motherjones--2020-03-17--Millions of Federal Workers Still Waiting on Work-From-Home Order During Coronavirus Pandemic

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 .
The Trump administration has yet to issue clear guidance to federal employees nationwide on whether they can work at home as the coronavirus pandemic escalates .
The result has been an ad hoc mix of policies that varies by agency and has left many workers across the country with conflicting instructions about when and how they should report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telework .
The civilian federal workforce consists of about 2 million people , not counting the United States Postal Service , with about 15 % based in the Washington , D.C. , area .
On Sunday night , the White House issued new , stronger guidance for federal employees in the Washington region , asking agencies to offer “ maximum telework flexibilities ” to all eligible employees and “ use all existing authorities ” to offer telework to other employees .
Still , the new guidance leaves many details to be determined by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not apply to the vast majority of federal workers .
The White House issued guidance to federal agencies Saturday recommending “ only mission-critical travel ” by federal workers .
The guidance left it up to individual agencies to determine what meets that threshold .
Public health experts are unified in their message : Americans need to stay at home as much as possible to slow the spread of the disease and lessen the burden on the country ’ s health care system .
At a White House press briefing Sunday , Vice President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s coronavirus task force , said that officials had no higher priority than protecting the health of Americans , but he did not mention federal workers .
Earlier on Sunday , Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , pleaded with Americans to “ hunker down.
” On Sunday evening , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended an eight-week pause in holding mass gatherings of more than 50 people .
Most of the federal workforce is still subject to White House guidance issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maximize telework flexibilities ” for workers at higher risk of coronavirus complications , including older adults and people with some serious chronic health conditions and special populations like pregnant women .
The White House also encouraged agencies to consider extending telework in response to community spread of the virus and local school closures .
Interviews with more than a half-dozen federal employees show frustration with the gap between what public health experts are recommending and the policies set by top administration officials .
Federal employees are complaining that leaders at their agencies have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to work from home to avoid contracting the virus and passing it to more vulnerable family , friends , or strangers .
President Donald Trump declared a national emergency last week to unleash federal funds to combat the coronavirus , though he has repeatedly shrugged off the threat posed by the pandemic .
The Office of Personnel Management and a spokeswoman for Pence did not respond to requests for comment on the gaps in guidance or on whether the government is tracking how many federal employees have been diagnosed with the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing symptoms .
At the Department of Justice—which has over 100,000 employees—employees received messages on Wednesday and Friday alerting them to an unnamed employee with coronavirus symptoms and another who tested presumptive positive , according to internal emails seen by ProPublica .
Several DOJ officials said they were frustrated with what they viewed as an inadequate response by their superiors .
In the case of the employee who exhibited symptoms , DOJ responded by sanitizing the building where the person worked , and it said staff who work in the area could return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next day , Thursday .
The email said supervisors “ can consider ” individual telework requests .
“ People are just beside themselves , ” said one DOJ official , who , like others , requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press .
“ Their approach was just to clean a couple floors and they thought that somehow addressed the problem.
” The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment .
Late on Sunday , following the White House ’ s new guidance for Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent a memo to department heads , seen by ProPublica , directing them to “ move to a posture of maximum telework ” in the Washington region until further notice .
A letter sent on Friday from a DOJ gender equality group to Attorney General William Barr and OPM Director Dale Cabaniss said DOJ and other agencies had until that point allowed telework only when an employee was at a high risk of infection , even if their family members had serious underlying health issues .
It urged senior leaders to immediately permit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow contractors to telework as much as possible .
“ Your response to this outbreak signals to federal workers that the spread of the disease , our health , and the health of our families are not priorities , ” the letter said .
In one DOJ staff meeting on Thursday , career lawyers asked their boss , a Trump political appointee , why there had been no guidance on telework for at-risk populations or parents of children affected by school closures .
The meeting details were shared with ProPublica by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A lot of people expressed frustrations , ” the official said .
But the Trump appointee “ had no answers ” and merely repeated that he would take their concerns to higher-ups and that he had no authority to do anything , the official said .
One DOJ senior manager told his employees last week that his division could not discuss official coronavirus response policies without permission from the agency ’ s top levels , the DOJ official told ProPublica .
Individual managers were left to make their own decisions on employee telework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOJ building said he has received no guidance from any level of the department , except for hand-washing advisories in bathrooms and generic coronavirus information sheets posted by elevators .
Three State Department employees said in interviews this weekend there is no overall remote working policy , although they have received some guidance about limiting travel and other practices .
In that vacuum , bureaus have determined who can telework individually .
In one office , approximately half the staff was told to work from home in the coming week , an official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a meeting attendee came down with fever and a sore throat and others were given the option of teleworking with manager approval .
Overall , employees felt that information was being “ siloed , ” one official said .
A State Department spokesperson said the agency has authorized managers to implement telework and other flexible arrangements “ as appropriate , ” and said some sections “ have already begun rotational and telework schedules.
” At the Interior Department , employees at the Bureau of Land Management were told in a Friday email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be “ telework ready , ” but an official said they have not received blanket telework approval .
The Interior Department issued an employee guide on Wednesday , restating department policies on leave and telework .
It acknowledges that the coronavirus pandemic would justify lifting certain telework restrictions but did not say if those restrictions had been lifted or not .
As a result , one Interior Department official told ProPublica , managers within the agency have adopted ad hoc responses—with some work travel still on the schedule in the coming days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency is following guidance from OPM and the CDC , as well as local , state and federal authorities .
“ We ’ re handling situations on a case-by-case basis and are adjusting our employee guidance accordingly as the guidance of leading authorities is updated , ” the spokesperson 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.
The Trump administration has yet to issue clear guidance to federal employees nationwide on whether they can work at home as the coronavirus pandemic escalates.
The result has been an ad hoc mix of policies that varies by agency and has left many workers across the country with conflicting instructions about when and how they should report to their offices and if they can telework. The civilian federal workforce consists of about 2 million people, not counting the United States Postal Service, with about 15% based in the Washington, D.C., area.
On Sunday night, the White House issued new, stronger guidance for federal employees in the Washington region, asking agencies to offer “maximum telework flexibilities” to all eligible employees and “use all existing authorities” to offer telework to other employees. Still, the new guidance leaves many details to be determined by individual agency heads, and it does not apply to the vast majority of federal workers.
The White House issued guidance to federal agencies Saturday recommending “only mission-critical travel” by federal workers. The guidance left it up to individual agencies to determine what meets that threshold.
Public health experts are unified in their message: Americans need to stay at home as much as possible to slow the spread of the disease and lessen the burden on the country’s health care system. At a White House press briefing Sunday, Vice President Mike Pence, who heads the administration’s coronavirus task force, said that officials had no higher priority than protecting the health of Americans, but he did not mention federal workers. Earlier on Sunday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, pleaded with Americans to “hunker down.”
On Sunday evening, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended an eight-week pause in holding mass gatherings of more than 50 people.
Most of the federal workforce is still subject to White House guidance issued on Thursday, encouraging agencies to “maximize telework flexibilities” for workers at higher risk of coronavirus complications, including older adults and people with some serious chronic health conditions and special populations like pregnant women. The White House also encouraged agencies to consider extending telework in response to community spread of the virus and local school closures.
Interviews with more than a half-dozen federal employees show frustration with the gap between what public health experts are recommending and the policies set by top administration officials. Federal employees are complaining that leaders at their agencies have not instituted broad policies to encourage healthy people to work from home to avoid contracting the virus and passing it to more vulnerable family, friends, or strangers.
President Donald Trump declared a national emergency last week to unleash federal funds to combat the coronavirus, though he has repeatedly shrugged off the threat posed by the pandemic.
The Office of Personnel Management and a spokeswoman for Pence did not respond to requests for comment on the gaps in guidance or on whether the government is tracking how many federal employees have been diagnosed with the coronavirus, tested presumptive positive or self-quarantining after showing symptoms.
At the Department of Justice—which has over 100,000 employees—employees received messages on Wednesday and Friday alerting them to an unnamed employee with coronavirus symptoms and another who tested presumptive positive, according to internal emails seen by ProPublica. Several DOJ officials said they were frustrated with what they viewed as an inadequate response by their superiors.
In the case of the employee who exhibited symptoms, DOJ responded by sanitizing the building where the person worked, and it said staff who work in the area could return to the office by 8:30 a.m. the next day, Thursday. The email said supervisors “can consider” individual telework requests.
“People are just beside themselves,” said one DOJ official, who, like others, requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press. “Their approach was just to clean a couple floors and they thought that somehow addressed the problem.”
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. Late on Sunday, following the White House’s new guidance for Washington workers, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen sent a memo to department heads, seen by ProPublica, directing them to “move to a posture of maximum telework” in the Washington region until further notice.
A letter sent on Friday from a DOJ gender equality group to Attorney General William Barr and OPM Director Dale Cabaniss said DOJ and other agencies had until that point allowed telework only when an employee was at a high risk of infection, even if their family members had serious underlying health issues. It urged senior leaders to immediately permit unrestricted telework for those who qualify and to allow contractors to telework as much as possible.
“Your response to this outbreak signals to federal workers that the spread of the disease, our health, and the health of our families are not priorities,” the letter said.
In one DOJ staff meeting on Thursday, career lawyers asked their boss, a Trump political appointee, why there had been no guidance on telework for at-risk populations or parents of children affected by school closures. The meeting details were shared with ProPublica by a second DOJ official who attended.
“A lot of people expressed frustrations,” the official said. But the Trump appointee “had no answers” and merely repeated that he would take their concerns to higher-ups and that he had no authority to do anything, the official said.
One DOJ senior manager told his employees last week that his division could not discuss official coronavirus response policies without permission from the agency’s top levels, the DOJ official told ProPublica. Individual managers were left to make their own decisions on employee telework.
One contractor who works in a DOJ building said he has received no guidance from any level of the department, except for hand-washing advisories in bathrooms and generic coronavirus information sheets posted by elevators.
Three State Department employees said in interviews this weekend there is no overall remote working policy, although they have received some guidance about limiting travel and other practices. In that vacuum, bureaus have determined who can telework individually.
In one office, approximately half the staff was told to work from home in the coming week, an official said. In another State Department bureau, a meeting attendee came down with fever and a sore throat and others were given the option of teleworking with manager approval. Overall, employees felt that information was being “siloed,” one official said.
A State Department spokesperson said the agency has authorized managers to implement telework and other flexible arrangements “as appropriate,” and said some sections “have already begun rotational and telework schedules.”
At the Interior Department, employees at the Bureau of Land Management were told in a Friday email from acting director William Perry Pendley to be “telework ready,” but an official said they have not received blanket telework approval. The Interior Department issued an employee guide on Wednesday, restating department policies on leave and telework. It acknowledges that the coronavirus pandemic would justify lifting certain telework restrictions but did not say if those restrictions had been lifted or not.
As a result, one Interior Department official told ProPublica, managers within the agency have adopted ad hoc responses—with some work travel still on the schedule in the coming days.
A Department of Interior spokesperson said the agency is following guidance from OPM and the CDC, as well as local, state and federal authorities.
“We’re handling situations on a case-by-case basis and are adjusting our employee guidance accordingly as the guidance of leading authorities is updated,” the spokesperson said.
Mike Spies and Kirsten Berg contributed reporting.


motherjones--2020-03-17--When Your Primary Is in the Midst of a Pandemic

For the last few months , Abby McEntee , a preschool teacher from the Chicago suburb of Western Springs , has spent each of her Saturdays and Sundays crisscrossing Illinois ’ 3rd District to knock doors on behalf of Marie Newman , the former marketing executive making her second attempt at unseating Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski , a moderate Democrat who has earned national ire among progressives for his opposition to abortion rights .
“ It ’ s usually two or three hours each day , and I typically do a 60 door packet , ” McEntee explains .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doors a weekend.
” But with the coronavirus crisis looming over Illinois ’ primary on Tuesday , McEntee broke that streak for the final weekend .
With her three kids parked in front of the television , she logged a bunch of phone banking time instead .
She also dropped campaign literature off on a few stoops .
“ I put my little rubber gloves on , so I wouldn ’ t get their germs and they wouldn ’ t get mine , ” McEntee says .
“ We didn ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to make a voter feel uncomfortable.
” Progressive House candidates , like Newman , who are seeking to unseat incumbents have built their candidacies on a boots-on-the-ground approach .
Newman narrowly lost to Lipinski in 2018 , and during this election cycle and the last , in-person interactions have been the currency of her campaigns .
It ’ s the same roadmap employed by candidates like her across the country , a way to overcome their lack of both name recognition and support from party organs like the Democratic Congressional Campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona , Florida , and ( maybe ) Ohio will be the first states to hold primaries in a country now increasingly under lockdown due to the fast-spreading coronavirus .
And these candidates have had to quickly retool their closing arguments to voters .
The Newman campaign had scheduled 1,000 door-knocking shifts for the four days leading up to the election , but late last week , they scrapped all of those plans .
“ It was honestly a very tough call to make , ” Ben Hardin , Newman ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was too risky to put supporters and voters in that position.
” Instead , the campaign pivoted to a completely virtual get-out-the-vote plan and made over 100,000 phone calls to voters— “ pushing folks to vote early because there will be longer lines tomorrow ” that will increase the risk of exposure , Hardin says .
The national progressive grassroots group Indivisible , which endorsed Newman , encouraged its members to record a video message for social media that explained their support .
Newman—who , unlike last cycle , has out-fundraised her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But another progressive House challenger whose primary is Tuesday , Morgan Harper , doesn ’ t have those resources at her disposal .
The 36-year-old Consumer Finance Protection Bureau alum running to unseat Ohio Rep. Joyce Beatty had raised less than half of what Beatty has , and instead built her primary challenge around person-to-person contact .
Every Friday , the campaign hosted gatherings to train volunteers how to canvass and phone bank ; every weekend , Harper held community rallies that functioned like ad-hoc town halls .
“ It was grassroots , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
In what was supposed to be the final moments of her campaign , Harper had similarly swapped in-person interactions for digital ones .
“ I wouldn ’ t say I was nervous , ” Harper explains of the change in tactics .
“ More than anything , I felt a little sad.
” There would be no final rally or , if she ’ d won , a victory party , she says .
“ That felt a bit out of step with what has defined this campaign.
” But now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unpredictable circumstances .
On Monday afternoon , Ohio Gov .
Mike DeWine announced that the state ’ s primary election had been delayed to June 2 to mitigate the risk of coronavirus exposure .
And then a few hours later , an Ohio judge struck down DeWine ’ s request , arguing that the sudden change would likely confuse voters and that there ’ s no evidence to suggest precisely when threats of the pandemic will abate .
When I checked in on Harper ’ s latest get-out-the-vote plans Monday evening , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how it wanted to proceed under the ever-changing circumstances .
Harper sees the silver lining : The pandemic and its many consequences , she says , provides an object lesson in the reforms , like single-payer health care and universal child care , at the core of her campaign platform .
“ We are hearing that people are in a really fragile position right now , ” Harper says .
“ I think that makes the case for why we need to have more progressive policies .
”

For the last few months, Abby McEntee, a preschool teacher from the Chicago suburb of Western Springs, has spent each of her Saturdays and Sundays crisscrossing Illinois’ 3rd District to knock doors on behalf of Marie Newman, the former marketing executive making her second attempt at unseating Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, a moderate Democrat who has earned national ire among progressives for his opposition to abortion rights.
“It’s usually two or three hours each day, and I typically do a 60 door packet,” McEntee explains. “So it’s usually about 120 doors a weekend.”
But with the coronavirus crisis looming over Illinois’ primary on Tuesday, McEntee broke that streak for the final weekend. With her three kids parked in front of the television, she logged a bunch of phone banking time instead. She also dropped campaign literature off on a few stoops. “I put my little rubber gloves on, so I wouldn’t get their germs and they wouldn’t get mine,” McEntee says. “We didn’t want to canvass, and we didn’t want to make a voter feel uncomfortable.”
“It was honestly a very tough call to make. But it was too risky to put supporters and voters in that position.”
Progressive House candidates, like Newman, who are seeking to unseat incumbents have built their candidacies on a boots-on-the-ground approach. Newman narrowly lost to Lipinski in 2018, and during this election cycle and the last, in-person interactions have been the currency of her campaigns. It’s the same roadmap employed by candidates like her across the country, a way to overcome their lack of both name recognition and support from party organs like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. On Tuesday, Illinois, Arizona, and Florida will be the first states to hold primaries in a country now increasingly under lockdown due to the fast-spreading coronavirus. And these candidates have had to quickly retool their closing arguments to voters.
The Newman campaign had scheduled 1,000 door-knocking shifts for the four days leading up to the election, but late last week, they scrapped all of those plans. “It was honestly a very tough call to make,” Ben Hardin, Newman’s campaign manager, tells me. “But it was too risky to put supporters and voters in that position.” Instead, the campaign pivoted to a completely virtual get-out-the-vote plan and made over 100,000 phone calls to voters—“pushing folks to vote early because there will be longer lines tomorrow” that will increase the risk of exposure, Hardin says.
The national progressive grassroots group Indivisible, which endorsed Newman, encouraged its members to record a video message for social media that explained their support.
Folks may not be able to canvass right now in IL-03 to elect @Marie4Congress, but the work continues. If you're ready for a #NewDayInIL03:
1. Sign up to phonebank: https://t.co/RNnftyF2kX
2. Record a video telling your neighbors why you support Marie: https://t.co/wDmjmdNSLl pic.twitter.com/t2wiydLx7o — Indivisible Guide (@IndivisibleTeam) March 14, 2020
Newman—who, unlike last cycle, has out-fundraised her opponent—has the benefit of television advertising. But another progressive House challenger whose primary was supposed to be on Tuesday, Morgan Harper, doesn’t have those resources at her disposal. The 36-year-old Consumer Finance Protection Bureau alum running to unseat Ohio Rep. Joyce Beatty had raised less than half of what Beatty has, and instead built her primary challenge around person-to-person contact. Every Friday, the campaign hosted gatherings to train volunteers how to canvass and phone bank; every weekend, Harper held community rallies that functioned like ad-hoc town halls. “It was grassroots, meaning door knocking,” Harper tells me.
In what was supposed to be the final moments of her campaign, Harper had similarly swapped in-person interactions for digital ones. “I wouldn’t say I was nervous,” Harper explains of the change in tactics. “More than anything, I felt a little sad.” There would be no final rally or, if she’d won, a victory party, she says. “That felt a bit out of step with what has defined this campaign.”
Our priority is keeping our volunteers and our voters safe. We’re encouraging our supporters to make calls to voters from home. Get out the vote weekend is here and we URGENTLY need to reach more voters, while following the precautions offered by public health officials. — Morgan Harper (@mh4oh) March 14, 2020
But now, she finds herself in a totally unpredictable circumstances. On Monday afternoon, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced that the state’s primary election had been delayed to June 2 to mitigate the risk of coronavirus exposure. And then a few hours later, an Ohio judge struck down DeWine’s request, arguing that the sudden change would likely confuse voters and that there’s no evidence to suggest precisely when threats of the pandemic will abate. (The primary was officially called off late Monday night.)* When I checked in on Harper’s latest get-out-the-vote plans Monday evening, the campaign hadn’t yet decided exactly how it wanted to proceed under the ever-changing circumstances.
Harper sees the silver lining: The pandemic and its many consequences, she says, provides an object lesson in the reforms, like single-payer health care and universal child care, at the core of her campaign platform. “We are hearing that people are in a really fragile position right now,” Harper says. “I think that makes the case for why we need to have more progressive policies.”
*This story has been updated to reflect the final decision Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine made to have the state health director cancel the election.


motherjones--2020-03-17--An Urgent Call to Make Voting Simpler and Fairer: “The Safest Way to Vote Is From Your Home”

On a day when four states were scheduled to hold their presidential primary elections , the coronavirus outbreak has threatened a key pillar of our democracy : the right to safely cast a ballot .
While Ohio has postponed in-person voting slated for today , three other states—Arizona , Florida , and Illinois—are proceeding , raising concerns among voting rights advocates that not everyone who wants to vote will feel safe , or be able , to do so .
But , as Mother Jones ’ voting rights reporter Ari Berman explains , there are a number of ways officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote amid a public health and economic crisis .
“ The safest way to vote by now is from your home , and the way to do that is to vote by mail , ” Berman says .
Some states make voting by mail harder than others , he explains , by requiring an excuse to request an absentee ballot .
“ You would hope that fear of dying from a global pandemic would be enough of a reason to request an absentee ballot .
But I think every single state if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting can at least say ‘ We ’ re going to make it so that you don ’ t need any sort of an excuse to get an absentee ballot , and that we ’ re going to encourage people to vote by mail as much as possible . '
” Meanwhile , the Brennan Center for Justice has issued a new report recommending a five-pronged approach to protecting the vote from the coronavirus : ensuring social distancing and sanitation at polling places , allowing early in-person voting to reduce crowds , extending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boosting voter registration efforts , and increasing public education about these efforts .
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has encouraged Congress to enact similar measures .
The states voting today have taken some preventative measures .
Arizona will allow curbside voting at many locations , and all three states voting today permit early voting and no-excuse absentee voting .

On a day when four states were scheduled to hold their presidential primary elections, the coronavirus outbreak has threatened a key pillar of our democracy: the right to safely cast a ballot.
While Ohio has postponed in-person voting slated for today, three other states—Arizona, Florida, and Illinois—are proceeding, raising concerns among voting rights advocates that not everyone who wants to vote will feel safe, or be able, to do so. But, as Mother Jones’ voting rights reporter Ari Berman explains, there are a number of ways officials could make it easier for people to vote amid a public health and economic crisis.
We're in the middle of an election year, and the coronavirus outbreak has threatened our right to safely cast a ballot. There are a number of ways officials could make it easier for people to vote amid a public health and economic crisis. Mother Jones' @AriBerman explains. pic.twitter.com/e7LK9eXgrt — Mother Jones (@MotherJones) March 17, 2020
“The safest way to vote by now is from your home, and the way to do that is to vote by mail,” Berman says. Some states make voting by mail harder than others, he explains, by requiring an excuse to request an absentee ballot. “You would hope that fear of dying from a global pandemic would be enough of a reason to request an absentee ballot. But I think every single state if they can’t move to universal mail voting can at least say ‘We’re going to make it so that you don’t need any sort of an excuse to get an absentee ballot, and that we’re going to encourage people to vote by mail as much as possible.'”
Meanwhile, the Brennan Center for Justice has issued a new report recommending a five-pronged approach to protecting the vote from the coronavirus: ensuring social distancing and sanitation at polling places, allowing early in-person voting to reduce crowds, extending a vote-by-mail option to all voters, boosting voter registration efforts, and increasing public education about these efforts. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has encouraged Congress to enact similar measures.
The states voting today have taken some preventative measures. Arizona will allow curbside voting at many locations, and all three states voting today permit early voting and no-excuse absentee voting.


motherjones--2020-03-17--Good News: The Federal Government Just Made It a Whole Lot Easier to Access Opioid Addiction Treatme

Good News: The Federal Government Just Made It a Whole Lot Easier to Access Opioid Addiction Treatment

For the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have to visit clinics for daily doses of opioid addiction medication , social distancing is nearly impossible .
But on Tuesday , the federal government eased some of its long-held restrictions in response to the coronavirus .
That ’ s good news , because continual access to two primary treatment medications , buprenorphine and methadone , is key : If patients miss a dose , they could go into withdrawal and turn to street drugs , risking overdose .
Those struggling with addiction are particularly vulnerable in the age of coronavirus for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have far higher rates of health conditions including hepatitis C , HIV , and chronic bronchitis .
Many are well over the age of 60 .
Infectious disease can spread like wildfire among communities of drug users ( think the HIV outbreak in Indiana in 2015 ) .
And then there are the psychological factors : “ We all know that stress is one of the major triggers for people to go into relapse , ” said Bethany Hallam , an Allegheny County councilwoman and outspoken addiction treatment advocate .
“ To think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have in their lives right now , on top of the regular every day stressors—and then you add into that people sitting at home stewing.
” As Corey Davis , an attorney at the Network for Public Health Law , put it , “ We ’ re now facing two deadly , concurrent declared public health emergencies : the opioid crisis and COVID-19.
” Methadone : Daily Trips to Clinics Will No Longer Be Required Some 350,000 Americans rely on methadone clinics for daily opioid addiction treatment , and , under normal circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take their doses at methadone clinics , where they often wait in long lines to take their doses in a supervised setting .
Federal guidance so far when it comes to methadone clinics during the pandemic has been confusing , to say the least .
Until this week , the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration ’ s directed clinics to follow each state ’ s lead on a coronavirus response .
On Monday , SAMHSA released two conflicting sets of guidelines for methadone clinics and patients .
The first permitted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but only if a methadone patient had coronavirus or symptoms of it , got a clinician to sign off , and applied with that sign-off to SAMHSA .
But separate guidance , also released Monday by SAMHSA , is much more lax , allowing for four weeks of take-home doses for stable patients—with no state or federal sign-off required for each patient—and two weeks for less-stable patients who the clinic believes “ can safely handle this level of take-home medication.
” This is the guidance that will hold during the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s more restrictive guidelines were taken down this morning .
The coronavirus is putting pressure on an age-old controversy over just how much red tape should exist around opioid addiction treatment .
Methadone is among America ’ s most highly regulated medications , relegated to special clinics rather than accessible at a typical doctor ’ s office .
In theory , that ’ s because methadone is itself an opioid , but one that is meant to ease the cravings of opioid addiction without getting the patient high .
The highly regulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea is that it ensures people aren ’ t abusing the medication or selling it on the street .
But methadone advocates , including many leading public health experts , have long pushed for methadone to be treated just like any other medication : For now , the average doctor is allowed to prescribe a number of addictive opioids like OxyContin , Vicodin , or fentanyl , but isn ’ t allowed to prescribe methadone , the opioid addiction treatment .
The second primary opioid addiction treatment is buprenorphine , also itself an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but treated more like a normal medication : Patients can go to doctors ’ offices for their prescriptions and pick up their medications from pharmacies .
Until Tuesday , one big concern about buprenorphine access was the requirement that providers meet prospective new patients for evaluations in person , rather than using telemedicine for the initial consultations .
Given the push for social distancing and the overrun medical system , many feared that this rule would effectively prevent any new patients from being able to start buprenorphine .
On Tuesday , DEA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consultations can be done virtually .
There are still a lot of restrictions around buprenorphine : Providers have to get special licenses from the DEA to prescribe the medication , and once they do , they can only prescribe it to a certain number of patients .
Given the pandemic , some are advocating for an ease on the those caps : “ We don ’ t know what proportion of our prescriber population is going to fall ill , ” said Greg Marotta , president of Clean Slate , the nation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ For us to have to turn away patients because we don ’ t have the prescribing capacity available to us would be an absolute disaster .
”

For the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have to visit clinics for daily doses of opioid addiction medication, social distancing is nearly impossible. But on Tuesday, the federal government eased some of its long-held restrictions in response to the coronavirus.
That’s good news, because continual access to two primary treatment medications, buprenorphine and methadone, is key: If patients miss a dose, they could go into withdrawal and turn to street drugs, risking overdose.
Those struggling with addiction are particularly vulnerable in the age of coronavirus for a host of reasons. Opioid users have far higher rates of health conditions including hepatitis C, HIV, and chronic bronchitis. Many are well over the age of 60. Infectious disease can spread like wildfire among communities of drug users (think the HIV outbreak in Indiana in 2015). And then there are the psychological factors: “We all know that stress is one of the major triggers for people to go into relapse,” said Bethany Hallam, an Allegheny County councilwoman and outspoken addiction treatment advocate. “To think of all the additional stressors that people have in their lives right now, on top of the regular every day stressors—and then you add into that people sitting at home stewing.”
As Corey Davis, an attorney at the Network for Public Health Law, put it, “We’re now facing two deadly, concurrent declared public health emergencies: the opioid crisis and COVID-19.”
Methadone: Daily Trips to Clinics Will No Longer Be Required
Some 350,000 Americans rely on methadone clinics for daily opioid addiction treatment, and, under normal circumstances, they’re required by law to take their doses at methadone clinics, where they often wait in long lines to take their doses in a supervised setting.
“We’re now facing two deadly, concurrent declared public health emergencies: the opioid crisis and COVID-19.”
Federal guidance so far when it comes to methadone clinics during the pandemic has been confusing, to say the least. Until this week, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration’s directed clinics to follow each state’s lead on a coronavirus response. On Monday, SAMHSA released two conflicting sets of guidelines for methadone clinics and patients. The first permitted a take-home supply of up to two weeks, but only if a methadone patient had coronavirus or symptoms of it, got a clinician to sign off, and applied with that sign-off to SAMHSA.
But separate guidance, also released Monday by SAMHSA, is much more lax, allowing for four weeks of take-home doses for stable patients—with no state or federal sign-off required for each patient—and two weeks for less-stable patients who the clinic believes “can safely handle this level of take-home medication.” This is the guidance that will hold during the pandemic, says SAMHSA spokesperson Christopher Garrett: Monday’s more restrictive guidelines were taken down this morning.
The coronavirus is putting pressure on an age-old controversy over just how much red tape should exist around opioid addiction treatment. Methadone is among America’s most highly regulated medications, relegated to special clinics rather than accessible at a typical doctor’s office. In theory, that’s because methadone is itself an opioid, but one that is meant to ease the cravings of opioid addiction without getting the patient high. The highly regulated setting is beneficial for some: The idea is that it ensures people aren’t abusing the medication or selling it on the street. But methadone advocates, including many leading public health experts, have long pushed for methadone to be treated just like any other medication: For now, the average doctor is allowed to prescribe a number of addictive opioids like OxyContin, Vicodin, or fentanyl, but isn’t allowed to prescribe methadone, the opioid addiction treatment.
Buprenorphine: In-Person Requirements Will Be Eased
The second primary opioid addiction treatment is buprenorphine, also itself an opioid, also to be taken daily, but treated more like a normal medication: Patients can go to doctors’ offices for their prescriptions and pick up their medications from pharmacies.
Until Tuesday, one big concern about buprenorphine access was the requirement that providers meet prospective new patients for evaluations in person, rather than using telemedicine for the initial consultations. Given the push for social distancing and the overrun medical system, many feared that this rule would effectively prevent any new patients from being able to start buprenorphine. On Tuesday, DEA eased these restrictions: Now, initial consultations can be done virtually.
There are still a lot of restrictions around buprenorphine: Providers have to get special licenses from the DEA to prescribe the medication, and once they do, they can only prescribe it to a certain number of patients. Given the pandemic, some are advocating for an ease on the those caps: “We don’t know what proportion of our prescriber population is going to fall ill,” said Greg Marotta, president of Clean Slate, the nation’s largest office-based opioid treatment provider. “For us to have to turn away patients because we don’t have the prescribing capacity available to us would be an absolute disaster.”


motherjones--2020-03-17--Jared Kushner Once Controlled a Firm Now Running a Coronavirus Testing Website

Jared Kushner , Donald Trump ’ s son-in-law and a top player in the White House ’ s coronavirus deliberations , several years ago controlled a family business that owned a health insurance company that is now marketing a website that aims to direct consumers to coronavirus testing locations .
This firm , which is called Oscar , has often been described in media accounts as co-founded by Jared ’ s brother , Joshua , but New York State records reviewed by Mother Jones show that in 2013 , the year the business was incorporated , Jared with his brother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After Trump at a press conference last week falsely claimed that 1,700 Google engineers were developing a website that would within days be the central element of a national testing system , media reports noted that this misstep had occurred because Kushner had been talking to Verily , a Google subsidiary , about a pilot program it was developing for the San Francisco area .
The project was in its infancy , but it looked to create a website that would let people evaluate their symptoms and direct them to nearby drive-through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing centers yet .
And no national website in the works at Verily or Google .
Nevertheless , at that press conference , Dr. Deborah Birx , a member of the coronavirus task force , held up a poster that Kushner ’ s team had prepared showing how Trump ’ s promised website would look .
“ It ’ s going to be very quickly done , unlike websites of the past , ” Trump inaccurately said .
That same day , Oscar , which bills itself as “ a tech-driven health insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it called “ the first testing center locator for COVID-19 in the U.S. ” It noted that this locator featured “ more than 100 centers today.
” And the company said the site was “ accessible to the general public and more testing centers are being added every day.
” As the Verge reported , the flow chart Kushner had developed was “ eerily similar ” to Oscar ’ s new website , and it noted that Oscar was “ Kushner-linked ” because “ Joshua Kushner ( brother to Jared ) is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oscar representative told the Verge that the company had no involvement in the White House effort : “ We did not connect with the White House to provide input on their flow chart or tool idea before the press conference on Friday.
” But there once was a direct connection between Jared Kushner and Oscar .
A 2013 examination of Oscar conducted by the New York State Department of Financial Services produced a report that detailed the firm ’ s corporate structure .
It stated that Oscar , which was incorporated in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Inc. , a Delaware corporation , which in turn was mostly owned by Thrive Capital Partners III LP , a Delaware limited partnership , which itself was owned by Thrive Partners III GP LLC , a Delaware limited liability corporation and other unnamed parties .
And who owned Thrive Partners III GP LLC ?
Jared Kushner and his brother , Joshua Kushner .
As the report put it , “ Jared Kushner and Joshua Kushner are deemed the ultimate controlling persons in Oscar ’ s holding company system.
” If this seems confusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included : This indicates that Jared Kushner had a significant ownership interest in Oscar when it began .
It was not just his brother ’ s company , as the firm has often been depicted .
A December 2018 state insurance exam , which reported on the firm ’ s corporate structure as of the end of 2015 , noted a possible shift in ownership interests , reporting that at this point Joshua Kushner was “ deemed the ultimate controlling person in Oscar ’ s holding company.
” ( By then , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , and Jared Kushner was helping to run it . )
Yet the two Thrive entities remained the controlling parties in Oscar ’ s ownership structure , according to the 2018 report .
And the financial disclosure form Jared Kushner filed when he entered the White House in 2017 showed that he had retained an interest in those venture funds .
According to this 2017 form , Kushner had made over $ 5 million the previous year through Thrive Partners III GP .
( The 2013 New York State report said this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his brother were the only members . )
Kushner ’ s financial disclosure also stated that he made between $ 1 million and $ 5 million through the associated Thrive Capital Partners III LP .
His disclosure form did not state what , if any revenue , came from Oscar .
It did not list the individual investments held by these funds .
Kushner ’ s disclosure form reported that he had divested from these two funds when he was given a White House job by his father-in-law .
As CNN reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as much as $ 30 million in Thrive Capital , an investment firm founded by his brother , Joshua Kushner.
” And the Washington Post noted , “ Jared ’ s lawyers have not confirmed if any his assets were directly sold to Joshua during the divestment process.
” Mother Jones sent a list of questions to the White House about Jared Kushner and Oscar .
They included : Did anyone at Oscar have any input into the flow chart released by the White House at the press conference last week ?
Who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved was Kushner with Oscar before he divested ?
Did Kushner solicit or receive any advice or input from his brother Joshua regarding how the Trump administration should respond to the coronavirus crisis ?
A White House spokesperson replied with a single sentence : “ Oscar had no involvement in this.
” The White House did not address Jared Kushner ’ s previous financial tie to Oscar .
A spokesperson for Oscar did respond to requests for comment .
Kushner ’ s role in the Trump White House ’ s response to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times reported , “ Mr .
Kushner ’ s early involvement with dealing with the virus was in advising the president that the media ’ s coverage exaggerated the threat.
” And the newspaper noted that Kushner “ also sought to take on a more expansive role for himself despite his lack of knowledge on the topic and without talking to most of the task force members or public health experts.
” Kushner was deeply involved with the error-ridden and market-tanking Oval Office address that Trump delivered last week .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ father-in-law , Dr. Kurt Kloss , a New York-based physician , for advice .
Afterward , Kloss posted an appeal on a Facebook group of emergency room doctors : “ If you were in charge of the Federal response to the Pandemic what would your recommendations be ?
” Kloss asked the group , “ I have direct channel to person now in charge at White House and have been asked for recommendations.
” Alphabet , Google ’ s parent company , invested early in Oscar , directly and also through Verily .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ grander investment of $ 375 million in the company for possibly a 10-percent ownership stake .
That year , Wired noted , “ The goal of Oscar is to do to health care what Uber did to the taxi industry : use smart digital technology to make everything faster and easier for customers , and then use the data gathered to build radically new services , which can collect more data that leads to new services.
” That same year , the New York State Department of Financial Services fined Oscar $ 576,950 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including failing to accurately explain denials of coverage .
The coronavirus testing center locator that Oscar announced last week—which can be used for free—seems limited .
When Mother Jones entered information for a person who was older than 60 , who had had no exposure to anyone infected , who had not traveled overseas recently , and who had experienced no symptoms , it said that a test was not necessary .
When the profile was changed to a person who had recently been in Europe , who had diabetes , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oscar website advised to seek a coronavirus test and reported that the nearest testing site was in Kansas .
The person in this scenario was logging in from Maryland .
( Oscar has networks in only 15 states , including Kansas . )
The site also pointed out that it might be necessary to get a referral from a medical provider in order to obtain a test .
Oscar is routinely depicted as Kushner-connected because of the ownership stake held by Joshua ( who is married to model Karlie Kloss ) .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jared as a key participant in Oscar at the start .
Given this close link and Kushner ’ s role in Trump ’ s response to the coronavirus crisis , perhaps the White House ought to be more transparent about this relationship .

Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a top player in the White House’s coronavirus deliberations, several years ago controlled a family business that owned a health insurance company that is now marketing a website that aims to direct consumers to coronavirus testing locations. This firm, which is called Oscar, has often been described in media accounts as co-founded by Jared’s brother, Joshua, but New York State records reviewed by Mother Jones show that in 2013, the year the business was incorporated, Jared with his brother controlled the holding company that owned Oscar.
After Trump at a press conference last week falsely claimed that 1,700 Google engineers were developing a website that would within days be the central element of a national testing system, media reports noted that this misstep had occurred because Kushner had been talking to Verily, a Google subsidiary, about a pilot program it was developing for the San Francisco area. The project was in its infancy, but it looked to create a website that would let people evaluate their symptoms and direct them to nearby drive-through testing. There were no websites or testing centers yet. And no national website in the works at Verily or Google. Nevertheless, at that press conference, Dr. Deborah Birx, a member of the coronavirus task force, held up a poster that Kushner’s team had prepared showing how Trump’s promised website would look. “It’s going to be very quickly done, unlike websites of the past,” Trump inaccurately said.
That same day, Oscar, which bills itself as “a tech-driven health insurance company,” launched a website that it called “the first testing center locator for COVID-19 in the U.S.” It noted that this locator featured “more than 100 centers today.” And the company said the site was “accessible to the general public and more testing centers are being added every day.” As the Verge reported, the flow chart Kushner had developed was “eerily similar” to Oscar’s new website, and it noted that Oscar was “Kushner-linked” because “Joshua Kushner (brother to Jared) is a major investor in Oscar Health.”
An Oscar representative told the Verge that the company had no involvement in the White House effort: “We did not connect with the White House to provide input on their flow chart or tool idea before the press conference on Friday.” But there once was a direct connection between Jared Kushner and Oscar.
A 2013 examination of Oscar conducted by the New York State Department of Financial Services produced a report that detailed the firm’s corporate structure. It stated that Oscar, which was incorporated in New York, was owned by Mulberry Health Inc., a Delaware corporation, which in turn was mostly owned by Thrive Capital Partners III LP, a Delaware limited partnership, which itself was owned by Thrive Partners III GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation and other unnamed parties.
And who owned Thrive Partners III GP LLC? Jared Kushner and his brother, Joshua Kushner. As the report put it, “Jared Kushner and Joshua Kushner are deemed the ultimate controlling persons in Oscar’s holding company system.”
If this seems confusing, here is the diagram the report included:
This indicates that Jared Kushner had a significant ownership interest in Oscar when it began. It was not just his brother’s company, as the firm has often been depicted.
A December 2018 state insurance exam, which reported on the firm’s corporate structure as of the end of 2015, noted a possible shift in ownership interests, reporting that at this point Joshua Kushner was “deemed the ultimate controlling person in Oscar’s holding company.” (By then, Trump’s presidential campaign was well under way, and Jared Kushner was helping to run it.) Yet the two Thrive entities remained the controlling parties in Oscar’s ownership structure, according to the 2018 report. And the financial disclosure form Jared Kushner filed when he entered the White House in 2017 showed that he had retained an interest in those venture funds.
According to this 2017 form, Kushner had made over $5 million the previous year through Thrive Partners III GP. (The 2013 New York State report said this was a venture fund of which he and his brother were the only members.) Kushner’s financial disclosure also stated that he made between $1 million and $5 million through the associated Thrive Capital Partners III LP. His disclosure form did not state what, if any revenue, came from Oscar. It did not list the individual investments held by these funds.
Kushner’s disclosure form reported that he had divested from these two funds when he was given a White House job by his father-in-law. As CNN reported, Kushner “dumped a stake worth as much as $30 million in Thrive Capital, an investment firm founded by his brother, Joshua Kushner.” And the Washington Post noted, “Jared’s lawyers have not confirmed if any his assets were directly sold to Joshua during the divestment process.”
Mother Jones sent a list of questions to the White House about Jared Kushner and Oscar. They included: Did anyone at Oscar have any input into the flow chart released by the White House at the press conference last week? Who did design the flow chart? How involved was Kushner with Oscar before he divested? Did Kushner solicit or receive any advice or input from his brother Joshua regarding how the Trump administration should respond to the coronavirus crisis?
A White House spokesperson replied with a single sentence: “Oscar had no involvement in this.” The White House did not address Jared Kushner’s previous financial tie to Oscar. A spokesperson for Oscar did respond to requests for comment.
Kushner’s role in the Trump White House’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has been controversial. The New York Times reported, “Mr. Kushner’s early involvement with dealing with the virus was in advising the president that the media’s coverage exaggerated the threat.” And the newspaper noted that Kushner “also sought to take on a more expansive role for himself despite his lack of knowledge on the topic and without talking to most of the task force members or public health experts.” Kushner was deeply involved with the error-ridden and market-tanking Oval Office address that Trump delivered last week. And he also privately asked Joshua’s father-in-law, Dr. Kurt Kloss, a New York-based physician, for advice. Afterward, Kloss posted an appeal on a Facebook group of emergency room doctors: “If you were in charge of the Federal response to the Pandemic what would your recommendations be?” Kloss asked the group, “I have direct channel to person now in charge at White House and have been asked for recommendations.”
Alphabet, Google’s parent company, invested early in Oscar, directly and also through Verily. And in 2018, Alphabet announced a grander investment of $375 million in the company for possibly a 10-percent ownership stake. That year, Wired noted, “The goal of Oscar is to do to health care what Uber did to the taxi industry: use smart digital technology to make everything faster and easier for customers, and then use the data gathered to build radically new services, which can collect more data that leads to new services.” That same year, the New York State Department of Financial Services fined Oscar $576,950 for violating insurance laws in several ways, including failing to accurately explain denials of coverage.
The coronavirus testing center locator that Oscar announced last week—which can be used for free—seems limited. When Mother Jones entered information for a person who was older than 60, who had had no exposure to anyone infected, who had not traveled overseas recently, and who had experienced no symptoms, it said that a test was not necessary. When the profile was changed to a person who had recently been in Europe, who had diabetes, and who was feeling a fever, the Oscar website advised to seek a coronavirus test and reported that the nearest testing site was in Kansas. The person in this scenario was logging in from Maryland. (Oscar has networks in only 15 states, including Kansas.) The site also pointed out that it might be necessary to get a referral from a medical provider in order to obtain a test.
Oscar is routinely depicted as Kushner-connected because of the ownership stake held by Joshua (who is married to model Karlie Kloss). But the 2013 New York State report portrays Jared as a key participant in Oscar at the start. Given this close link and Kushner’s role in Trump’s response to the coronavirus crisis, perhaps the White House ought to be more transparent about this relationship.


motherjones--2020-03-17--Florida Is Still Confused About Whether Hundreds of Thousands of Former Felons Can Vote Today

Jeff Gruver couldn ’ t wait to cast a ballot in Florida ’ s primary election .
At age 33 , he ’ d never voted in a primary before .
But it wasn ’ t for lack of interest—he had a felony record for old drug charges , and until recently , this was grounds to disqualify him from voting in Florida for the rest of his life .
That changed when the state ’ s citizens passed a historic ballot measure in 2018 that reenfranchised people with most felony records .
It was the largest restoration of voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.4 million people , many of them African American .
As a result of the change , Gruver went to a polling station this month to cast his vote early , ahead of the state ’ s primary today , which is still on despite the coronavirus outbreak .
( Ohio ’ s primary was postponed because of the public health emergency . )
“ It was amazing , ” he says .
“ I ’ m really plugged in to local politics here.
” But as great as it felt to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be allowed to participate in the November election , or any election after that—thanks to a recent state law that bars at least 750,000 former felons from the polls if they haven ’ t finished paying off financial debts from their time in the criminal justice system .
After his conviction for cocaine possession in 2008 , he owed $ 801—a fee for his attorney and indigent application , court costs , and a fine—but that amount has since ballooned to more than $ 2,000 due to late fees under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from paycheck to paycheck as a social worker who runs a homeless shelter in Gainesville , he says he can ’ t erase the debt while also covering his rent on top of student loans and car payments .
He was able to vote in this primary election only because he ’ s a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU to challenge the new state law .
What about the other hundreds of thousands of people in Florida who aren ’ t part of the lawsuit but also have felony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because of widespread confusion over the new law and the federal lawsuit , many of them are staying home from the polls today , unsure if they ’ re allowed to vote .
Even some election officials aren ’ t certain who can and can ’ t legally cast a ballot .
It ’ s “ an absolute mess where people can ’ t determine their eligibility , ” says Julie Ebenstein , the lead ACLU attorney on the lawsuit .
“ They are left in limbo—they can ’ t get a straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unconstitutional to disenfranchise people with felony records just because they ’ re too poor to pay their debts .
The suit argues that since it ’ s illegal to enact poll taxes—voting fees that were levied in the 19th and early 20th centuries to block African Americans from the polls—a person ’ s debt from court fees similarly should not prevent someone from voting .
A second plaintiff owes $ 59 million in restitution ; others owe hundreds or thousands of dollars .
Last October , a federal judge decided that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote for today ’ s primary while their case continued to work its way through the court .
( The ruling was temporary , lasting only until the trial begins next month . )
US District Judge Robert Hinkle argued it was unconstitutional to bar someone from the rolls simply because they were too poor to pay back a court debt .
Ebenstein says this finding of unconstitutionality theoretically applies more broadly to other felons in the state who can ’ t afford to erase their debts , not just the plaintiffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unclear if the state ’ s election officials agree .
In Leon County , home to Tallahassee , officials said no felons with unpaid fines and fees could participate in the primary , other than the 17 plaintiffs .
“ They shouldn ’ t be registering to vote at this time , ” Chris Moore , the county ’ s deputy supervisor of elections , told me .
In Duval County , home to Jacksonville , the state ’ s biggest city , officials were less sure , citing the ongoing lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s uncertain , ” Danaë Rivera-Marasco , a spokesperson at the local elections office , said when I asked if people who owed fines could vote .
She recommended I reach out to Florida ’ s Department of State for answers .
A spokesperson for department promised to get back to me when I asked for clarification about the rules and then never did .
Other county election officials did not return my calls .
Making matters even more confusing is the fact that Florida makes it extremely difficult to figure out exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how much they owe .
The state does not have a centralized database that aggregates this information , which means people who committed crimes in different counties must reach out to multiple agencies .
And some jurisdictions don ’ t keep records from before the 1990s ; one plaintiff in the lawsuit , with a conviction from the 1970s , has tried unsuccessfully for months to determine how big her debt is .
In a recent study , Traci Burch , an associate professor of political science at Northwestern University , struggled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Florida felons owed .
The records from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement often listed amounts of debt for one person that were different from records from court clerks .
When her team of researchers tried to call the clerks for more information , sometimes nobody answered .
Some offices were open just three hours per day .
Some clerks charged access to documents .
Others simply declined to help .
“ The process , ” Burch wrote , “ is expensive , time consuming , and ultimately , discouraging for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is enough to keep many people home , because they might be worried about the risks of being prosecuted for voter fraud if they incorrectly register or try to vote .
In Florida , submitting false information on a voter registration form is a felony punishable with up to five years in prison and a $ 5,000 fine .
“ You just can ’ t go down there and register with a felony , ” Gary Daughtry , a 66-year-old with debt from an old grand theft felony , told the Appeal while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s primary .
“ I ’ m not going to put myself back in the same situation .
I ’ m trying to correct the situation , not make it worse.
” Without more clear guidelines on the rules around voting , the ACLU ’ s Ebenstein says many people won ’ t take the chance of casting a ballot .
“ Especially for folks who have a history in the criminal justice system and are trying to do right at this point , it ’ s really an unreasonable risk to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
“ The lack of clarity is going to have an extraordinary chilling effect on many voters .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Jeff Gruver couldn’t wait to cast a ballot in Florida’s primary election. At age 33, he’d never voted in a primary before. But it wasn’t for lack of interest—he had a felony record for old drug charges, and until recently, this was grounds to disqualify him from voting in Florida for the rest of his life.
That changed when the state’s citizens passed a historic ballot measure in 2018 that reenfranchised people with most felony records. It was the largest restoration of voting rights in decades, affecting up to 1.4 million people, many of them African American. As a result of the change, Gruver went to a polling station this month to cast his vote early, ahead of the state’s primary today, which is still on despite the coronavirus outbreak. (Ohio’s primary was postponed because of the public health emergency.) “It was amazing,” he says. “I’m really plugged in to local politics here.”
But as great as it felt to vote, Gruver’s not sure he’ll be allowed to participate in the November election, or any election after that—thanks to a recent state law that bars at least 750,000 former felons from the polls if they haven’t finished paying off financial debts from their time in the criminal justice system. After his conviction for cocaine possession in 2008, he owed $801—a fee for his attorney and indigent application, court costs, and a fine—but that amount has since ballooned to more than $2,000 due to late fees under the debt collection agency. As he lives from paycheck to paycheck as a social worker who runs a homeless shelter in Gainesville, he says he can’t erase the debt while also covering his rent on top of student loans and car payments.
He was able to vote in this primary election only because he’s a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU to challenge the new state law. What about the other hundreds of thousands of people in Florida who aren’t part of the lawsuit but also have felony records and unpaid fines and fees? Because of widespread confusion over the new law and the federal lawsuit, many of them are staying home from the polls today, unsure if they’re allowed to vote. Even some election officials aren’t certain who can and can’t legally cast a ballot. It’s “an absolute mess where people can’t determine their eligibility,” says Julie Ebenstein, the lead ACLU attorney on the lawsuit. “They are left in limbo—they can’t get a straight answer.”
“They are left in limbo—they can’t get a straight answer.”
The lawsuit argues that it’s unconstitutional to disenfranchise people with felony records just because they’re too poor to pay their debts. The suit argues that since it’s illegal to enact poll taxes—voting fees that were levied in the 19th and early 20th centuries to block African Americans from the polls—a person’s debt from court fees similarly should not prevent someone from voting. A second plaintiff owes $59 million in restitution; others owe hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Last October, a federal judge decided that Gruver and 16 other plaintiffs could register to vote for today’s primary while their case continued to work its way through the court. (The ruling was temporary, lasting only until the trial begins next month.) US District Judge Robert Hinkle argued it was unconstitutional to bar someone from the rolls simply because they were too poor to pay back a court debt. Ebenstein says this finding of unconstitutionality theoretically applies more broadly to other felons in the state who can’t afford to erase their debts, not just the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
But it’s unclear if the state’s election officials agree. In Leon County, home to Tallahassee, officials said no felons with unpaid fines and fees could participate in the primary, other than the 17 plaintiffs. “They shouldn’t be registering to vote at this time,” Chris Moore, the county’s deputy supervisor of elections, told me. In Duval County, home to Jacksonville, the state’s biggest city, officials were less sure, citing the ongoing lawsuit. “For me, it’s uncertain,” Danaë Rivera-Marasco, a spokesperson at the local elections office, said when I asked if people who owed fines could vote. She recommended I reach out to Florida’s Department of State for answers. A spokesperson for department promised to get back to me when I asked for clarification about the rules and then never did. Other county election officials did not return my calls.
Florida does not have a centralized database that aggregates who owes court fines and fees.
Making matters even more confusing is the fact that Florida makes it extremely difficult to figure out exactly who owes court fines and fees, and how much they owe. The state does not have a centralized database that aggregates this information, which means people who committed crimes in different counties must reach out to multiple agencies. And some jurisdictions don’t keep records from before the 1990s; one plaintiff in the lawsuit, with a conviction from the 1970s, has tried unsuccessfully for months to determine how big her debt is.
In a recent study, Traci Burch, an associate professor of political science at Northwestern University, struggled to figure out how much a group of Florida felons owed. The records from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement often listed amounts of debt for one person that were different from records from court clerks. When her team of researchers tried to call the clerks for more information, sometimes nobody answered. Some offices were open just three hours per day. Some clerks charged access to documents. Others simply declined to help. “The process,” Burch wrote, “is expensive, time consuming, and ultimately, discouraging for people who want to vote.”
The confusion is enough to keep many people home, because they might be worried about the risks of being prosecuted for voter fraud if they incorrectly register or try to vote. In Florida, submitting false information on a voter registration form is a felony punishable with up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. “You just can’t go down there and register with a felony,” Gary Daughtry, a 66-year-old with debt from an old grand theft felony, told the Appeal while debating whether to participate in this year’s primary. “I’m not going to put myself back in the same situation. I’m trying to correct the situation, not make it worse.”
“The lack of clarity is going to have an extraordinary chilling effect on many voters.”
Without more clear guidelines on the rules around voting, the ACLU’s Ebenstein says many people won’t take the chance of casting a ballot. “Especially for folks who have a history in the criminal justice system and are trying to do right at this point, it’s really an unreasonable risk to ask people to take,” she says. “The lack of clarity is going to have an extraordinary chilling effect on many voters.”


motherjones--2020-03-17--Handing Out Hand Sanitizer May Not Be Enough to Stop the Pandemic Among Unsheltered People

On Monday , California Gov .
Gavin Newsom announced two new coronavirus-related deaths .
One was a homeless man in Santa Clara County .
“ I ’ m feeling unprepared , we ’ re at the mercy out here , ” Ayat Jalal , a person living at a homeless encampment in Berkley , California told Berkeleyside last week .
“ The coronavirus , like the fires that happened , keep showing us that we who are out here , against the elements , face every threat first before society.
” Starting in the early hours of Tuesday , six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shelter-in-place order for those who live there .
Until April 7 , 6.7 million residents are being asked to stay inside and only leave their homes to stock up on essential supplies like groceries or medicine .
It ’ s the latest drastic measure to attempt to slow the spread of COVID-19 , the disease caused by the new coronavirus which has infected approximately 4,500 people in the US , the death toll currently stands at 86 and both numbers are expected to rise as testing becomes more widely available .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hunker down , the California government announced that the order does not apply to the approximately 25,000 people experiencing homelessness in the affected counties .
But government officials were urging all homeless people to head to a homeless shelter .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is directing the public to use frequent hand-washing or hand sanitizer as one strategy to protect themselves from infection and to self-quarantine if one feels symptoms like fever or a cough .
Of course , those simple steps are close to impossible for the unsheltered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeless people to shelters can present other risks , since shelters can be crowded and usually are not built with areas for quarantine .
The CDC released guidelines for homeless shelters during the pandemic which includes screening for coronavirus symptoms such as fever and cough , isolating anyone who becomes sick , and notifying public health departments of any suspected cases .
But experts wonder if outside may be preferable to crowded indoor conditions .
“ You want people inside , out of their tents and encampments , so they can get critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , ” Philip Mangano , president and CEO of the American Round Table to Abolish Homelessness , told the Washington Post .
“ But with the coronavirus , is that the healthier option for them ?
People outside may be able to accomplish social distancing and self-quarantining , rather than being cloistered together.
” A state-by-state or city-by-city effort may not be enough .
“ Local and national health officials are concerned there could be an outbreak of coronavirus among the homeless population within the week .
Shelters aren ’ t prepared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get ready.
” Diane Yentel , the CEO and President of the National Low Income Housing Coalition tweeted on Sunday night .
Some cities are setting up hand-washing stations for unsheltered people .
“ Our Public Health Division and Emergency Operations Center has been working diligently to protect our most vulnerable residents from COVID-19 , ” Berkeley , California Mayor Jesse Arreguín said in a statement , “ including those who are unhoused by providing sanitation equipment to encampments.
” The city set up an additional 20 hand-washing stations , bringing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people were given kits containing hand sanitizer and pamphlets with coronavirus information .
Residents at an encampment welcomed the extra hand-washing stations .
“ I feel like [ the city ] is trying the best they can , especially with sending representatives this morning , ” Nicholas Alexander told Berkeleyside .
Across the country , other cities are implementing similar measures .
In Denver , city workers are passing out hand sanitizer and relaying information about the coronavirus outbreaks to people living on the streets .
But for other cities , the distribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the best practice .
In New York City , for instance , where there are at least 329 confirmed cases of coronavirus , city officials are discouraging giving hand sanitizer to unsheltered people because the worry that this measure actually will keep them from going to shelters .
New York City ’ s policy is to get homeless people to move into shelters as opposed to staying on the street .
However , many homeless people report that shelters can be unsafe or even dangerous .
“ The least we can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of all times , now is the time to do it , ” Josh Dean , co-founder of Human.nyc , a homeless outreach organization , told the City an independent nonprofit news outlet .
In addition , there are serious concerns about the staff in the shelters .
As Yentel noted : The bottom line , she wrote , is , “ Homeless shelter and service providers need money—a lot of it—and they need it right now.
” But Congress ’ emergency spending bill to combat the virus does not include any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must ensure current emergency spending bill provides money to protect against an outbreak of coronavirus among homeless people , ” Yentel ’ s tweets continued .
“ This is not only a moral imperative ; it ’ s an urgent public health necessity .
”

On Monday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced two new coronavirus-related deaths. One was a homeless man in Santa Clara County.
“I’m feeling unprepared, we’re at the mercy out here,” Ayat Jalal, a person living at a homeless encampment in Berkley, California told Berkeleyside last week. “The coronavirus, like the fires that happened, keep showing us that we who are out here, against the elements, face every threat first before society.”
Starting in the early hours of Tuesday, six counties in the San Francisco area announced a shelter-in-place order for those who live there. Until April 7, 6.7 million residents are being asked to stay inside and only leave their homes to stock up on essential supplies like groceries or medicine. It’s the latest drastic measure to attempt to slow the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus which has infected approximately 4,500 people in the US, the death toll currently stands at 86 and both numbers are expected to rise as testing becomes more widely available.
As businesses scrambled to close and residents prepared to hunker down, the California government announced that the order does not apply to the approximately 25,000 people experiencing homelessness in the affected counties. But government officials were urging all homeless people to head to a homeless shelter. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is directing the public to use frequent hand-washing or hand sanitizer as one strategy to protect themselves from infection and to self-quarantine if one feels symptoms like fever or a cough. Of course, those simple steps are close to impossible for the unsheltered.
California’s effort to move homeless people to shelters can present other risks, since shelters can be crowded and usually are not built with areas for quarantine. The CDC released guidelines for homeless shelters during the pandemic which includes screening for coronavirus symptoms such as fever and cough, isolating anyone who becomes sick, and notifying public health departments of any suspected cases. But experts wonder if outside may be preferable to crowded indoor conditions.
“You want people inside, out of their tents and encampments, so they can get critical services and potentially better access to health care,” Philip Mangano, president and CEO of the American Round Table to Abolish Homelessness, told the Washington Post. “But with the coronavirus, is that the healthier option for them? People outside may be able to accomplish social distancing and self-quarantining, rather than being cloistered together.”
A state-by-state or city-by-city effort may not be enough. “Local and national health officials are concerned there could be an outbreak of coronavirus among the homeless population within the week. Shelters aren’t prepared, and don’t have resources to get ready.” Diane Yentel, the CEO and President of the National Low Income Housing Coalition tweeted on Sunday night.
Some cities are setting up hand-washing stations for unsheltered people. “Our Public Health Division and Emergency Operations Center has been working diligently to protect our most vulnerable residents from COVID-19,” Berkeley, California Mayor Jesse Arreguín said in a statement, “including those who are unhoused by providing sanitation equipment to encampments.” The city set up an additional 20 hand-washing stations, bringing the total to 28. Hundreds of unhoused people were given kits containing hand sanitizer and pamphlets with coronavirus information. Residents at an encampment welcomed the extra hand-washing stations. “I feel like [the city] is trying the best they can, especially with sending representatives this morning,” Nicholas Alexander told Berkeleyside.
Across the country, other cities are implementing similar measures. In Denver, city workers are passing out hand sanitizer and relaying information about the coronavirus outbreaks to people living on the streets. But for other cities, the distribution of hand sanitizer is not considered to be the best practice.
In New York City, for instance, where there are at least 329 confirmed cases of coronavirus, city officials are discouraging giving hand sanitizer to unsheltered people because the worry that this measure actually will keep them from going to shelters. New York City’s policy is to get homeless people to move into shelters as opposed to staying on the street. However, many homeless people report that shelters can be unsafe or even dangerous. “The least we can do is give them hand sanitizer and clothes because of all times, now is the time to do it,” Josh Dean, co-founder of Human.nyc, a homeless outreach organization, told the City an independent nonprofit news outlet.
In addition, there are serious concerns about the staff in the shelters. As Yentel noted:
Shelters are starting to lose staff to illness – they’re themselves sick or can’t work because they’re caring for someone who is. Volunteers aren’t showing up for shifts. Shelters needs to hire more staff to cover all these shifts, but don’t have $ to do it. — Diane Yentel (@dianeyentel) March 16, 2020
The bottom line, she wrote, is, “Homeless shelter and service providers need money—a lot of it—and they need it right now.” But Congress’ emergency spending bill to combat the virus does not include any funding for homeless services. “Senators must ensure current emergency spending bill provides money to protect against an outbreak of coronavirus among homeless people,” Yentel’s tweets continued. “This is not only a moral imperative; it’s an urgent public health necessity.”