation takes a day to memorialize its military dead , those who are living are facing a deadly risk that has nothing to do with war or conflict : the coronavirus .
Different groups face different degrees of danger from the pandemic , from the elderly who are experiencing deadly outbreaks in nursing homes to communities of color with higher infection and death rates .
Veterans are among the most hard-hit , with heightened health and economic threats from the pandemic .
These veterans face homelessness , lack of health care , delays in receiving financial support and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past four years studying veterans with substance use and mental health disorders who are in the criminal justice system .
This work revealed gaps in health care and financial support for veterans , even though they have the best publicly funded benefits in the country .
Here are eight ways the pandemic threatens veterans : In 2017 , veterans ’ median age was 64 , their average age was 58 and 91 % were male .
The largest group served in the Vietnam era , where 2.8 million veterans were exposed to Agent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancer .
Younger veterans deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan were exposed to dust storms , oil fires and burn pits with numerous toxins , and perhaps as a consequence have high rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses .
Age and respiratory illnesses are both risk factors for COVID-19 mortality .
As of May 22 , there have been 12,979 people under Veterans Administration care with COVID-19 , of whom 1,100 have died .
Veterans needing end-of-life care , those with cognitive disabilities or those needing substance use treatment often live in crowded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ soldiers ’ homes ” are notoriously starved for money and staff .
The horrific situation at the soldiers ’ home in Holyoke , Massachusetts , where more than 79 veteran residents have died from a COVID-19 outbreak , illustrates the risk facing the veterans in residential homes .
When a person transitions from active military service to become a veteran , they receive a Certificate of Discharge or Release .
This certificate provides information about the circumstances of the discharge or release .
It includes characterizations such as “ honorable , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad conduct ” or “ dishonorable.
” These are crucial distinctions , because that status determines whether the Veterans Administration will give them benefits .
Research shows that some veterans with discharges that limit their benefits have PTSD symptoms , military sexual trauma or other behaviors related to military stress .
Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have disproportionately more of these negative discharges than veterans from other eras , for reasons still unclear .
The Veterans Administration frequently and perhaps unlawfully denies benefits to veterans with “ other than honorable ” discharges .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ discharge status .
There is a significant backlog of these upgrade requests , and the pandemic will add to it , further delaying access to health care and other benefits .
Dental surgery , routine visits and elective surgeries at Veterans Administration medical centers have been postponed since mid-March .
VA hospitals are understaffed – just before the pandemic , the VA reported 43,000 staff vacancies out of more than 400,000 health care staff positions .
Access to health care will be even more difficult when those medical centers finally reopen because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need .
As of May 4 , 2020 , 2,250 VA health care workers have tested positive for COVID-19 , and thousands of health care workers are under quarantine .
The VA is asking doctors and nurses to come out of retirement to help already understaffed hospitals .
An average of 20 veterans die by suicide every day .
A national task force is currently addressing this scourge .
But many outpatient mental health programs are on hold or being held virtually .
Some residential mental health facilities have closed .
Under these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may grow .
Suicide hotline calls by veterans were up by 12 % on March 22 , just a few weeks into the crisis .
6 .
Complications for Homeless Veterans and Those in the Justice System An estimated 45,000 veterans are homeless on any given night , and 181,500 veterans are in prison or jail .
Thousands more are under court-supervised substance use and mental health treatment in veterans treatment courts .
More than half of veterans involved with the justice system have either mental health problems or substance use disorders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many veterans eligible to leave prison or jail have nowhere to go .
They may stay incarcerated or become homeless .
Courts have moved online or ceased formal operations altogether , meaning no veteran charged with a crime can be referred to a treatment court .
It is unclear whether those who were already participating in a treatment program will face delays graduating from court-supervised treatments .
Further , some veterans treatment courts still require participants to take drug tests .
With COVID-19 circulating , those participants must put their health at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the pandemic ’ s epicenter in New York , tens of thousands of veterans should have access to VA benefits because of their low income – but don ’ t , so far .
The pandemic has exacerbated existing delays in finding veterans in need , filing their paperwork and waiting for decisions .
Ryan Foley , an attorney in New York ’ s Legal Assistance Group , a nonprofit legal services organization , noted in a personal communication that these benefits are worth “ tens of millions of dollars to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ midst of a health and economic disaster .
All 56 regional Veterans Administration offices are closed to encourage social distancing .
Compensation and disability evaluations , which determine how much money veterans can get , are usually done in person .
Now , they must be done electronically , via telehealth services in which the veteran communicates with a health care provider via computer .
But getting telehealth up and running is taking time , adding to the longstanding VA backlog .
Currently , more than 100,000 veterans wait more than 125 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the VA defines as a backlog – anything less than 125 days is not considered a delay on benefit claims . )
There are 1.2 million veteran employees in the five industries most severely affected by the economic fallout of the coronavirus .
A disproportionately high number of post-9/11 veterans live in some of the hardest-hit communities that depend on these industries .
Veterans returning from overseas will face a dire economic landscape , with far fewer opportunities to integrate into civilian life with financial security .
In addition , severely disabled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially required to file a tax return to get stimulus checks .
This initial filing requirement delayed benefits for severely disabled veterans by at least a month .
The IRS finally changed the requirements after public outcry , given that many older and severely disabled veterans do not have access to computers or the technological skills to file electronically .
There are many social groups to pay attention to , all with their own problems to face during the pandemic .
With veterans , many of the problems they face now existed long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But with the challenges posed by the situation today , veterans who were already lacking adequate benefits and resources are now in deeper trouble , and it will be harder to answer their needs .

Veterans are among the most hard-hit, with heightened health and economic threats from the pandemic.
As the nation takes a day to memorialize its military dead, those who are living are facing a deadly risk that has nothing to do with war or conflict: the coronavirus.
Different groups face different degrees of danger from the pandemic, from the elderly who are experiencing deadly outbreaks in nursing homes to communities of color with higher infection and death rates. Veterans are among the most hard-hit, with heightened health and economic threats from the pandemic. These veterans face homelessness, lack of health care, delays in receiving financial support and even death.
I have spent the past four years studying veterans with substance use and mental health disorders who are in the criminal justice system. This work revealed gaps in health care and financial support for veterans, even though they have the best publicly funded benefits in the country.
Here are eight ways the pandemic threatens veterans:
1. Age and Other Vulnerabilities
In 2017, veterans’ median age was 64, their average age was 58 and 91% were male. The largest group served in the Vietnam era, where 2.8 million veterans were exposed to Agent Orange, a chemical defoliant linked to cancer.
Younger veterans deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan were exposed to dust storms, oil fires and burn pits with numerous toxins, and perhaps as a consequence have high rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses.
Age and respiratory illnesses are both risk factors for COVID-19 mortality. As of May 22, there have been 12,979 people under Veterans Administration care with COVID-19, of whom 1,100 have died.
2. Dangerous Residential Facilities
Veterans needing end-of-life care, those with cognitive disabilities or those needing substance use treatment often live in crowded VA or state-funded residential facilities.
State-funded “soldiers’ homes” are notoriously starved for money and staff. The horrific situation at the soldiers’ home in Holyoke, Massachusetts, where more than 79 veteran residents have died from a COVID-19 outbreak, illustrates the risk facing the veterans in residential homes.
3. Benefits Unfairly Denied
When a person transitions from active military service to become a veteran, they receive a Certificate of Discharge or Release. This certificate provides information about the circumstances of the discharge or release. It includes characterizations such as “honorable,” “other than honorable,” “bad conduct” or “dishonorable.” These are crucial distinctions, because that status determines whether the Veterans Administration will give them benefits.
Research shows that some veterans with discharges that limit their benefits have PTSD symptoms, military sexual trauma or other behaviors related to military stress. Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have disproportionately more of these negative discharges than veterans from other eras, for reasons still unclear.
The Veterans Administration frequently and perhaps unlawfully denies benefits to veterans with “other than honorable” discharges.
Many veterans have requested upgrades to their discharge status. There is a significant backlog of these upgrade requests, and the pandemic will add to it, further delaying access to health care and other benefits.
4. Diminished Access to Health Care
Dental surgery, routine visits and elective surgeries at Veterans Administration medical centers have been postponed since mid-March. VA hospitals are understaffed – just before the pandemic, the VA reported 43,000 staff vacancies out of more than 400,000 health care staff positions. Access to health care will be even more difficult when those medical centers finally reopen because they may have far fewer workers than they need.
As of May 4, 2020, 2,250 VA health care workers have tested positive for COVID-19, and thousands of health care workers are under quarantine. The VA is asking doctors and nurses to come out of retirement to help already understaffed hospitals.
5. Mental Health May Get Worse
An average of 20 veterans die by suicide every day. A national task force is currently addressing this scourge.
But many outpatient mental health programs are on hold or being held virtually. Some residential mental health facilities have closed.
Under these conditions, the suicide rate for veterans may grow. Suicide hotline calls by veterans were up by 12% on March 22, just a few weeks into the crisis.
6. Complications for Homeless Veterans and Those in the Justice System
An estimated 45,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, and 181,500 veterans are in prison or jail. Thousands more are under court-supervised substance use and mental health treatment in veterans treatment courts. More than half of veterans involved with the justice system have either mental health problems or substance use disorders.
As residential facilities close to new participants, many veterans eligible to leave prison or jail have nowhere to go. They may stay incarcerated or become homeless.
Courts have moved online or ceased formal operations altogether, meaning no veteran charged with a crime can be referred to a treatment court. It is unclear whether those who were already participating in a treatment program will face delays graduating from court-supervised treatments.
Further, some veterans treatment courts still require participants to take drug tests. With COVID-19 circulating, those participants must put their health at risk to travel to licensed testing facilities.
7. Disability Benefits Delayed
In the pandemic’s epicenter in New York, tens of thousands of veterans should have access to VA benefits because of their low income – but don’t, so far.
The pandemic has exacerbated existing delays in finding veterans in need, filing their paperwork and waiting for decisions. Ryan Foley, an attorney in New York’s Legal Assistance Group, a nonprofit legal services organization, noted in a personal communication that these benefits are worth “tens of millions of dollars to veterans and their families” in the midst of a health and economic disaster.
All 56 regional Veterans Administration offices are closed to encourage social distancing. Compensation and disability evaluations, which determine how much money veterans can get, are usually done in person. Now, they must be done electronically, via telehealth services in which the veteran communicates with a health care provider via computer.
But getting telehealth up and running is taking time, adding to the longstanding VA backlog. Currently, more than 100,000 veterans wait more than 125 days for a decision. (That is what the VA defines as a backlog – anything less than 125 days is not considered a delay on benefit claims.)
8. Economic Catastrophe
There are 1.2 million veteran employees in the five industries most severely affected by the economic fallout of the coronavirus.
A disproportionately high number of post-9/11 veterans live in some of the hardest-hit communities that depend on these industries. Veterans returning from overseas will face a dire economic landscape, with far fewer opportunities to integrate into civilian life with financial security.
In addition, severely disabled veterans living off of VA benefits were initially required to file a tax return to get stimulus checks. This initial filing requirement delayed benefits for severely disabled veterans by at least a month. The IRS finally changed the requirements after public outcry, given that many older and severely disabled veterans do not have access to computers or the technological skills to file electronically.
There are many social groups to pay attention to, all with their own problems to face during the pandemic. With veterans, many of the problems they face now existed long before the coronavirus arrived on U.S. shores.
But with the challenges posed by the situation today, veterans who were already lacking adequate benefits and resources are now in deeper trouble, and it will be harder to answer their needs.
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--2020-05-25--Dubious State Testing Numbers May Be Screwing Up National CDC Reports

Health officials in Texas , Georgia , Vermont and Virginia acknowledged this week that they have been combining viral and antibody test results .
Those results may well have painted an inaccurate picture of how the coronavirus has spread over time , and led to an overestimation of how well officials are tracking the contagion .
The difference is a matter of timing .
Viral tests — taken by nasal swabs or saliva samples — help diagnose current COVID-19 infections .
“ If you put the two tests together , you fool yourself into thinking you ’ ve done more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen .
The more testing a state does , the better it can understand the scope of infection .
But if viral test numbers include antibody test results , experts say , it might give a state an inflated sense of its ability to test and track current infections .
Some experts believe state officials have been intentionally conflating the two numbers in order to exaggerate or distort the stats .
Although unproven , this is plausible , since it ’ s otherwise unclear why health officials would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly distinct datasets .
Antibody tests analyze a person ’ s blood to see if they have been infected in the past .
Moreover , the national testing data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) is drawn from the state-submitted data , a CDC spokesperson told Salon .
It ’ s not clear why CDC officials would knowingly combine those two datasets into one viral test dataset .
Doing so would create an imperfect picture of the national testing landscape and progress .
It ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been combining data and how much , or in what way , these flawed reports may have skewed the national data .
The Virginia Department of Health , for instance , reports confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19 infection ( also listed on its website ) .
We do not know whether CDC knew it was aggregating and publishing skewed data , and if it did , when .
CDC did not respond to questions about those issues .
What seems apparent , however , is that for months CDC has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggregated from at least some states .
Ashish Jha , the K.T .
Li Professor of Global Health at Harvard , told The Atlantic last week that such results can represent testing gains that do not exist in reality .
The result might skew the maps of time and space that are increasingly critical as states begin rolling back social distancing restrictions .
Health officials in Texas , Virginia and Vermont say they have been working to deconflict the reports over the last few days .
Georgia ’ s state health department , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adhering to methodology guidelines from the CDC .
In a statement to Salon , a Georgia Department of Public Health ( GDPH ) spokeswoman doubled down on the claim that the department had followed CDC directives , but promised “ greater transparency.
” The statement also mentioned , in its final sentence , that Georgia officials have decided to change their methodology , and will now separately report antibody and viral ( PCR ) results : The GDPH has received antibody tests since early April and , following current CDC methodology , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Total Tests ’ number currently listed on the DPH COVID-19 Daily Status Report .
DPH staff is currently working diligently to provide greater transparency in the molecular and serologic testing data displayed on the Daily Status Report .
One of our top priorities is to provide accurate and timely data to the public and we will continue to make every effort to do so .
The number of serology tests reported to DPH is 57,000 , and we will continue to get new reports so that number will change daily .
Serology tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease in the population and have been authorized by the FDA for use in COVID-19 .
We will update the website to reflect the number of ‘ Total Tests ’ that are serology vs PCR .
The statement did not detail the number of viral ( PCR ) tests .
CDC ’ s online database currently breaks the two tests down by type .
When Salon reached out to CDC in search of further clarification on methodology , a spokesperson said that the agency publishes aggregated state data , which we now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least in some instances .
It is not clear when CDC learned that some states had been reporting combined test numbers , or whether those states had assumed from CDC ’ s final output format that all other states were combining numbers in the same fashion .
How much these mixed methodologies among different states may have the skewed national data seems to be unknown .
“ CDC has worked quickly to publicly report COVID-19 laboratory data that we receive in electronic form from state and jurisdictional health departments as part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this data on the COVID Data Tracker website to inform the public and guide decision making , ” the spokesperson wrote in an email .
“ Initially , when CDC launched its website and its laboratory test reporting , viral testing ( tests for current infection ) were far more commonly used nationwide than serology testing ( tests for past infection ) .
Now that serology testing is more widely available , CDC is working to differentiate those tests from the viral tests and will report this information , differentiated by test type @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website in the coming weeks , ” the spokesperson said .
“ This is just one presentation of this data – often states have their own presentation of the data that is driving their decisions , ” the email said .
The spokesperson pointed to a weekly report called COVIDView , which only counts viral testing .
“ The advantage to the COVIDView lab data is being able to see the change in percent positivity over time , which has been going down for a few weeks , ” the spokesperson said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ website points out that the number of positive tests in a state is not necessarily equal to the number of cases , because an individual may be tested more than once .
Negative tests typically take longer to come in ; in Virginia , the average lag is three days .
This means that each negative test result does not necessarily represent a distinct individual either .
As the number of people tested more than once increases over time — and if the spread of testing outstrips the spread of the virus — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a glance .
A spokesperson for the Virginia Department of Health confirmed that it too will now split test data according to type , but said the differences were “ minimal ” and did not misrepresent the bigger picture .
“ Antibody tests make up less than nine percent of overall tests .
When these tests are removed from total results , there is minimal change in the percent positive of tests and no difference in overall trends , ” the spokesperson said .
The spokesperson provided tables that illustrate heartening trends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive results has declined — but also reveal how the many factors outlined above , such as the three-day lag for full results , might complicate a layperson ’ s understanding of the data .
The Texas and Vermont departments of health did not respond to Salon ’ s requests for comment .
Testing capacity is one of the key pieces required for a successful and phased reopening of the economy .
Public health experts , including members of the official White House task force , have repeatedly cautioned against attempting a return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place , as well as contact tracing programs and , ultimately , a vaccine .
According to the latest state health department data , Georgia has reported more than 40,400 cases and more than 1,700 deaths .
Texas has reported more than 51,300 cases and more than 1,400 deaths , Virginia has reported more than 44,100 cases and 1,099 deaths , and Vermont has reported more than 900 cases and 54 deaths .
Virginia entered its first reopening phase on May 15 ; Texas , Georgia and Vermont initiated reopening on April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States have tested positive for coronavirus and as of Sunday morning just over 98,000 have died , according to the most recent data from Johns Hopkins University .

Some states have been combining viral and antibody testing data, leading to messy or useless national statistics.
Health officials in Texas, Georgia, Vermont and Virginia acknowledged this week that they have been combining viral and antibody test results. Those results may well have painted an inaccurate picture of how the coronavirus has spread over time, and led to an overestimation of how well officials are tracking the contagion.
The difference is a matter of timing. Viral tests — taken by nasal swabs or saliva samples — help diagnose current COVID-19 infections.
“If you put the two tests together, you fool yourself into thinking you’ve done more testing than you have,” said CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen.
The more testing a state does, the better it can understand the scope of infection. But if viral test numbers include antibody test results, experts say, it might give a state an inflated sense of its ability to test and track current infections.
Some experts believe state officials have been intentionally conflating the two numbers in order to exaggerate or distort the stats. Although unproven, this is plausible, since it’s otherwise unclear why health officials would have taken the extra step to combine two clearly distinct datasets.
Antibody tests analyze a person’s blood to see if they have been infected in the past.
Moreover, the national testing data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is drawn from the state-submitted data, a CDC spokesperson told Salon.
It’s not clear why CDC officials would knowingly combine those two datasets into one viral test dataset. Doing so would create an imperfect picture of the national testing landscape and progress.
It’s also unclear whether many states beyond these four have been combining data and how much, or in what way, these flawed reports may have skewed the national data. The Virginia Department of Health, for instance, reports confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19 infection (also listed on its website). We do not know whether CDC knew it was aggregating and publishing skewed data, and if it did, when.
CDC did not respond to questions about those issues.
What seems apparent, however, is that for months CDC has been publishing national data based on imperfect data aggregated from at least some states.
From a public health perspective, it’s imperative that health officials and policymakers have an accurate and evolving understanding of how many cases a region has in order to correctly map the contagion. They also need to figure out how many people in the region have already had the virus and now appear healthy, since those people may now be immune to infection, at least in the near term. Both measures are important, but they measure different things.
Ashish Jha, the K.T. Li Professor of Global Health at Harvard, told The Atlantic last week that such results can represent testing gains that do not exist in reality.
“It is terrible. It messes up everything,” Jha said. Combining the test results as these states have done, he says, returns information that is impossible to interpret.
The result might skew the maps of time and space that are increasingly critical as states begin rolling back social distancing restrictions.
Health officials in Texas, Virginia and Vermont say they have been working to deconflict the reports over the last few days. Georgia’s state health department, however, said the state was simply adhering to methodology guidelines from the CDC.
In a statement to Salon, a Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH) spokeswoman doubled down on the claim that the department had followed CDC directives, but promised “greater transparency.” The statement also mentioned, in its final sentence, that Georgia officials have decided to change their methodology, and will now separately report antibody and viral (PCR) results:
The GDPH has received antibody tests since early April and, following current CDC methodology, has included the tests received in the ‘Total Tests’ number currently listed on the DPH COVID-19 Daily Status Report. DPH staff is currently working diligently to provide greater transparency in the molecular and serologic testing data displayed on the Daily Status Report. One of our top priorities is to provide accurate and timely data to the public and we will continue to make every effort to do so. The number of serology tests reported to DPH is 57,000, and we will continue to get new reports so that number will change daily. Serology tests are useful in determining the prevalence of the disease in the population and have been authorized by the FDA for use in COVID-19. We will update the website to reflect the number of ‘Total Tests’ that are serology vs PCR.
The statement did not detail the number of viral (PCR) tests.
CDC’s online database currently breaks the two tests down by type. When Salon reached out to CDC in search of further clarification on methodology, a spokesperson said that the agency publishes aggregated state data, which we now know included both types of tests, at least in some instances.
It is not clear when CDC learned that some states had been reporting combined test numbers, or whether those states had assumed from CDC’s final output format that all other states were combining numbers in the same fashion. How much these mixed methodologies among different states may have the skewed national data seems to be unknown.
“CDC has worked quickly to publicly report COVID-19 laboratory data that we receive in electronic form from state and jurisdictional health departments as part of the pandemic response. CDC began reporting this data on the COVID Data Tracker website to inform the public and guide decision making,” the spokesperson wrote in an email.
“Initially, when CDC launched its website and its laboratory test reporting, viral testing (tests for current infection) were far more commonly used nationwide than serology testing (tests for past infection). Now that serology testing is more widely available, CDC is working to differentiate those tests from the viral tests and will report this information, differentiated by test type, publicly on our COVID Data Tracker website in the coming weeks,” the spokesperson said.
“This is just one presentation of this data – often states have their own presentation of the data that is driving their decisions,” the email said.
The spokesperson pointed to a weekly report called COVIDView, which only counts viral testing. “The advantage to the COVIDView lab data is being able to see the change in percent positivity over time, which has been going down for a few weeks,” the spokesperson said.
Further muddying the picture, the CDC website points out that the number of positive tests in a state is not necessarily equal to the number of cases, because an individual may be tested more than once. Negative tests typically take longer to come in; in Virginia, the average lag is three days.
This means that each negative test result does not necessarily represent a distinct individual either. As the number of people tested more than once increases over time — and if the spread of testing outstrips the spread of the virus — it becomes increasingly difficult to draw conclusions at a glance.
A spokesperson for the Virginia Department of Health confirmed that it too will now split test data according to type, but said the differences were “minimal” and did not misrepresent the bigger picture.
“Antibody tests make up less than nine percent of overall tests. When these tests are removed from total results, there is minimal change in the percent positive of tests and no difference in overall trends,” the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson provided tables that illustrate heartening trends for the state — the percentage of positive results has declined — but also reveal how the many factors outlined above, such as the three-day lag for full results, might complicate a layperson’s understanding of the data.
The Texas and Vermont departments of health did not respond to Salon’s requests for comment.
Testing capacity is one of the key pieces required for a successful and phased reopening of the economy. Public health experts, including members of the official White House task force, have repeatedly cautioned against attempting a return to normal before robust testing infrastructure is in place, as well as contact tracing programs and, ultimately, a vaccine.
According to the latest state health department data, Georgia has reported more than 40,400 cases and more than 1,700 deaths. Texas has reported more than 51,300 cases and more than 1,400 deaths, Virginia has reported more than 44,100 cases and 1,099 deaths, and Vermont has reported more than 900 cases and 54 deaths.
Virginia entered its first reopening phase on May 15; Texas, Georgia and Vermont initiated reopening on April 27.
More than 1.6 million people in the United States have tested positive for coronavirus and as of Sunday morning just over 98,000 have died, according to the most recent data from Johns Hopkins University.
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--2020-05-25--Republicans Accelerate Voter Suppression Efforts During Pandemic

Janine Jackson : It was called “ one of the most brazen acts of voter suppression in modern history.
” With an unsigned opinion , believed to come from Brett Kavanaugh , the Supreme Court voted 5–4 that it was OK for Wisconsin to disqualify ballots postmarked and received after their primary election day — even though thousands of voters didn ’ t even get those ballots until after election day , due to the sheer overwhelm of requests for absentee ballots resulting from the pandemic .
Coming literally on the night before the election , the ruling overturned a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the absentee ballot deadline , and forced people to risk their health in order to exercise their right to vote .
Flawed in letter and spirit , the Supreme Court ’ s decision is just part of the setback to the democratic project reflected in Wisconsin , and we need to understand the story : Who did what and how ?
Because without intervention , it ’ s on track to be repeated .
Ari Berman covers voting rights as a senior reporter at Mother Jones .
He ’ s the author of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Struggle for Voting Rights in America .
He joins us now by phone .
Welcome back to CounterSpin , Ari Berman .
Ari Berman : Hey , thanks for having me , Janine .
In trying to understand what happened with April ’ s primary in Wisconsin , you have written that you need to start the clock earlier than , say , Governor Evers ’ push to postpone the election in the face of Covid-19 , and the Republican-dominated state supreme court ’ s reinstatement of it .
Could you talk us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you called a “ vicious cycle , ” the roots of this outrageous series of events ?
Yeah , I think you have to go back to when Republicans took over Wisconsin after the 2010 election , controlling the state for the first time in 50 years .
And they did a series of things to try to weaken Democratic power , and to try to skew political representation .
One of the things they did was they passed these really horrible gerrymandered maps that made it possible for Republicans to win no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Republicans in Wisconsin only got 46 % of the vote , but they got 64 % of seats in the state legislature .
So they have a majority now , even if people don ’ t like them .
And it was a Republican legislature , remember , that refused to postpone the election in Wisconsin , and also refused to mail ballots to every voter .
And so really , the reason why Republicans are so dug in in that state is because of the gerrymandered maps they ’ ve passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done other stuff , like pass an array of voter suppression laws , such as a voter ID law , such as cutbacks to early voting , changes to voter registration , that have also made it easier for Republicans to win elections , including to win a majority on the state supreme court , which , of course , was the court that said that Tony Evers , the governor , couldn ’ t delay the election .
So when you say “ vicious cycle , ” they ’ ve kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the courts then support the ruling , support the politicians , and it goes round and round , and it ’ s hard to intervene in that .
It ’ s not a foolproof system , in the sense that a lot of people thought the Republican , or the conservative , candidate for the state supreme court , Daniel Kelly , was going to win the election .
He didn ’ t win the election .
So it shows that when Democrats are mobilized enough , they can still win elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a whole series of barriers they have to try to surmount .
And in the case of gerrymandering , it ’ s incredibly difficult , because Democrats actually are winning more votes than Republicans in Wisconsin , but it ’ s not translating into a political majority .
And so I think , in a situation where elections are so razor-thin , particularly in that state , the Republicans have a built-in advantage .
Before the election even begins , they are essentially ahead , because of all the structural impediments they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of the legislature and through control of the courts .
It was seen as a silver lining that Daniel Kelly , the conservative state supreme court justice , the protection of whose position was seen as a prime motivator for the Wisconsin GOP , that he wasn ’ t successful , that he was unseated by Jill Karofsky .
But then I see this story in The New York Times about how Democrats are “ publicly bragging ” about that victory , and hoping that “ liberal activists … can replicate ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digital campaigning , essentially , as necessitated by the virus .
It made this scramble to protect the vote in a crisis seem like purely partisan gamesmanship .
And I know it ’ s important to say what party is doing what , but can nothing come from the point of view of democracy itself ?
It seems to me there ’ s plenty to chew on in Wisconsin without saying the only people critical of it are Democrats .
Exactly .
I think that it was good that Kelly lost , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the Republicans had made such an effort to suppress the vote , that his election was symbolic of broader attacks on democracy , and thus his defeat could be interpreted as a defeat , not for Republicans , or a victory not for Democrats , but a victory for democracy itself .
And that a lot of people were able to vote , in spite of the barriers that were set up , that people either waited on very long lines and very hazardous conditions to vote in person , or they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at a time when the absentee ballot system was totally overwhelmed .
But I don ’ t know how transferable what happened in Wisconsin was .
You have to remember , there was a Democratic presidential primary that day , and there was no corresponding Republican presidential primary .
So a lot of people were just voting because they wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden , and they just happened to click on the state supreme court race .
So I ’ m not sure in a different environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , Wisconsin voted Democrat , therefore vote-by-mail , for example , helps Democrats more than Republicans.
” I think that we don ’ t know that .
The data we have on vote-by-mail , for example , shows that both parties use it pretty much equally .
It ’ s sort of ironic , President Trump is saying that vote-by-mail gives Democrats these huge advantages , when there ’ s virtually no advantage for either party when it comes to voting by mail .
In fact , it may even benefit Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it more than Democrats do .
Yeah , it ’ s interesting that it would be assumed that expanding the franchise would be a negative for Republicans .
Well , the Times had also a very informative piece on Wisconsin and the Supreme Court ’ s ruling , calling out the errors in the ruling itself .
But I tripped over this bit where it referred to Brett Kavanaugh ’ s presumed support for “ laws that make voting harder , regardless of their effects on traditionally disenfranchised groups like African-American and Hispanic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes with regard to the white supremacist aspect of this voter suppression effort .
It ’ s not a mere byproduct of some lofty philosophy about the sanctity of the franchise .
I think voter suppression has been motivated by white supremacy .
Historically , certainly , that ’ s been the case .
And I think it ’ s also the case today that the interests of the Republican Party and the interest of white America go hand in hand right now .
And so you have seen consistently , over and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party and the conservative majority in the Supreme Court intervene in ways that make voting more difficult for people of color , and they ’ re not doing it because it happens to have that effect .
They ’ re doing it because they know it ’ s going to have that effect .
So to me , the really scary proposition here is that basically , the Wisconsin opinion seemed to signal that Republicans can do whatever they want to make voting more difficult , even in a pandemic , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ That ’ s OK. ” The minimum would be that you say to people , “ There ’ s so much chaos in this election , it probably shouldn ’ t have even occurred in the first place .
If we ’ re going to have it , we ’ ve got to give people more time to be able to vote.
” You would think that would just be the bare minimum that they would allow .
The fact that the court said no to that makes it really scary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to be a lot of contingency plans in November .
There ’ s going to have to be a lot of modifications to voting in November , to make it so that everyone can vote .
And if we don ’ t make the process easier , if we keep the same kind of ridiculous rules they had in Wisconsin , it ’ s going to make it very difficult for a lot of people to vote , if this pandemic is still going in November , which by all accounts it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another .
Well , yeah , I mean , it seems like the pandemic was already going to affect the election .
States need to be on top of voting by mail .
A lot of polling places are shutting down , that would affect access .
A lot of poll workers are elderly people .
People ’ s addresses might be changing because they ’ re laid off .
There was plenty to contend with due to Covid-19 before you even get to the suppression that it seems like it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if states did nothing , voting would be difficult right now , because in a pandemic , the safest way to vote is from your home .
And most states are not equipped to have people vote from home .
Only five states do universal vote-by-mail .
So in every other state , it ’ s more difficult .
Now , some states have more voting by mail .
A lot of the Western states do , either universal voting by mail or near-universal voting by mail .
But on the East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South , the majority of votes are still cast in person .
So that means they are asking a lot of people , including election officials , to use a method that is not really used for that purpose .
Vote-by-mail is really supposed to be used for people who can ’ t get to the polls on election day , for one reason or another .
And that means we are seeing a growth in vote-by-mail .
In 2018 , about a quarter of Americans voted by mail ; that still means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t vote by mail .
We would expect , even in the best of times , there would be hiccups , with so many people trying a new system , let alone the fact that there ’ s going to be all these efforts now to make it harder to vote by mail , which is going to put all these impediments in front of voters that probably haven ’ t even voted this way before .
And then , of course , we have to add , as being of a piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US Postal Service , although as Julie Hollar wrote for FAIR , media aren ’ t so much connecting those dots ; they ’ re talking about the White House attack on USPS and they ’ re talking about the election , but they ’ re not necessarily saying , “ You know , this is going to be right at the crux of this set of problems here.
” Yeah , I don ’ t know why you wouldn ’ t connect it .
I mean , it seems pretty obvious to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote by mail , the post office is going to deliver those ballots .
So it seems like a huge coincidence if suddenly Donald Trump would be attacking the post office , in the midst of an election where people are going to be using vote-by-mail in unprecedented numbers .
So no matter why the president ’ s doing this , if you believe it , that he ’ s just mad at Amazon or whatever , even if you take that at face value , the net effect of attacking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in there , of denying them funding , is it ’ s going to make it harder for them to be able to carry out this responsibility to make sure ballots are delivered and then sent back to people .
And the post office is going to need a lot more resources , a lot more staff ; it ’ s going to be very difficult for them , too .
They are also operating under extraordinary circumstances right now .
They also have people that are getting sick , and they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver mail for us , and an election in which 50 % , 60 % , 70 % of the people vote by mail would be tough for the post office in the best of times , let alone at a time when President Trump seems to be declaring war on them .
Politico reported recently that the GOP has an at least $ 20 million war chest set aside for lawsuits over voting from home .
What is the status of efforts to protect November ’ s process ?
Do we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in defense of protecting the vote in November ?
There ’ s been a ton of lawsuits about all the obscure rules over mail voting .
Like , do you need a witness signature on your ballot ?
Do you need to upload a copy of your ID with your mail ballot ?
Does your ballot need to be postmarked by Election Day ?
Does it need to be received by Election Day ?
There are so many rules for mail balloting people don ’ t even know about , that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without having any idea that your votes weren ’ t counted .
So there ’ s litigation on all of these fronts in a bunch of different states , which I think is a positive development , depending on the outcome of that .
There ’ s also a lot of state efforts to expand vote-by-mail .
And , actually , a fair number of Republican secretaries of State have been making it easier to expand vote-by-mail , probably because they understand , unlike Donald Trump , that a lot of Republicans also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want their voters to be disenfranchised .
The Congress has allocated $ 400 million for vote-by-mail and other election assistance , which I think pretty much everyone believes is totally insufficient .
There ’ s a new bill out from House Democrats , the HEROES Act , that would give the states $ 3.6 billion for vote-by-mail , which would be a big step up , and also includes a number of other reforms that are important , like early voting and online election day registration , because there ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are going to vote in person , and the best way for people to vote in person would be to give them more time so they can social distance at the polls , while also making it easier to vote-by-mail , so that postage is paid , so that it ’ s easy to get an absentee ballot , all of these things .
And I think we ’ re probably heading for a really big fight between House Democrats and the Senate and the White House over the vote-by-mail provisions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I personally think Democrats should have fought a lot harder to put some of this stuff in the first recovery package , when they had the political leverage .
And this is something clearly where time is of the essence .
We need to be ramping up to get these processes in place now , we can ’ t suddenly throw it together in October .
No , especially with voting by mail , because it ’ s not just like opening a polling place .
Voting by mail takes a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time for people to request ballots .
It takes a lot of time to get ballots .
You can ’ t just show up to vote by mail at 5 p.m. on Election Day , right ?
Like you could show up and vote in person on Election Day .
So states really need to start doing all of this stuff now .
And if you talk to state election officials , there ’ s so much equipment they need that they don ’ t have , there ’ s so many more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thing .
They need to train everyone in how to count ballots , how to send out ballots .
Otherwise , the system just gets totally overwhelmed , like in Wisconsin , where election officials were having to work 100 hours a week ; people were not getting ballots they requested ; people were totally confused about what the rules were to have their absentee ballots counted , whether they needed a witness signature , which they did on their ballots ; whether they need to upload a copy of their ID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; all of these crazy rules .
And so in that case , the data we have from Wisconsin would show that in a much higher turnout election , across 50 states , there ’ s going to be a whole lot of problems , unless we do a bunch of things right now to make the system run smoother .
It ’ s clearly not too soon for people , just as individuals , to be sorting out if and exactly how they ’ ll be able to vote , to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their locality to make sure that that can happen .
Well , we ’ re talking about the impact of the virus .
But we know that this voter suppression predates all of that .
We ’ re also still hearing , aren ’ t we , about purges of the rolls — another reason to check in and make sure that you are still listed .
Are there other voting rights things that maybe are going under the radar , that you ’ d like to call attention to ?
I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them already .
But I think it ’ s just worth noting that there are already all these efforts before Covid to try to make voting more difficult , whether it was requiring IDs to vote or trying to keep people off the voting rolls , or limiting the number of polling places .
All of those things are being magnified in a pandemic .
And so I think it ’ s really important to pay a lot of attention to the whole debate over vote-by-mail , because that ’ s going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November .
I also hope we don ’ t glorify vote-by-mail , because there are some unintended consequences of that .
And then I hope that people just stay focused on all of these other fights that are going to remain really critical , in that if you don ’ t have an ID now , it ’ s going to be a lot harder to get one when the DMV ’ s not open .
If you ’ re not on the voting rolls right now , it ’ s going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when there aren ’ t big registration drives .
And so I think the big picture is important , but I think all the minutiae , all the little things , the technical details that we tend to ignore , could also have a really big impact in this election during a pandemic .
Let me just ask you , finally , I ’ ve heard some things kind of bubbling up that , given the confusion , given what looks like chaos , at least this far out , around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have concerns about the legitimacy of whatever happens in the election , that there will be just enough murkiness that folks will be able to call the results into question , and that ’ s not going to be helpful .
No , it ’ s not going to be helpful .
And I think , also , given the likelihood of major litigation in one or more key swing states , about the rules governing mail balloting , I think it ’ s very possible you could have not just one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half a dozen Bush v. Gore scenarios if the election is close .
And so I don ’ t want to be too alarmist in May about this .
But just like the virus is scary , the prospect of holding an election in a virus is also very scary .
And there are a lot of possibilities that may have seemed remote , or even possibly hysterical , that are really quite possible in this day and age .
All the more reason for sober and clear-eyed reporting , to at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening , to at least keep us paying attention .
Absolutely , no , for sure .
And I think if anything good has come from this Wisconsin thing , it ’ s that a lot of people are paying attention to what ’ s happening to the democratic process now in a way that they may not have been before .
We ’ ve been speaking with Ari Berman , senior reporter at Mother Jones .
They ’ re online at MotherJones.com .
The book is Give Us the Ballot : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ari Berman , thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin .
Thanks so much , Janine .

Residents wait in a long line to vote in a presidential primary election outside the Riverside High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on April 7, 2020. Kamil Krzacyzynski / AFP via Getty Images
Janine Jackson: It was called “one of the most brazen acts of voter suppression in modern history.” With an unsigned opinion, believed to come from Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court voted 5–4 that it was OK for Wisconsin to disqualify ballots postmarked and received after their primary election day — even though thousands of voters didn’t even get those ballots until after election day, due to the sheer overwhelm of requests for absentee ballots resulting from the pandemic. Coming literally on the night before the election, the ruling overturned a lower court’s decision to extend the absentee ballot deadline, and forced people to risk their health in order to exercise their right to vote.
Flawed in letter and spirit, the Supreme Court’s decision is just part of the setback to the democratic project reflected in Wisconsin, and we need to understand the story: Who did what and how? Because without intervention, it’s on track to be repeated.
Ari Berman covers voting rights as a senior reporter at Mother Jones. He’s the author of Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America. He joins us now by phone. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Ari Berman.
Ari Berman: Hey, thanks for having me, Janine.
In trying to understand what happened with April’s primary in Wisconsin, you have written that you need to start the clock earlier than, say, Governor Evers’ push to postpone the election in the face of Covid-19, and the Republican-dominated state supreme court’s reinstatement of it. Could you talk us through some of the roots, what you called a “vicious cycle,” the roots of this outrageous series of events?
Yeah, I think you have to go back to when Republicans took over Wisconsin after the 2010 election, controlling the state for the first time in 50 years. And they did a series of things to try to weaken Democratic power, and to try to skew political representation.
One of the things they did was they passed these really horrible gerrymandered maps that made it possible for Republicans to win no matter what happened. So in 2018, Republicans in Wisconsin only got 46% of the vote, but they got 64% of seats in the state legislature. So they have a majority now, even if people don’t like them. And it was a Republican legislature, remember, that refused to postpone the election in Wisconsin, and also refused to mail ballots to every voter. And so really, the reason why Republicans are so dug in in that state is because of the gerrymandered maps they’ve passed.
Now, they’ve also done other stuff, like pass an array of voter suppression laws, such as a voter ID law, such as cutbacks to early voting, changes to voter registration, that have also made it easier for Republicans to win elections, including to win a majority on the state supreme court, which, of course, was the court that said that Tony Evers, the governor, couldn’t delay the election.
So when you say “vicious cycle,” they’ve kind of made themselves bulletproof, in the sense that the courts then support the ruling, support the politicians, and it goes round and round, and it’s hard to intervene in that.
It’s not a foolproof system, in the sense that a lot of people thought the Republican, or the conservative, candidate for the state supreme court, Daniel Kelly, was going to win the election. He didn’t win the election. So it shows that when Democrats are mobilized enough, they can still win elections in Wisconsin, but there’s a whole series of barriers they have to try to surmount.
And in the case of gerrymandering, it’s incredibly difficult, because Democrats actually are winning more votes than Republicans in Wisconsin, but it’s not translating into a political majority. And so I think, in a situation where elections are so razor-thin, particularly in that state, the Republicans have a built-in advantage. Before the election even begins, they are essentially ahead, because of all the structural impediments they have put into the political process, through control of the legislature and through control of the courts.
It was seen as a silver lining that Daniel Kelly, the conservative state supreme court justice, the protection of whose position was seen as a prime motivator for the Wisconsin GOP, that he wasn’t successful, that he was unseated by Jill Karofsky. But then I see this story in The New York Times about how Democrats are “publicly bragging” about that victory, and hoping that “liberal activists … can replicate” that “game plan” — of digital campaigning, essentially, as necessitated by the virus. It made this scramble to protect the vote in a crisis seem like purely partisan gamesmanship.
And I know it’s important to say what party is doing what, but can nothing come from the point of view of democracy itself? It seems to me there’s plenty to chew on in Wisconsin without saying the only people critical of it are Democrats.
Exactly. I think that it was good that Kelly lost, not because he was a conservative, but because the Republicans had made such an effort to suppress the vote, that his election was symbolic of broader attacks on democracy, and thus his defeat could be interpreted as a defeat, not for Republicans, or a victory not for Democrats, but a victory for democracy itself. And that a lot of people were able to vote, in spite of the barriers that were set up, that people either waited on very long lines and very hazardous conditions to vote in person, or they were able to vote by absentee ballot, at a time when the absentee ballot system was totally overwhelmed.
But I don’t know how transferable what happened in Wisconsin was. You have to remember, there was a Democratic presidential primary that day, and there was no corresponding Republican presidential primary. So a lot of people were just voting because they wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, and they just happened to click on the state supreme court race.
So I’m not sure in a different environment that you can really say, “Well, Wisconsin voted Democrat, therefore vote-by-mail, for example, helps Democrats more than Republicans.” I think that we don’t know that. The data we have on vote-by-mail, for example, shows that both parties use it pretty much equally. It’s sort of ironic, President Trump is saying that vote-by-mail gives Democrats these huge advantages, when there’s virtually no advantage for either party when it comes to voting by mail. In fact, it may even benefit Republicans, because their constituencies tend to do it more than Democrats do.
Yeah, it’s interesting that it would be assumed that expanding the franchise would be a negative for Republicans.
Well, the Times had also a very informative piece on Wisconsin and the Supreme Court’s ruling, calling out the errors in the ruling itself. But I tripped over this bit where it referred to Brett Kavanaugh’s presumed support for “laws that make voting harder, regardless of their effects on traditionally disenfranchised groups like African-American and Hispanic people.” I think media pull punches sometimes with regard to the white supremacist aspect of this voter suppression effort. It’s not a mere byproduct of some lofty philosophy about the sanctity of the franchise.
I think voter suppression has been motivated by white supremacy. Historically, certainly, that’s been the case. And I think it’s also the case today that the interests of the Republican Party and the interest of white America go hand in hand right now. And so you have seen consistently, over and over and over again, the Republican Party and the conservative majority in the Supreme Court intervene in ways that make voting more difficult for people of color, and they’re not doing it because it happens to have that effect. They’re doing it because they know it’s going to have that effect.
So to me, the really scary proposition here is that basically, the Wisconsin opinion seemed to signal that Republicans can do whatever they want to make voting more difficult, even in a pandemic, and the Supreme Court’s going to say, “That’s OK.” The minimum would be that you say to people, “There’s so much chaos in this election, it probably shouldn’t have even occurred in the first place. If we’re going to have it, we’ve got to give people more time to be able to vote.” You would think that would just be the bare minimum that they would allow.
The fact that the court said no to that makes it really scary, because there’s going to have to be a lot of contingency plans in November. There’s going to have to be a lot of modifications to voting in November, to make it so that everyone can vote. And if we don’t make the process easier, if we keep the same kind of ridiculous rules they had in Wisconsin, it’s going to make it very difficult for a lot of people to vote, if this pandemic is still going in November, which by all accounts it will be, in some form or another.
Well, yeah, I mean, it seems like the pandemic was already going to affect the election. States need to be on top of voting by mail. A lot of polling places are shutting down, that would affect access. A lot of poll workers are elderly people. People’s addresses might be changing because they’re laid off. There was plenty to contend with due to Covid-19 before you even get to the suppression that it seems like it’s providing cover for.
Exactly. Like, if states did nothing, voting would be difficult right now, because in a pandemic, the safest way to vote is from your home. And most states are not equipped to have people vote from home. Only five states do universal vote-by-mail. So in every other state, it’s more difficult.
Now, some states have more voting by mail. A lot of the Western states do, either universal voting by mail or near-universal voting by mail. But on the East Coast, in the Midwest and the South, the majority of votes are still cast in person. So that means they are asking a lot of people, including election officials, to use a method that is not really used for that purpose. Vote-by-mail is really supposed to be used for people who can’t get to the polls on election day, for one reason or another.
And that means we are seeing a growth in vote-by-mail. In 2018, about a quarter of Americans voted by mail; that still means 75% of the country didn’t vote by mail. We would expect, even in the best of times, there would be hiccups, with so many people trying a new system, let alone the fact that there’s going to be all these efforts now to make it harder to vote by mail, which is going to put all these impediments in front of voters that probably haven’t even voted this way before.
And then, of course, we have to add, as being of a piece with this, the assault on the US Postal Service, although as Julie Hollar wrote for FAIR, media aren’t so much connecting those dots; they’re talking about the White House attack on USPS and they’re talking about the election, but they’re not necessarily saying, “You know, this is going to be right at the crux of this set of problems here.”
Yeah, I don’t know why you wouldn’t connect it. I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me: If you’re going to vote by mail, the post office is going to deliver those ballots.
Right.
So it seems like a huge coincidence if suddenly Donald Trump would be attacking the post office, in the midst of an election where people are going to be using vote-by-mail in unprecedented numbers. So no matter why the president’s doing this, if you believe it, that he’s just mad at Amazon or whatever, even if you take that at face value, the net effect of attacking the post office, of putting partisan people in there, of denying them funding, is it’s going to make it harder for them to be able to carry out this responsibility to make sure ballots are delivered and then sent back to people.
And the post office is going to need a lot more resources, a lot more staff; it’s going to be very difficult for them, too. They are also operating under extraordinary circumstances right now. They also have people that are getting sick, and they’re putting their lives at risk to deliver mail for us, and an election in which 50%, 60%, 70% of the people vote by mail would be tough for the post office in the best of times, let alone at a time when President Trump seems to be declaring war on them.
Politico reported recently that the GOP has an at least $20 million war chest set aside for lawsuits over voting from home. What is the status of efforts to protect November’s process? Do we have legislative moves, at least being lined up in defense of protecting the vote in November?
There’s been a ton of lawsuits about all the obscure rules over mail voting. Like, do you need a witness signature on your ballot? Do you need to upload a copy of your ID with your mail ballot? Does your ballot need to be postmarked by Election Day? Does it need to be received by Election Day? There are so many rules for mail balloting people don’t even know about, that could lead to your ballot being thrown out without having any idea that your votes weren’t counted. So there’s litigation on all of these fronts in a bunch of different states, which I think is a positive development, depending on the outcome of that.
There’s also a lot of state efforts to expand vote-by-mail. And, actually, a fair number of Republican secretaries of State have been making it easier to expand vote-by-mail, probably because they understand, unlike Donald Trump, that a lot of Republicans also use vote-by-mail; they probably don’t want their voters to be disenfranchised.
The Congress has allocated $400 million for vote-by-mail and other election assistance, which I think pretty much everyone believes is totally insufficient. There’s a new bill out from House Democrats, the HEROES Act, that would give the states $3.6 billion for vote-by-mail, which would be a big step up, and also includes a number of other reforms that are important, like early voting and online election day registration, because there’s still going to be a lot of people that are going to vote in person, and the best way for people to vote in person would be to give them more time so they can social distance at the polls, while also making it easier to vote-by-mail, so that postage is paid, so that it’s easy to get an absentee ballot, all of these things.
And I think we’re probably heading for a really big fight between House Democrats and the Senate and the White House over the vote-by-mail provisions in whatever the next recovery package is. I personally think Democrats should have fought a lot harder to put some of this stuff in the first recovery package, when they had the political leverage.
And this is something clearly where time is of the essence. We need to be ramping up to get these processes in place now, we can’t suddenly throw it together in October.
No, especially with voting by mail, because it’s not just like opening a polling place. Voting by mail takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of time for people to request ballots. It takes a lot of time to get ballots. You can’t just show up to vote by mail at 5 p.m. on Election Day, right? Like you could show up and vote in person on Election Day. So states really need to start doing all of this stuff now.
And if you talk to state election officials, there’s so much equipment they need that they don’t have, there’s so many more people they need to do this kind of thing. They need to train everyone in how to count ballots, how to send out ballots.
Otherwise, the system just gets totally overwhelmed, like in Wisconsin, where election officials were having to work 100 hours a week; people were not getting ballots they requested; people were totally confused about what the rules were to have their absentee ballots counted, whether they needed a witness signature, which they did on their ballots; whether they need to upload a copy of their ID with their ballots, which they did; all of these crazy rules.
And so in that case, the data we have from Wisconsin would show that in a much higher turnout election, across 50 states, there’s going to be a whole lot of problems, unless we do a bunch of things right now to make the system run smoother.
It’s clearly not too soon for people, just as individuals, to be sorting out if and exactly how they’ll be able to vote, to be looking into whatever the rules are in their locality to make sure that that can happen.
Well, we’re talking about the impact of the virus. But we know that this voter suppression predates all of that. We’re also still hearing, aren’t we, about purges of the rolls — another reason to check in and make sure that you are still listed. Are there other voting rights things that maybe are going under the radar, that you’d like to call attention to?
I think we’ve talked about a bunch of them already. But I think it’s just worth noting that there are already all these efforts before Covid to try to make voting more difficult, whether it was requiring IDs to vote or trying to keep people off the voting rolls, or limiting the number of polling places.
All of those things are being magnified in a pandemic. And so I think it’s really important to pay a lot of attention to the whole debate over vote-by-mail, because that’s going to be a key way people vote in November. I also hope we don’t glorify vote-by-mail, because there are some unintended consequences of that.
And then I hope that people just stay focused on all of these other fights that are going to remain really critical, in that if you don’t have an ID now, it’s going to be a lot harder to get one when the DMV’s not open. If you’re not on the voting rolls right now, it’s going to be a lot harder to re-register, when there aren’t big registration drives. And so I think the big picture is important, but I think all the minutiae, all the little things, the technical details that we tend to ignore, could also have a really big impact in this election during a pandemic.
Let me just ask you, finally, I’ve heard some things kind of bubbling up that, given the confusion, given what looks like chaos, at least this far out, around the possibilities of voting, that we may have concerns about the legitimacy of whatever happens in the election, that there will be just enough murkiness that folks will be able to call the results into question, and that’s not going to be helpful.
No, it’s not going to be helpful. And I think, also, given the likelihood of major litigation in one or more key swing states, about the rules governing mail balloting, I think it’s very possible you could have not just one, but two, three, four, half a dozen Bush v. Gore scenarios if the election is close.
And so I don’t want to be too alarmist in May about this. But just like the virus is scary, the prospect of holding an election in a virus is also very scary. And there are a lot of possibilities that may have seemed remote, or even possibly hysterical, that are really quite possible in this day and age.
All the more reason for sober and clear-eyed reporting, to at least keep us focused on what’s happening, to at least keep us paying attention.
Absolutely, no, for sure. And I think if anything good has come from this Wisconsin thing, it’s that a lot of people are paying attention to what’s happening to the democratic process now in a way that they may not have been before.
We’ve been speaking with Ari Berman, senior reporter at Mother Jones. They’re online at MotherJones.com. The book is Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America. Ari Berman, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
Thanks so much, Janine.
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--2020-05-25--Praising Emissions Reductions Due to Coronavirus Plays Into Right-Wing Strategy

A study published in Nature Climate Change recently found that , in early April , daily global carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 17 percent compared to the 2019 mean levels .
Because of shelter-in-place rules and businesses being closed , people have been driving and flying less , leading to lower emissions .
Shortly after emissions started dropping in March , the climate community was careful to apply nuance to the emissions reduction discussion : Less carbon dioxide emissions , while good , should not be celebrated when caused by a global pandemic .
In other words , while this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people can come together in action , the ends don ’ t justify the means — the means here being a global financial crisis and hundreds of thousands of people dead .
As climate scientist Carl-Friedrich Schleussner said in Carbon Brief , “ The narrative that the economic catastrophe caused by the coronavirus is ‘ good ’ for the climate is dangerously misleading and could undermine support for climate action.
” Though the climate community quickly dismissed this narrative , the right wing latched onto the idea that progressives were celebrating COVID-19 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the right asserted that the world as it is under the pandemic is the world that climate advocates want under policies like the Green New Deal .
The British libertarian web magazine Spiked wrote that “ Covid-19 is a frightening dress rehearsal of the climate agenda.
” Spiked is , incidentally , funded by the Koch foundation .
Meanwhile , figures like Alex Epstein , who wrote a book entitled The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and whose organization Center for Industrial Progress has ties to the coal industry , have said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a preview of the Green New Deal .
This argument is incorrect in many ways , the least of which being that the temporary emissions reduction isn ’ t nearly enough : The UN has said that emissions need to drop by 7.5 percent each year .
That drop needs to be permanent .
“ [ Right-wingers ] are grasping at straws .
And they ’ re actually trying to spin a couple pieces of straw into silk , ” says Anthony Leiserowitz , director of the Yale Program on Climate Change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see anybody in the climate community actually making that argument ” that coronavirus is a good thing .
Yet for climate deniers and delayers , a straw man argument is often enough .
“ It ’ s totally in character with the entire [ denier ] community to make shit up and try to pin it on their opponents , ” says Leiserowitz .
They just need to sow enough confusion that their benefactors — usually the fossil fuel industry — can thrive under deregulation and the status quo .
So , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of attack on the climate community already has a long history .
Linking the global pandemic with an imaginary environmental agenda is just part of a quiet but consistent decades-long strategy to attack climate policy .
This particular argument strives to equate any climate action with suffering — or , as the reactionary right might put it , a loss of “ freedom ” or “ liberty.
” This narrative has taken many forms over the years ; the idea that climate regulation kills jobs was a prominent one for several decades .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate action have gained ideological ground , the right has had to adapt and warp its arguments accordingly .
The new argument , it seems , is that climate regulation kills not just jobs but the entire economy , as conservative pundits and politicians argued in early 2019 when the Green New Deal became popularized .
A particular fear that deniers like to stoke — one that they also play upon in their pandemic and climate regulation fear mongering — is that people ’ s everyday lives will change drastically when we actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consider the rhetoric of extremist “ reopen ” protesters and the bizarre conservative claim that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-New York ) wanted to take away people ’ s burgers .
The irony is that many climate policies are built to be as non-disruptive as possible .
“ The kinds of changes that we ’ re going to make in our lives — some of them , we ’ re not even going to notice , ” says Leiserowitz .
Light switches will still work , people will still be free to roam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to eat ; in many ways , without the most oppressive effects of climate change , life will be better .
But deniers take advantage of the fact that climate communicators haven ’ t quite articulated the vast amounts of life-improving changes that climate action will bring and fill in the gaps with conspiratorial scare tactics .
“ The thing that intrigued us [ at DeSmogBlog ] about the overlap between COVID misinformation and climate denial is that we couldn ’ t have one without the other , ” says Brendan DeMelle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been documenting the overlap between those who deny or downplay the effects the coronavirus and known climate deniers .
The overlap is vast , with climate denialist figures such as Alex Jones and Charlie Kirk and organizations such as the Heartland Institute , The Daily Caller , The Federalist and PragerU participating in various COVID-19 denial tactics .
“ This echo chamber [ on the right ] is rapidly spreading misinformation through The Daily Caller and through all kinds of outlets that wouldn ’ t exist if it weren ’ t for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and government leadership , ” says DeMelle .
Part of the efficacy of the radical right ’ s propaganda is that it politicizes and smears institutional authorities like scientists and journalists in order to push its counterfactual agenda .
One effective way to combat the narrative that environmentalists want to destroy freedom and liberty is “ to paint the positive and inspiring picture of transitioning from polluting energy sources to clean energy , ” says John Cook , a climate and cognitive science researcher at George Mason University , over email to Truthout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis , living free of harmful air that chokes out entire communities , leaving behind the fear that rising sea levels will displace entire countries and casting off our dread of what an entirely new category of hurricane will bring — that would be true freedom .

The right wants to equate any climate action with suffering, a loss of “freedom” or an attack on “liberty.”
Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
A study published in Nature Climate Change recently found that, in early April, daily global carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 17 percent compared to the 2019 mean levels. Because of shelter-in-place rules and businesses being closed, people have been driving and flying less, leading to lower emissions.
Shortly after emissions started dropping in March, the climate community was careful to apply nuance to the emissions reduction discussion: Less carbon dioxide emissions, while good, should not be celebrated when caused by a global pandemic. In other words, while this time may show us the extent that people can come together in action, the ends don’t justify the means — the means here being a global financial crisis and hundreds of thousands of people dead. As climate scientist Carl-Friedrich Schleussner said in Carbon Brief, “The narrative that the economic catastrophe caused by the coronavirus is ‘good’ for the climate is dangerously misleading and could undermine support for climate action.”
Though the climate community quickly dismissed this narrative, the right wing latched onto the idea that progressives were celebrating COVID-19 for its environmental benefits. Quickly, commentators on the right asserted that the world as it is under the pandemic is the world that climate advocates want under policies like the Green New Deal. The British libertarian web magazine Spiked wrote that “Covid-19 is a frightening dress rehearsal of the climate agenda.” Spiked is, incidentally, funded by the Koch foundation. Meanwhile, figures like Alex Epstein, who wrote a book entitled The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and whose organization Center for Industrial Progress has ties to the coal industry, have said that the recession caused by the pandemic is a preview of the Green New Deal.
This argument is incorrect in many ways, the least of which being that the temporary emissions reduction isn’t nearly enough: The UN has said that emissions need to drop by 7.5 percent each year. That drop needs to be permanent.
“[Right-wingers] are grasping at straws. And they’re actually trying to spin a couple pieces of straw into silk,” says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “I don’t see anybody in the climate community actually making that argument” that coronavirus is a good thing.
Yet for climate deniers and delayers, a straw man argument is often enough. “It’s totally in character with the entire [denier] community to make shit up and try to pin it on their opponents,” says Leiserowitz. They just need to sow enough confusion that their benefactors — usually the fossil fuel industry — can thrive under deregulation and the status quo.
Commentators on the right asserted that the world as it is under the pandemic is the world that climate advocates want under policies like the Green New Deal.
So, while these are unprecedented times, this line of attack on the climate community already has a long history. Linking the global pandemic with an imaginary environmental agenda is just part of a quiet but consistent decades-long strategy to attack climate policy. This particular argument strives to equate any climate action with suffering — or, as the reactionary right might put it, a loss of “freedom” or “liberty.”
This narrative has taken many forms over the years; the idea that climate regulation kills jobs was a prominent one for several decades. Now, as the progressive left and climate action have gained ideological ground, the right has had to adapt and warp its arguments accordingly. The new argument, it seems, is that climate regulation kills not just jobs but the entire economy, as conservative pundits and politicians argued in early 2019 when the Green New Deal became popularized.
A particular fear that deniers like to stoke — one that they also play upon in their pandemic and climate regulation fear mongering — is that people’s everyday lives will change drastically when we actually start to address the climate crisis. Consider the rhetoric of extremist “reopen” protesters and the bizarre conservative claim that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) wanted to take away people’s burgers.
The irony is that many climate policies are built to be as non-disruptive as possible. “The kinds of changes that we’re going to make in our lives — some of them, we’re not even going to notice,” says Leiserowitz. Light switches will still work, people will still be free to roam outside, meat will still be available to eat; in many ways, without the most oppressive effects of climate change, life will be better.
But deniers take advantage of the fact that climate communicators haven’t quite articulated the vast amounts of life-improving changes that climate action will bring and fill in the gaps with conspiratorial scare tactics.
“The thing that intrigued us [at DeSmogBlog] about the overlap between COVID misinformation and climate denial is that we couldn’t have one without the other,” says Brendan DeMelle, executive director of DeSmogBlog. DeSmogBlog has been documenting the overlap between those who deny or downplay the effects the coronavirus and known climate deniers. The overlap is vast, with climate denialist figures such as Alex Jones and Charlie Kirk and organizations such as the Heartland Institute, The Daily Caller, The Federalist and PragerU participating in various COVID-19 denial tactics.
“This echo chamber [on the right] is rapidly spreading misinformation through The Daily Caller and through all kinds of outlets that wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for this strategy of undermining public trust in science and government leadership,” says DeMelle. Part of the efficacy of the radical right’s propaganda is that it politicizes and smears institutional authorities like scientists and journalists in order to push its counterfactual agenda.
One effective way to combat the narrative that environmentalists want to destroy freedom and liberty is “to paint the positive and inspiring picture of transitioning from polluting energy sources to clean energy,” says John Cook, a climate and cognitive science researcher at George Mason University, over email to Truthout.
After all, mitigating the climate crisis, living free of harmful air that chokes out entire communities, leaving behind the fear that rising sea levels will displace entire countries and casting off our dread of what an entirely new category of hurricane will bring — that would be true freedom.
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.