fivethirtyeight--2020-10-12--Why The Supreme Court’s Reputation Is At Stake

Four planned days of Senate confirmation hearings for President Trump ’ s latest Supreme Court nominee , Judge Amy Coney Barrett , begin today .
And they are going to be a doozy .
Confirmation proceedings have generally gotten much more contentious over the years .
But the fight over Barrett could be among the most rancorous yet .
The presidential election is only three weeks away , yet Republicans are pushing ahead with the confirmation even though most Americans think they should wait ; Trump and two Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee have tested positive for COVID-19 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Barrett , if confirmed , would replace a justice who was in many respects her polar opposite , making the court the most conservative it ’ s been in 70 years .
Even in a moment of deep partisan hatred , this is a particularly explosive brew .
But the ideological fate of the Supreme Court isn ’ t the only thing on the line this week .
The Supreme Court ’ s reputation as an apolitical , independent branch of government is also at stake .
During their confirmation hearings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as neutral arbiters of law who make their decisions above the political fray .
And that ’ s for good reason , since they ’ re unelected officials who would serve lifetime appointments on the most powerful court in the country .
But faith in the Supreme Court is lower than it used to be , and confirmation hearings have been getting more and more partisan .
A bruising confirmation process will still likely result in Barrett ’ s ascension to the court , but that doesn ’ t mean its reputation as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Americans become convinced that Barrett and the other justices are brazen political actors , public confidence in the court could erode further , opening the door to radical changes to the court , including the possibility that Democrats will try to add justices if they win the White House and Senate in November .
Faith in the Supreme Court has been waning The Supreme Court is the branch of government Americans trust most .
But at a moment when trust in most parts of government is at an all-time low , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to polling by Gallup , Americans ’ confidence in the Supreme Court has fallen significantly over the past two decades .
A 2020 poll conducted before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death found that only 40 percent of Americans said they had “ a great deal ” or “ quite a lot ” of confidence in the Supreme Court , down from a two-decade high of 50 percent in 2002 .
That relatively low level of confidence isn ’ t the worst the Supreme Court has seen in recent years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of Americans had “ a great deal ” or “ quite a lot ” of confidence in the high court , and nearly as many ( 24 percent ) said they had “ very little ” confidence .
The court ’ s current levels of support may be bolstered by the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts , who has held the crucial “ swing ” vote since Justice Anthony Kennedy ’ s retirement in 2018 , joined the liberals in several high-profile decisions this year , effectively keeping the court in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Pew Research Center has also seen Americans ’ views of the Supreme Court rebound a bit since hitting a low point around 2015 .
But that could easily change if Democrats ’ support for the court plummets .
And as I wrote last year , a wide partisan gap in how the court is viewed is especially bad news for the justices , because it could underscore the idea that the court itself is a partisan institution .
It ’ s hard to know , of course , how much Americans ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the confirmation process .
But it ’ s clear that partisan tensions around the court have ramped up a lot in the past decade .
As the table below shows , it was once common for justices to be confirmed with the support of most senators .
Even as recently as 2005 , the vast majority of senators voted to confirm Roberts , who had strenuously reassured them during his confirmation hearings that he would not be an ideologue .
Trump ’ s first Supreme Court nominee , Neil Gorsuch , received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 , and Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by a narrow two-vote margin the following year .
Barrett will probably be confirmed by a similarly tight vote .
And Democrats will likely go out of their way to portray her as a partisan conservative who will overturn precedents she disagrees with , rather than be a neutral jurist who respects the court ’ s prior decisions .
Her record advocating restrictions on abortion rights is likely to come under scrutiny , as is a 2017 law review article in which she criticized Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affordable Care Act .
The partisan hostility will be elevated , too , by the recent memory of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s decision to block the confirmation vote for Judge Merrick Garland , then-President Obama ’ s choice for the seat that was eventually filled by Gorsuch .
At the time , McConnell argued that the winner of the upcoming presidential election — which was happening more than eight months after Justice Antonin Scalia had died unexpectedly , leaving the seat vacant — should get to fill the seat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are rushing to confirm Barrett with only three weeks left before a presidential election .
It ’ s risky for the court to veer outside the mainstream There ’ s no obvious reason for Barrett or any other Supreme Court justice to care about public opinion once they ’ re safely ensconced on the court .
After all , one argument for giving judges a lifetime appointment is to insulate them from the vagaries of politics .
But if Barrett is confirmed , Democrats ’ efforts to paint her as a partisan figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority then takes a hard right turn on closely watched issues .
“ If Barrett is confirmed and pushes the court ’ s decisions to the right , I suspect many decisions will be much more conservative than the public prefers , these decisions will get a lot of media attention , and public confidence in the court will decrease , ” Peter K. Enns , a political science professor at Cornell University who studies the Supreme Court and public opinion , told me in an email .
It ’ s possible that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and takes a seat on the Supreme Court before Election Day , controversial rulings won ’ t be far behind either .
On the day after the election , the court is hearing a major case that could allow private organizations receiving public funding to deny services to LGBTQ people .
Broader religious liberty protections are a priority for several of the conservative justices , too .
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito already wrote this month that the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage was wrongly decided and has put significant burdens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marriage .
A week after the election , the justices will then hear another challenge to the Affordable Care Act .
Research by Enns and other scholars has found that the Supreme Court rarely gets too far outside mainstream public opinion .
But when that does happen , faith in the court drops and calls for court packing or term limits usually aren ’ t far behind .
In recent times , politicians haven ’ t acted on those threats — but that was because the court backed down .
Most famously , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced his plan to add as many as six new justices to the Supreme Court , a member of the court ’ s conservative majority suddenly started voting to uphold New Deal legislation that was very similar to laws he and the other conservative justices had gutted the year before .
If Barrett is confirmed by Election Day , and the Democrats win the White House and Senate , the Roberts court could be heading for a similar reckoning .
Packing the court or enacting term limits for Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but if the court ’ s legitimacy is eroded in the eyes of the public , it could be easier for them to become reality .

Four planned days of Senate confirmation hearings for President Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, begin today. And they are going to be a doozy.
Confirmation proceedings have generally gotten much more contentious over the years. But the fight over Barrett could be among the most rancorous yet. The presidential election is only three weeks away, yet Republicans are pushing ahead with the confirmation even though most Americans think they should wait; Trump and two Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee have tested positive for COVID-19, throwing the whole timeline into jeopardy; and Barrett, if confirmed, would replace a justice who was in many respects her polar opposite, making the court the most conservative it’s been in 70 years.
What to watch for during Supreme Court confirmation hearings | FiveThirtyEight
Even in a moment of deep partisan hatred, this is a particularly explosive brew.
But the ideological fate of the Supreme Court isn’t the only thing on the line this week. The Supreme Court’s reputation as an apolitical, independent branch of government is also at stake.
During their confirmation hearings, would-be Supreme Court justices usually present themselves as neutral arbiters of law who make their decisions above the political fray. And that’s for good reason, since they’re unelected officials who would serve lifetime appointments on the most powerful court in the country. But faith in the Supreme Court is lower than it used to be, and confirmation hearings have been getting more and more partisan.
A bruising confirmation process will still likely result in Barrett’s ascension to the court, but that doesn’t mean its reputation as an institution isn’t at risk. If Americans become convinced that Barrett and the other justices are brazen political actors, public confidence in the court could erode further, opening the door to radical changes to the court, including the possibility that Democrats will try to add justices if they win the White House and Senate in November.
Faith in the Supreme Court has been waning
The Supreme Court is the branch of government Americans trust most. But at a moment when trust in most parts of government is at an all-time low, that isn’t saying much. According to polling by Gallup, Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court has fallen significantly over the past two decades. A 2020 poll conducted before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death found that only 40 percent of Americans said they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the Supreme Court, down from a two-decade high of 50 percent in 2002.
That relatively low level of confidence isn’t the worst the Supreme Court has seen in recent years, though. In 2014, only 30 percent of Americans had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the high court, and nearly as many (24 percent) said they had “very little” confidence. The court’s current levels of support may be bolstered by the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts, who has held the crucial “swing” vote since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement in 2018, joined the liberals in several high-profile decisions this year, effectively keeping the court in line with public opinion.
Polling by the Pew Research Center has also seen Americans’ views of the Supreme Court rebound a bit since hitting a low point around 2015. But that could easily change if Democrats’ support for the court plummets. And as I wrote last year, a wide partisan gap in how the court is viewed is especially bad news for the justices, because it could underscore the idea that the court itself is a partisan institution.
Confirmation votes are increasingly partisan
It’s hard to know, of course, how much Americans’ views of the Supreme Court are influenced by the confirmation process. But it’s clear that partisan tensions around the court have ramped up a lot in the past decade. As the table below shows, it was once common for justices to be confirmed with the support of most senators. Even as recently as 2005, the vast majority of senators voted to confirm Roberts, who had strenuously reassured them during his confirmation hearings that he would not be an ideologue.
Supreme Court confirmations are growing more contentious Supreme Court confirmation votes in the U.S. Senate, since 1975 Votes Year Nominee Yes No 2018 Brett M. Kavanaugh 50 48 2017 Neil M. Gorsuch 54 45 2010 Elena Kagan 63 37 2009 Sonia Sotomayor 68 31 2006 Samuel A. Alito Jr. 58 42 2005 John G. Roberts Jr.* 78 22 1994 Stephen G. Breyer 87 9 1993 Ruth Bader Ginsburg 96 3 1991 Clarence Thomas 52 48 1990 David H. Souter 90 9 1987 Anthony M. Kennedy 97 0 1987 Robert H. Bork 42 58 1986 Antonin Scalia 98 0 1986 William H. Rehnquist* 65 33 1981 Sandra Day O’Connor 99 0 1975 John Paul Stevens 98 0 *Confirmed as chief justice Source: United States Senate
Confirmation votes are rarely so harmonious today.
Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, received only 54 votes when he was confirmed in 2017, and Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by a narrow two-vote margin the following year. Barrett will probably be confirmed by a similarly tight vote. And Democrats will likely go out of their way to portray her as a partisan conservative who will overturn precedents she disagrees with, rather than be a neutral jurist who respects the court’s prior decisions. Her record advocating restrictions on abortion rights is likely to come under scrutiny, as is a 2017 law review article in which she criticized Roberts’s 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act.
The partisan hostility will be elevated, too, by the recent memory of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to block the confirmation vote for Judge Merrick Garland, then-President Obama’s choice for the seat that was eventually filled by Gorsuch. At the time, McConnell argued that the winner of the upcoming presidential election — which was happening more than eight months after Justice Antonin Scalia had died unexpectedly, leaving the seat vacant — should get to fill the seat. But now, McConnell and Senate Republicans are rushing to confirm Barrett with only three weeks left before a presidential election.
It’s risky for the court to veer outside the mainstream
There’s no obvious reason for Barrett or any other Supreme Court justice to care about public opinion once they’re safely ensconced on the court. After all, one argument for giving judges a lifetime appointment is to insulate them from the vagaries of politics. But if Barrett is confirmed, Democrats’ efforts to paint her as a partisan figure could be especially damaging if the conservative majority then takes a hard right turn on closely watched issues.
“If Barrett is confirmed and pushes the court’s decisions to the right, I suspect many decisions will be much more conservative than the public prefers, these decisions will get a lot of media attention, and public confidence in the court will decrease,” Peter K. Enns, a political science professor at Cornell University who studies the Supreme Court and public opinion, told me in an email.
It’s possible that if Barrett is confirmed on schedule, and takes a seat on the Supreme Court before Election Day, controversial rulings won’t be far behind either. On the day after the election, the court is hearing a major case that could allow private organizations receiving public funding to deny services to LGBTQ people. Broader religious liberty protections are a priority for several of the conservative justices, too. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito already wrote this month that the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage was wrongly decided and has put significant burdens on religious Americans who object to gay marriage. A week after the election, the justices will then hear another challenge to the Affordable Care Act.
Research by Enns and other scholars has found that the Supreme Court rarely gets too far outside mainstream public opinion. But when that does happen, faith in the court drops and calls for court packing or term limits usually aren’t far behind. In recent times, politicians haven’t acted on those threats — but that was because the court backed down. Most famously, in the late 1930s, after then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced his plan to add as many as six new justices to the Supreme Court, a member of the court’s conservative majority suddenly started voting to uphold New Deal legislation that was very similar to laws he and the other conservative justices had gutted the year before.
What comes next in the fight to fill Ginsburgâs seat: FiveThirtyEight
If Barrett is confirmed by Election Day, and the Democrats win the White House and Senate, the Roberts court could be heading for a similar reckoning. Packing the court or enacting term limits for Supreme Court justices would be radical, historic moves — but if the court’s legitimacy is eroded in the eyes of the public, it could be easier for them to become reality.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-12--What To Watch For During This Week’s Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

This week , Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will face her confirmation hearings in the Senate .
Senior writer @ @ @ @ @ ’ questioning could set the stage for a fight over the court ’ s legitimacy @

What To Watch For During This Week’s Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
This week, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will face her confirmation hearings in the Senate. Senior writer Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux explains why senators’ questioning could set the stage for a fight over the court’s legitimacy.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-12--How President Trump Could Still Win Re-Election

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew considers how President Trump might pull off a reelection @ @ @ @ @ is going in the Sun Belt states .

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew considers how President Trump might pull off getting reelected and how the 2020 race is going in the Sun Belt states.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-12--Politics Podcast: The Road To A Senate Majority Runs Through The Sun Belt

After Hillary Clinton ’ s loss in 2016 , it was an open question whether Democrats ’ path back to the White House would rely on flipping increasingly purple Sun Belt states or winning back old “ blue wall ” states in the Rust Belt .
Based on current polling , it appears that Biden is performing better in the Upper Midwest than in the South , but if Democrats are to win control of the Senate , they ’ ll have to perform well in places like Arizona , Georgia and North Carolina .
In this installment of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state of the Senate and presidential races in the Sun Belt .
They also consider scenarios in which President Trump could beat his declining odds and win a second term .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

After Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, it was an open question whether Democrats’ path back to the White House would rely on flipping increasingly purple Sun Belt states or winning back old “blue wall” states in the Rust Belt. Based on current polling, it appears that Biden is performing better in the Upper Midwest than in the South, but if Democrats are to win control of the Senate, they’ll have to perform well in places like Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina.
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses the state of the Senate and presidential races in the Sun Belt. They also consider scenarios in which President Trump could beat his declining odds and win a second term.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-12--The Battle Lines Are Set After The First Day Of The Amy Coney Barrett Hearings

On Monday morning , Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham kicked off the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett with a surprisingly bald admission : Pretty much nothing that will be said over the next four days is likely to change anyone ’ s mind .
“ This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens , ” Graham said during his opening statement .
“ All the Republicans will vote yes , all the Democrats will vote no.
” What to watch for during Supreme Court confirmation hearings | FiveThirtyEight He ’ s right , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett or an unexpected roadblock , Senate Republicans have the votes to confirm her , meaning Barrett is likely to be Justice Amy Coney Barrett before Election Day rolls around .
That doesn ’ t mean the hearings don ’ t matter , though .
They will shape how Barrett ’ s nomination is perceived even if they don ’ t change how the senators vote .
And that ’ s important , because the reputation of the court is at stake .
Americans ’ confidence in the Supreme Court has waned over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of Americans still want the Senate to wait until after the election to vote on Barrett ’ s confirmation ( remember we ’ re just three weeks away from the election at this point , and if confirmed , Barrett will land on the Supreme Court closer to a presidential election than any other nominee in U.S. history ) .
So at this point , it ’ s full steam ahead for Senate Republicans .
Today ’ s hearing mostly set up the battle lines for the rest of the week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening statements about Barrett , giving us some clues about how Republicans and Democrats will make their case for and against Barrett over the next few days .
Democrats homed in on the fact that if confirmed by Election Day , one of Barrett ’ s first cases as a Supreme Court justice will be about the fate of the Affordable Care Act , positioning Barrett ’ s confirmation as a possible referendum on Americans ’ health care protections .
Republicans , meanwhile , focused mostly on her biography — including her role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her Catholic faith — and her credentials , while offering few specifics about her record as a law professor and judge .
Democrats argued that the fate of the ACA hinges on Barrett If you popped in and out of the confirmation hearing this morning , you ’ d be forgiven for thinking it was a hearing about the ACA — not the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice .
Democratic senator after Democratic senator on the committee emphasized the risk Barrett poses to the ACA during their opening statement , often spotlighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come to rely on the health care protections in the law .
“ That ’ s a big reason why Senate Republicans are rushing this process , ” Sen. Kamala Harris said during her remote opening statement .
The Democratic vice presidential candidate added , “ They are trying to get a justice onto the court in time to ensure they can strip away the protections of the Affordable Care Act.
” The Democrats ’ laser-focus on the fate of the ACA makes a certain amount of sense .
One week after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet another challenge to the landmark health care law , and Democrats are now arguing that if Barrett is on the court , it ’ s plausible the law will be overturned .
Barrett publicly criticized Chief Justice John Roberts ’ s 2012 vote to save the ACA in a 2017 law review article , and in the 2012 decision , Roberts was the only conservative justice to side with the liberals .
If Barrett is confirmed , though , she could side with the other four conservative justices and overrule Roberts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion of Barrett ’ s record on abortion rights — even though both liberals and conservatives generally agree that she ’ s likely to be open to cases restricting or even overturning the constitutional right to abortion .
At this point , Democrats have clearly decided that the threat to the ACA is a stronger argument against Barrett than her track record on abortion — although Barrett will almost certainly get questions about her stance on abortion , among other issues , during questioning on Tuesday and Wednesday .
We ’ re also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s potential role in deciding election-related cases as soon as she ’ s seated on the court .
Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut went as far as to call on her to recuse herself from any case dealing with the election .
Republicans are focusing on her biography and credentials Republicans , meanwhile , tried to turn the tables on Democrats and portray them as partisan actors bent on painting a qualified nominee as a political hack .
They focused very little on the specifics of Barrett ’ s judicial record and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially the fact that she is a working mother of seven .
In her opening statement , Sen. Joni Ernst warned that Democrats were trying to “ undermine , coerce and confuse the American people ” and “ undermine ” Barrett .
“ Women all over the world are painfully familiar with this strategy , ” she said .
“ We are all too often perceived and judged based on what someone else needs or wants us to be , not on who we actually are.
” There were also plenty of callbacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when she was nominated to the 7th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2017 .
During that hearing , Democrats got a lot of blowback for taking aim at Barrett ’ s affiliation with a very small , conservative Catholic religious community .
Today , Republicans repeatedly accused the Democrats of imposing a religious test on Barrett — even though Democrats did not devote time to discussing her Catholic faith today .
Barrett , though , after sitting silently all day at a table in the hearing room wearing a large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word .
She took a well-trodden path for would-be Supreme Court justices and positioned herself as a neutral , non-political jurist , declaring in her opening statement , “ The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people.
” She went on to add that the public should not expect the courts to uphold public opinion , nor should the courts try to do so .
That assertion is likely to be challenged many times over the next two days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats who are likely to focus on how Barrett , as part of a powerful 6-3 conservative majority , could transform the Supreme Court .

On Monday morning, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham kicked off the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett with a surprisingly bald admission: Pretty much nothing that will be said over the next four days is likely to change anyone’s mind. “This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens,” Graham said during his opening statement. “All the Republicans will vote yes, all the Democrats will vote no.”
What to watch for during Supreme Court confirmation hearings | FiveThirtyEight
He’s right, of course. Barring some extraordinary revelation about Barrett or an unexpected roadblock, Senate Republicans have the votes to confirm her, meaning Barrett is likely to be Justice Amy Coney Barrett before Election Day rolls around.
That doesn’t mean the hearings don’t matter, though. They will shape how Barrett’s nomination is perceived even if they don’t change how the senators vote. And that’s important, because the reputation of the court is at stake. Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court has waned over the past couple decades, and a majority of Americans still want the Senate to wait until after the election to vote on Barrett’s confirmation (remember we’re just three weeks away from the election at this point, and if confirmed, Barrett will land on the Supreme Court closer to a presidential election than any other nominee in U.S. history).
So at this point, it’s full steam ahead for Senate Republicans. Today’s hearing mostly set up the battle lines for the rest of the week. The senators on the Judiciary Committee delivered opening statements about Barrett, giving us some clues about how Republicans and Democrats will make their case for and against Barrett over the next few days. Democrats homed in on the fact that if confirmed by Election Day, one of Barrett’s first cases as a Supreme Court justice will be about the fate of the Affordable Care Act, positioning Barrett’s confirmation as a possible referendum on Americans’ health care protections. Republicans, meanwhile, focused mostly on her biography — including her role as a working mother of seven and her Catholic faith — and her credentials, while offering few specifics about her record as a law professor and judge.
Democrats argued that the fate of the ACA hinges on Barrett
If you popped in and out of the confirmation hearing this morning, you’d be forgiven for thinking it was a hearing about the ACA — not the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. Democratic senator after Democratic senator on the committee emphasized the risk Barrett poses to the ACA during their opening statement, often spotlighting the stories of ordinary Americans who have come to rely on the health care protections in the law.
“That’s a big reason why Senate Republicans are rushing this process,” Sen. Kamala Harris said during her remote opening statement. The Democratic vice presidential candidate added, “They are trying to get a justice onto the court in time to ensure they can strip away the protections of the Affordable Care Act.”
The Democrats’ laser-focus on the fate of the ACA makes a certain amount of sense. One week after the election, the Supreme Court will hear yet another challenge to the landmark health care law, and Democrats are now arguing that if Barrett is on the court, it’s plausible the law will be overturned. Barrett publicly criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2012 vote to save the ACA in a 2017 law review article, and in the 2012 decision, Roberts was the only conservative justice to side with the liberals. If Barrett is confirmed, though, she could side with the other four conservative justices and overrule Roberts.
Notably, there was not as much discussion of Barrett’s record on abortion rights — even though both liberals and conservatives generally agree that she’s likely to be open to cases restricting or even overturning the constitutional right to abortion. At this point, Democrats have clearly decided that the threat to the ACA is a stronger argument against Barrett than her track record on abortion — although Barrett will almost certainly get questions about her stance on abortion, among other issues, during questioning on Tuesday and Wednesday.
We’re also likely to hear more about Barrett’s potential role in deciding election-related cases as soon as she’s seated on the court. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut went as far as to call on her to recuse herself from any case dealing with the election.
Republicans are focusing on her biography and credentials
Republicans, meanwhile, tried to turn the tables on Democrats and portray them as partisan actors bent on painting a qualified nominee as a political hack. They focused very little on the specifics of Barrett’s judicial record and instead emphasized her biography and credentials, especially the fact that she is a working mother of seven.
In her opening statement, Sen. Joni Ernst warned that Democrats were trying to “undermine, coerce and confuse the American people” and “undermine” Barrett. “Women all over the world are painfully familiar with this strategy,” she said. “We are all too often perceived and judged based on what someone else needs or wants us to be, not on who we actually are.”
There were also plenty of callbacks to Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing when she was nominated to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2017. During that hearing, Democrats got a lot of blowback for taking aim at Barrett’s affiliation with a very small, conservative Catholic religious community. Today, Republicans repeatedly accused the Democrats of imposing a religious test on Barrett — even though Democrats did not devote time to discussing her Catholic faith today.
Barrett, though, after sitting silently all day at a table in the hearing room wearing a large black face mask, got the last word. She took a well-trodden path for would-be Supreme Court justices and positioned herself as a neutral, non-political jurist, declaring in her opening statement, “The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people.” She went on to add that the public should not expect the courts to uphold public opinion, nor should the courts try to do so. That assertion is likely to be challenged many times over the next two days, as Barrett faces fierce questioning from Democrats who are likely to focus on how Barrett, as part of a powerful 6-3 conservative majority, could transform the Supreme Court.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-12--Hundreds Of Schools Are Still Using Native Americans As Team Mascots

In the summer of 2020 , public tolerance for companies advertising with racist images was at an all-time low .
Brands including Aunt Jemima , Mrs. Butterworth ’ s and Uncle Ben ’ s all announced plans to change their product imagery and in some cases even their names in reaction to widespread public protests against anti-Black racism .
The world of sports wasn ’ t far behind .
After decades of activism and protest against the Washington NFL team ’ s longtime use of a widely recognized racial slur against Native Americans , change seemed to come swiftly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the media that he would “ NEVER ” — “ use caps , ” he told the reporter — change the moniker , it took less than 24 hours after corporate sponsors threatened to pull out of their deals before the team announced it would “ review ” the name , and 10 days later the team committed to changing it .
Indigenous people have been advocating against the name for years : Amanda Blackhorse , one of the movement ’ s leaders , was among five Native Americans to push for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a drive that initially won a court battle in 2014 before a Supreme Court ruling in a different case rendered the previous Washington decision moot .
The crux of their argument is simple : Native mascots dehumanize Indigenous people by employing disparaging stereotypes of Native Americans that cause real harm .
This claim has been repeatedly supported by research , and the causes of that harm extend far beyond the Washington football franchise .
Condemning the commercial use of an obvious racial slur is the lowest-hanging fruit .
But are teams ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associated behaviors that haven ’ t been so universally criticized ?
Native mascots exist in every level of sports , from high school basketball courts to billion-dollar stadiums .
While high-profile teams like Washington and the Cleveland Indians may come to mind first , most Native American mascots are used in secondary schools .
Although the number has been shrinking , there are currently 1,232 high schools with Native American team names , according to my analysis of data from MascotDB .
That includes 411 Indians and 107 Chiefs or Chieftains , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former name of the Washington Football Team .
To arrive at those numbers , I pulled Mascot DB ’ s full list of Native-associated team names and logos and reviewed them all .
I researched any potentially ambiguous team names and weeded out any that did not directly reference Native culture or imagery — for example , teams called the Warriors were excluded unless they also pictured an Indigenous person or use imagery like feathers — and removed any teams that had changed their branding since they were added to Mascot DB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are just those that clearly reference Native culture in their name or logo .
High schools are governed locally by districts and states , making oversight difficult and consistent regulations unrealistic .
Although clashes over the future of Native mascots are likely happening at schools in every state , top-level guidance has been minimal .
In my research , I found just four states — California , Maine , Oregon and Wisconsin — that have either laws or department of education policies that to some degree prohibit using Native mascots in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible that this list may soon expand : In reaction to the renewed public interest in Native mascots , proposed legislation could force the removal of these mascots in Illinois and Massachusetts .
Lawmakers have also begun discussions in Nebraska , and Washington .
These regulations vary widely .
Maine ’ s comprehensive law , which was signed by Gov .
Janet Mills in May 2019 , states that public high schools and colleges in Maine “ may not have or adopt a name , symbol or image that depicts or refers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ custom or tradition and that is used as a mascot , nickname , logo , letterhead or team name of the school.
” Meanwhile , California ’ s 2015 law disallows using the Washington Football Team ’ s former name or logo and bans schools from buying new equipment featuring that branding , but it allows them to continue using existing equipment until it wears out .
Essentially the state is hoping that current uniforms and stadium decorations will be retired in the coming years .
These kinds of policy moves also tend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a proposed resolution to remove Native mascots failed by a landslide in the Wisconsin Association of School Boards delegate assembly , with 101 in favor and 218 against .
In Utah , Republican state Rep. Rex P. Shipp introduced a bill that would discourage the removal of names , images and symbols of Native Americans from schools ; it has yet to be voted on .
Similarly , Tennessee passed a bill in 2007 protecting Native mascots .
In reaction to pressure from the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs to ban Native @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill that stated that “ no state agency has the authority to require or to prohibit or impair in any way the right of any public or private institution to continue to honor certain persons or cultures through the use of symbols , names , and mascots.
” Even laws on the books have proven ineffective .
Wisconsin passed a law in 2010 that triggered a review of a school ’ s logo or mascot if a single person filed a complaint that it was offensive , making the state one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Native mascots .
Yet in the wake of resistance from one affected high school , former Gov .
Scott Walker signed a new bill in 2013 that substantially weakened the previous review process .
The new law shifted the burden of proof from the school itself to those lodging the complaint , and it required a petition with signatures from the equivalent of 10 percent of the district ’ s school population .
A new effort to ban Native mascots was quashed by the state school board this year .
The case against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dried .
Of the 1,232 high school mascots in the Mascot DB , 23 are in use at tribal high schools — those operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education .
These schools , which are often on reservations or near Indigenous communities , primarily serve students who identify as Native American .
Their mascots go by many names , including Indians , Apache Chiefs and Braves .
Schools not associated with the Bureau of Indian Education may also have genuine ties to Native culture and community , so the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and use a Native mascot is likely more than those I was able to identify .
For these schools , the conversation around Native mascots is about authentic representation rather than appropriation .
These students and communities are harnessing Native mascots to honor their own identities and heritage .
The traditions that many consider racist when imitated by non-Native athletes and fans take on a new meaning in Indigenous spaces .
Currently , about 2 percent of Native mascots are used at tribal high schools .
Yet the business of allowing exceptions for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just ask the NCAA .
The governing body of collegiate sports intensified conversations about Native mascots in 2001 , the same year the organization banned states that fly the Confederate flag from hosting national championship events .
After several years of discussion , the NCAA Executive Board voted unanimously that Native mascots must go , declaring that teams with “ hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots , nicknames or imagery ” would be prevented from hosting NCAA championship events and required to use equipment that didn ’ t display that imagery in championship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2005 announcement , the NCAA agreed to hear appeals from universities vying to keep their Native mascots .
In a nod to Native sovereignty , the governing body allowed tribes to endorse schools that used the names of their tribes , but it rejected appeals from names using general descriptors like Indians , Redmen and Savages .
In some cases , the NCAA allowed nondiscriminatory monikers to remain as long as all references to Indigenous people and their traditions were removed .
Bradley University kept its Braves name and introduced a non-Native mascot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the College of William & Mary retained “ the Tribe ” as a nickname but stripped a pair of feathers from its imagery and adopted a griffin as a mascot in 2010 .
Five institutions — the Catawba College Catawba Indians , Central Michigan University Chippewas , Florida State Seminoles , Mississippi College Choctaws and University of Utah Utes — successfully appealed the mandate on the basis that their institutions had the support of a local Indigenous tribe .
Yet this policy masks the complex politics of Indian Country .
Histories of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into question who can speak on behalf of a tribe and its people .
For instance , only a single band of the Seminole tribe — the band that resides in Florida — supports Florida State University ’ s use of the Seminole mascot .
According to the NCAA , one is enough .
For most institutions , there was no path forward .
The University of Illinois was allowed to keep its Fighting Illini moniker , but without the support of the Peoria tribe , it was required to retire its Chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top-down policy was effective , if hotly debated .
Schools were given three years to change their mascots , and by the end of that time period , many had done so .
If high schools moved to the same appeal model as the NCAA , the number of schools with a Native mascot would decrease substantially .
If professional sports joined in , the number of national franchises would likely dip to zero .
Rather than follow the NCAA ’ s example or try to get ahead of state legislation on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the topic of Native mascots .
While the media has focused on the Washington franchise and its scramble to rebrand itself , the executives in Kansas City are busy polishing their Lombardi Trophy and dodging the inevitable question : Are we next ?
They ’ ve received no public guidance from the NFL on the matter .
But that silence isn ’ t specific to pro football .
Over the past several decades , professional sports leagues have been noticeably quiet as their embattled teams defended the sanctity of Native mascots on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tradition .
MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred waded deepest into these troubled waters in 2018 when he said the league had “ encouraged dialogue with the Indians organization about the club ’ s use of the Chief Wahoo logo.
” This dialogue eventually ended in the announcement that the racist image would be removed from Cleveland uniforms the following season , although the team would still sell merchandise with the caricature .
On Aug. 20 of this year , the Kansas City Chiefs issued a statement announcing a new set of policies that prohibited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including wearing headdresses and face paint that references Native people or culture , and promised a continued partnership with local American Indian organizations .
By the team ’ s own admission , this conversation with Indigenous partners has been going on since 2014 — and prior to its most recent statement , results had been limited .
Although the positive steps taken this summer may seem momentous , professional sports leagues had been relatively stagnant on this issue overall .
Prior to announcement that the Washington Football Team would eliminate Native imagery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the NFL and the NHL together had five franchises with Indigenous names and two more that use Native-inspired logos or imagery — the Seattle Seahawks and Vancouver Canucks .
( In addition , the Phoenix Coyotes continue to use their original logo , which has well-recognized Native influences , on home throwback sweaters . )
Each team is navigating relationships with local Native American and First Nations people independently .
While some teams have successfully incorporated Indigenous people into conversations about inclusion and representation , others continue to swim upstream in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teams so reluctant to let go of their Native mascots ?
Research has repeatedly shown the mental harm that these icons inflict on Indigenous people , and tribal leaders continue to speak out against teams ’ disrespect and appropriation .
Finally , in 2020 , it seems that broader public opinion might be catching up .
Football fandom , perhaps , has not .
Financial implications are certainly a factor .
But that can cut both ways , as the Washington Football Team ’ s refusal to change its name eventually led its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the franchise .
In fact , while economists who studied the financial implications of franchise rebranding have shown that teams may take on additional costs in the first year — including paying lawyers to secure the rights to a new name and logo and changing the branding on merchandise , signage and the stadium itself — they could recoup those deficits in the ensuing seasons .
When the Chiefs secured their first win this season in Arrowhead Stadium in front of crowds limited by the COVID-19 pandemic , headdresses and red face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gates .
The Arrowhead Chop and pregame beating of the drum were under review , although NBC still prominently featured the former in its prime-time broadcast .
They scored in end zones declaring “ end racism ” in block text next to the Chiefs name and near the arrowhead logos .
In a year when Washington chose to go by its city name rather than choose a new identity , the controversy over the use of Native mascots will continue to weigh on franchises and fans .
As the country celebrates Indigenous Peoples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Kansas City , the pressure to change these names continues , with the teams under an even brighter spotlight .

Hundreds Of Schools Are Still Using Native Americans As Team Mascots And though the Washington Football Team abandoned its name, 45 schools have kept the slur.
In the summer of 2020, public tolerance for companies advertising with racist images was at an all-time low. Brands including Aunt Jemima, Mrs. Butterworth’s and Uncle Ben’s all announced plans to change their product imagery and in some cases even their names in reaction to widespread public protests against anti-Black racism. The world of sports wasn’t far behind.
After decades of activism and protest against the Washington NFL team’s longtime use of a widely recognized racial slur against Native Americans, change seemed to come swiftly. While owner Dan Snyder had once declared to the media that he would “NEVER” — “use caps,” he told the reporter — change the moniker, it took less than 24 hours after corporate sponsors threatened to pull out of their deals before the team announced it would “review” the name, and 10 days later the team committed to changing it.
Indigenous people have been advocating against the name for years: Amanda Blackhorse, one of the movement’s leaders, was among five Native Americans to push for the cancelation of Washington’s trademark, a drive that initially won a court battle in 2014 before a Supreme Court ruling in a different case rendered the previous Washington decision moot. The crux of their argument is simple: Native mascots dehumanize Indigenous people by employing disparaging stereotypes of Native Americans that cause real harm. This claim has been repeatedly supported by research, and the causes of that harm extend far beyond the Washington football franchise. Condemning the commercial use of an obvious racial slur is the lowest-hanging fruit. But are teams ready to confront the names, symbols and associated behaviors that haven’t been so universally criticized?
Native mascots exist in every level of sports, from high school basketball courts to billion-dollar stadiums. While high-profile teams like Washington and the Cleveland Indians may come to mind first, most Native American mascots are used in secondary schools. Although the number has been shrinking, there are currently 1,232 high schools with Native American team names, according to my analysis of data from MascotDB. That includes 411 Indians and 107 Chiefs or Chieftains, and there are still 45 schools that bear the former name of the Washington Football Team.
To arrive at those numbers, I pulled Mascot DB’s full list of Native-associated team names and logos and reviewed them all. I researched any potentially ambiguous team names and weeded out any that did not directly reference Native culture or imagery — for example, teams called the Warriors were excluded unless they also pictured an Indigenous person or use imagery like feathers — and removed any teams that had changed their branding since they were added to Mascot DB. The remaining 1,232 schools, then, are just those that clearly reference Native culture in their name or logo.
High schools are governed locally by districts and states, making oversight difficult and consistent regulations unrealistic. Although clashes over the future of Native mascots are likely happening at schools in every state, top-level guidance has been minimal. In my research, I found just four states — California, Maine, Oregon and Wisconsin — that have either laws or department of education policies that to some degree prohibit using Native mascots in public schools. However, it’s possible that this list may soon expand: In reaction to the renewed public interest in Native mascots, proposed legislation could force the removal of these mascots in Illinois and Massachusetts. Lawmakers have also begun discussions in Nebraska, and Washington.
These regulations vary widely. Maine’s comprehensive law, which was signed by Gov. Janet Mills in May 2019, states that public high schools and colleges in Maine “may not have or adopt a name, symbol or image that depicts or refers to a Native American tribe, individual, custom or tradition and that is used as a mascot, nickname, logo, letterhead or team name of the school.” Meanwhile, California’s 2015 law disallows using the Washington Football Team’s former name or logo and bans schools from buying new equipment featuring that branding, but it allows them to continue using existing equipment until it wears out. Essentially the state is hoping that current uniforms and stadium decorations will be retired in the coming years.
These kinds of policy moves also tend to face strong pushback. In January, a proposed resolution to remove Native mascots failed by a landslide in the Wisconsin Association of School Boards delegate assembly, with 101 in favor and 218 against. In Utah, Republican state Rep. Rex P. Shipp introduced a bill that would discourage the removal of names, images and symbols of Native Americans from schools; it has yet to be voted on.
Similarly, Tennessee passed a bill in 2007 protecting Native mascots. In reaction to pressure from the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs to ban Native mascots, the state legislature passed a bill that stated that “no state agency has the authority to require or to prohibit or impair in any way the right of any public or private institution to continue to honor certain persons or cultures through the use of symbols, names, and mascots.”
Even laws on the books have proven ineffective. Wisconsin passed a law in 2010 that triggered a review of a school’s logo or mascot if a single person filed a complaint that it was offensive, making the state one of the first to take action to phase out Native mascots. Yet in the wake of resistance from one affected high school, former Gov. Scott Walker signed a new bill in 2013 that substantially weakened the previous review process. The new law shifted the burden of proof from the school itself to those lodging the complaint, and it required a petition with signatures from the equivalent of 10 percent of the district’s school population. A new effort to ban Native mascots was quashed by the state school board this year.
The case against these mascots isn’t always cut and dried. Of the 1,232 high school mascots in the Mascot DB, 23 are in use at tribal high schools — those operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education. These schools, which are often on reservations or near Indigenous communities, primarily serve students who identify as Native American. Their mascots go by many names, including Indians, Apache Chiefs and Braves. Schools not associated with the Bureau of Indian Education may also have genuine ties to Native culture and community, so the number of schools who serve Native students and use a Native mascot is likely more than those I was able to identify.
For these schools, the conversation around Native mascots is about authentic representation rather than appropriation. These students and communities are harnessing Native mascots to honor their own identities and heritage. The traditions that many consider racist when imitated by non-Native athletes and fans take on a new meaning in Indigenous spaces. Currently, about 2 percent of Native mascots are used at tribal high schools.
Yet the business of allowing exceptions for schools like these can be tricky — just ask the NCAA. The governing body of collegiate sports intensified conversations about Native mascots in 2001, the same year the organization banned states that fly the Confederate flag from hosting national championship events. After several years of discussion, the NCAA Executive Board voted unanimously that Native mascots must go, declaring that teams with “hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery” would be prevented from hosting NCAA championship events and required to use equipment that didn’t display that imagery in championship games.
Facing intense backlash after the 2005 announcement, the NCAA agreed to hear appeals from universities vying to keep their Native mascots. In a nod to Native sovereignty, the governing body allowed tribes to endorse schools that used the names of their tribes, but it rejected appeals from names using general descriptors like Indians, Redmen and Savages. In some cases, the NCAA allowed nondiscriminatory monikers to remain as long as all references to Indigenous people and their traditions were removed. Bradley University kept its Braves name and introduced a non-Native mascot, Kaboom the Gargoyle, in 2014; the College of William & Mary retained “the Tribe” as a nickname but stripped a pair of feathers from its imagery and adopted a griffin as a mascot in 2010.
Five institutions — the Catawba College Catawba Indians, Central Michigan University Chippewas, Florida State Seminoles, Mississippi College Choctaws and University of Utah Utes — successfully appealed the mandate on the basis that their institutions had the support of a local Indigenous tribe. Yet this policy masks the complex politics of Indian Country. Histories of forced removal and trends toward urbanization call into question who can speak on behalf of a tribe and its people. For instance, only a single band of the Seminole tribe — the band that resides in Florida — supports Florida State University’s use of the Seminole mascot. According to the NCAA, one is enough.
For most institutions, there was no path forward. The University of Illinois was allowed to keep its Fighting Illini moniker, but without the support of the Peoria tribe, it was required to retire its Chief Illiniwek mascot.
The NCAA’s top-down policy was effective, if hotly debated. Schools were given three years to change their mascots, and by the end of that time period, many had done so. If high schools moved to the same appeal model as the NCAA, the number of schools with a Native mascot would decrease substantially. If professional sports joined in, the number of national franchises would likely dip to zero.
Rather than follow the NCAA’s example or try to get ahead of state legislation on the issue, the NFL has stayed silent on the topic of Native mascots. While the media has focused on the Washington franchise and its scramble to rebrand itself, the executives in Kansas City are busy polishing their Lombardi Trophy and dodging the inevitable question: Are we next?
They’ve received no public guidance from the NFL on the matter. But that silence isn’t specific to pro football. Over the past several decades, professional sports leagues have been noticeably quiet as their embattled teams defended the sanctity of Native mascots on the grounds that they are an athletic tradition. MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred waded deepest into these troubled waters in 2018 when he said the league had “encouraged dialogue with the Indians organization about the club’s use of the Chief Wahoo logo.” This dialogue eventually ended in the announcement that the racist image would be removed from Cleveland uniforms the following season, although the team would still sell merchandise with the caricature.
On Aug. 20 of this year, the Kansas City Chiefs issued a statement announcing a new set of policies that prohibited certain fan behaviors and costumes at games, including wearing headdresses and face paint that references Native people or culture, and promised a continued partnership with local American Indian organizations. By the team’s own admission, this conversation with Indigenous partners has been going on since 2014 — and prior to its most recent statement, results had been limited.
Although the positive steps taken this summer may seem momentous, professional sports leagues had been relatively stagnant on this issue overall. Prior to announcement that the Washington Football Team would eliminate Native imagery in its name and logo, MLB, the NFL and the NHL together had five franchises with Indigenous names and two more that use Native-inspired logos or imagery — the Seattle Seahawks and Vancouver Canucks. (In addition, the Phoenix Coyotes continue to use their original logo, which has well-recognized Native influences, on home throwback sweaters.) Each team is navigating relationships with local Native American and First Nations people independently. While some teams have successfully incorporated Indigenous people into conversations about inclusion and representation, others continue to swim upstream in a constant search for endorsement.
Why are teams so reluctant to let go of their Native mascots? Research has repeatedly shown the mental harm that these icons inflict on Indigenous people, and tribal leaders continue to speak out against teams’ disrespect and appropriation. Finally, in 2020, it seems that broader public opinion might be catching up. Football fandom, perhaps, has not.
Financial implications are certainly a factor. But that can cut both ways, as the Washington Football Team’s refusal to change its name eventually led its sponsors to threaten to withdraw financial support for the franchise. In fact, while economists who studied the financial implications of franchise rebranding have shown that teams may take on additional costs in the first year — including paying lawyers to secure the rights to a new name and logo and changing the branding on merchandise, signage and the stadium itself — they could recoup those deficits in the ensuing seasons.
When the Chiefs secured their first win this season in Arrowhead Stadium in front of crowds limited by the COVID-19 pandemic, headdresses and red face paint were no longer allowed past the gates. The Arrowhead Chop and pregame beating of the drum were under review, although NBC still prominently featured the former in its prime-time broadcast. They scored in end zones declaring “end racism” in block text next to the Chiefs name and near the arrowhead logos. In a year when Washington chose to go by its city name rather than choose a new identity, the controversy over the use of Native mascots will continue to weigh on franchises and fans. As the country celebrates Indigenous Peoples Day in cities like Seattle, Chicago and Kansas City, the pressure to change these names continues, with the teams under an even brighter spotlight.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-13--Why Rejected Ballots Could Be A Big Problem In 2020

As many states have changed their laws to encourage the use of mail voting during the pandemic , one big problem has become apparent : the number of mail ballots that are rejected .
Rejected absentee ballots , most of which are cast by mail , have long been an issue , but a manageable one .
According to the Election Administration and Voting Survey , less than 1 percent of the 33.4 million absentee ballots submitted in the 2016 general election across the 50 states and Washington , D.C. , were rejected .
This year , though , rejection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people are voting by mail for the first time and may not know the rules .
According to research by David Cottrell , Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith , voters without experience voting by mail are up to three times more likely to have their ballots rejected .
And even if the absentee-ballot rejection rate turns out to be as low as 2016 ’ s , there will simply be a lot more absentee voting this year , and 1 percent of a big number is still pretty big .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 550,000 absentee ballots were returned but not counted in this year ’ s presidential primaries — and that number is almost certainly an undercount , considering that data was available in only 30 states .
At the very least , that far outstrips the 318,709 absentee ballots that were rejected across the 50 states and Washington , D.C. , in the much higher-turnout 2016 general election .
“ The risk has always been there , ” Charles Stewart III , founder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Election Data and Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s different this time is that states that don ’ t have histories of large numbers of mail ballots now are getting a large number of mail ballots .
And rejection rates for many of those states , which flew under the radar when there was a small number of ballots , are now being highlighted.
” Mail ballots can be rejected for a number of reasons , but election administration experts told FiveThirtyEight there are two big reasons .
The most common reason is that they arrive late .
Many states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be received , as opposed to postmarked , which means unless you drop off your ballot in person , you ’ re trusting the postal service to deliver your ballot in time for it to be counted ( so if you ’ re putting your ballot in the mail , be sure to do so early ) .
The second most common reason a ballot is rejected is that it is missing a required signature ; people who vote absentee are required to sign their ballot or ballot envelope , and some states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ballots can also be rejected if the signature on them does not match the signature the voter has on file .
This is a major gripe of voting-rights advocates , who point out that the decision of whether a signature is close enough to the one on file can be very subjective ( while some states have detailed guidelines for when a signature should count , others don ’ t , and election workers conducting signature verification are often not well trained ) .
And according to Tammy Patrick , a senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odd-looking signatures do not represent voter fraud , just the correct voter signing their name under unusual circumstances .
“ When I worked [ as an election official ] in Maricopa County , I never had a voter say it wasn ’ t them , ” Patrick said .
“ They would say their arm was in a cast , or ‘ I recently had a stroke , ’ or my favorite was , ‘ My gosh , I signed it on the dashboard of my car when I was driving down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some more esoteric reasons why mail ballots get rejected .
For example , in Pennsylvania , “ naked ballots ” — those not enclosed in the required secrecy envelope — are automatically tossed .
Or “ a couple might put the wrong person ’ s ballot in the wrong envelope , ” said Herron , one of the political scientists who authored the study on rejected mail ballots .
“ But those are rare , ” he stressed .
Mail-ballot rejections don ’ t disenfranchise all voters equally , though .
Voters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to have less experience voting by mail , are more likely to have their votes go uncounted .
In North Carolina , Black voters ’ mail ballots are already being rejected at a higher rate than white voters ’ ballots .
A similar trend was identified in Florida and Georgia in the 2018 midterms .
And in Florida in 2016 and 2018 , voters age 21 and younger had a rejection rate more than eight times greater than voters over age 65 .
It ’ s possible , though , that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
People often find themselves unable to vote in in-person elections as well — just in ways that are harder to measure .
For example , some people may want to vote but lack the proper identification to do so ; others may not be able to find their polling place on Election Day .
And even among people who do make it to the polls , some may be deterred by long lines , and others may be turned away because of problems with their voter registration ( e.g.
, it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was purged from the rolls ) .
Stewart ’ s Survey of the Performance of American Elections estimates that about 955,000 votes were “ lost ” in one of these four ways in the 2016 general election .
So for all the attention afforded rejected mail ballots , people probably don ’ t talk enough about the perennial problem of lost in-person votes .
But with so many more people voting by mail this year , the question becomes which method disenfranchises more voters — in-person voting or mail voting ?
Herron said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting rejected this year than he is about in-person votes getting “ rejected ” in a normal year .
“ What ’ s the biggest problem ?
We don ’ t really know.
” But , he added , “ my intuition is that the magnitude of late ballots is much greater.
” Stewart agreed : “ I think that the incremental risk of voting by mail is greater than voting in person.
” In addition to the rate of absentee-ballot rejections being higher than the rate of lost in-person votes , Stewart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail ballots than in-person ones are tossed out in the actual tabulation stage .
“ The story there is a simple one , ” said Stewart .
“ Mistakes that are getting caught in a precinct ” — such as a person voting for too many candidates , or making a stray mark on the ballot that might invalidate the whole thing — “ are not going to be caught in vote-by-mail.
” That ’ s because ballot scanners will typically spit back out an in-person ballot that is marked incorrectly , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try again with a fresh ballot .
Mail voters do not have that luxury .
So mail-ballot rejections could be a bigger problem than in-person “ rejections ” this year ; at the very least , they will certainly be a bigger problem than they ’ ve been in the past .
However , the good news is that election officials are aware that increased mail voting could potentially disenfranchise more voters , and some are addressing the problem .
Eight states , for instance , have switched from a receipt deadline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ensuring that most ballots put in the mail by the deadline will not be rejected for being late .
The vast majority of states are also giving voters the option to drop off their mail ballots in person via secure drop boxes .
In addition , Patrick said that many mail ballots these days are trackable , so it ’ s possible to prove whether a ballot was put in the mail on time .
Some states are also taking a less strict approach to signature verification : Pennsylvania , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be rejected based on an apparent signature mismatch alone .
And according to data collected by the National Vote at Home Institute and shared with FiveThirtyEight , 25 states now have procedures in place to notify voters of problems with their absentee ballots and give them a chance to fix , or “ cure , ” them .
As a result of these changes and more , Patrick said she ’ s optimistic that absentee-ballot rejection rates will be relatively low this fall .
“ Many states with high rejection rates in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the general , ” including clearer instructions and better envelope designs , which tests show lowers the number of voters who forget to sign them , she said .
“ Also the fact that so many voters are acting early , both in terms of requesting their ballot and returning it , ” Patrick added .
“ That all gives me hope.
” Indeed , according to data collected by political scientist Michael McDonald , almost 10 million ballots have already been returned nationwide .
But other experts aren ’ t sure whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year .
“ That ’ s the big question , ” Herron said , pointing out that the influx of first-time mail voters into the electorate this year could cancel out the benefits of states ’ changes to election administration .
“ How strong are those compared to the experience effect ?
We don ’ t know the answer , ” he said .
And in addition to voter inexperience and those administrative changes , there ’ s a third factor to consider : slower mail delivery this year .
In conclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think anyone can put a number on it to say that the effect of these three is x .
”

As many states have changed their laws to encourage the use of mail voting during the pandemic, one big problem has become apparent: the number of mail ballots that are rejected.
Rejected absentee ballots, most of which are cast by mail, have long been an issue, but a manageable one. According to the Election Administration and Voting Survey, less than 1 percent of the 33.4 million absentee ballots submitted in the 2016 general election across the 50 states and Washington, D.C., were rejected. This year, though, rejection rates could be much higher because so many people are voting by mail for the first time and may not know the rules. According to research by David Cottrell, Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith, voters without experience voting by mail are up to three times more likely to have their ballots rejected.
And even if the absentee-ballot rejection rate turns out to be as low as 2016’s, there will simply be a lot more absentee voting this year, and 1 percent of a big number is still pretty big. According to an analysis by NPR, more than 550,000 absentee ballots were returned but not counted in this year’s presidential primaries — and that number is almost certainly an undercount, considering that data was available in only 30 states. At the very least, that far outstrips the 318,709 absentee ballots that were rejected across the 50 states and Washington, D.C., in the much higher-turnout 2016 general election.
“The risk has always been there,” Charles Stewart III, founder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Election Data and Science Lab, told FiveThirtyEight. “What’s different this time is that states that don’t have histories of large numbers of mail ballots now are getting a large number of mail ballots. And rejection rates for many of those states, which flew under the radar when there was a small number of ballots, are now being highlighted.”
Mail ballots can be rejected for a number of reasons, but election administration experts told FiveThirtyEight there are two big reasons. The most common reason is that they arrive late. Many states have deadlines by which mail ballots must be received, as opposed to postmarked, which means unless you drop off your ballot in person, you’re trusting the postal service to deliver your ballot in time for it to be counted (so if you’re putting your ballot in the mail, be sure to do so early).
The second most common reason a ballot is rejected is that it is missing a required signature; people who vote absentee are required to sign their ballot or ballot envelope, and some states even require a witness signature as well. Ballots can also be rejected if the signature on them does not match the signature the voter has on file. This is a major gripe of voting-rights advocates, who point out that the decision of whether a signature is close enough to the one on file can be very subjective (while some states have detailed guidelines for when a signature should count, others don’t, and election workers conducting signature verification are often not well trained). And according to Tammy Patrick, a senior adviser with the Democracy Fund, most odd-looking signatures do not represent voter fraud, just the correct voter signing their name under unusual circumstances. “When I worked [as an election official] in Maricopa County, I never had a voter say it wasn’t them,” Patrick said. “They would say their arm was in a cast, or ‘I recently had a stroke,’ or my favorite was, ‘My gosh, I signed it on the dashboard of my car when I was driving down the 202!’”
There are also some more esoteric reasons why mail ballots get rejected. For example, in Pennsylvania, “naked ballots” — those not enclosed in the required secrecy envelope — are automatically tossed. Or “a couple might put the wrong person’s ballot in the wrong envelope,” said Herron, one of the political scientists who authored the study on rejected mail ballots. “But those are rare,” he stressed.
Mail-ballot rejections don’t disenfranchise all voters equally, though. Voters of color and young voters, who also tend to have less experience voting by mail, are more likely to have their votes go uncounted. In North Carolina, Black voters’ mail ballots are already being rejected at a higher rate than white voters’ ballots. A similar trend was identified in Florida and Georgia in the 2018 midterms. And in Florida in 2016 and 2018, voters age 21 and younger had a rejection rate more than eight times greater than voters over age 65.
It’s possible, though, that the problem of rejected mail ballots is overstated. People often find themselves unable to vote in in-person elections as well — just in ways that are harder to measure. For example, some people may want to vote but lack the proper identification to do so; others may not be able to find their polling place on Election Day. And even among people who do make it to the polls, some may be deterred by long lines, and others may be turned away because of problems with their voter registration (e.g., it was out of date, or the voter was purged from the rolls). Stewart’s Survey of the Performance of American Elections estimates that about 955,000 votes were “lost” in one of these four ways in the 2016 general election.
Lots of in-person votes are “rejected” too Estimated number of in-person votes that were not cast or counted for various reasons in the 2016 general election Reason Lost Votes Registration problems 300,000 Long lines 247,000 Lack of ID 233,000 Couldn’t find polling place 175,000 Total 955,000 Source: Survey of the Performance of American Elections
So for all the attention afforded rejected mail ballots, people probably don’t talk enough about the perennial problem of lost in-person votes. But with so many more people voting by mail this year, the question becomes which method disenfranchises more voters — in-person voting or mail voting?
Herron said he is more concerned about mail ballots getting rejected this year than he is about in-person votes getting “rejected” in a normal year. “What’s the biggest problem? We don’t really know.” But, he added, “my intuition is that the magnitude of late ballots is much greater.”
Stewart agreed: “I think that the incremental risk of voting by mail is greater than voting in person.” In addition to the rate of absentee-ballot rejections being higher than the rate of lost in-person votes, Stewart’s research has found that more mail ballots than in-person ones are tossed out in the actual tabulation stage. “The story there is a simple one,” said Stewart. “Mistakes that are getting caught in a precinct” — such as a person voting for too many candidates, or making a stray mark on the ballot that might invalidate the whole thing — “are not going to be caught in vote-by-mail.” That’s because ballot scanners will typically spit back out an in-person ballot that is marked incorrectly, and the voter will be given a chance to try again with a fresh ballot. Mail voters do not have that luxury.
So mail-ballot rejections could be a bigger problem than in-person “rejections” this year; at the very least, they will certainly be a bigger problem than they’ve been in the past. However, the good news is that election officials are aware that increased mail voting could potentially disenfranchise more voters, and some are addressing the problem. Eight states, for instance, have switched from a receipt deadline for mail ballots to a postmark deadline, ensuring that most ballots put in the mail by the deadline will not be rejected for being late. The vast majority of states are also giving voters the option to drop off their mail ballots in person via secure drop boxes. In addition, Patrick said that many mail ballots these days are trackable, so it’s possible to prove whether a ballot was put in the mail on time.
Some states are also taking a less strict approach to signature verification: Pennsylvania, for instance, has told counties that ballots cannot be rejected based on an apparent signature mismatch alone. And according to data collected by the National Vote at Home Institute and shared with FiveThirtyEight, 25 states now have procedures in place to notify voters of problems with their absentee ballots and give them a chance to fix, or “cure,” them.
As a result of these changes and more, Patrick said she’s optimistic that absentee-ballot rejection rates will be relatively low this fall. “Many states with high rejection rates in the primary have adopted best practices for the general,” including clearer instructions and better envelope designs, which tests show lowers the number of voters who forget to sign them, she said. “Also the fact that so many voters are acting early, both in terms of requesting their ballot and returning it,” Patrick added. “That all gives me hope.” Indeed, according to data collected by political scientist Michael McDonald, almost 10 million ballots have already been returned nationwide.
But other experts aren’t sure whether rejection rates will be higher or lower this year. “That’s the big question,” Herron said, pointing out that the influx of first-time mail voters into the electorate this year could cancel out the benefits of states’ changes to election administration. “How strong are those compared to the experience effect? We don’t know the answer,” he said. And in addition to voter inexperience and those administrative changes, there’s a third factor to consider: slower mail delivery this year. In conclusion, Herron said, “I don’t think anyone can put a number on it to say that the effect of these three is x.”
How Trump could still win reelection l FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast