motherjones--2020-03-04--Bernie Sanders’ Revolution Sputtered on Super Tuesday. His Supporters Think They Know Why.

Less than a week ago , everything was going right for Bernie Sanders .
He had won in Iowa ( at least by his definition ) and New Hampshire and lapped the field in Nevada—where a diverse coalition and an impressive organizing effort had him looking like the kind of candidate who goes on to win Democratic presidential nominations .
And then a lot of things happened in a short period of time .
Joe Biden , with a boost from House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn , won a landslide in South Carolina , and in quick succession , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsed Biden .
Another former rival , Beto O ’ Rourke , emerged from wherever he ’ s been to endorse Biden onstage in his home state .
Harry Reid endorsed Biden .
( A little late , but okay . )
Suddenly polls showed Biden surging across the same March 3rd map Sanders had once predicted would put him on the path to the nomination .
By the time voters began lining up to get into Sanders ’ Super Tuesday victory rally at a county fairground in Essex , Vermont , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mix with a familiar anxiety .
“ I guess winning one state in his entire career running for president is enough to create that momentum for some people , ” Sophie Lovett , a barista from Burlington , told me when I asked about Biden .
She felt like he was getting an undue amount of media attention for his South Carolina victory .
“ I feel like it ’ s very fucking sketchy , that ’ s how I feel about it.
” In the eyes of voters like Lovett , Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had long been working against him—the Democratic Party and its allies in the political media .
It ’ s a message that Sanders , who often chides the “ corporate media ” on the stump and uses the “ Democratic establishment ” as a rhetorical punching bag , has spent years cultivating .
In part , that ’ s because it ’ s a necessary foil ; it wouldn ’ t be much of a revolution if there was nothing to rebel against .
But the setback on Tuesday also showed the limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to win a major party nomination , it helps to keep your list of declared enemies to a minimum .
As he waited for doors to open at the exposition hall , Bill Coleman , a mental health counselor from Vermont ’ s Northeast Kingdom who had just come back from door-knocking for Sanders in Massachusetts , told me he knew something was up when Buttigieg showed up to the debate in Nevada with an uncharacteristic stubble .
He took it as a sign that the rest of the field was going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator .
“ When I watched the previous debate , I noticed that Buttigieg hadn ’ t even shaved completely , Amy Klobuchar looked disheveled , and they looked unmotivated compared to the previous ones , ” Coleman said .
They had quit trying to win , he concluded , and stuck around only to take their shots at Sanders .
“ I don ’ t even think that ’ s a conspiracy theory at all—it ’ s really obvious .
They wanted to have essentially a firing squad that came at Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ nauseating , ” he told me .
“ And it ’ s not just them—the corporate news media has just been turned themselves into Biden TV.
” Listen to MoJo reporters Tim Murphy and Fernanda Echavarri share insights about Biden ’ s big night , Bernie ’ s long fight , and the knockdown fight for delegates to come , on this special Super Tuesday edition of the Mother Jones Podcast : The notion that Sanders is a victim of an unfair media was a recurring one at the rally .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ green “ Make America Vermont Again ” T-shirt as she waited for the event to start , echoed Coleman ’ s thoughts , except she believed the pro-Biden bias had seeped into public media as well .
“ Last night I was watching PBS Newshour , ” she said .
“ And I ’ m done with them .
I am done with them !
” “ I ’ m a little more concerned about the DNC , ” Dierdra Michelle of Burlington told me , referring to the Democratic National Committee .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushback against him right now .
It ’ s frustrating .
I find it frustrating .
Sad…Sometimes I think the Democratic Party we sometimes , as my mama would say , ‘ cut off our nose to spite our face.
’ ” Melissa Warren , a volunteer with a “ Bernie Beats Trump ” pin affixed to her hat , channeled the candidate when I asked her about the wave of Biden endorsements that preceded Super Tuesday .
“ ‘ The establishment ’ s getting scared ’ —that ’ s what he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But at the end of the day there ’ s no smokescreen that ’ s gon na block out the revolution.
” She started to laugh .
“ We invented smokescreens in Vermont !
” Over the course of the night , it became increasingly hard to minimize Biden ’ s successes .
Four days after winning his first primary , he won eight more , including Texas—the state where Sanders had promised a victory not long ago .
A few supporters pointed with apprehension to Biden ’ s big victory in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invested heavily .
The political maneuvering was real , but this wasn ’ t all the work of some shadowy “ establishment.
” Biden drove up large margins across the South by winning black voters , and especially older black voters , overwhelmingly there—something Sanders has failed to do in two campaigns over four years .
Biden padded his numbers across the map with strong marks in suburbs where Sanders had been banking on the logjam of candidates to slow his rival down .
Sanders struggled , in other words , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in the places where his struggles had been momentarily papered over by a disorganized field .
He struggled among the kinds of people for whom “ Democratic establishment ” is not a slur .
Sanders talks about his theory of the race more than most candidates do , in part because his style of campaigning is such an essential part of his message .
He ’ s argued that a “ historic ” voter turnout operation— “ multigenerational , multiracial ” —would transform the electorate , both in the primary and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to circumvent the entrenched opposition he faces .
And he has made huge gains among Latino voters , particularly out West .
( Listen to my colleague Fernanda Echavarri on this week ’ s Mother Jones Podcast if you want to start to understand why . )
But the electorate hasn ’ t changed that much nationwide .
After Tuesday ’ s results , more than a few commentators suggested that Sanders might have been better off spending less time using Democrats as a punching bag and more time courting them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the party you want to lead as the enemy , a lot of people in that party aren ’ t going to trust you to lead them , ” Vox ’ s Ezra Klein argued .
The genius of using the “ political establishment ” as a bludgeon , though , is that losing is its own form of validation .
A sudden groundswell of opposition to your movement is proof that the forces that Sanders is railing against really exist and that the suspicions of his supporters are justified .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuckers , ” one voter told me .
Put that on a T-shirt .
Still , the mood at the Champlain Valley Exposition was hardly funereal .
There was beer and wine for sale , and as the crowd waited to hear from Sanders , two of the four members of the band Phish jammed onstage while CNN ’ s election night coverage played on screens overhead .
Sanders spoke shortly after 10 , telling the crowd he was “ cautiously optimistic ” of a victory in California ( it would be called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three states that were already in the win column—Colorado , Utah , and Vermont .
He put the best face on it , but his remarks made clear the work that now needed to be done .
Sanders criticized Biden ( though not by name ) for his vote to authorize the war in Iraq , his support of free-trade agreements , and the 2005 bankruptcy reform law , which Sanders had voted against .
“ Another candidate represented the credit card companies and voted for that disastrous bill , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that felt familiar and settling in for a race that won ’ t end soon .
He reprised his previous criticism of Biden for proposing cuts to Social Security—an attack he ’ d soon turn into a TV ad targeting seniors in Florida , which votes in two weeks .
“ We are not only taking on the corporate establishment .
We ’ re taking on the political establishment , ” Sanders said to a burst of cheers from the packed and in some cases slightly tipsy crowd .
This week , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to fight back .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Less than a week ago, everything was going right for Bernie Sanders. He had won in Iowa (at least by his definition) and New Hampshire and lapped the field in Nevada—where a diverse coalition and an impressive organizing effort had him looking like the kind of candidate who goes on to win Democratic presidential nominations.
And then a lot of things happened in a short period of time. Joe Biden, with a boost from House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, won a landslide in South Carolina, and in quick succession, two challengers—Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg—dropped out and endorsed Biden. Another former rival, Beto O’Rourke, emerged from wherever he’s been to endorse Biden onstage in his home state. Harry Reid endorsed Biden. (A little late, but okay.) Suddenly polls showed Biden surging across the same March 3rd map Sanders had once predicted would put him on the path to the nomination.
By the time voters began lining up to get into Sanders’ Super Tuesday victory rally at a county fairground in Essex, Vermont, the enthusiasm of the moment was beginning to mix with a familiar anxiety.
“I guess winning one state in his entire career running for president is enough to create that momentum for some people,” Sophie Lovett, a barista from Burlington, told me when I asked about Biden. She felt like he was getting an undue amount of media attention for his South Carolina victory. “I feel like it’s very fucking sketchy, that’s how I feel about it.”
In the eyes of voters like Lovett, Sanders was a victim of two forces working against him—the Democratic Party and its allies in the political media.
In the eyes of voters like Lovett, Sanders was a victim of two forces that had long been working against him—the Democratic Party and its allies in the political media. It’s a message that Sanders, who often chides the “corporate media” on the stump and uses the “Democratic establishment” as a rhetorical punching bag, has spent years cultivating. In part, that’s because it’s a necessary foil; it wouldn’t be much of a revolution if there was nothing to rebel against. But the setback on Tuesday also showed the limits of such a message. If you want to win a major party nomination, it helps to keep your list of declared enemies to a minimum.
As he waited for doors to open at the exposition hall, Bill Coleman, a mental health counselor from Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom who had just come back from door-knocking for Sanders in Massachusetts, told me he knew something was up when Buttigieg showed up to the debate in Nevada with an uncharacteristic stubble. He took it as a sign that the rest of the field was going to start ganging up on the Vermont senator.
“When I watched the previous debate, I noticed that Buttigieg hadn’t even shaved completely, Amy Klobuchar looked disheveled, and they looked unmotivated compared to the previous ones,” Coleman said. They had quit trying to win, he concluded, and stuck around only to take their shots at Sanders. “I don’t even think that’s a conspiracy theory at all—it’s really obvious. They wanted to have essentially a firing squad that came at Bernie in that last debate.”
The spectacle was “nauseating,” he told me. “And it’s not just them—the corporate news media has just been turned themselves into Biden TV.”
Listen to MoJo reporters Tim Murphy and Fernanda Echavarri share insights about Biden’s big night, Bernie’s long fight, and the knockdown fight for delegates to come, on this special Super Tuesday edition of the Mother Jones Podcast:
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
The notion that Sanders is a victim of an unfair media was a recurring one at the rally. Irene Poole, who was wearing a green “Make America Vermont Again” T-shirt as she waited for the event to start, echoed Coleman’s thoughts, except she believed the pro-Biden bias had seeped into public media as well. “Last night I was watching PBS Newshour,” she said. “And I’m done with them. I am done with them!”
“I’m a little more concerned about the DNC,” Dierdra Michelle of Burlington told me, referring to the Democratic National Committee. “There’s a very strong pushback against him right now. It’s frustrating. I find it frustrating. Sad…Sometimes I think the Democratic Party we sometimes, as my mama would say, ‘cut off our nose to spite our face.’”
Melissa Warren, a volunteer with a “Bernie Beats Trump” pin affixed to her hat, channeled the candidate when I asked her about the wave of Biden endorsements that preceded Super Tuesday. “‘The establishment’s getting scared’—that’s what he’s saying,” she said. “But at the end of the day there’s no smokescreen that’s gonna block out the revolution.” She started to laugh. “We invented smokescreens in Vermont!”
Over the course of the night, it became increasingly hard to minimize Biden’s successes. Four days after winning his first primary, he won eight more, including Texas—the state where Sanders had promised a victory not long ago. A few supporters pointed with apprehension to Biden’s big victory in Virginia, where the Sanders campaign had invested heavily.
The political maneuvering was real, but this wasn’t all the work of some shadowy “establishment.” Biden drove up large margins across the South by winning black voters, and especially older black voters, overwhelmingly there—something Sanders has failed to do in two campaigns over four years. Biden padded his numbers across the map with strong marks in suburbs where Sanders had been banking on the logjam of candidates to slow his rival down. Sanders struggled, in other words, in the same places he has always struggled, and in the places where his struggles had been momentarily papered over by a disorganized field. He struggled among the kinds of people for whom “Democratic establishment” is not a slur.
Sanders talks about his theory of the race more than most candidates do, in part because his style of campaigning is such an essential part of his message. He’s argued that a “historic” voter turnout operation—“multigenerational, multiracial”—would transform the electorate, both in the primary and in November, in a way that allowed him to circumvent the entrenched opposition he faces. And he has made huge gains among Latino voters, particularly out West. (Listen to my colleague Fernanda Echavarri on this week’s Mother Jones Podcast if you want to start to understand why.) But the electorate hasn’t changed that much nationwide. After Tuesday’s results, more than a few commentators suggested that Sanders might have been better off spending less time using Democrats as a punching bag and more time courting them. “If you treat voters and officials in the party you want to lead as the enemy, a lot of people in that party aren’t going to trust you to lead them,” Vox’s Ezra Klein argued.
The genius of using the “political establishment” as a bludgeon, though, is that losing is its own form of validation. A sudden groundswell of opposition to your movement is proof that the forces that Sanders is railing against really exist and that the suspicions of his supporters are justified.
“I just don’t trust those fuckers,” one voter told me. Put that on a T-shirt.
Still, the mood at the Champlain Valley Exposition was hardly funereal. There was beer and wine for sale, and as the crowd waited to hear from Sanders, two of the four members of the band Phish jammed onstage while CNN’s election night coverage played on screens overhead.
Sanders spoke shortly after 10, telling the crowd he was “cautiously optimistic” of a victory in California (it would be called shortly thereafter) and declaring victory in three states that were already in the win column—Colorado, Utah, and Vermont. He put the best face on it, but his remarks made clear the work that now needed to be done. Sanders criticized Biden (though not by name) for his vote to authorize the war in Iraq, his support of free-trade agreements, and the 2005 bankruptcy reform law, which Sanders had voted against. “Another candidate represented the credit card companies and voted for that disastrous bill,” he said. He was back in the role that felt familiar and settling in for a race that won’t end soon. He reprised his previous criticism of Biden for proposing cuts to Social Security—an attack he’d soon turn into a TV ad targeting seniors in Florida, which votes in two weeks.
“We are not only taking on the corporate establishment. We’re taking on the political establishment,” Sanders said to a burst of cheers from the packed and in some cases slightly tipsy crowd. This week, at least, the establishment was more than ready to fight back.


motherjones--2020-03-05--How Pennsylvania’s New Mail-in Ballot Law Could Create Election Night Chaos

Imagine this : It ’ s the night of November 3 , 2020 and eyeballs across the country are glued to television .
As results trickle in , networks begin making calls in the presidential race , filling states red for President Trump or blue for the Democratic ticket .
In 2016 , just 80,000 votes in Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania gave Trump his electoral college win .
Pennsylvania ’ s 20 electoral votes are the biggest prize among these closely watched swing states , and are widely assumed to be a prerequisite to winning the presidency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of votes , suggest a winner .
But over the course of the next 24 hours or so , hundreds of thousands of mailed ballots are counted , and the candidate who looked like the victor on election night has fallen behind .
That candidate ’ s supporters—and perhaps the candidate themself—claims foul play or rigging .
Chaos ensues .
As things stand , election officials in the state fear Americans could confront this exact hypothetical this fall .
As Rick Hasen , an elections administration expert and law professor at the University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , its one of his “ nightmare scenarios.
” New rules this year allow all Pennsylvania residents to request to cast ballots by mail , an opportunity that hundreds of thousands , perhaps millions , of voters will take up .
Under existing state law , they can not be counted , or even opened , until after 8pm on election night , when traditional polling locations close .
In a state where Trump topped Hillary Clinton by just 44,292 votes , these ballots could be decisive—and the process could take up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new rules are part of a sweeping set of election reforms lawmakers enacted after the state settled a 2016 lawsuit filed by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein that argued that the state ’ s then-largely paperless voting system violated voters ’ constitutional rights .
While the lawsuit focused on introducing paper-backed voting systems , the reforms also included a longer period to register to vote , the elimination of straight-party voting , and new provisions allowing any Pennsylvanian to request a mail in ballot for any reason .
Previously , state law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups—like people with disabilities that would keep them from the polls or those who had a demonstrated need to be outside their home county on Election Day .
While the new rules will go into effect before this year ’ s April 28 primaries , it ’ s unclear exactly how many Pennsylvania voters will vote by mail in that election or this fall—when officials anticipate it could be well over a million .
In 2016 , there were 6.1 million votes cast in Pennsylvania , 266,208 of which were absentees permitted under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
With that small of an amount , the restriction on tallying them before polls closed , put in place out of concerns about maintaining their secrecy , could be overcome within hours .
But the numbers will be different this year .
Wanda Murren , a spokesperson for Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar , said that “ in an abundance of caution and based on other states ’ experience ” their office is telling counties to expect that 20 percent of ballots could be cast by mail in November 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law that would give us some additional flexibility here , if the margin is close in Pennsylvania , the idea that we ’ re going to know exactly who won on election night…that ’ s likely not to be the case , ” says Lee Soltysiak , the chief operations officer of Montgomery County just northwest of Philadelphia .
Soltysiak explains that on election night , after an initial set of numbers come in from polling places and are posted “ as we always do , ” he ’ ll be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mail-in ballots , which will then have to be centrally opened , scanned , and counted—all after polls close .
“ Depending on the margin , that may be significant , ” he said .
Montgomery County , which is the state ’ s third-most populous , had 22,208 absentee ballots in the 2016 general election ; this fall , his preliminary estimates suggest mail in ballots could top 60,000 .
“ I ’ ve seen numbers all over the map , frankly , ” he said .
“ No one ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about to experience in 2020.
” County election officials like Soltysiak are spending tens of thousands of dollars to beef up staff and buy extra equipment to accommodate the flood of mailed votes , while pushing the state legislature to amend the law as quickly as possible to allow officials to count them before polls close .
In other states with robust mail-in balloting , officials regularly begin processing them in advance .
Colorado , for instance , allows counting of mailed ballots to begin 15 days before Election Day , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In January , the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Boockvar said that as long as county officials secured extra staffing , everything was “ going to be fine.
” County officials almost immediately pushed back , the story noted , expressing doubts the ballots could be counted quickly .
Murren told Mother Jones that the Secretary of State ’ s office “ has heard the concerns of the counties ” and is “ developing guidance ” to advise them on how best to handle “ significantly more ballots that will need to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with providing funding for personnel and counting machines .
But she agreed that a legislative fix will be required to allow for ballots be opened or counted before polls close .
“ We wish to emphasize that having an election night count is less important than ensuring every vote is counted accurately , ” she said .
For their part , state legislators of both parties say they ’ re working on it , although they have so far been light on specifics .
“ We have been reviewing the issues [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work on a legislative solution , ” says Jay Costa , Jr. , the state senate Democratic leader .
“ I ’ m hopeful that we ’ ll finalize that solution prior to our April 28 primary election.
” Mike Straub , spokesman for Pennsylvania House Republicans , says there are “ plans to move a bill in the near future to address those concerns , ” and that “ [ w ] e all share the goal of conducting fair , accurate and efficient elections in our Commonwealth.
” Matthew Munsey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said party activists plan to let people know about the new vote by mail rules , “ and we are going to encourage people to take advantage of that option.
” The new law also requires each county store and count mail-in and absentee ballots in one place , leading Munsey to worry about bottlenecks caused by time-consuming challenges targeting mail-in voters ’ eligibility .
In the past , the smaller number of absentee ballots were opened at local precincts , under a procedure where officials would read the name of the voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the parties—were able to raise objections to a particular voter , for instance if a voter ’ s signature or address didn ’ t match the state ’ s official records .
Murren said that addressing concerns on challenges is issue the state and legislature are trying to work through in designing a system that allows mailed ballots to be counted in advance .
But absent such reforms , she pointed out that the new rules expanded access to the lists of absentee and mail-in voters to any requestor—in the past , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wider access to to those records ahead of time might speed challenges along and that a centralized counting location could be more efficient .
In anticipation of the increased workload , Montgomery County will spend $ 325,000 to essentially double the workforce in its central elections office , $ 75,000 for three additional ballot scanners , and $ 25,000 for envelope opening equipment .
( “ If it ’ s 60,000 ballots , that ’ s 120,000 envelopes , because it ’ s a ballot inside of an envelope inside of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Next door , just north of Philadelphia in Bucks County—the state ’ s fourth-largest—officials are looking into buying two additional scanners for their central office at $ 30,000 each , according to Gail Humphrey , the county ’ s chief clerk , who expects some of that cost will be reimbursed by the state .
While Bucks County had 18,943 absentee ballots in 2016 , Humphrey has heard estimates of as many as 100,000 mailed ballots for 2020 .
She echoes concerns that a lag between the results available on election night and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counted could open the door for the type of disinformation and accusations of “ rigged ” or “ flipped ” elections that flew after Democrats in Iowa struggled to complete their count following the state ’ s caucuses .
“ It ’ s a real fear for us in Bucks County , ” she said .
“ If you have a tightly contested race , it literally could come down to those absentee ballots .
And if we don ’ t know for 24 hours or 48 hours…That is the ultimate concern.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial board has put the broader issue in stark terms : “ No matter who wins , half the country would feel cheated , call the process illegitimate and possibly even refuse to acknowledge the victor as their president .
And the other half wouldn ’ t take that type of commentary lying down .
That ’ s dangerous.
” Munsey says messaging and transparency will be key .
“ If the results shift because of a good chunk of the votes that hadn ’ t been counted , the people start to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ If they know [ what to expect ] ahead of time then they ’ re not going to be clamoring.
” While Montgomery County ’ s Soltysiak emphasized that he is “ very confident in our election system ” and the accuracy of the results it will produce , he agreed that officials need to take special care to clearly communicate the number of outstanding ballots at every stage , and for the press to report the state ’ s new procedures and election night results responsibly .
“ Transparency is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and restraint on election night , and people ’ s rush to want to call something , they ’ re going to need to understand the new dynamic here in Pennsylvania , ” he said .
“ This is not Iowa , we aren ’ t using apps .
We ’ ve moved to paper and it ’ s secure and it ’ s verifiable—but it ’ s not quick .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Imagine this: It’s the night of November 3, 2020 and eyeballs across the country are glued to television. As results trickle in, networks begin making calls in the presidential race, filling states red for President Trump or blue for the Democratic ticket.
In 2016, just 80,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania gave Trump his electoral college win. Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes are the biggest prize among these closely watched swing states, and are widely assumed to be a prerequisite to winning the presidency. And initial results, based on day of votes, suggest a winner. But over the course of the next 24 hours or so, hundreds of thousands of mailed ballots are counted, and the candidate who looked like the victor on election night has fallen behind. That candidate’s supporters—and perhaps the candidate themself—claims foul play or rigging. Chaos ensues.
“If we don’t know for 24 hours or 48 hours…That is the ultimate concern.”
As things stand, election officials in the state fear Americans could confront this exact hypothetical this fall. As Rick Hasen, an elections administration expert and law professor at the University of California, Irvine, recently told me, its one of his “nightmare scenarios.” New rules this year allow all Pennsylvania residents to request to cast ballots by mail, an opportunity that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of voters will take up. Under existing state law, they cannot be counted, or even opened, until after 8pm on election night, when traditional polling locations close. In a state where Trump topped Hillary Clinton by just 44,292 votes, these ballots could be decisive—and the process could take up to three days.
Pennsylvania’s new rules are part of a sweeping set of election reforms lawmakers enacted after the state settled a 2016 lawsuit filed by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein that argued that the state’s then-largely paperless voting system violated voters’ constitutional rights. While the lawsuit focused on introducing paper-backed voting systems, the reforms also included a longer period to register to vote, the elimination of straight-party voting, and new provisions allowing any Pennsylvanian to request a mail in ballot for any reason. Previously, state law only permitted voting by mail for narrower groups—like people with disabilities that would keep them from the polls or those who had a demonstrated need to be outside their home county on Election Day.
While the new rules will go into effect before this year’s April 28 primaries, it’s unclear exactly how many Pennsylvania voters will vote by mail in that election or this fall—when officials anticipate it could be well over a million.
In 2016, there were 6.1 million votes cast in Pennsylvania, 266,208 of which were absentees permitted under the old rules—a rate of about 4 percent. With that small of an amount, the restriction on tallying them before polls closed, put in place out of concerns about maintaining their secrecy, could be overcome within hours. But the numbers will be different this year. Wanda Murren, a spokesperson for Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, said that “in an abundance of caution and based on other states’ experience” their office is telling counties to expect that 20 percent of ballots could be cast by mail in November 2020.
“Absent some new change in the law that would give us some additional flexibility here, if the margin is close in Pennsylvania, the idea that we’re going to know exactly who won on election night…that’s likely not to be the case,” says Lee Soltysiak, the chief operations officer of Montgomery County just northwest of Philadelphia.
Soltysiak explains that on election night, after an initial set of numbers come in from polling places and are posted “as we always do,” he’ll be able to announce the number of outstanding absentee and mail-in ballots, which will then have to be centrally opened, scanned, and counted—all after polls close. “Depending on the margin, that may be significant,” he said. Montgomery County, which is the state’s third-most populous, had 22,208 absentee ballots in the 2016 general election; this fall, his preliminary estimates suggest mail in ballots could top 60,000.
County officials are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to beef up staff and buy extra equipment.
“I’ve seen numbers all over the map, frankly,” he said. “No one’s experienced what we’re all about to experience in 2020.” County election officials like Soltysiak are spending tens of thousands of dollars to beef up staff and buy extra equipment to accommodate the flood of mailed votes, while pushing the state legislature to amend the law as quickly as possible to allow officials to count them before polls close. In other states with robust mail-in balloting, officials regularly begin processing them in advance. Colorado, for instance, allows counting of mailed ballots to begin 15 days before Election Day, with the results remaining secret until polls officially close.
In January, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Boockvar said that as long as county officials secured extra staffing, everything was “going to be fine.” County officials almost immediately pushed back, the story noted, expressing doubts the ballots could be counted quickly. Murren told Mother Jones that the Secretary of State’s office “has heard the concerns of the counties” and is “developing guidance” to advise them on how best to handle “significantly more ballots that will need to be counted after the polls close,” along with providing funding for personnel and counting machines. But she agreed that a legislative fix will be required to allow for ballots be opened or counted before polls close. “We wish to emphasize that having an election night count is less important than ensuring every vote is counted accurately,” she said.
For their part, state legislators of both parties say they’re working on it, although they have so far been light on specifics. “We have been reviewing the issues [county officials have] raised and begun work on a legislative solution,” says Jay Costa, Jr., the state senate Democratic leader. “I’m hopeful that we’ll finalize that solution prior to our April 28 primary election.” Mike Straub, spokesman for Pennsylvania House Republicans, says there are “plans to move a bill in the near future to address those concerns,” and that “[w]e all share the goal of conducting fair, accurate and efficient elections in our Commonwealth.”
Matthew Munsey, chair of the Northampton County Democrats, said party activists plan to let people know about the new vote by mail rules, “and we are going to encourage people to take advantage of that option.”
The new law also requires each county store and count mail-in and absentee ballots in one place, leading Munsey to worry about bottlenecks caused by time-consuming challenges targeting mail-in voters’ eligibility. In the past, the smaller number of absentee ballots were opened at local precincts, under a procedure where officials would read the name of the voter and observers—whether representatives of the candidates or the parties—were able to raise objections to a particular voter, for instance if a voter’s signature or address didn’t match the state’s official records.
“It’s secure and it’s verifiable—but it’s not quick.”
Murren said that addressing concerns on challenges is issue the state and legislature are trying to work through in designing a system that allows mailed ballots to be counted in advance. But absent such reforms, she pointed out that the new rules expanded access to the lists of absentee and mail-in voters to any requestor—in the past, the information was only given to political parties—suggesting the wider access to to those records ahead of time might speed challenges along and that a centralized counting location could be more efficient.
In anticipation of the increased workload, Montgomery County will spend $325,000 to essentially double the workforce in its central elections office, $75,000 for three additional ballot scanners, and $25,000 for envelope opening equipment. (“If it’s 60,000 ballots, that’s 120,000 envelopes, because it’s a ballot inside of an envelope inside of an envelope,” Soltysiak explained.)
Next door, just north of Philadelphia in Bucks County—the state’s fourth-largest—officials are looking into buying two additional scanners for their central office at $30,000 each, according to Gail Humphrey, the county’s chief clerk, who expects some of that cost will be reimbursed by the state.
While Bucks County had 18,943 absentee ballots in 2016, Humphrey has heard estimates of as many as 100,000 mailed ballots for 2020. She echoes concerns that a lag between the results available on election night and the updated results after such ballots are counted could open the door for the type of disinformation and accusations of “rigged” or “flipped” elections that flew after Democrats in Iowa struggled to complete their count following the state’s caucuses.
“It’s a real fear for us in Bucks County,” she said. “If you have a tightly contested race, it literally could come down to those absentee ballots. And if we don’t know for 24 hours or 48 hours…That is the ultimate concern.” The local Bucks County Courier Times’ editorial board has put the broader issue in stark terms: “No matter who wins, half the country would feel cheated, call the process illegitimate and possibly even refuse to acknowledge the victor as their president. And the other half wouldn’t take that type of commentary lying down. That’s dangerous.”
Munsey says messaging and transparency will be key. “If the results shift because of a good chunk of the votes that hadn’t been counted, the people start to question what really happened.” he said. “If they know [what to expect] ahead of time then they’re not going to be clamoring.”
While Montgomery County’s Soltysiak emphasized that he is “very confident in our election system” and the accuracy of the results it will produce, he agreed that officials need to take special care to clearly communicate the number of outstanding ballots at every stage, and for the press to report the state’s new procedures and election night results responsibly.
“Transparency is going to be critical on this, and restraint on election night, and people’s rush to want to call something, they’re going to need to understand the new dynamic here in Pennsylvania,” he said. “This is not Iowa, we aren’t using apps. We’ve moved to paper and it’s secure and it’s verifiable—but it’s not quick.”


motherjones--2020-03-05--A Federal Judge Just Called Out William Barr for Distorting the Mueller Report’s Findings

Attorney General William Barr showed a “ lack of candor ” in his public descriptions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s report on Russian interference in the 2020 election , a federal judge said Thursday in a strikingly pointed shot at the country ’ s top law enforcement officer .
US District Court Judge Reggie Walton said that Barr had “ distorted the findings ” of the April 2019 report in a press conference and in subsequent letters to lawmakers .
Walton ’ s critique echoes that of Democrats in Congress and elsewhere , who have have consistently accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the conclusions in Mueller ’ s report and in other public comments in order to protect Trump .
But Walton ’ s ruling stands out in coming from an officer of the court .
The judge ’ s scorching opinion came in an ongoing lawsuit from BuzzFeed against the Justice Department seeking the release of an unredacted copy of Mueller ’ s report .
This week Walton ordered the department to provide him an unredacted version to review .
And he suggested that Barr ’ s public comments did not align with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into doubt the department ’ s claims about the need for parts of the report to remain secret .
Walton wrote : The Court can not reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report .
The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr ’ s statements , made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements , and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary .
These circumstances generally , and Attorney General Barr ’ s lack of candor specifically , call into question Attorney General Barr ’ s credibility and in turn , the Department ’ s representation that ‘ all of the information redacted from the version of the [ Mueller ] Report released by… [ Barr ] ’ is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exemptions .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Attorney General William Barr showed a “lack of candor” in his public descriptions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2020 election, a federal judge said Thursday in a strikingly pointed shot at the country’s top law enforcement officer.
US District Court Judge Reggie Walton said that Barr had “distorted the findings” of the April 2019 report in a press conference and a letter to lawmakers. Walton’s critique echoes that of Democrats in Congress and elsewhere, who have have consistently accused Trump’s attorney general of lying about the conclusions in Mueller’s report and in other public comments in order to protect Trump. But Walton’s ruling stands out in coming from an officer of the court.
The judge’s scorching opinion came in an ongoing lawsuit from BuzzFeed against the Justice Department seeking the release of an unredacted copy of Mueller’s report. This week Walton ordered the department to provide him an unredacted version to review. And he suggested that Barr’s public comments did not align with the report’s findings, calling into doubt the department’s claims about the need for parts of the report to remain secret. Walton wrote:
The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report. The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary. These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility and in turn, the Department’s representation that ‘all of the information redacted from the version of the [Mueller] Report released by…[Barr]’ is protected from disclosure by its claimed FOIA exemptions.
Read the full ruling here:


motherjones--2020-03-05--So Your State Declared a Coronavirus Emergency? Here’s What That Means for You.

On Wednesday , after the state ’ s first coronavirus death in Placer County , California Gov .
Gavin Newsom announced that the state would be formalizing its action plan by declaring a state of emergency .
“ The State of California is deploying every level of government to help identify cases and slow the spread of this coronavirus , ” Newsom said .
“ This emergency proclamation will help the state further prepare our communities and our health care system in the event it spreads more broadly.
” Worldwide , more than 95,000 infections have been reported and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the US , where people infected with COVID-19 are continuing to appear .
To battle the infectious disease—which was first spotted in Wuhan , China , last December—state and local governments have begun declaring states of emergency .
Newsom joined Washington Gov .
Jay Inslee and Florida ’ s Gov .
Ron DeSantis in making the move .
Newsom and Inslee are both Democrats , and DeSantis is a Republican .
The state declarations of emergency are fundamentally different from federal disaster declarations , which typically happen after a hurricane or flood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president and trigger the release of federal funds .
The governors ’ emergency declarations enable states to mobilize all levels of their governments to combat the virus , which includes providing public health and financial assistance to city and county governments , and protecting consumers from price gouging on items like hand sanitizer and face masks ( which should only be used by health care professionals treating patients , or if you ’ re actually sick ) .
Strong leadership and actions by local governments will be especially important in the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s complete chaos , ” an anonymous Trump administration official told the Washington Post about the federal government ’ s coronavirus response .
“ Everyone is just trying to get a handle on what the [ expletive ] is going on.
” The handling of the situation by the White House has been criticized as confusing and potentially damaging as the Trump administration announced on Thursday that it will not be able to meet its promise of having 1 million coronavirus tests available by the end of the week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take common-sense , proactive measures to ensure the health and safety of those who live in Washington state , ” Inslee said last month .
A Snohomish County man who had recently traveled to Wuhan , China , became the first US coronavirus case to appear in the state .
He is now fully recovered .
Ten of the 11 US deaths are in Washington state , with six of them occurring at a long-term care facility in the Seattle area .
“ Washingtonians can be assured we ’ ve taken this threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with our health care partners to develop plans and procedures to prepare for what could likely be a world-wide pandemic , ” Inslee said .
Across the country , Ron DeSantis declared a public health emergency in Florida last Sunday after two people tested positive for coronavirus .
“ I direct the State Health Officer to follow the guidelines established by the CDC in establishing protocols to control the spread of COVID-19 and educate the public on prevention , ” he said .
There have been no coronavirus deaths in the state as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rely on their own governments for a robust coronavirus response , as opposed to the federal government .
While no other states have declared states of emergency , many others are preparing for the emergence of the disease .
On Wednesday , Massachusetts Gov .
Charlie Baker assured residents that coronavirus test kits were on their way to the state , but public health officials cautioned against the rush to test anyone who felt ill. Marc Lipsitch , the director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at Harvard said that widespread testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season , could “ bring the health system crashing down.
” The president , who has referred to coronavirus as the “ coronaflu , ” has blamed former President Barack Obama for the government ’ s response , and more alarmingly , downplayed the severity of the disease .
After the World Health Organization announced on Tuesday that the death rate is at 3.4 percent , Trump told Fox News ’ Sean Hannity that the number was false .
He based this assertion on a “ hunch.
” “ I think the 3.4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just my hunch—but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this because a lot of people will have this and it ’ s very mild , ” he said .
“ They ’ ll get better very rapidly , they don ’ t even see a doctor , they don ’ t even call a doctor .
You never hear about those people.
” State governors may not agree .

On Wednesday, after the state’s first coronavirus death in Placer County, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that the state would be formalizing its action plan by declaring a state of emergency. “The State of California is deploying every level of government to help identify cases and slow the spread of this coronavirus,” Newsom said. “This emergency proclamation will help the state further prepare our communities and our health care system in the event it spreads more broadly.”
Worldwide, more than 95,000 infections have been reported and more than 3,000 people have died—including 11 people in the US, where people infected with COVID-19 are continuing to appear. To battle the infectious disease—which was first spotted in Wuhan, China, last December—state and local governments have begun declaring states of emergency. Newsom joined Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis in making the move. Newsom and Inslee are both Democrats, and DeSantis is a Republican.
The state declarations of emergency are fundamentally different from federal disaster declarations, which typically happen after a hurricane or flood event. Those are the responsibility of the president and trigger the release of federal funds. The governors’ emergency declarations enable states to mobilize all levels of their governments to combat the virus, which includes providing public health and financial assistance to city and county governments, and protecting consumers from price gouging on items like hand sanitizer and face masks (which should only be used by health care professionals treating patients, or if you’re actually sick).
“This is a time to take common-sense, proactive measures to ensure the health and safety of those who live in Washington state.”
Strong leadership and actions by local governments will be especially important in the event that the disease continues to spread unchecked. “It’s complete chaos,” an anonymous Trump administration official told the Washington Post about the federal government’s coronavirus response. “Everyone is just trying to get a handle on what the [expletive] is going on.” The handling of the situation by the White House has been criticized as confusing and potentially damaging as the Trump administration announced on Thursday that it will not be able to meet its promise of having 1 million coronavirus tests available by the end of the week.
“This is a time to take common-sense, proactive measures to ensure the health and safety of those who live in Washington state,” Inslee said last month. A Snohomish County man who had recently traveled to Wuhan, China, became the first US coronavirus case to appear in the state. He is now fully recovered. Ten of the 11 US deaths are in Washington state, with six of them occurring at a long-term care facility in the Seattle area. “Washingtonians can be assured we’ve taken this threat seriously and have been working in collaboration with our health care partners to develop plans and procedures to prepare for what could likely be a world-wide pandemic,” Inslee said.
Across the country, Ron DeSantis declared a public health emergency in Florida last Sunday after two people tested positive for coronavirus. “I direct the State Health Officer to follow the guidelines established by the CDC in establishing protocols to control the spread of COVID-19 and educate the public on prevention,” he said. There have been no coronavirus deaths in the state as of Thursday.
States may have to rely on their own governments for a robust coronavirus response, as opposed to the federal government. While no other states have declared states of emergency, many others are preparing for the emergence of the disease. On Wednesday, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker assured residents that coronavirus test kits were on their way to the state, but public health officials cautioned against the rush to test anyone who felt ill. Marc Lipsitch, the director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at Harvard said that widespread testing, especially during the height of flu season, could “bring the health system crashing down.”
The president, who has referred to coronavirus as the “coronaflu,” has blamed former President Barack Obama for the government’s response, and more alarmingly, downplayed the severity of the disease. After the World Health Organization announced on Tuesday that the death rate is at 3.4 percent, Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that the number was false. He based this assertion on a “hunch.”
“I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number—and this is just my hunch—but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this because a lot of people will have this and it’s very mild,” he said. “They’ll get better very rapidly, they don’t even see a doctor, they don’t even call a doctor. You never hear about those people.” State governors may not agree.


motherjones--2020-03-05--Without Missing a Beat, Elizabeth Warren Vows to Take on Gender Politics

As her dog Bailey watched curiously from the window , Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Thursday greeted reporters outside her home in Cambridge to confirm the inevitable : The former Harvard law professor and brief Democratic 2020 presidential frontrunner was suspending her campaign .
It was a decision that had become all but certain following her disappointing performances in the early voting states , and the victory of former Vice President Joe Biden in her home state .
By Super Tuesday , the countdown to her announcement quickly morphed into a media waiting game .
But on Thursday , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managed to transform that foregone conclusion into a deeply personal reflection on her campaign : “ I stood in that voting booth , and I looked down and I saw my name on the ballot , and I thought , ‘ Wow , kiddo , you ’ re not in Oklahoma anymore , ' ” Warren told reporters , who had been staking her out in the driveway of her home .
“ That it really was a moment of thinking about how my mother and dad , if they were still here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , standing in the booth—I miss my mommy and my daddy.
” The heartbreak in her voice was palpable .
But then , true to form , Warren quickly and with her signature precision , responded to a key question at play in her candidacy : Had sexism played a role in her loss ?
“ Gender in this race ?
You know , that ’ s the trap question for everyone , ” she said .
“ If you say , ‘ Yeah , there was sexism in this race , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you say there was no sexism , about a bazillion women think , ‘ What planet do you live on ? '
” In what became her trademark during her year-long presidential run , Warren then revealed that she intended to come up with a plan to tackle the issue head-on .
“ I promise you this , ” she said .
“ I ’ ll have a lot more to say on that subject later on .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As her dog Bailey watched curiously from the window, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Thursday greeted reporters outside her home in Cambridge to confirm the inevitable: The former Harvard law professor and brief Democratic 2020 presidential frontrunner was suspending her campaign.
It was a decision that had become all but certain following her disappointing performances in the early voting states, and the victory of former Vice President Joe Biden in her home state. By Super Tuesday, the countdown to her announcement quickly morphed into a media waiting game. But on Thursday, as she made the news official, Warren managed to transform that foregone conclusion into a deeply personal reflection on her campaign:
“I stood in that voting booth, and I looked down and I saw my name on the ballot, and I thought, ‘Wow, kiddo, you’re not in Oklahoma anymore,'” Warren told reporters, who had been staking her out in the driveway of her home. “That it really was a moment of thinking about how my mother and dad, if they were still here, would feel about this…For that moment, standing in the booth—I miss my mommy and my daddy.”
.@ewarren: “Gender in this race? You know, that’s the trap question for everyone. If you say, ‘Yeah, there was sexism in this race,’ everyone says, ‘Whiner!’ If you say there was no sexism, about a bazillion women think, ‘What planet do you live on?'” https://t.co/uIKTIXob1P pic.twitter.com/qjdSuGd1XX — Mother Jones (@MotherJones) March 5, 2020
The heartbreak in her voice was palpable. But then, true to form, Warren quickly and with her signature precision, responded to a key question at play in her candidacy: Had sexism played a role in her loss?
“Gender in this race? You know, that’s the trap question for everyone,” she said. “If you say, ‘Yeah, there was sexism in this race,’ everyone says, ‘Whiner!’ If you say there was no sexism, about a bazillion women think, ‘What planet do you live on?'”
In what became her trademark during her year-long presidential run, Warren then revealed that she intended to come up with a plan to tackle the issue head-on. “I promise you this,” she said. “I’ll have a lot more to say on that subject later on.”


motherjones--2020-03-05--Home Care Workers Are Underpaid, Uninsured, and on the Front Lines of Fighting Coronavirus

Etelbina Hauser has a tough job .
The 57-year-old immigrant from Honduras and grandmother of 12 makes minimum wage cleaning houses and taking care of a 93-year-old client with dementia in Seattle .
But recently , when a nursing home offered her better pay and benefits caring for a dozen residents as a certified nursing assistant , Hauser turned it down .
She was too afraid of catching the new coronavirus .
“ If I go to a job and I carry the virus , then I infect someone who I ’ m supposed to be taking care of , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interpreter .
“ Likewise , if I go to take care of someone , and they have the virus , then I have the virus as well.
” The outbreak of coronavirus infections in the Seattle area , including at least seven fatalities linked to the Life Care Center nursing home , has drawn attention to the vulnerability of the people who live and work in nursing homes , where close quarters , frequent visitors , and rotating staff make it harder to stop the virus from spreading .
But there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care system for older adults and people with long-term health conditions : the home care industry .
Home health and personal care aides like Hauser provide clinical care and help with daily living activities to millions of Americans .
Experts warn that the poor working conditions experienced by roughly 2.3 million home care workers—mostly women , people of color , and immigrants—could leave both them and their already at-risk patients more vulnerable to the outbreak .
People over 60 and those with medical conditions like diabetes , cardiovascular disease , and cancer are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or dying a result of COVID-19 , the disease caused by the new coronavirus , according to the World Health Organization .
Because the virus is easily transmitted between people in close contact , public health experts are urging people who feel sick to stay home and self-isolate if they have symptoms .
But for many home health aides who care for the people most vulnerable to COVID-19 , remote work is impossible and paid sick days are an unaffordable luxury .
“ These workers are marginalized , and they work jobs that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Espinoza , vice president of policy for PHI , a research and consulting group focused on eldercare and disability services .
Domestic workers “ bear the responsibility of taking care of families and communities even if their own health or jobs are at risk .
And they do this without paid time off , affordable health care , or proper safety equipment or precautions , ” said Ai-jen Poo , executive director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance , which Hauser is also a member of .
Even if they could afford a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home care workers , it ’ s simply not an option .
“ If I do get sick I would need to stay home , ” she says .
But the small agency she works for offers no health insurance or paid time off .
“ If someone pays me for the 10 , 15 days that I am sick , that ’ s fine , ” Hauser says .
“ But that ’ s not my reality.
” In one survey of more than 2,000 domestic workers employed directly by families—including caregivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they did not receive paid sick leave , and 76 percent said they couldn ’ t take unpaid time off when they were sick .
Among those who had been fired , about two-thirds said the reason was taking or requesting time off , or missing work to take care of themselves or a family member .
For a home care worker , paid sick leave would “ make a big difference , ” says Julie Kashen , policy advisor to the National Domestic Workers Alliance , which is pushing a bill of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earned sick time .
“ If a home care worker felt sick herself , and was worried she might have something that she could give to someone else , then she ’ d be able to stay home and not worry about her paycheck and not worry about losing a job , ” Kashen says .
Even those home care aides who work for agencies often do not get paid sick leave , according to Espinoza .
There are other reasons that these professional caregivers may also be less likely to seek care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eighteen percent of nursing assistants and home care aides are uninsured , according to PHI research .
An unknown number are undocumented immigrants , according to Kashen ; they may be reluctant or fearful to seek out health care without assurance that going to a hospital would not mean risking interaction with immigration enforcement authorities .
“ Non-citizens make up a very significant proportion of the workforce in healthcare , and particularly in places like nursing homes , where patients are especially vulnerable , ” says Wendy Parmet , director of Northeastern University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law .
“ If we want to protect those patients , it ’ s really important that the people who are caring for them , many of whom are immigrants… are comfortable with getting health care , getting tested .
Otherwise , there ’ s potential for exasperating the outbreak.
” According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , home health aides and personal care aides earned $ 11.57 per hour on average in 2018 .
More than half of nursing assistants and home care workers rely on some form of public support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or cash assistance .
Guidelines for preventing the spread of coronavirus in nursing homes have been published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine , and the American Health Care Association .
Yet training and guidance for home care aides may be thin .
Kashen says the National Domestic Workers Alliance is “ taking matters into its own hands ” to share health and safety information with its affiliates .
While many home health aides are required by federal law to receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include lessons on infection control , training for for personal care aides can be spotty , and varies by state .
“ It ’ s hard to imagine that if you ’ re a personal care aide , that you ’ ve received the proper training on infection control—and especially infection control for something of this scale , where there ’ s an element of panic in the air , where the mortality rates are higher , and where there ’ s this fear of the unknown , ” Espinoza says .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people and people with disabilities in this moment effectively not prepared to deal with a virus of this magnitude ?
That ’ s terrifying to me.
” Hauser says she has received training on HIV , but not other infectious diseases .
All of her information about the coronavirus has comes through the media , and she shares it with other domestic workers she helps organize .
In the meantime , keeping her clients ’ houses clean has gotten harder since local stores are sold out of bleach .
She covers her face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and tries to wash her 93-year-old client as much as possible , to protect both of them .
Her work , she says , is “ soul to soul.
” Staying home and distancing herself is not an option .
“ I can ’ t sit in front of a computer and do my work , ” Hauser says .
“ Who ’ s going to pay me ?
I have to get out of my house , to face this virus .
”

Etelbina Hauser has a tough job. The 57-year-old immigrant from Honduras and grandmother of 12 makes minimum wage cleaning houses and taking care of a 93-year-old client with dementia in Seattle. But recently, when a nursing home offered her better pay and benefits caring for a dozen residents as a certified nursing assistant, Hauser turned it down. She was too afraid of catching the new coronavirus. “If I go to a job and I carry the virus, then I infect someone who I’m supposed to be taking care of,” Hauser says in Spanish, through an interpreter. “Likewise, if I go to take care of someone, and they have the virus, then I have the virus as well.”
The outbreak of coronavirus infections in the Seattle area, including at least seven fatalities linked to the Life Care Center nursing home, has drawn attention to the vulnerability of the people who live and work in nursing homes, where close quarters, frequent visitors, and rotating staff make it harder to stop the virus from spreading. But there’s another weak spot in the health care system for older adults and people with long-term health conditions: the home care industry.
Home health and personal care aides like Hauser provide clinical care and help with daily living activities to millions of Americans. Experts warn that the poor working conditions experienced by roughly 2.3 million home care workers—mostly women, people of color, and immigrants—could leave both them and their already at-risk patients more vulnerable to the outbreak.
People over 60 and those with medical conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer are at highest risk of becoming seriously ill or dying a result of COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus, according to the World Health Organization. Because the virus is easily transmitted between people in close contact, public health experts are urging people who feel sick to stay home and self-isolate if they have symptoms. But for many home health aides who care for the people most vulnerable to COVID-19, remote work is impossible and paid sick days are an unaffordable luxury.
“I can’t sit in front of a computer and do my work. Who’s going to pay me? I have to get out of my house, to face this virus.”
“These workers are marginalized, and they work jobs that are also marginalized,” says Robert Espinoza, vice president of policy for PHI, a research and consulting group focused on eldercare and disability services. Domestic workers “bear the responsibility of taking care of families and communities even if their own health or jobs are at risk. And they do this without paid time off, affordable health care, or proper safety equipment or precautions,” said Ai-jen Poo, executive director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, which Hauser is also a member of.
Even if they could afford a day off, for Hauser and many home care workers, it’s simply not an option. “If I do get sick I would need to stay home,” she says. But the small agency she works for offers no health insurance or paid time off. “If someone pays me for the 10, 15 days that I am sick, that’s fine,” Hauser says. “But that’s not my reality.” In one survey of more than 2,000 domestic workers employed directly by families—including caregivers, nannies, and housecleaners—82 percent said they did not receive paid sick leave, and 76 percent said they couldn’t take unpaid time off when they were sick. Among those who had been fired, about two-thirds said the reason was taking or requesting time off, or missing work to take care of themselves or a family member.
For a home care worker, paid sick leave would “make a big difference,” says Julie Kashen, policy advisor to the National Domestic Workers Alliance, which is pushing a bill of rights for domestic workers that would include earned sick time. “If a home care worker felt sick herself, and was worried she might have something that she could give to someone else, then she’d be able to stay home and not worry about her paycheck and not worry about losing a job,” Kashen says. Even those home care aides who work for agencies often do not get paid sick leave, according to Espinoza.
“Why are the workers who support older people and people with disabilities in this moment effectively not prepared to deal with a virus of this magnitude?”
There are other reasons that these professional caregivers may also be less likely to seek care for themselves when they get sick. Eighteen percent of nursing assistants and home care aides are uninsured, according to PHI research. An unknown number are undocumented immigrants, according to Kashen; they may be reluctant or fearful to seek out health care without assurance that going to a hospital would not mean risking interaction with immigration enforcement authorities. “Non-citizens make up a very significant proportion of the workforce in healthcare, and particularly in places like nursing homes, where patients are especially vulnerable,” says Wendy Parmet, director of Northeastern University’s Center for Health Policy and Law. “If we want to protect those patients, it’s really important that the people who are caring for them, many of whom are immigrants… are comfortable with getting health care, getting tested. Otherwise, there’s potential for exasperating the outbreak.”
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, home health aides and personal care aides earned $11.57 per hour on average in 2018. More than half of nursing assistants and home care workers rely on some form of public support, such as Medicaid, food stamps, or cash assistance.
Guidelines for preventing the spread of coronavirus in nursing homes have been published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, and the American Health Care Association. Yet training and guidance for home care aides may be thin. Kashen says the National Domestic Workers Alliance is “taking matters into its own hands” to share health and safety information with its affiliates.
While many home health aides are required by federal law to receive 75 hours of training, which may include lessons on infection control, training for for personal care aides can be spotty, and varies by state. “It’s hard to imagine that if you’re a personal care aide, that you’ve received the proper training on infection control—and especially infection control for something of this scale, where there’s an element of panic in the air, where the mortality rates are higher, and where there’s this fear of the unknown,” Espinoza says. “Why are the workers who support older people and people with disabilities in this moment effectively not prepared to deal with a virus of this magnitude? That’s terrifying to me.”
Hauser says she has received training on HIV, but not other infectious diseases. All of her information about the coronavirus has comes through the media, and she shares it with other domestic workers she helps organize. In the meantime, keeping her clients’ houses clean has gotten harder since local stores are sold out of bleach. She covers her face, disinfects as much as she can, and tries to wash her 93-year-old client as much as possible, to protect both of them. Her work, she says, is “soul to soul.” Staying home and distancing herself is not an option.
“I can’t sit in front of a computer and do my work,” Hauser says. “Who’s going to pay me? I have to get out of my house, to face this virus.”