motherjones--2020-12-02--A More Extreme Gun Rights Movement Is Emerging in the NRA’s Wake

On a frigid Martin Luther King Jr. Day earlier this year , Philip Van Cleave brought out the big guns to Richmond .
As he stood on the steps of the Virginia State Capitol , Van Cleave—a 68-year-old balding and mustachioed software programmer—delivered a stern warning to the Democrats who had recently gained control of the state government : “ We ’ re here today to remind Governor [ Ralph ] Northam and the general assembly that the last election was not a referendum on gun control.
” In front of him , an ocean of pro-gun protesters whooped in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many gripping AR-15-style rifles or other assault weapons .
A good number were decked out in paramilitary outfits and tactical gear .
Confederate and Gadsden flags waved high and wide .
It was a scene that once would have been credited to the National Rifle Association—the nation ’ s oldest gun rights group , which , over the past several decades , has inflamed and radicalized a broad coalition of conservative gun owners through alarmist messaging , especially during the Obama administration , and cemented itself as a formidable political force .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the rally was the work of Van Cleave ’ s Virginia Citizens Defense League , a no-compromise , far-right gun rights group that he once boasted was “ proud ” to have been labeled an “ extremist ” organization .
Over the past 19 years , VCDL ’ s Lobby Day protests in Richmond—an annual event on MLK Day when special interest groups , predominantly ones with conservative ties , advocate to the General Assembly—were relatively mild affairs , with about 600 to 800 attendees .
But this year it attracted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading up to the protest put the state on edge .
The FBI arrested members of the neo-Nazi group the Base , who had allegedly stockpiled firearms and ammunition , discussed plans to recruit members at the rally to help kickstart a race war , and talked about committing acts of violence against people of color .
Northam declared a state of emergency to ban weapons on the grounds of the state capitol building , but the crowd was so large that most armed attendees couldn ’ t even fit in the area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of downtown Richmond .
Alex Jones , the notorious conspiracy theorist and Infowars founder , drove around the streets in an armored vehicle screaming through a bullhorn , “ If they try to take our firearms , 1776 will commence again !
” The rally was a bellwether : the sudden downfall of the nation ’ s most powerful gun group and the rise of more radical pro-gun organizations and militias seeking to take its place .
Since 2016 , the NRA has seen a steady decline in its ranks .
Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ membership for more extreme groups like the VCDL and the Second Amendment Foundation , which recently filed a number of lawsuits challenging state gun control laws , and the National Association for Gun Rights , which paints itself as a more conservative alternative to the NRA .
There ’ s no doubt a void to be filled by the NRA , but it ’ s unclear what groups will dominate .
“ We ’ ve got 100 million gun owners in this country , ” says Joshua Powell , the NRA director ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether it ’ s the NRA or some other group , somebody ’ s going to have to fill those shoes.
” Powell was fired from the NRA last year amid allegations of sexual harassment , and he ’ s since published a memoir detailing the behind-the-scenes corruption within the organization .
“ It is important to have an institution that represents Second Amendment supporters , gun owners , ” Powell adds .
“ This is part and parcel to the fabric of our country .
The Second Amendment is not going anywhere.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there will be a group , or a splintered coalition of smaller groups , to step into the NRA ’ s shoes .
“ There ’ s not going to be a void there , ” he says .
“ Somebody ’ s going to fill that.
” The NRA ’ s downward spiral started with its greatest accomplishment : spending $ 54 million to help elect Donald Trump in 2016 .
But the first signs of financial trouble emerged the following year , which the NRA ended with a $ 1.1 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably because it no longer had Barack Obama as a liberal boogeyman to fundraise off of , as well as an increase in spending .
The next year , 2018 , saw an increase in revenue from membership dues , but the nonprofit again spent more money than it brought in , digging an even deeper hole of $ 10.8 million in the red , as its debts piled up .
The dam broke for the NRA in 2019 when , just before its annual meeting and convention in Indianapolis , the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report detailing allegations of self-dealing among its top vendors , gratuitous spending , sweetheart deals , and other financial improprieties among the group ’ s leadership—chiefly its executive vice president , Wayne LaPierre , who has led the organization since 1991 .
At the meeting , then-NRA President Oliver North unsuccessfully tried to oust LaPierre and demanded his resignation .
LaPierre survived the uprising , as a majority of the NRA ’ s 76-member board backed him unanimously and North resigned .
But the damage was done .
An anonymous source leaked financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including a damning letter that North penned .
In a court filing from later last year North ’ s lawyers said that “ LaPierre — demonstrating his total dictatorial control over the NRA…stopped all of North ’ s inquiries and prevented others at the NRA from looking into the concerns that North raised.
” Days after North ’ s attempted coup against LaPierre , New York Attorney General Letitia James opened an investigation into the NRA ’ s tax-exempt status .
After spending a year investigating , in August her office filed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it of widespread corruption and seeking to dissolve the organization in its entirety .
“ The NRA ’ s influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets , ” James said in statement announcing the lawsuit .
“ The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse , which is why…we seek to dissolve the NRA , because no organization is above the law.
” The lawsuit has since been tied up in a number of challenges by the NRA ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denying allegations of financial misconduct , the NRA finally admitted in its most recent tax filing that the organization only recently became aware “ of a significant diversion of its assets ” between LaPierre and five former executives .
The NRA has always been notoriously cagey about its membership numbers , but its tax returns and other financial documents offer a glimpse into the dire situation .
An audited financial statement shows that revenue from member dues dropped from $ 170 million in 2018 to $ 113 million last year—a 34 percent decline— @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the NRA has posted since 2012 , which is especially troubling considering that the cost of membership dues has sharply increased in that time—at least twice in the last four years alone .
( The NRA did not respond for a request for clarification on membership numbers and the decline in revenue from member dues . )
That drop in revenue , along with the millions of dollars it has tied up to fight the New York attorney general ’ s lawsuit and other litigation , meant a far smaller war chest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around , the NRA spent only $ 24 million on federal elections—less than half of what it did in 2016 and barely more than the combined $ 22.1 million spent by two of the nation ’ s largest gun reform organizations , Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords .
Meanwhile , the Gun Owners of America spent $ 900,000 in the 2020 election cycle , 14 times more than in 2016 .
“ That ’ s a huge decrease in political spending , ” Adam Winkler , a constitutional law professor and gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Law , says of the NRA ’ s involvement in the 2020 election .
“ Especially at a time when the gun control side is becoming more active , more engaged , putting more money into elections , and doing better get-out-the-vote mobilization efforts than ever before.
” All the while , more and more NRA members became disappointed and disillusioned with the organization .
“ They ’ ve certainly lost members over this , ” says Van Cleave , who claims that his group ’ s membership more than quadrupled in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day rally , growing from about 8,000 to more than 35,000 .
Many of the new members of his group , he says , had quit the NRA .
“ I see a lot of disappointment , ” he adds .
“ The way a lot of the money is being used .
That ’ s the concern.
” The Virginia Citizens Defense League came into existence in 1994 , just as congressional Democrats pushed through a pair of gun safety bills—including a decade-long ban on assault weapons—that sparked the modern gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight gun safety legislation not on a national level , but locally in Virginia .
Originally called the Northern Virginia Citizens Defense League , the group ’ s first order of business was to pressure state lawmakers to change the state ’ s concealed carry laws from its “ may issue ” legal status—meaning that the state may issue a concealed carry permit only to people who can prove they have a good reason—to “ shall issue , ” granting anyone eligible to own a firearm to also obtain a concealed carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Moog soon dropped the “ Northern ” from VCDL ’ s title and set his sights on ensuring that the whole state was as gun-friendly as it could possibly be .
To do so , the group established a playbook of lobbying lawmakers—much like the NRA—coupled with public protests meant to intimidate any push for tightening Virginia ’ s gun laws .
In 1998 , VCDL members protested a Northern Virginia church ’ s gift-for-guns program , which encouraged people to surrender their unwanted firearms in exchange for gift certificates to local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led a boycott against the Valley View Mall in Roanoke over its ban of firearms in the mall .
And in 2004 , after a slew of gun control bills failed to make it out of the state ’ s general assembly , the VCDL encourage firearm owners to turn up at restaurants and shopping centers with their sidearm strapped to their hip in celebration—in turn intimidating some clientele .
In 2001 , Van Cleave became the group ’ s president and , one year later , members staged their first Lobby Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ VCDL has expanded its national profile , showing an eagerness to go on national news programs to defend his extremist views on the Second Amendment—especially in the wake of mass shootings .
After the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012 , Van Cleave gleefully defended the semiautomatic military-style rifle used by the shooter , Adam Lanza , to the Washington Post .
“ Guns are fun , and some of them are much more cool than others , ” he said .
“ It ’ s just like we have television sets that look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boxy.
” He has also criticized the NRA for not going far enough in their comments calling for armed guards in schools .
“ If you have got a permit , if you ’ re carrying everywhere else you go…a school is no different , ” Van Cleave told WWBT , Richmond ’ s NBC affiliate .
But Van Cleave ’ s most notable brush with public notoriety is also his most embarrassing .
In 2018 , he was duped by notorious prankster Sacha Baron Cohen for his Showtime series “ Who Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he films a faux-PSA for a gun-training program for kids , “ KinderGuardians.
” Despite the embarrassment ( which he attempted to distance himself from by claiming he knew he was being set up but went along in an attempt to protect other gun advocates from similar ploys ) , Van Cleave and the VCDL have managed to greatly broaden their coalition within Virginia , acting as both a blueprint for local grassroots gun rights groups in other states and as fodder for national ones seeking to capitalize on the NRA ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a number of militias have formed throughout Virginia , something that Van Cleave says the VCDL wasn ’ t involved in organizing but welcomes .
But his group has been busy this year : the VCDL fought Northam ’ s actions to slow the spread of the coronavirus , including a successful legal effort in April to overturn part of the governor ’ s executive order that classified shooting ranges among the businesses forced to close as the state went into lockdown .
The VCDL has also been heavily involved in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and vowing not to enforce any new gun control laws passed at the state and county level .
Through VCDL ’ s email alert system , which Van Cleave says has tens of thousands of subscribers , they are able to send an SOS to its members whenever gun control legislation is on the table anywhere in the state , mobilizing members to voice opposition to any such measures in public comment forums .
“ We don ’ t let these localities take our basic civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please , ” Van Cleave told a local Virginia newspaper in July .
“ When it comes to guns , that ’ s when the rules go out the window…we ’ re not going to let them get away with it.
” Several groups have already ramped up their operations over the past year , such as Gun Owners of America , a national group that former Texas Rep. Ron Paul once called “ the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.
” Van Cleave says the VCDL has “ been working quite a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on both state and national issues .
“ I think what ’ s going to happen is as the NRA ends up being pretty crippled for a while , there are other organizations that are going to step forward , ” he says .
“ There ’ s not going to be a void there , somebody ’ s going to fill that.
” As the coronavirus sent much of the country into lockdown this spring , more new armed groups emerged in protest .
Members of the Michigan Liberty Militia stormed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the “ tyranny ” that Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer was imposing with her strict stay-at-home orders .
As unrest in the wake of George Floyd ’ s murder spread across the country , so too did armed militia groups , from Portland to Wisconsin , Texas , and Virginia , where authorities claim that the antigovernment extremist group known as the “ boogaloo boys ” —whose rise this year started at the Lobby Day rally in Richmond—stoked violent confrontations between police and Black Lives Matter protesters .
In mid-October , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militia group had plotted to kidnap Gov .
Whitmer , as well as take over the state ’ s capitol building , where they would hold televised executions of public officials .
The group also discussed “ taking ” Northam , Virginia ’ s Democratic governor , according to the FBI .
But Van Cleave dismisses any connection between VCDL ’ s Lobby Day protest and the rise of violence from extremist militia groups , calling it overblown lies from the media .
“ I ’ m very skeptical of a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as groups vie to fill the NRA ’ s void , extremist gun violence is increasing in ever more concerning ways .
Two armed men from Virginia were arrested outside of the Philadelphia Convention Center on November 5 after police received a tip about plans to raid a “ truckload of fake ballots.
” One of the men , Joshua Macias , co-founded the group Vets for Trump and had attended VCDL ’ s Lobby Day rally in January , according to a review of his Twitter account .
In a video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seen , with a bullhorn in hand , firing up a crowd of hundreds on a downtown Richmond side street : “ There are veterans out here…who made an oath to defend this constitution against foreign and domestic enemies !
” In the aftermath of the election , as Trump refused to concede and peddled conspiracy theories about election fraud , thousands of his supporters—including violent extremist groups like the Proud Boys—marched in DC to protest the results .
Though DC law forbids carrying firearms in most public places , including at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extremist militia group , posted a note on its website to supporters saying that “ our men will be standing by , awaiting the President ’ s orders to call us up as the militia , which would override D.C. ’ s ridiculous anti-gun laws.
” At least four people were arrested on gun charges at the rally .
Not all gun owners are flocking to these far-right groups .
Other gun groups like the Socialist Rifle Association and the National African American Gun Association have also seen membership increase , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterparts .
And in October , Giffords , the gun safety group co-founded by former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords ( D ) , launched a new national firearms group for gun owners that it hopes can take the NRA ’ s mantle while also pushing for gun control measures .
It would be convenient to link the rise of extremist gun groups this year to the NRA ’ s downfall : At a time when gun control groups are more impactful than they ’ ve ever been—spending millions of dollars to successfully boost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platform—their biggest foe is down and out , leaving gun owners across the country feeling powerless .
But Winkler doesn ’ t think the narrative tracks .
He explains that the rise in militia activity and armed protesters this year “ seems to be the natural growth of something that started about 10 to 12 years ago ” with the tea party movement when guns became a symbol of protest .
“ I don ’ t think the vast majority of people who bring guns to a protest are planning on starting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ re not planning on starting a war .
They ’ re doing it symbolically for protest.
” Still , Winkler worries that it can go awry , especially given the spate of right-wing violence from extremist militias at protests over the summer .
“ They ’ re suddenly shifting to self-defense , ” he says , “ the moment they see someone or something happening that they feel threatened by.
” Van Cleave sees his group ’ s Lobby Day protest and continued advocacy for gun rights not so much as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s especially true in a Joe Biden–Kamala Harris administration , which Van Cleave says has “ basically declared war on the Second Amendment.
” His group was planning another massive Lobby Day protest next month , but that went awry when gun control groups got permits for the space where VCDL typically holds its event .
In retaliation , VCDL sent a message to members with plans for a caravan rally similar to the Trump rallies that took place across the country before the election .
“ VCDL is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the email stated .
Beyond Lobby Day , Van Cleave hints at other events and strategies to fight any gun control laws that the new administration may try to pass , whether through litigation or on the streets .
“ Our job is to protect that [ Second Amendment ] right by whatever means is necessary .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On a frigid Martin Luther King Jr. Day earlier this year, Philip Van Cleave brought out the big guns to Richmond. As he stood on the steps of the Virginia State Capitol, Van Cleave—a 68-year-old balding and mustachioed software programmer—delivered a stern warning to the Democrats who had recently gained control of the state government: “We’re here today to remind Governor [Ralph] Northam and the general assembly that the last election was not a referendum on gun control.” In front of him, an ocean of pro-gun protesters whooped in solidarity. Nearly all were armed, many gripping AR-15-style rifles or other assault weapons. A good number were decked out in paramilitary outfits and tactical gear. Confederate and Gadsden flags waved high and wide.
It was a scene that once would have been credited to the National Rifle Association—the nation’s oldest gun rights group, which, over the past several decades, has inflamed and radicalized a broad coalition of conservative gun owners through alarmist messaging, especially during the Obama administration, and cemented itself as a formidable political force. But the NRA has since dwindled in power, and the rally was the work of Van Cleave’s Virginia Citizens Defense League, a no-compromise, far-right gun rights group that he once boasted was “proud” to have been labeled an “extremist” organization.
Over the past 19 years, VCDL’s Lobby Day protests in Richmond—an annual event on MLK Day when special interest groups, predominantly ones with conservative ties, advocate to the General Assembly—were relatively mild affairs, with about 600 to 800 attendees. But this year it attracted more than 20,000, and the days leading up to the protest put the state on edge. The FBI arrested members of the neo-Nazi group the Base, who had allegedly stockpiled firearms and ammunition, discussed plans to recruit members at the rally to help kickstart a race war, and talked about committing acts of violence against people of color. Northam declared a state of emergency to ban weapons on the grounds of the state capitol building, but the crowd was so large that most armed attendees couldn’t even fit in the area, instead spilling into the side streets of downtown Richmond. Alex Jones, the notorious conspiracy theorist and Infowars founder, drove around the streets in an armored vehicle screaming through a bullhorn, “If they try to take our firearms, 1776 will commence again!”
The rally was a bellwether: the sudden downfall of the nation’s most powerful gun group and the rise of more radical pro-gun organizations and militias seeking to take its place. Since 2016, the NRA has seen a steady decline in its ranks. Meanwhile, there’s been a boon in membership for more extreme groups like the VCDL and the Second Amendment Foundation, which recently filed a number of lawsuits challenging state gun control laws, and the National Association for Gun Rights, which paints itself as a more conservative alternative to the NRA.
There’s no doubt a void to be filled by the NRA, but it’s unclear what groups will dominate. “We’ve got 100 million gun owners in this country,” says Joshua Powell, the NRA director’s former chief of staff. “Whether it’s the NRA or some other group, somebody’s going to have to fill those shoes.” Powell was fired from the NRA last year amid allegations of sexual harassment, and he’s since published a memoir detailing the behind-the-scenes corruption within the organization. “It is important to have an institution that represents Second Amendment supporters, gun owners,” Powell adds. “This is part and parcel to the fabric of our country. The Second Amendment is not going anywhere.” Van Cleave is also confident that there will be a group, or a splintered coalition of smaller groups, to step into the NRA’s shoes. “There’s not going to be a void there,” he says. “Somebody’s going to fill that.”
The NRA’s downward spiral started with its greatest accomplishment: spending $54 million to help elect Donald Trump in 2016. But the first signs of financial trouble emerged the following year, which the NRA ended with a $1.1 million shortfall thanks to shrinking member revenue, probably because it no longer had Barack Obama as a liberal boogeyman to fundraise off of, as well as an increase in spending. The next year, 2018, saw an increase in revenue from membership dues, but the nonprofit again spent more money than it brought in, digging an even deeper hole of $10.8 million in the red, as its debts piled up.
The dam broke for the NRA in 2019 when, just before its annual meeting and convention in Indianapolis, the New Yorker and the Trace published a bombshell report detailing allegations of self-dealing among its top vendors, gratuitous spending, sweetheart deals, and other financial improprieties among the group’s leadership—chiefly its executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, who has led the organization since 1991. At the meeting, then-NRA President Oliver North unsuccessfully tried to oust LaPierre and demanded his resignation.
LaPierre survived the uprising, as a majority of the NRA’s 76-member board backed him unanimously and North resigned. But the damage was done. An anonymous source leaked financial documents that exposed years of corruption, including a damning letter that North penned. In a court filing from later last year North’s lawyers said that “LaPierre — demonstrating his total dictatorial control over the NRA…stopped all of North’s inquiries and prevented others at the NRA from looking into the concerns that North raised.”
Days after North’s attempted coup against LaPierre, New York Attorney General Letitia James opened an investigation into the NRA’s tax-exempt status. After spending a year investigating, in August her office filed a massive lawsuit against the NRA, accusing it of widespread corruption and seeking to dissolve the organization in its entirety. “The NRA’s influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets,” James said in statement announcing the lawsuit. “The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse, which is why…we seek to dissolve the NRA, because no organization is above the law.” The lawsuit has since been tied up in a number of challenges by the NRA’s legal team. After years of denying allegations of financial misconduct, the NRA finally admitted in its most recent tax filing that the organization only recently became aware “of a significant diversion of its assets” between LaPierre and five former executives.
The NRA has always been notoriously cagey about its membership numbers, but its tax returns and other financial documents offer a glimpse into the dire situation. An audited financial statement shows that revenue from member dues dropped from $170 million in 2018 to $113 million last year—a 34 percent decline— marking the lowest annual membership revenue figure that the NRA has posted since 2012, which is especially troubling considering that the cost of membership dues has sharply increased in that time—at least twice in the last four years alone. (The NRA did not respond for a request for clarification on membership numbers and the decline in revenue from member dues.) That drop in revenue, along with the millions of dollars it has tied up to fight the New York attorney general’s lawsuit and other litigation, meant a far smaller war chest for the 2020 election. This time around, the NRA spent only $24 million on federal elections—less than half of what it did in 2016 and barely more than the combined $22.1 million spent by two of the nation’s largest gun reform organizations, Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords. Meanwhile, the Gun Owners of America spent $900,000 in the 2020 election cycle, 14 times more than in 2016.
“That’s a huge decrease in political spending,” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor and gun policy expert at UCLA’s School of Law, says of the NRA’s involvement in the 2020 election. “Especially at a time when the gun control side is becoming more active, more engaged, putting more money into elections, and doing better get-out-the-vote mobilization efforts than ever before.” All the while, more and more NRA members became disappointed and disillusioned with the organization. “They’ve certainly lost members over this,” says Van Cleave, who claims that his group’s membership more than quadrupled in the six weeks following its 2020 Lobby Day rally, growing from about 8,000 to more than 35,000. Many of the new members of his group, he says, had quit the NRA. “I see a lot of disappointment,” he adds. “The way a lot of the money is being used. That’s the concern.”
The Virginia Citizens Defense League came into existence in 1994, just as congressional Democrats pushed through a pair of gun safety bills—including a decade-long ban on assault weapons—that sparked the modern gun control debate. Paul Moog formed the group to fight gun safety legislation not on a national level, but locally in Virginia. Originally called the Northern Virginia Citizens Defense League, the group’s first order of business was to pressure state lawmakers to change the state’s concealed carry laws from its “may issue” legal status—meaning that the state may issue a concealed carry permit only to people who can prove they have a good reason—to “shall issue,” granting anyone eligible to own a firearm to also obtain a concealed carry permit.
Building on the early success, Moog soon dropped the “Northern” from VCDL’s title and set his sights on ensuring that the whole state was as gun-friendly as it could possibly be. To do so, the group established a playbook of lobbying lawmakers—much like the NRA—coupled with public protests meant to intimidate any push for tightening Virginia’s gun laws. In 1998, VCDL members protested a Northern Virginia church’s gift-for-guns program, which encouraged people to surrender their unwanted firearms in exchange for gift certificates to local businesses. In 2002, the group led a boycott against the Valley View Mall in Roanoke over its ban of firearms in the mall. And in 2004, after a slew of gun control bills failed to make it out of the state’s general assembly, the VCDL encourage firearm owners to turn up at restaurants and shopping centers with their sidearm strapped to their hip in celebration—in turn intimidating some clientele.
In 2001, Van Cleave became the group’s president and, one year later, members staged their first Lobby Day protest. Under his leadership, the VCDL has expanded its national profile, showing an eagerness to go on national news programs to defend his extremist views on the Second Amendment—especially in the wake of mass shootings. After the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012, Van Cleave gleefully defended the semiautomatic military-style rifle used by the shooter, Adam Lanza, to the Washington Post. “Guns are fun, and some of them are much more cool than others,” he said. “It’s just like we have television sets that look cool, and others are much more boxy.” He has also criticized the NRA for not going far enough in their comments calling for armed guards in schools. “If you have got a permit, if you’re carrying everywhere else you go…a school is no different,” Van Cleave told WWBT, Richmond’s NBC affiliate.
But Van Cleave’s most notable brush with public notoriety is also his most embarrassing. In 2018, he was duped by notorious prankster Sacha Baron Cohen for his Showtime series “Who Is America?” in a segment where he films a faux-PSA for a gun-training program for kids, “KinderGuardians.” Despite the embarrassment (which he attempted to distance himself from by claiming he knew he was being set up but went along in an attempt to protect other gun advocates from similar ploys), Van Cleave and the VCDL have managed to greatly broaden their coalition within Virginia, acting as both a blueprint for local grassroots gun rights groups in other states and as fodder for national ones seeking to capitalize on the NRA’s decline.
Since the Lobby Day rally, a number of militias have formed throughout Virginia, something that Van Cleave says the VCDL wasn’t involved in organizing but welcomes. But his group has been busy this year: the VCDL fought Northam’s actions to slow the spread of the coronavirus, including a successful legal effort in April to overturn part of the governor’s executive order that classified shooting ranges among the businesses forced to close as the state went into lockdown. The VCDL has also been heavily involved in the growing number of towns and municipalities in the state declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and vowing not to enforce any new gun control laws passed at the state and county level. Through VCDL’s email alert system, which Van Cleave says has tens of thousands of subscribers, they are able to send an SOS to its members whenever gun control legislation is on the table anywhere in the state, mobilizing members to voice opposition to any such measures in public comment forums. “We don’t let these localities take our basic civil rights and do with them what they please,” Van Cleave told a local Virginia newspaper in July. “When it comes to guns, that’s when the rules go out the window…we’re not going to let them get away with it.”
Several groups have already ramped up their operations over the past year, such as Gun Owners of America, a national group that former Texas Rep. Ron Paul once called “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.” Van Cleave says the VCDL has “been working quite a bit with” Gun Owners of America on both state and national issues. “I think what’s going to happen is as the NRA ends up being pretty crippled for a while, there are other organizations that are going to step forward,” he says. “There’s not going to be a void there, somebody’s going to fill that.”
As the coronavirus sent much of the country into lockdown this spring, more new armed groups emerged in protest. Members of the Michigan Liberty Militia stormed the state’s capitol building in protest of the “tyranny” that Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was imposing with her strict stay-at-home orders. As unrest in the wake of George Floyd’s murder spread across the country, so too did armed militia groups, from Portland to Wisconsin, Texas, and Virginia, where authorities claim that the antigovernment extremist group known as the “boogaloo boys”—whose rise this year started at the Lobby Day rally in Richmond—stoked violent confrontations between police and Black Lives Matter protesters. In mid-October, the FBI announced that members of an extremist militia group had plotted to kidnap Gov. Whitmer, as well as take over the state’s capitol building, where they would hold televised executions of public officials. The group also discussed “taking” Northam, Virginia’s Democratic governor, according to the FBI. But Van Cleave dismisses any connection between VCDL’s Lobby Day protest and the rise of violence from extremist militia groups, calling it overblown lies from the media. “I’m very skeptical of a lot of that,” he says.
Still, as groups vie to fill the NRA’s void, extremist gun violence is increasing in ever more concerning ways. Two armed men from Virginia were arrested outside of the Philadelphia Convention Center on November 5 after police received a tip about plans to raid a “truckload of fake ballots.” One of the men, Joshua Macias, co-founded the group Vets for Trump and had attended VCDL’s Lobby Day rally in January, according to a review of his Twitter account. In a video taken during the rally, Macias can be seen, with a bullhorn in hand, firing up a crowd of hundreds on a downtown Richmond side street: “There are veterans out here…who made an oath to defend this constitution against foreign and domestic enemies!”
In the aftermath of the election, as Trump refused to concede and peddled conspiracy theories about election fraud, thousands of his supporters—including violent extremist groups like the Proud Boys—marched in DC to protest the results. Though DC law forbids carrying firearms in most public places, including at public demonstrations, the Oath Keepers, an extremist militia group, posted a note on its website to supporters saying that “our men will be standing by, awaiting the President’s orders to call us up as the militia, which would override D.C.’s ridiculous anti-gun laws.” At least four people were arrested on gun charges at the rally.
Not all gun owners are flocking to these far-right groups. Other gun groups like the Socialist Rifle Association and the National African American Gun Association have also seen membership increase, though theirs is much smaller than their ultra-right counterparts. And in October, Giffords, the gun safety group co-founded by former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords (D), launched a new national firearms group for gun owners that it hopes can take the NRA’s mantle while also pushing for gun control measures.
It would be convenient to link the rise of extremist gun groups this year to the NRA’s downfall: At a time when gun control groups are more impactful than they’ve ever been—spending millions of dollars to successfully boost political candidates running on a gun control platform—their biggest foe is down and out, leaving gun owners across the country feeling powerless. But Winkler doesn’t think the narrative tracks. He explains that the rise in militia activity and armed protesters this year “seems to be the natural growth of something that started about 10 to 12 years ago” with the tea party movement when guns became a symbol of protest. “I don’t think the vast majority of people who bring guns to a protest are planning on starting a firefight,” he says. “They’re not planning on starting a war. They’re doing it symbolically for protest.” Still, Winkler worries that it can go awry, especially given the spate of right-wing violence from extremist militias at protests over the summer. “They’re suddenly shifting to self-defense,” he says, “the moment they see someone or something happening that they feel threatened by.”
Van Cleave sees his group’s Lobby Day protest and continued advocacy for gun rights not so much as a protest, but as a battle. That’s especially true in a Joe Biden–Kamala Harris administration, which Van Cleave says has “basically declared war on the Second Amendment.” His group was planning another massive Lobby Day protest next month, but that went awry when gun control groups got permits for the space where VCDL typically holds its event. In retaliation, VCDL sent a message to members with plans for a caravan rally similar to the Trump rallies that took place across the country before the election. “VCDL is going to do that…but on steroids!” the email stated. Beyond Lobby Day, Van Cleave hints at other events and strategies to fight any gun control laws that the new administration may try to pass, whether through litigation or on the streets. “Our job is to protect that [Second Amendment] right by whatever means is necessary.”


motherjones--2020-12-02--New Podcast: Will Joe Biden Finally Fix America’s Crippling Student Debt Crisis?

Young people turned out in record numbers for the 2020 presidential election , and they overwhelmingly backed Joe Biden .
Now , the hashtag # CancelStudentDebt has been trending on Twitter , as intense pressure mounts on the president-elect to finally tackle the $ 1.7 trillion student debt crisis holding millions of Americans , especially young Americans , hostage to often crippling monthly payments for years to come .
“ This feels like the closest we ’ ve ever been , ” one education advocate recently told Time , referring to the chance for real policy changes .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has established herself as the loudest voice on the matter , large-scale debt forgiveness would provide “ the single most effective economic stimulus that is available through executive action.
” But how likely is that ?
Can this finally be fixed ?
On this week ’ s episode of the Mother Jones Podcast , we ’ re revisiting our big investigation by journalist Ryann Liebenthal into America ’ s broken student debt machine .
We first brought you this story in August 2018 , detailing the flailing government program known as Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when Biden was a candidate , he pledged to streamline and reform .
“ It should be done immediately , ” he said , referring to the passage of new legislation .
But that depends on who controls the Senate come January , and Biden ’ s professed urgency must inevitably be tempered with a tough political reality .
To bring us up to speed on what ’ s changed since the campaign and what Biden ’ s picks for his economic team can tell us about his ambitions , we chatted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , DC , political reporter Kara Voght .
“ The demands for canceling student debt have not ceased since President-elect Joe Biden won in November , ” said Voght on the podcast .
“ It ’ s not just the grassroots , not just progressive who are calling for this.
” Revisit our original written investigation here .
And listen to this week ’ s show , below : Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast : Subscribe using Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or your favorite @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Young people turned out in record numbers for the 2020 presidential election, and they overwhelmingly backed Joe Biden. Now, the hashtag #CancelStudentDebt has been trending on Twitter, as intense pressure mounts on the president-elect to finally tackle the $1.7 trillion student debt crisis holding millions of Americans, especially young Americans, hostage to often crippling monthly payments for years to come. “This feels like the closest we’ve ever been,” one education advocate recently told Time, referring to the chance for real policy changes. According to Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) who has established herself as the loudest voice on the matter, large-scale debt forgiveness would provide “the single most effective economic stimulus that is available through executive action.” But how likely is that? Can this finally be fixed?
On this week’s episode of the Mother Jones Podcast, we’re revisiting our big investigation by journalist Ryann Liebenthal into America’s broken student debt machine. We first brought you this story in August 2018, detailing the flailing government program known as Public Service Loan Forgiveness, a system that, when Biden was a candidate, he pledged to streamline and reform. “It should be done immediately,” he said, referring to the passage of new legislation. But that depends on who controls the Senate come January, and Biden’s professed urgency must inevitably be tempered with a tough political reality.
To bring us up to speed on what’s changed since the campaign and what Biden’s picks for his economic team can tell us about his ambitions, we chatted to our very own transition tracker, Washington, DC, political reporter Kara Voght. “The demands for canceling student debt have not ceased since President-elect Joe Biden won in November,” said Voght on the podcast. “It’s not just the grassroots, not just progressive who are calling for this.” Revisit our original written investigation here. And listen to this week’s show, below:


motherjones--2020-12-03--A Deputy Prosecutor Was Fired for Speaking Out Against Jail Time for People Who Fall Behind on Rent

This story was published originally by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for ProPublica ’ s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published .
An Arkansas prosecutor has been fired after speaking out against the state ’ s criminal eviction statute in an October ProPublica story .
Garland County deputy prosecutor Josh Drake was let go from his position on Oct. 31 by Michelle Lawrence , the prosecuting attorney .
Arkansas is the only state where landlords can file criminal charges rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind on rent .
Drake told ProPublica , “ I hate that law .
It ’ s unconstitutional.
” It constitutes cruel and unusual punishment , he said , echoing other Arkansas legal experts and advocates across the political spectrum .
Under the law , which dates to 1901 , if a tenant ’ s rent is a day overdue , they forfeit their right to be in the property .
If they don ’ t leave their homes within 10 days of getting a notice from their landlords , they can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each day they overstay .
Evictions in the state can snowball from charges to warrants to arrests to jail time , leaving people with criminal records that hinder their ability to find a new home or get a job .
In civil evictions , by contrast , landlords can pursue unpaid rent and other additional fees from tenants , but the process doesn ’ t include daily fines for staying in the property without paying or put tenants at risk of jail time .
ProPublica found that since 2018 , more than 1,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eviction statute .
During that time , judges have sentenced at least 37 renters to jail after charges stemming from the law , which is officially known as “ failure to pay rent , failure to vacate.
” Women and people of color have disproportionately been charged .
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s national moratorium on evictions did not stop the criminal filings .
Since the Sept. 4 order , at least 49 people have been charged , with more than two dozen cases filed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of new cases of the coronavirus in Arkansas has risen dramatically since mid-September .
The state now has over 1,000 hospitalized because of the virus , according to Gov .
Asa Hutchinson .
Landlords told ProPublica they preferred the criminal statute to civil evictions because the criminal process is cheaper .
Taxpayers shoulder the cost when county attorneys like Lawrence and Drake pursue tenants .
In civil eviction hearings , landlords have to cover their attorney fees .
Drake had been prosecuting cases on behalf of Garland County , in central Arkansas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lawrence called Drake into her office the day after ProPublica ‘ s story ran and said she was firing him because his remarks drew media and statewide attention to her office , Drake said .
Lawrence , who began working in Garland County ’ s prosecuting attorney ’ s office in 1994 and was elected as the prosecuting attorney in 2016 , declined to comment , citing an office prohibition on speaking about personnel matters .
During Drake ’ s tenure , he handled at least a dozen criminal eviction cases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutors , he had the impression that the statute never led to arrests or jail time .
That ’ s not true , however .
Since 2018 , 45 people have been arrested exclusively for failing to pay rent and not leaving , according to state records .
Despite his misimpression , Drake nevertheless disliked the statute because he said it effectively transformed county attorneys and law enforcement officers into collection agents for landlords .
But he said he felt he had no choice but to prosecute the cases because it was his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until the ProPublica story .
“ I stand by what I said .
I still feel the same way , ” he said .
“ It ’ s one of those things that I ’ ve always been ashamed of , but I ’ ve never been in a situation where I could do anything about it.
” Now , he said , “ I can at least call more attention to it.
” If Lawrence “ wants to be the one that sticks up for the landlord and continues using tax money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing I can do about it other than point it out to people , ” he said .
Other elected prosecuting attorneys in the state have declined to prosecute the eviction cases .
Prosecutors in the state ’ s most populous county , Pulaski , have stopped accepting the filings altogether .
In other jurisdictions , judges have stopped hearing cases under the statute .
Of the 21 largest counties in the state , ProPublica and the Arkansas Nonprofit News Network found only five contained district courts that processed any criminal eviction filings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this September , a judge and attorney in the state ’ s western Polk County chose to stop pursuing the cases until further notice .
Judge Danny Thrailkill told ProPublica he has long approached the law with unease .
“ You hate to enforce it because a lot of people don ’ t have anywhere to go , ” he said .
“ It ’ s really a civil matter.
” Andy Riner , a prosecuting attorney who was just elected into a circuit judge position that will begin in January , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin with .
“ If you ’ re fining someone who is already broke , that doesn ’ t get their attention , that doesn ’ t improve their conduct , ” Riner said .
“ It just doesn ’ t make any sense.
” Five years ago , a circuit court judge ruled the statute violated the Eighth Amendment ’ s clause banning cruel and unusual punishment , as well as federal and state bans on debtors prisons , but his ruling did not cover the entire state .
Other judges have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to get the law repealed in the next session of the state legislature .
“ Like I hoped from the first time I stepped foot in the state and learned about the law , I hope that the legislature will repeal it , ” Drake said .

This story was published originally by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
An Arkansas prosecutor has been fired after speaking out against the state’s criminal eviction statute in an October ProPublica story. Garland County deputy prosecutor Josh Drake was let go from his position on Oct. 31 by Michelle Lawrence, the prosecuting attorney.
Arkansas is the only state where landlords can file criminal charges rather than civil complaints against tenants for falling behind on rent. Drake told ProPublica, “I hate that law. It’s unconstitutional.” It constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, he said, echoing other Arkansas legal experts and advocates across the political spectrum.
Under the law, which dates to 1901, if a tenant’s rent is a day overdue, they forfeit their right to be in the property. If they don’t leave their homes within 10 days of getting a notice from their landlords, they can be charged with a misdemeanor and fined for each day they overstay.
Evictions in the state can snowball from charges to warrants to arrests to jail time, leaving people with criminal records that hinder their ability to find a new home or get a job. In civil evictions, by contrast, landlords can pursue unpaid rent and other additional fees from tenants, but the process doesn’t include daily fines for staying in the property without paying or put tenants at risk of jail time.
ProPublica found that since 2018, more than 1,000 cases have been filed under the criminal eviction statute. During that time, judges have sentenced at least 37 renters to jail after charges stemming from the law, which is officially known as “failure to pay rent, failure to vacate.” Women and people of color have disproportionately been charged.
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national moratorium on evictions did not stop the criminal filings. Since the Sept. 4 order, at least 49 people have been charged, with more than two dozen cases filed in the last month. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the coronavirus in Arkansas has risen dramatically since mid-September. The state now has over 1,000 hospitalized because of the virus, according to Gov. Asa Hutchinson.
Landlords told ProPublica they preferred the criminal statute to civil evictions because the criminal process is cheaper. Taxpayers shoulder the cost when county attorneys like Lawrence and Drake pursue tenants. In civil eviction hearings, landlords have to cover their attorney fees.
Drake had been prosecuting cases on behalf of Garland County, in central Arkansas, since March 2018 on a part-time basis. Lawrence called Drake into her office the day after ProPublica‘s story ran and said she was firing him because his remarks drew media and statewide attention to her office, Drake said.
Lawrence, who began working in Garland County’s prosecuting attorney’s office in 1994 and was elected as the prosecuting attorney in 2016, declined to comment, citing an office prohibition on speaking about personnel matters.
During Drake’s tenure, he handled at least a dozen criminal eviction cases. Like many landlords, state legislators and prosecutors, he had the impression that the statute never led to arrests or jail time. That’s not true, however. Since 2018, 45 people have been arrested exclusively for failing to pay rent and not leaving, according to state records.
Despite his misimpression, Drake nevertheless disliked the statute because he said it effectively transformed county attorneys and law enforcement officers into collection agents for landlords. But he said he felt he had no choice but to prosecute the cases because it was his job. He never voiced his objections until the ProPublica story.
“I stand by what I said. I still feel the same way,” he said. “It’s one of those things that I’ve always been ashamed of, but I’ve never been in a situation where I could do anything about it.” Now, he said, “I can at least call more attention to it.”
If Lawrence “wants to be the one that sticks up for the landlord and continues using tax money to evict people, then there is nothing I can do about it other than point it out to people,” he said.
Other elected prosecuting attorneys in the state have declined to prosecute the eviction cases. Prosecutors in the state’s most populous county, Pulaski, have stopped accepting the filings altogether. In other jurisdictions, judges have stopped hearing cases under the statute. Of the 21 largest counties in the state, ProPublica and the Arkansas Nonprofit News Network found only five contained district courts that processed any criminal eviction filings in 2020.
After the CDC moratorium this September, a judge and attorney in the state’s western Polk County chose to stop pursuing the cases until further notice. Judge Danny Thrailkill told ProPublica he has long approached the law with unease. “You hate to enforce it because a lot of people don’t have anywhere to go,” he said. “It’s really a civil matter.”
Andy Riner, a prosecuting attorney who was just elected into a circuit judge position that will begin in January, said he had found the statute ineffective to begin with. “If you’re fining someone who is already broke, that doesn’t get their attention, that doesn’t improve their conduct,” Riner said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”
Five years ago, a circuit court judge ruled the statute violated the Eighth Amendment’s clause banning cruel and unusual punishment, as well as federal and state bans on debtors prisons, but his ruling did not cover the entire state. Other judges have upheld the statute.
Advocates are planning to try to get the law repealed in the next session of the state legislature.
“Like I hoped from the first time I stepped foot in the state and learned about the law, I hope that the legislature will repeal it,” Drake said.


motherjones--2020-12-03--Google Interfered With Workers’ Labor Organizing, According to the NLRB

Google fired two employees and spied on others in retaliation for labor organizing , according to a complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board yesterday .
The company ’ s actions constituted “ interfering with , restraining , and coercing employees ” who were exercising their right to organize , it reads .
The complaint dates back to late 2019 , when four Googlers were fired in the midst of an organizing push among the tech giant ’ s employees .
Their firings came after Google had brought on IRI Consultants , a firm known for helping companies fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the four , mostly software engineers , had broken security procedures by accessing off-limits documents .
The former employees say they had looked at publicly available documents to learn more about IRI .
Let go near the holidays , the fired became known as the Thanksgiving Four .
Googlers held rallies in protest .
Not long after those firings , another Googler named Kathryn Spiers alleged that she ’ d been fired after creating a pop-up message that appeared on coworkers ’ browsers when they went to IRI ’ s website at work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.
” For this protest , she wrote in a post , she was suspended and then dismissed .
The Thanksgiving Four—Laurence Berland , Rebecca Rivers , Paul Duke , and Sophie Waldman—called their firings “ draconian , pernicious , and unlawful.
” Last December , they filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board accusing Google of intimidation .
Spiers also informed the NLRB her labor rights had been violated .
On Wednesday , the board—which , is controlled by appointees from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google for firing Spiers and Berland and for other potential labor violations related to its treatment of a larger group of fired employees , including snooping on them .
The NLRB found that Google “ virtually surveilled ” employees by looking at a pro-union presentation and “ interrogated its employees about their protected concerted activities.
” “ Management and their union busting cronies wanted to send that message , ” Berland said in a statement , “ and the NLRB is now sending their own message : worker organizing is protected by law.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirms her allegation that Google retaliated against her .
Google did not respond to a request for comment .
The company told the Verge it is “ confident in our decision and legal position .
Actions undertaken by the employees at issue were a serious violation of our policies and an unacceptable breach of a trusted responsibility.
” The complaint will move forward now , though slowly .
There will still be hearings and fact finding .
( Lawyers for the ex-Googlers can still appeal to add the names of others fired to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NLRB could require Google to reinstate those fired and deliver back pay ; the company also might have to publicly notify its employees that it violated labor laws .
In the meantime , the worker revolt that started brewing in the company more than a year ago is still having an effect .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Google fired two employees and spied on others in retaliation for labor organizing, according to a complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board yesterday. The company’s actions constituted “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” who were exercising their right to organize, it reads.
The complaint dates back to late 2019, when four Googlers were fired in the midst of an organizing push among the tech giant’s employees. Their firings came after Google had brought on IRI Consultants, a firm known for helping companies fight unionization efforts.
According to Google, the four, mostly software engineers, had broken security procedures by accessing off-limits documents. The former employees say they had looked at publicly available documents to learn more about IRI. Let go near the holidays, the fired became known as the Thanksgiving Four. Googlers held rallies in protest.
Not long after those firings, another Googler named Kathryn Spiers alleged that she’d been fired after creating a pop-up message that appeared on coworkers’ browsers when they went to IRI’s website at work. The message stated, “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.” For this protest, she wrote in a post, she was suspended and then dismissed.
The Thanksgiving Four—Laurence Berland, Rebecca Rivers, Paul Duke, and Sophie Waldman—called their firings “draconian, pernicious, and unlawful.” Last December, they filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board accusing Google of intimidation. Spiers also informed the NLRB her labor rights had been violated.
On Wednesday, the board—which, is controlled by appointees from the Trump administration—moved forward on a complaint against Google for firing Spiers and Berland and for other potential labor violations related to its treatment of a larger group of fired employees, including snooping on them. The NLRB found that Google “virtually surveilled” employees by looking at a pro-union presentation and “interrogated its employees about their protected concerted activities.”
“Management and their union busting cronies wanted to send that message,” Berland said in a statement, “and the NLRB is now sending their own message: worker organizing is protected by law.”
Just over a year ago, Google fired me, falsely claiming I violated data access policies, even though the documents and calendars in question were accessible by any employee. My coworkers and friends knew it was bullshit, and that’s what matters most. 1/ — Laurence stands with you. (@laurenceb) December 2, 2020
Spiers tweeted that the NLRB complaint confirms her allegation that Google retaliated against her.
This week the NLRB issued a complaint on my behalf. I was illegally terminated for trying to help my colleagues. Workers must unite to tackle the power of the tech giants, it’s the only way to hold them accountable. https://t.co/SYuUDoJmWj — kathryn spiers (@computerfemme) December 2, 2020
Google did not respond to a request for comment. The company told the Verge it is “confident in our decision and legal position. Actions undertaken by the employees at issue were a serious violation of our policies and an unacceptable breach of a trusted responsibility.”
The complaint will move forward now, though slowly. There will still be hearings and fact finding. (Lawyers for the ex-Googlers can still appeal to add the names of others fired to the complaint.) Potentially, the NLRB could require Google to reinstate those fired and deliver back pay; the company also might have to publicly notify its employees that it violated labor laws. In the meantime, the worker revolt that started brewing in the company more than a year ago is still having an effect.


motherjones--2020-12-03--Progressives Debate Whether to Oppose Michèle Flournoy for Defense Secretary

Joe Biden named key members of his national security team last week , but the president-elect conspicuously avoided announcing his choice for Defense secretary .
The presumptive favorite , Michèle Flournoy , remains a deeply polarizing figure for progressive advocacy groups , who fractured over how to approach her candidacy during a Zoom call on Wednesday .
Organizers from several left-leaning organizations—Win Without War , Common Defense , and the Center for International Policy—convened the afternoon call with dozens of foreign policy activists and leaders .
Participants ranged from the nonpartisan Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , to mainstream liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to more radical antiwar groups like Code Pink .
Matt Duss , a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders who has close ties to the Biden transition team , was also on the call .
The purpose of the event , details of which were first reported by Politico , was “ to discuss coordination efforts around recommending progressives for foreign policy personnel positions in the incoming Biden administration , ” according to an invitation obtained by Mother Jones .
The intention had been to discuss preferred lower-level appointees for national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pentagon , and other agencies .
But early in the call , the focus returned to the secretary of Defense—a Cabinet position for which the left has not reached any clear consensus over who promote or oppose .
Flournoy has worked for the Defense Department in multiple Democratic administrations .
Outside of government , she has maintained close ties to the defense industry through the think tank she co-founded , the Center for a New American Security .
But progressives opposed to her nomination have raised alarm primarily about her other work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and co-founding WestExec Advisers , a consulting firm that does business with tech and defense companies .
Her role in helping to escalate US military involvement in Afghanistan and her support for the NATO intervention in Libya have also not won her many fans in the antiwar movement .
During Wednesday ’ s Zoom call , Medea Benjamin , who co-founded Code Pink , pushed strongly for groups to unite around opposing Flournoy .
To her , anything less would be contrary to progressive values .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major , major concession of the liberal foreign policy community , ” she told Mother Jones .
“ It doesn ’ t bode well for challenging the Biden administration on key foreign policy issues.
” Other activists echoed Benjamin ’ s concerns in the virtual meeting ’ s comment room .
But others on the call resisted additional criticism of Flournoy , according to people involved in the conversation .
Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball , who signed an open letter last month supporting Flournoy ’ s nomination , spoke out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism of Flournoy ’ s ties to the defense industry could just as easily apply to the other nominees Biden is considering .
( In an interview with Mother Jones , Kimball called the discussion “ very positive.
” ) At one point , Yasmine Taeb , a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy , suggested to attendees that progressive Democrats on Capitol Hill wanted outside groups to refrain from opposing Flournoy .
Taeb , who earlier this year had expressed concerns about Flournoy to Biden ’ s team , confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During several conversations with the offices of multiple key progressive allies on the Hill , we were advised not to launch an official opposition campaign against Flournoy because of the likelihood of her confirmation , ” she said in a statement Thursday .
She added that she had been advised by Hill progressives to urge senators to use the confirmation process to ask about “ who [ Flournoy ’ s ] clients were at WestExec , which programs she specifically worked on , and whether she would be willing to recuse herself especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” At least some Hill progressives say they have no objection to opposing Flournoy , according to people Mother Jones spoke with about the call .
Rep. Ro Khanna ( D-Calif. ) , who has been a leading voice against the United States ’ involvement in the conflict in Yemen , tweeted last week that he ’ s inclined to support Biden ’ s cabinet but that he needs to see Flournoy commit to a full withdrawal from Afghanistan and a ban on arms sales to Saudi Arabia , which is fighting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the idea that congressional liberals wanted activists to give up on opposing Flournoy .
“ What is most important is to engage Flournoy in a dialogue with members about our policies in Yemen , Afghanistan , and the Middle East , ” he said in a statement to Mother Jones on Wednesday night .
“ There is potential for her to address the concerns of progressives but it requires genuine introspection about our policies these past 20 years and a commitment to a new approach going forward.
” Other progressive lawmakers have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s nomination uncomfortable , without naming her explicitly .
Two influential progressives , Reps. Mark Pocan ( D-Wis. ) and Barbara Lee ( D-Calif. ) , wrote Biden a letter last month urging him to “ commit to appointing Secretaries of Defense with no previous ties to defense contractors.
” According to one senior aide to a progressive House member , the sentiment across Congress ’ left flank is uniform : “ No one wants her , that ’ s for sure , ” the aide told Mother Jones .
Flournoy ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , when Biden first began assembling his administration .
But the transition team has reportedly been exploring other candidates , including former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin .
Both are on the board of major defense contractors : Lockheed Martin for Johnson and Raytheon for Austin .
Johnson , who was the Defense Department ’ s general counsel before taking over DHS , played a key role in publicly defending and supporting the Obama administration ’ s drone program .
( During the call Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Michael Morell ’ s possible nomination as CIA director , given his history defending the agency ’ s use of drone strikes and torture . )
Austin , who only retired from the military in 2016 , would need a waiver to serve as the department ’ s civilian leader , a drawback for progressives who objected as the military assumed a more active role in department affairs under James Mattis , the retired Marine Corps general who Trump picked as his first Defense secretary .
But even with the odds stacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Zoom call believed that progressives should not stay silent .
“ Those who believe that Johnson and Austin are just as bad as Flournoy should criticize all of them and call for a better alternative , ” Erik Sperling , the executive director of Just Foreign Policy , told Mother Jones .
“ The pressure would draw attention to the life-and-death issues our organizations work on and would be more likely to force concessions from the administration.
” Sperling ’ s organization joined a new letter addressed to Biden led by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Yemeni Alliance Committee—that calls for the left to support alternatives to Flournoy , such as Sen. Tammy Duckworth ( D-Ill. ) , an Army veteran who now serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee .
The letter , first reported by the AP , condemns Flournoy ’ s “ record of ill-advised foreign policy positions ” and asks the president-elect to instead consider Duckworth and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ( D-N.Y. ) , both of whom have repeatedly voted to withdraw the US from involvement in Yemen .
It has been signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination , such as Sperling ’ s Just Foreign Policy , Justice Democrats , and Demand Progress .
Khanna , too , praised Duckworth in a Zoom call with several leftist foreign policy groups earlier this week .
“ I think Tammy Duckworth would be a fine choice , ” he said in that call .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Joe Biden named key members of his national security team last week, but the president-elect conspicuously avoided announcing his choice for Defense secretary. The presumptive favorite, Michèle Flournoy, remains a deeply polarizing figure for progressive advocacy groups, who fractured over how to approach her candidacy during a Zoom call on Wednesday.
Organizers from several left-leaning organizations—Win Without War, Common Defense, and the Center for International Policy—convened the afternoon call with dozens of foreign policy activists and leaders. Participants ranged from the nonpartisan Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, to mainstream liberal groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, to more radical antiwar groups like Code Pink. Matt Duss, a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders who has close ties to the Biden transition team, was also on the call.
The purpose of the event, details of which were first reported by Politico, was “to discuss coordination efforts around recommending progressives for foreign policy personnel positions in the incoming Biden administration,” according to an invitation obtained by Mother Jones. The intention had been to discuss preferred lower-level appointees for national security positions across the State Department, Pentagon, and other agencies. But early in the call, the focus returned to the secretary of Defense—a Cabinet position for which the left has not reached any clear consensus over who promote or oppose.
Flournoy has worked for the Defense Department in multiple Democratic administrations. Outside of government, she has maintained close ties to the defense industry through the think tank she co-founded, the Center for a New American Security. But progressives opposed to her nomination have raised alarm primarily about her other work, which includes serving on the board of defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and co-founding WestExec Advisers, a consulting firm that does business with tech and defense companies. Her role in helping to escalate US military involvement in Afghanistan and her support for the NATO intervention in Libya have also not won her many fans in the antiwar movement.
During Wednesday’s Zoom call, Medea Benjamin, who co-founded Code Pink, pushed strongly for groups to unite around opposing Flournoy. To her, anything less would be contrary to progressive values. “It feels to me like this is a major, major concession of the liberal foreign policy community,” she told Mother Jones. “It doesn’t bode well for challenging the Biden administration on key foreign policy issues.” Another activist echoed Benjamin’s concerns in the virtual meeting’s comment room.
But others on the call resisted additional criticism of Flournoy, according to people involved in the conversation. Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball, who signed an open letter last month supporting Flournoy’s nomination, spoke out in favor of her. Kimball said criticism of Flournoy’s ties to the defense industry could just as easily apply to the other nominees Biden is considering. (In an interview with Mother Jones, Kimball called the discussion “very positive.”) At one point, Yasmine Taeb, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, suggested to attendees that progressive Democrats on Capitol Hill wanted outside groups to refrain from opposing Flournoy. Taeb, who earlier this year had expressed concerns about Flournoy to Biden’s team, confirmed this account to Mother Jones. “During several conversations with the offices of multiple key progressive allies on the Hill, we were advised not to launch an official opposition campaign against Flournoy because of the likelihood of her confirmation,” she said in a statement Thursday. She added that she had been advised by Hill progressives to urge senators to use the confirmation process to ask about “who [Flournoy’s] clients were at WestExec, which programs she specifically worked on, and whether she would be willing to recuse herself especially if she worked on major weapons programs.”
At least some Hill progressives say they have no objection to opposing Flournoy, according to people Mother Jones spoke with about the call. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who has been a leading voice against the United States’ involvement in the conflict in Yemen, tweeted last week that he’s inclined to support Biden’s cabinet but that he needs to see Flournoy commit to a full withdrawal from Afghanistan and a ban on arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which is fighting a brutal war in Yemen. He disagreed with the idea that congressional liberals wanted activists to give up on opposing Flournoy. “What is most important is to engage Flournoy in a dialogue with members about our policies in Yemen, Afghanistan, and the Middle East,” he said in a statement to Mother Jones on Wednesday night. “There is potential for her to address the concerns of progressives but it requires genuine introspection about our policies these past 20 years and a commitment to a new approach going forward.”
Other progressive lawmakers have opted for tactics to make Flournoy’s nomination uncomfortable, without naming her explicitly. Two influential progressives, Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), wrote Biden a letter last month urging him to “commit to appointing Secretaries of Defense with no previous ties to defense contractors.” According to one senior aide to a progressive House member, the sentiment across Congress’ left flank is uniform: “No one wants her, that’s for sure,” the aide told Mother Jones.
Flournoy’s nomination seemed all but inevitable several weeks ago, when Biden first began assembling his administration. But the transition team has reportedly been exploring other candidates, including former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin. Both are on the board of major defense contractors: Lockheed Martin for Johnson and Raytheon for Austin. Johnson, who was the Defense Department’s general counsel before taking over DHS, played a key role in publicly defending and supporting the Obama administration’s drone program. (During the call Wednesday, the groups were generally aligned in opposition to Michael Morell’s possible nomination as CIA director, given his history defending the agency’s use of drone strikes and torture.) Austin, who only retired from the military in 2016, would need a waiver to serve as the department’s civilian leader, a drawback for progressives who objected as the military assumed a more active role in department affairs under James Mattis, the retired Marine Corps general who Trump picked as his first Defense secretary.
But even with the odds stacked against them, some activists on Wednesday’s Zoom call believed that progressives should not stay silent. “Those who believe that Johnson and Austin are just as bad as Flournoy should criticize all of them and call for a better alternative,” Erik Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy, told Mother Jones. “The pressure would draw attention to the life-and-death issues our organizations work on and would be more likely to force concessions from the administration.”
Sperling’s organization joined a new letter addressed to Biden led by two groups—the Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation and the Yemeni Alliance Committee—that calls for the left to support alternatives to Flournoy, such as Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), an Army veteran who now serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The letter, first reported by the AP, condemns Flournoy’s “record of ill-advised foreign policy positions” and asks the president-elect to instead consider Duckworth and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), both of whom have repeatedly voted to withdraw the US from involvement in Yemen. It has been signed by groups openly opposing Flournoy’s nomination, such as Sperling’s Just Foreign Policy, Justice Democrats, and Demand Progress. Khanna, too, praised Duckworth in a Zoom call with several leftist foreign policy groups earlier this week. “I think Tammy Duckworth would be a fine choice,” he said in that call.


motherjones--2020-12-04--“The Virus Isn’t Noctural”: The Folly of COVID Curfews

After a recent , massive spike in coronavirus cases slammed local hospitals , Tucson , Arizona , became the latest city to implement a COVID-19-related curfew .
The curfew , which goes into effect Friday evening and will run every night through December 23 , does not apply to essential workers , first-responders , health care workers , or homeless people , and it exempts those traveling to or from essential services .
Anyone in violation of the curfew could be given a civil citation and fined .
In choosing to roll up its streets at night to combat the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities that includes El Paso , Denver , and Columbus .
But these efforts don ’ t compare to the stay-at-home orders from the beginning of the pandemic ; Tucson , for example , won ’ t be closing non-essential businesses during non-curfew hours .
So can these limited curfews work to slow the spread of COVID-19 ?
The short answer , according to the experts I spoke with this week , is not really—unless it ’ s paired with other changes to indoor activities and public gatherings .
“ There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point of view , so to speak—that changing the times that people are able to congregate in public spaces would really matter at all , ” said Dr. Angela Rasmussen , virologist at the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security .
“ Curfews are a really limited value if you ’ re going to keep those businesses open in an unrestricted way the rest of the day , because the virus isn ’ t nocturnal.
” Back at the beginning of the pandemic , many cities and states implemented curfews to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work to dramatically decrease community transmission .
But things looked significantly different then—everything was shut down .
Rasmussen said that the United States ’ public health response has been “ so distorted and such a huge failure ” that we ’ re stuck with half measures that may or may not work .
This second round of curfews isn ’ t the equivalent of a lockdown , she said , and isn ’ t going to have the same effect as the lockdowns of the spring .
Epidemiologist Saskia Popescu , an assistant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mason University , is concerned that curfews “ could condense people interacting or convening at businesses ” earlier in the day , rather than have fewer people go to bars or movie theaters .
She noted that while there have been a number of studies exploring curfews ’ effects on behavior , little research has been done on their impact on infectious disease transmission .
A study published in Nature showed that curfews and lockdowns work when cities are also “ closing and restricting places where people gather in smaller or large numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” without having to go into a full national lockdown .
“ Ultimately , the goal of a curfew is to minimize at-risk behavior , ” Popescu said .
“ The better focus would be to limit large indoor gathering.
” That ’ s not happening right now in Arizona , where I live .
For the last few months , the state has embraced Gov .
Doug Ducey ’ s open-it-up attitude : Movie theaters can fill to 50 percent capacity , indoor gyms are operating at 25 percent capacity , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they “ transformed to operate as restaurants.
” Even arcades and bowling alleys are open here .
Perhaps it ’ s no surprise that while restaurants are supposed to be operating at half capacity , I ’ ve seen numerous dining rooms packed with maskless diners as I ’ ve gone to pick up takeout orders .
Meanwhile , Arizona ’ s COVID-19 infections have been steadily increasing since November , and the number of patients hospitalized is almost as high as it was in the summer surge , when the state was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last two weeks , the statewide daily average hit 4,300 new cases , a 70 percent increase from the previous two weeks .
The Arizona Department of Health reported that November 23 had the highest daily rate yet , with 5,630 confirmed cases in a 24-hour period , surpassing Arizona ’ s peak in June .
Earlier this week , health care leaders in Arizona wrote a letter urging the health department to immediately issue a statewide shelter-in-place order , end all indoor dining , and close athletic activities for at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Wednesday , Ducey held a press conference thanking Arizonans for being “ so responsible ” over the Thanksgiving weekend , even though his own state health department reported a spike after the holiday weekend .
He recognized that the numbers in Arizona were headed in the wrong direction but still held back from issuing a statewide mask mandate or addressing the recommendations from the health care leaders .
Ducey made no changes to indoor public spaces , where people don ’ t wear masks when they ’ re eating and drinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurants to set up more outdoor dining areas to take advantage of the state ’ s mild winter weather .
And in a grim admission of where things are heading , Ducey also signed an executive order that adds $ 60 million for local hospitals so they can hire an additional 500 nurses through the end of the month .
Regina Romero , Tucson ’ s Democratic mayor , said it would be “ much better ” for Ducey to have taken broader measures , but the city ’ s curfew is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear direction or immediate action from the governor.
” ( Romero has been unsuccessfully pushing the governor to establish a statewide mask mandate for months ; in his Wednesday press conference , Ducey said he disagreed with Tucson ’ s curfew and didn ’ t think it was the “ right approach , ” and that Arizona should instead keep enforcing the same rules that have been in place for the last few months . )
“ Any step we take , ” Romero said , “ is much better than not doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise .
For example , curfews end up disproportionately affecting people of color , who are both more likely to be stopped by police and who often have worse outcomes following interactions with cops .
Undocumented essential workers are more likely to end up detained over their immigration status , even if their jobs fell under the exempted categories .
“ Even if there ’ s no criminal penalty for violating curfew , if there ’ s any kind of civil penalty , that can really cause a lot of financial harm to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ So I think that curfews do potentially more harm than good.
” But with Republican governors around the country continuing to shrug their shoulders at skyrocketing infection rates , we may continue seeing more municipalities turn to curfews to mitigate COVID ’ s toll—and more tortured city council discussions about the details of those curfews .
On Tuesday night in Tucson , much of the city council ’ s debate revolved around what time the curfew should start—8 , 9 , 10 p.m. ?
Romero , the mayor , had proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week on the recommendation of local hospital CEOs .
But when the medical leaders were asked to justify that starting time , the best they could do was point to another Nature article that suggested 8 o ’ clock .
And so the conversation continued on , with council members arguing over the potential economic blow to bars and restaurants depending on what hour the curfew went into effect .
One of the council members even said that 10 was better than 9 because “ Roadhouse Cinemas doesn ’ t get out until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dine-in movie theater .
The city settled on a 10 p.m to 5 a.m. curfew but is likely to push it up an hour to 9 p.m. once the Pima County Board of Supervisors implements a countywide mandatory curfew that ’ s expected to start at 9 .
“ You don ’ t want to have a stay-home order forever , ” Rasmussen said .
“ You want to have it for long enough that you can get community transmission down to a level where it ’ s actually feasible to test people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s how you break these chains of community transmission .
We didn ’ t do that .
And that ’ s why cases have gone back up .
It ’ s not because the first lockdown didn ’ t work .
It ’ s because we didn ’ t really put the measures we needed to in place to make sure we didn ’ t have to have a stay-home order again .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
After a recent, massive spike in coronavirus cases slammed local hospitals, Tucson, Arizona, became the latest city to implement a COVID-19-related curfew. The curfew, which goes into effect Friday evening and will run every night through December 23, does not apply to essential workers, first-responders, health care workers, or homeless people, and it exempts those traveling to or from essential services. Anyone in violation of the curfew could be given a civil citation and fined.
In choosing to roll up its streets at night to combat the coronavirus, Tucson joins a group of cities that includes El Paso, Denver, and Columbus. But these efforts don’t compare to the stay-at-home orders from the beginning of the pandemic; Tucson, for example, won’t be closing non-essential businesses during non-curfew hours. So can these limited curfews work to slow the spread of COVID-19?
The short answer, according to the experts I spoke with this week, is not really—unless it’s paired with other changes to indoor activities and public gatherings. “There’s no reason to think—from the virus’ point of view, so to speak—that changing the times that people are able to congregate in public spaces would really matter at all,” said Dr. Angela Rasmussen, virologist at the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security. “Curfews are a really limited value if you’re going to keep those businesses open in an unrestricted way the rest of the day, because the virus isn’t nocturnal.”
“There’s no reason to think…that changing the times that people are able to congregate in public spaces would really matter at all.”
Back at the beginning of the pandemic, many cities and states implemented curfews to flatten the curve, and they did work to dramatically decrease community transmission. But things looked significantly different then—everything was shut down. Rasmussen said that the United States’ public health response has been “so distorted and such a huge failure” that we’re stuck with half measures that may or may not work. This second round of curfews isn’t the equivalent of a lockdown, she said, and isn’t going to have the same effect as the lockdowns of the spring.
Epidemiologist Saskia Popescu, an assistant professor at the Biodefense Program at George Mason University, is concerned that curfews “could condense people interacting or convening at businesses” earlier in the day, rather than have fewer people go to bars or movie theaters. She noted that while there have been a number of studies exploring curfews’ effects on behavior, little research has been done on their impact on infectious disease transmission. A study published in Nature showed that curfews and lockdowns work when cities are also “closing and restricting places where people gather in smaller or large numbers for an extended period of time,” without having to go into a full national lockdown. “Ultimately, the goal of a curfew is to minimize at-risk behavior,” Popescu said. “The better focus would be to limit large indoor gathering.”
That’s not happening right now in Arizona, where I live. For the last few months, the state has embraced Gov. Doug Ducey’s open-it-up attitude: Movie theaters can fill to 50 percent capacity, indoor gyms are operating at 25 percent capacity, and bars can be open so long as they “transformed to operate as restaurants.” Even arcades and bowling alleys are open here. Perhaps it’s no surprise that while restaurants are supposed to be operating at half capacity, I’ve seen numerous dining rooms packed with maskless diners as I’ve gone to pick up takeout orders.
Meanwhile, Arizona’s COVID-19 infections have been steadily increasing since November, and the number of patients hospitalized is almost as high as it was in the summer surge, when the state was a national hot spot. Just in the last two weeks, the statewide daily average hit 4,300 new cases, a 70 percent increase from the previous two weeks. The Arizona Department of Health reported that November 23 had the highest daily rate yet, with 5,630 confirmed cases in a 24-hour period, surpassing Arizona’s peak in June. Earlier this week, health care leaders in Arizona wrote a letter urging the health department to immediately issue a statewide shelter-in-place order, end all indoor dining, and close athletic activities for at least a month to avoid full crisis mode.
On Wednesday, Gov. Doug Ducey held a press conference thanking Arizonans for being “so responsible” over the Thanksgiving weekend, even though his own state health department reported a spike after the holiday weekend
On Wednesday, Ducey held a press conference thanking Arizonans for being “so responsible” over the Thanksgiving weekend, even though his own state health department reported a spike after the holiday weekend. He recognized that the numbers in Arizona were headed in the wrong direction but still held back from issuing a statewide mask mandate or addressing the recommendations from the health care leaders. Ducey made no changes to indoor public spaces, where people don’t wear masks when they’re eating and drinking, but added $1 million for restaurants to set up more outdoor dining areas to take advantage of the state’s mild winter weather. And in a grim admission of where things are heading, Ducey also signed an executive order that adds $60 million for local hospitals so they can hire an additional 500 nurses through the end of the month.
Regina Romero, Tucson’s Democratic mayor, said it would be “much better” for Ducey to have taken broader measures, but the city’s curfew is an initial step “in the absence of clear direction or immediate action from the governor.” (Romero has been unsuccessfully pushing the governor to establish a statewide mask mandate for months; in his Wednesday press conference, Ducey said he disagreed with Tucson’s curfew and didn’t think it was the “right approach,” and that Arizona should instead keep enforcing the same rules that have been in place for the last few months.) “Any step we take,” Romero said, “is much better than not doing anything.”
Research, however, suggests otherwise. For example, curfews end up disproportionately affecting people of color, who are both more likely to be stopped by police and who often have worse outcomes following interactions with cops. Undocumented essential workers are more likely to end up detained over their immigration status, even if their jobs fell under the exempted categories. “Even if there’s no criminal penalty for violating curfew, if there’s any kind of civil penalty, that can really cause a lot of financial harm to people as well,” Rasmussen said. “So I think that curfews do potentially more harm than good.”
“I think that curfews do potentially more harm than good.”
But with Republican governors around the country continuing to shrug their shoulders at skyrocketing infection rates, we may continue seeing more municipalities turn to curfews to mitigate COVID’s toll—and more tortured city council discussions about the details of those curfews. On Tuesday night in Tucson, much of the city council’s debate revolved around what time the curfew should start—8, 9, 10 p.m.? Romero, the mayor, had proposed an 8 p.m. curfew earlier in the week on the recommendation of local hospital CEOs. But when the medical leaders were asked to justify that starting time, the best they could do was point to another Nature article that suggested 8 o’clock.
And so the conversation continued on, with council members arguing over the potential economic blow to bars and restaurants depending on what hour the curfew went into effect. One of the council members even said that 10 was better than 9 because “Roadhouse Cinemas doesn’t get out until 9:30,” referring to a local dine-in movie theater. The city settled on a 10 p.m to 5 a.m. curfew but is likely to push it up an hour to 9 p.m. once the Pima County Board of Supervisors implements a countywide mandatory curfew that’s expected to start at 9.
“You don’t want to have a stay-home order forever,” Rasmussen said. “You want to have it for long enough that you can get community transmission down to a level where it’s actually feasible to test people and to then contact-trace. That’s how you break these chains of community transmission. We didn’t do that. And that’s why cases have gone back up. It’s not because the first lockdown didn’t work. It’s because we didn’t really put the measures we needed to in place to make sure we didn’t have to have a stay-home order again.”