vox--2020-11-12--Activist groups say it’s not time to march against a Trump coup — yet

Before the election , activists around the country prepared for the possibility that President Donald Trump would refuse to concede and attempt to cling to power , even if he lost .
Groups including the Sunrise Movement , the Movement for Black Lives , and United We Dream Action PAC planned marches , strikes , and other actions if the president tried to stop the counting of votes or failed to accept the results of the election .
As it turned out , Trump didn ’ t stop states from counting ballots .
But he has refused to accept the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , and his allies in Congress have followed suit , with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying in a speech on the Senate floor Monday that “ President Trump is 100 percent within his rights ” to investigate supposed “ irregularities ” in the election results .
And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo raised concerns about an orderly transfer of power during a press briefing Tuesday , when he said there would be “ a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.
” Many have pointed out that what Trump and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attempted coup .
But some activists say it ’ s not time to put their plans for a coup scenario into action — yet .
“ Right now there ’ s a lot of talk from Donald Trump , ” Stevie O ’ Hanlon , who coordinates campaign strategy for the Sunrise Movement , told Vox .
“ We ’ re looking to see whether he starts to cross those lines.
” Choose Democracy , a group formed ahead of the election to challenge a potential power grab by Trump , sounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement posted to its website .
Despite concerning statements by Trump and some Republicans , the group said , “ Trump ’ s efforts aren ’ t building momentum in the institutions that determine the election outcome.
” The group advised vigilance but said it “ [ doesn ’ t ] believe this is the moment for activation in the streets.
” Overall , these activist groups are sending a message similar to that of leaders around the world : that the American people voted for Biden , not Trump , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
And while Trump ’ s behavior certainly bears watching in the coming weeks , it ’ s also time to start planning for the new administration , rather than giving the outgoing president the attention he constantly seeks .
Before the election , activists were ready for a Trump coup attempt Trump has been falsely claiming for months that the election would be rigged in Biden ’ s favor , while also refusing to say whether he would accept the results .
So groups like Choose Democracy , the Women ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lives , and Sunrise got ready in case Trump tried to interfere with the election .
Choose Democracy , part of a larger coalition called Protect the Results , called for marches on November 4 and 7 to ensure that all votes were counted .
The Frontline — a campaign organized by the Working Families Party and the Movement for Black Lives Electoral Justice Project — organized a virtual town hall on November 4 to plan post-election actions .
The youth coalition Count On Us , of which Sunrise is a part , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to give up power .
As states continued to tally votes last week , some of those plans took place as scheduled — Sunrise , for example , organized actions around the country on Saturday .
Meanwhile , Trump supporters protested at vote-counting facilities around the country , demanding that officials stop counting ballots ( or in some cases , keep counting them , if that was potentially more favorable to Trump ) .
But officials just kept doing their jobs .
And on Saturday , all the major networks — including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden .
Notably , Trump was unable to stop any of that from happening .
Instead of interfering with the actual counting of votes ( beyond tweeting things like “ STOP THE COUNT ” ) , he has tried to overturn the election after the fact , filing a series of lawsuits in swing states , apparently pressuring the Justice Department to investigate baseless allegations of fraud , and convincing McConnell and other high-ranking Republicans to go along with his claims and refuse to recognize Biden as president-elect .
The behavior has many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , regardless of their political persuasion — concerned .
But it ’ s also not quite the coup that groups such as Choose Democracy were planning for .
“ What we have seen has been slow , poorly rolled out , and has none of the surprise elements associated with a traditional coup , ” Choose Democracy ’ s statement read .
Activists from that group and others say there are good reasons to wait and see , rather than jump into direct action .
Progressive groups are focused on Biden — for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans are acting as though Trump could still win , there is a general consensus across sectors of America that he can ’ t .
“ Trump ’ s campaign is putting out a narrative , but it ’ s not being validated by mainstream media or election officials , ” Choose Democracy wrote on its site .
“ While Trump continues to insist that there is massive voter fraud and that he has won the election , virtually every mainstream news outlet and election official remains unanimous in agreeing that the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been declared the winner.
” A majority of Americans also “ see Joe Biden as the legitimate winner of this election , ” O ’ Hanlon said .
Indeed , a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 79 percent of people , including six in 10 Republicans , believe Biden won .
Overall , “ Trump ’ s efforts aren ’ t building momentum in the institutions that determine the election outcome , ” Choose Democracy stated .
“ Consistent with the will of the voters , Biden appears fully on track to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given this , the group is advising that Americans , instead of taking to the streets right now , write to their elected officials to ensure they continue supporting the certification of the election results and an orderly transfer of power .
And , the group says , it ’ s also time to prepare for a Biden presidency : “ This is a good time to consider what pressure will the Biden administration need to assert your values and repair the Democratic fabric that ’ s been ripped apart right now.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ re watching what Donald Trump is doing and we ’ re ready to mobilize if needed , ” O ’ Hanlon said .
For example , if Trump begins pressuring state electors to change their Electoral College votes — a scenario outlined in more detail by Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop — the movement might renew its calls for direct action and protest .
But for now , “ We can ’ t miss this opportunity to set the agenda for the Biden administration , ” O ’ Hanlon said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together with the Justice Democrats , issued recommendations on Tuesday for progressive , climate-focused appointments to Biden ’ s cabinet , including Rep. Deb Haaland ( D-NM ) for secretary of the interior and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) for secretary of the treasury .
The Frontline , meanwhile , will be holding an event Saturday — but not to protest Trump .
“ The people have already spoken , and no amount of tweets or frivolous lawsuits from failed politicians can change that , ” Maurice Mitchell , a leader of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Movement for Black Lives , told Vox in a statement .
“ On Saturday , we ’ ll be coming together in community for a virtual rally about what our nation can look like post-Trump .
That ’ s where we ’ re focusing our attention right now .
”

Before the election, activists around the country prepared for the possibility that President Donald Trump would refuse to concede and attempt to cling to power, even if he lost.
Groups including the Sunrise Movement, the Movement for Black Lives, and United We Dream Action PAC planned marches, strikes, and other actions if the president tried to stop the counting of votes or failed to accept the results of the election.
As it turned out, Trump didn’t stop states from counting ballots. But he has refused to accept the fact that President-elect Joe Biden won the election, and his allies in Congress have followed suit, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying in a speech on the Senate floor Monday that “President Trump is 100 percent within his rights” to investigate supposed “irregularities” in the election results. And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo raised concerns about an orderly transfer of power during a press briefing Tuesday, when he said there would be “a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.”
Many have pointed out that what Trump and his allies are doing looks a lot like an attempted coup. But some activists say it’s not time to put their plans for a coup scenario into action — yet.
“Right now there’s a lot of talk from Donald Trump,” Stevie O’Hanlon, who coordinates campaign strategy for the Sunrise Movement, told Vox. “We’re looking to see whether he starts to cross those lines.”
Choose Democracy, a group formed ahead of the election to challenge a potential power grab by Trump, sounded a similar note of caution Wednesday in a statement posted to its website. Despite concerning statements by Trump and some Republicans, the group said, “Trump’s efforts aren’t building momentum in the institutions that determine the election outcome.” The group advised vigilance but said it “[doesn’t] believe this is the moment for activation in the streets.”
Overall, these activist groups are sending a message similar to that of leaders around the world: that the American people voted for Biden, not Trump, to be the next president of the United States. And while Trump’s behavior certainly bears watching in the coming weeks, it’s also time to start planning for the new administration, rather than giving the outgoing president the attention he constantly seeks.
Before the election, activists were ready for a Trump coup attempt
Trump has been falsely claiming for months that the election would be rigged in Biden’s favor, while also refusing to say whether he would accept the results. So groups like Choose Democracy, the Women’s March, the Movement for Black Lives, and Sunrise got ready in case Trump tried to interfere with the election.
Choose Democracy, part of a larger coalition called Protect the Results, called for marches on November 4 and 7 to ensure that all votes were counted. The Frontline — a campaign organized by the Working Families Party and the Movement for Black Lives Electoral Justice Project — organized a virtual town hall on November 4 to plan post-election actions. The youth coalition Count On Us, of which Sunrise is a part, called for a mass strike if Trump refused to give up power.
As states continued to tally votes last week, some of those plans took place as scheduled — Sunrise, for example, organized actions around the country on Saturday.
Meanwhile, Trump supporters protested at vote-counting facilities around the country, demanding that officials stop counting ballots (or in some cases, keep counting them, if that was potentially more favorable to Trump).
But officials just kept doing their jobs. And on Saturday, all the major networks — including Fox News — called the election for Biden.
Notably, Trump was unable to stop any of that from happening. Instead of interfering with the actual counting of votes (beyond tweeting things like “STOP THE COUNT”), he has tried to overturn the election after the fact, filing a series of lawsuits in swing states, apparently pressuring the Justice Department to investigate baseless allegations of fraud, and convincing McConnell and other high-ranking Republicans to go along with his claims and refuse to recognize Biden as president-elect.
The behavior has many liberals — and many advocates of democracy, regardless of their political persuasion — concerned. But it’s also not quite the coup that groups such as Choose Democracy were planning for. “What we have seen has been slow, poorly rolled out, and has none of the surprise elements associated with a traditional coup,” Choose Democracy’s statement read. Activists from that group and others say there are good reasons to wait and see, rather than jump into direct action.
Progressive groups are focused on Biden — for now
For example, even though some Republicans are acting as though Trump could still win, there is a general consensus across sectors of America that he can’t.
“Trump’s campaign is putting out a narrative, but it’s not being validated by mainstream media or election officials,” Choose Democracy wrote on its site. “While Trump continues to insist that there is massive voter fraud and that he has won the election, virtually every mainstream news outlet and election official remains unanimous in agreeing that the election has been conducted fairly and that Biden has been declared the winner.”
A majority of Americans also “see Joe Biden as the legitimate winner of this election,” O’Hanlon said. Indeed, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 79 percent of people, including six in 10 Republicans, believe Biden won.
Overall, “Trump’s efforts aren’t building momentum in the institutions that determine the election outcome,” Choose Democracy stated. “Consistent with the will of the voters, Biden appears fully on track to be this country’s President.”
Given this, the group is advising that Americans, instead of taking to the streets right now, write to their elected officials to ensure they continue supporting the certification of the election results and an orderly transfer of power. And, the group says, it’s also time to prepare for a Biden presidency: “This is a good time to consider what pressure will the Biden administration need to assert your values and repair the Democratic fabric that’s been ripped apart right now.”
Sunrise is taking a similar tack. “We’re watching what Donald Trump is doing and we’re ready to mobilize if needed,” O’Hanlon said. For example, if Trump begins pressuring state electors to change their Electoral College votes — a scenario outlined in more detail by Vox’s Andrew Prokop — the movement might renew its calls for direct action and protest.
But for now, “We can’t miss this opportunity to set the agenda for the Biden administration,” O’Hanlon said. For example, the group, together with the Justice Democrats, issued recommendations on Tuesday for progressive, climate-focused appointments to Biden’s cabinet, including Rep. Deb Haaland (D-NM) for secretary of the interior and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) for secretary of the treasury.
The Frontline, meanwhile, will be holding an event Saturday — but not to protest Trump. “The people have already spoken, and no amount of tweets or frivolous lawsuits from failed politicians can change that,” Maurice Mitchell, a leader of the group and a strategist with the Movement for Black Lives, told Vox in a statement. “On Saturday, we’ll be coming together in community for a virtual rally about what our nation can look like post-Trump. That’s where we’re focusing our attention right now.”


vox--2020-11-12--Biden is preparing for his presidency. The Trump administration? Not so much.

President-elect Joe Biden has named the members of his agency review team , the people on his transition team who are supposed to go into federal agencies to help prepare the incoming administration to take over , seamlessly , on Inauguration Day .
There ’ s just one problem : The Trump administration hasn ’ t allowed that process to start .
The stalled presidential transition could complicate the transfer of power from one administration to the next , undermining the work of the federal government and national security .
The General Services Administration ( GSA ) , the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal agencies , has yet to recognize the transition .
The 1963 Presidential Transition Act gives the GSA the responsibility to “ ascertain ” the “ apparent successful candidates ” before it can release funds to the transition team , and , most critically , give those agency review teams a chance to meet with their counterparts in the federal government to prepare for when the new administration takes over .
But current GSA administrator Emily Murphy , a Trump appointee , has not sent the required letter of ascertainment , putting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold .
There are no real guidelines on what officially triggers the ascertainment , but in the past , a media projection and a concession speech have typically done the trick .
Of course , President Donald Trump has complicated that in 2020 , refusing to concede the election and claiming that widespread voter fraud means he actually didn ’ t lose by tens of thousands of votes .
The allegations the Trump team have presented so far haven ’ t withstood scrutiny , and most of its lawsuits have failed ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vowing to fight .
So the presidential transition is stuck in a sort of limbo right now .
Members of the Biden-Harris transition team , which includes dozens of individuals with deep experience in government , are mobilizing , even if their counterparts in the administration can not yet .
But the delays could still harm the transition and disadvantage the Biden-Harris administration .
“ It is contrary to the peaceful transition of power and it will ultimately have an impact — not on just the Biden administration , but it really is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security perspective , ” Chris Lu , former deputy secretary of labor during the Obama administration and the executive director of the Obama-Biden transition in 2008 , told me .
Trump ’ s intransigence is already undermining faith in democratic institutions , but here it could also weaken national security preparedness at a time when the coronavirus pandemic spirals to a new level of crisis .
How serious these consequences could be will depend on how long this delay persists .
“ We ’ re facing extraordinary challenges as a country , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are arising from it to racial equity issues — and those are the things we know about , ” Max Stier , president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service , told me .
“ And we don ’ t know what we don ’ t know .
There are undoubtedly other challenges on the horizon.
” “ For our government to operate effectively , ” he added , “ we need to have a President-elect Biden ready to go on day one.
” The last time this happened was 2000 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ last delay in a presidential transition happened after the 2000 election , when George W. Bush ’ s victory over Al Gore came down to Florida and there wasn ’ t a clear winner until the Supreme Court weighed in on December 12 of that year .
David J. Barram , who served as GSA administrator from 1996 to 2000 , told me he remembers everything happening in quick succession after that decision came down : Al Gore conceded on December 13 , and the GSA ascertained Bush as the winner on December @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and allies of the president have cited the 2000 election as justification for the delayed transition .
The GSA has also cited the 2000 election as “ prior precedent ” in a statement to NPR .
( The GSA did not return Vox ’ s request for comment . )
But in 2000 , 537 votes separated Bush and Gore in Florida , a single state that would determine the outcome of the Electoral College .
Biden , by contrast , is up by thousands of votes in a few states that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlikely that any recount will change the outcome in the handful of states Trump would need to win .
So the delay in 2000 made a little more sense .
And even though the GSA delayed ascertainment , President Bill Clinton had at least authorized Bush to see the President ’ s Daily Brief , a top-level intelligence briefing , so Bush could prepare in case he did win .
( Gore , as Clinton ’ s vice president , already had access . )
So far , Trump hasn ’ t authorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least one Republican senator has said he sees “ nothing wrong ” with Biden receiving briefings .
It will probably take more pressure from Republicans , who have so far largely defended the president .
As one unnamed senior GOP official put it to the Washington Post earlier this week , “ What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time ?
No one seriously thinks the results will change.
” But capriciously delaying a presidential transition may indeed have some downsides .
The transition delay is most alarming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even though the GSA hasn ’ t ascertained the election yet , the law does require the current administration to prepare for a presidential transition no matter what , and some elements of the transition have already begun .
But the GSA ascertainment allows for the transfer of power to begin in earnest : It frees up $ 6.3 million in funds to the Biden-Harris team , provides additional office space and equipment , and , most critically , allows the Biden-Harris transition to get briefings and meet with their counterparts across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Education to the State Department .
And without the transition formally beginning , Biden ’ s incoming national security team is also not being briefed .
Biden , too , is not getting intelligence updates or the president ’ s daily brief , a fact he confirmed this week .
It may also delay the security clearance process for incoming officials .
Biden transition officials said it could also deny Biden State Department-facilitated calls with foreign leaders , though world leaders have already begun reaching out to the president-elect .
“ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamarck , senior fellow in the Governance Studies program at Brookings Institution , told me .
“ If there is a 9/11 brewing in the world right now , Trump ’ s temper tantrum in not conceding is basically putting the country in great danger.
” Biden comes into the office of the presidency with deep executive experience , along with many members of the transition team who might have served not that long ago in the Obama administration .
Particularly on the domestic side , the Biden administration is probably more prepared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commander in chief a general understanding of potential threats undermines America ’ s safety more broadly .
“ The big danger is not having the president-elect fully read into the nation ’ s secrets , ” Kamarck said .
This isn ’ t completely hypothetical .
The 9/11 Commission Report found that Bush ’ s truncated transition period in 2000 “ hampered ” the administration in placing key personnel in national security positions and obtaining Senate confirmation .
Among the many recommendations in the report was to “ minimize as much as possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the change of administrations by accelerating the process for national security appointments , ” by taking steps such as beginning to obtain security clearances after the election and briefing the president-elect .
And that ’ s sort of the bare minimum ; the closer the cooperation and coordination , the more seamless the handover of the national security apparatus , which is , in its own way , precarious .
As Martha Joynt Kumar , director of the nonpartisan White House Transition Project , wrote in her book Before the Oath : How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Transfer of Power , during the Bush-Obama transition , US officials became aware of a credible terror threat against Obama ’ s inauguration in 2009 .
The two sides had to quickly coordinate — Obama ’ s team still on the outside , Bush ’ s team on the inside — knowing the roles would be reversed in hours .
“ That important and effective discussion could not have taken place if both sides had not dedicated a significant amount of staff and resources preparing for President Obama ’ s entry into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the same time , it remained unclear just what would have happened if the assault had occurred during the point of transition.
” The United States is also in the grip of the deadly Covid-19 pandemic .
Biden will inherit Operation Warp Speed , the Trump administration ’ s public-private initiative to finance and distribute a vaccine .
As Vox ’ s Dylan Scott has written , Operation Warp Speed is an “ unprecedented mobilization ” that involves the US government pouring billions into research and development , and to pre-manufacture vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once they ’ re approved .
Operation Warp Speed has been likened to a military operation , and Biden will almost certainly be in charge of overseeing it .
Biden has named a Covid-19 Task Force , but a delay in the ascertainment has prevented Biden ’ s transition team from meeting with officials in charge of Operation Warp Speed or anyone else in charge of the administration ’ s Covid-19 response .
“ We ’ ve got three crises : We ’ ve got the pandemic , the economy , and racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be dealt with , ” Kumar told me .
“ And in order to do that , they need to be dealt with early .
Particularly , the pandemic is his No .
1 priority.
” As unideal as this situation is , though , the career federal civil servants who are carrying out the day-to-day functions of the federal government right now will still be in their positions when the administration changes hands .
Their knowledge and experience will help maintain continuity of government and provide stability .
And the Biden-Harris transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than most , making them more capable of dealing with this unfortunate , but not all that surprising , outcome .
Biden knows his way around the federal government , and though it feels like a lifetime , it ’ s only been four years since he was last in the executive branch .
Many of the members of his transition ’ s agency review teams have past government experience , including in that actually not-so-long-ago Obama-Biden administration .
Biden has already made it clear he ’ s preparing to take office and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with or without the help of the Trump administration .
“ Well , look , access to classified information is useful , but I ’ m not in a position to make any decisions on those issues anyway , ” Biden told reporters Tuesday .
“ There ’ s one , as I said , one president at a time , and he will be president until January 20th .
It would be nice to have it , but it ’ s not critical .
So , we ’ re just going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to do exactly what we ’ d be doing if he had conceded and said we ’ ve won , which we have , and so there ’ s nothing really changing.
” The Biden administration has incredible challenges ahead .
America faces a raging pandemic , an economic crisis , a climate crisis , a racial justice crisis , and now , an ever-growing crisis of faith in our democracy .
Trump ’ s transition delays will exacerbate these national emergencies by undermining the incoming president — and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How great the damage will be ultimately depends on how long the transition stalls .
“ Have presidents come in without this transition ?
Absolutely , ” Denise Turner Roth , who served as GSA administrator from 2015 to 2017 and “ ascertained ” Trump as the winner in 2016 , told me .
“ And were they better off ?
I think that would be far-fetched .
It ’ s always better off to have a plan .
Instead of starting from the beginning and starting from scratch , starting from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit the ground running .
That has a great deal of value .
”

President-elect Joe Biden has named the members of his agency review team, the people on his transition team who are supposed to go into federal agencies to help prepare the incoming administration to take over, seamlessly, on Inauguration Day.
There’s just one problem: The Trump administration hasn’t allowed that process to start.
The stalled presidential transition could complicate the transfer of power from one administration to the next, undermining the work of the federal government and national security.
The General Services Administration (GSA), the federal agency that helps manage all the other federal agencies, has yet to recognize the transition. The 1963 Presidential Transition Act gives the GSA the responsibility to “ascertain” the “apparent successful candidates” before it can release funds to the transition team, and, most critically, give those agency review teams a chance to meet with their counterparts in the federal government to prepare for when the new administration takes over.
But current GSA Administrator Emily Murphy, a Trump appointee, has not sent the required letter of ascertainment, putting the main components of the transition process on hold.
There are no real guidelines on what officially triggers the ascertainment, but in the past, a media projection and a concession speech have typically done the trick. Of course, President Donald Trump has complicated that in 2020, refusing to concede the election and claiming that widespread voter fraud means he actually didn’t lose by tens of thousands of votes. The allegations the Trump team have presented so far haven’t withstood scrutiny, and most of its lawsuits have failed (and quickly). But the president is vowing to fight.
So the presidential transition is stuck in a sort of limbo right now. Members of the Biden-Harris transition team, which includes dozens of individuals with deep experience in government, are mobilizing, even if their counterparts in the administration cannot yet. But the delays could still harm the transition and disadvantage the Biden-Harris administration.
“It is contrary to the peaceful transition of power, and it will ultimately have an impact — not on just the Biden administration, but it really is problematic from a national security and homeland security perspective,” Chris Lu, who served as deputy secretary of labor during the Obama administration and as the executive director of the Obama-Biden transition in 2008, told me.
Trump’s intransigence is already undermining faith in democratic institutions, but here it could also weaken national security preparedness at a time when the coronavirus pandemic spirals to a new level of crisis. How serious these consequences could be will depend on how long this delay persists.
“We’re facing extraordinary challenges as a country, from the pandemic to the economic difficulties that are arising from it to racial equity issues — and those are the things we know about,” Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, told me. “And we don’t know what we don’t know. There are undoubtedly other challenges on the horizon.”
“For our government to operate effectively,” he added, “we need to have a President-elect Biden ready to go on day one.”
The last time this happened was 2000. But this is not 2000.
The last delay in a presidential transition happened after the 2000 election, when George W. Bush’s victory over Al Gore came down to Florida and there wasn’t a clear winner until the Supreme Court weighed in on December 12 of that year.
David J. Barram, who served as GSA administrator from 1996 to 2000, told me he remembers everything happening in quick succession after that decision came down: Al Gore conceded on December 13, and the GSA ascertained Bush as the winner on December 14.
Members of the Trump administration and allies of the president have cited the 2000 election as justification for the delayed transition. The GSA has also cited the 2000 election as “prior precedent” in a statement to NPR. (The GSA did not return Vox’s request for comment.)
But in 2000, 537 votes separated Bush and Gore in Florida, a single state that would determine the outcome of the Electoral College. Biden, by contrast, is up by thousands of votes in a few states that he needs to win, making it extraordinarily unlikely that any recount will change the outcome in the handful of states Trump would need to win.
So the delay in 2000 made a little more sense. And even though the GSA delayed ascertainment, President Bill Clinton had at least authorized Bush to see the President’s Daily Brief, a top-level intelligence briefing, so Bush could prepare in case he did win. (Gore, as Clinton’s vice president, already had access.) So far, Trump hasn’t authorized any national security briefings, though at least one Republican senator has said he sees “nothing wrong” with Biden receiving briefings.
It will probably take more pressure from Republicans, who have so far largely defended the president. As one unnamed senior GOP official put it to the Washington Post earlier this week, “What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time? No one seriously thinks the results will change.” But capriciously delaying a presidential transition may indeed have some downsides.
The transition delay is most alarming for national security and the Covid-19 response
Even though the GSA hasn’t ascertained the election yet, the law does require the current administration to prepare for a presidential transition no matter what, and some elements of the transition have already begun.
But the GSA ascertainment allows for the transfer of power to begin in earnest: It frees up $6.3 million in funds to the Biden-Harris team, provides additional office space and equipment, and, most critically, allows the Biden-Harris transition to get briefings and meet with their counterparts across the federal government, from the Department of Education to the State Department.
And without the transition formally beginning, Biden’s incoming national security team is also not being briefed. Biden, too, is not getting intelligence updates or the president’s daily brief, a fact he confirmed this week. It may also delay the security clearance process for incoming officials. Biden transition officials said it could also deny Biden State Department-facilitated calls with foreign leaders, though world leaders have already begun reaching out to the president-elect.
“This is pretty damn serious,” Elaine C. Kamarck, senior fellow in the Governance Studies program at Brookings Institution, told me. “If there is a 9/11 brewing in the world right now, Trump’s temper tantrum in not conceding is basically putting the country in great danger.”
Biden comes into the office of the presidency with deep executive experience, along with many members of the transition team who might have served not that long ago in the Obama administration. Particularly on the domestic side, the Biden administration is probably more prepared than most. But denying the incoming commander in chief a general understanding of potential threats undermines America’s safety more broadly.
“The big danger is not having the president-elect fully read into the nation’s secrets,” Kamarck said.
This isn’t completely hypothetical. The 9/11 Commission Report found that Bush’s truncated transition period in 2000 “hampered” the administration in placing key personnel in national security positions and obtaining Senate confirmation.
Among the many recommendations in the report was to “minimize as much as possible the disruption of national security policymaking during the change of administrations by accelerating the process for national security appointments,” by taking steps such as beginning to obtain security clearances after the election and briefing the president-elect.
And that’s sort of the bare minimum; the closer the cooperation and coordination, the more seamless the handover of the national security apparatus, which is, in its own way, precarious. As Martha Joynt Kumar, director of the nonpartisan White House Transition Project, wrote in her book Before the Oath: How George W. Bush and Barack Obama Managed a Transfer of Power, during the Bush-Obama transition, US officials became aware of a credible terror threat against Obama’s inauguration in 2009. The two sides had to quickly coordinate — Obama’s team still on the outside, Bush’s team on the inside — knowing the roles would be reversed in hours.
“That important and effective discussion could not have taken place if both sides had not dedicated a significant amount of staff and resources preparing for President Obama’s entry into office,” Kumar writes. “At the same time, it remained unclear just what would have happened if the assault had occurred during the point of transition.”
The United States is also in the grip of the deadly Covid-19 pandemic. Biden will inherit Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s public-private initiative to finance and distribute a vaccine. As Vox’s Dylan Scott has written, Operation Warp Speed is an “unprecedented mobilization” that involves the US government pouring billions into research and development, and to pre-manufacture vaccines so they can be more rapidly distributed once they’re approved.
Operation Warp Speed has been likened to a military operation, and Biden will almost certainly be in charge of overseeing it. Biden has named a Covid-19 Task Force, but a delay in the ascertainment has prevented Biden’s transition team from meeting with officials in charge of Operation Warp Speed or anyone else in charge of the administration’s Covid-19 response.
“We’ve got three crises: We’ve got the pandemic, the economy, and racial justice. All of them have to be dealt with,” Kumar told me. “And in order to do that, they need to be dealt with early. Particularly, the pandemic is his No. 1 priority.”
As un-ideal as this situation is, though, the career federal civil servants who are carrying out the day-to-day functions of the federal government right now will still be in their positions when the administration changes hands. Their knowledge and experience will help maintain continuity of government and provide stability.
And the Biden-Harris transition is more equipped, prepared, and experienced than most, making them more capable of dealing with this unfortunate, but not all that surprising, outcome.
Biden knows his way around the federal government, and though it feels like a lifetime, it’s only been four years since he was last in the executive branch. Many of the members of his transition’s agency review teams have past government experience, including in that actually not-so-long-ago Obama-Biden administration. Biden has already made it clear he’s preparing to take office and moving ahead, including on Covid-19, with or without the help of the Trump administration.
“Well, look, access to classified information is useful, but I’m not in a position to make any decisions on those issues anyway,” Biden told reporters Tuesday. “There’s one, as I said, one president at a time, and he will be president until January 20. It would be nice to have it, but it’s not critical. So, we’re just going to proceed the way we have. We’re going to do exactly what we’d be doing if he had conceded and said we’ve won, which we have, and so there’s nothing really changing.”
The Biden administration has incredible challenges ahead. America faces a raging pandemic, an economic crisis, a climate crisis, a racial justice crisis, and now, an ever-growing crisis of faith in our democracy. Trump’s transition delays will exacerbate these national emergencies by undermining the incoming president — and, by extension, the American people.
How great the damage will be ultimately depends on how long the transition stalls. “Have presidents come in without this transition? Absolutely,” Denise Turner Roth, who served as GSA administrator from 2015 to 2017 and “ascertained” Trump as the winner in 2016, told me.
“And were they better off? I think that would be far-fetched. It’s always better off to have a plan. Instead of starting from the beginning and starting from scratch, starting from a point of knowing and being able to hit the ground running. That has a great deal of value.”


vox--2020-11-12--Facebook’s election woes are headed to Georgia

Less than a week after Joe Biden secured a victory in the 2020 presidential election , it looks like Facebook ’ s post-election plan is already backfiring .
On Wednesday , the company announced it would extend its ban on political ads for at least another month , and possibly longer , in an attempt to quell confusion over an election that President Donald Trump lost but still hasn ’ t conceded .
Google similarly told advertisers it was unlikely to lift its political ad ban in November or December , according to the Wall Street Journal .
Since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid intense and continued criticism over its policies on political ads .
Now , as the latest presidential election season is drawn out by an extra couple of months due to the dual runoff in Georgia that will decide control of the Senate , some claim the political ad ban ’ s extension constitutes voter suppression .
The frustration with Facebook ’ s handling of the election extends well beyond its political ad policy .
Democrats and others have condemned the social media platform for enabling viral misinformation .
The Biden campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s approach , which often involves applying mealy-mouthed labels to content rather than removing posts that push conspiracy theories about voter fraud and sow doubt in the election .
At the same time , Republicans complain that Facebook is systematically biased against conservatives and that tech companies unfairly censor right-wing voices .
( These complaints usually lack evidence . )
The week after the election , Facebook seemed to respond to the litany of criticism in a blog post .
The company wrote that , despite conservatives frequently dominating the lists of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what people see on Facebook is not hyperpartisan political content .
Both sides are upset about how the platform treats organic content , but they ’ re also anxious about maintaining their ability to advertise on Facebook — a way to more directly spread their messaging on the site .
So as the presidential election begins to appear in our rearview mirror and the Georgia runoff approaches , the problem of Facebook being bad for democracy — one that Facebook itself has admitted to — isn ’ t going away .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook — again In Georgia , Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are challenging Republican incumbents Sens .
David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler , respectively , in separate races in January .
Because Facebook and Google are not allowing any political ads to run on their platforms , which is an extension of previous policies , the candidates haven ’ t been able to use the two highly valued digital platforms to reach voters with advertisements or supply them with information about Georgia ’ s somewhat unusual runoff-election process .
This , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a pandemic , when in-person campaign activities are limited .
While Google has not revealed much about its plan to extend the political ad ban , Facebook ’ s director of product management , Rob Leathern , took to Twitter on Wednesday to offer more details about his company ’ s decision , explaining that the company ’ s systems don ’ t have a way to enable an exemption to the political ad pause for individual advertisers .
Critics quickly pointed out that Facebook , which is worth hundreds of billions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a seemingly endless supply of resources to build this feature .
Neither Facebook nor Google responded to a request for comment .
The extension of the ad ban has left the Georgia Senate candidates to question how Facebook — and , to a lesser extent , Google — will continue to impact the election .
The Democratic Georgia Senate campaigns have accused Facebook of allowing its algorithms to boost misinformation and hyperpartisan , right-wing accounts .
Miryam Lipper , communications director for the Ossoff campaign , told Recode in a statement that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scale for millionaire Republican candidates ” and “ ignoring the rampant disinformation on their platforms.
” Terrence Clark , a spokesperson for Warnock ’ s campaign , said that by “ preventing campaigns from sharing crucial information about how to register to vote , sign up for an absentee ballot , and how to ensure their vote counts , ” the platforms were engaging in voter suppression .
Meanwhile , Republicans have resorted to accusing the social network of anti-conservative bias , which has become the party ’ s signature talking point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday , Loeffler accused the companies of “ silencing conservatives ” and “ suppressing free speech.
” Perdue ’ s campaign spokesperson told Recode the bans constituted “ an infringement of basic First Amendment rights.
” Republicans and Democrats have dueling complaints about Facebook While their particular grievances may be different , politicians from both parties have been increasingly vocal about their frustrations with Facebook since the 2016 election .
Things especially heated up in the weeks before November 3 .
For example , conservatives fumed after the platform limited the distribution of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden .
The outrage ultimately spurred a Senate hearing in which Republicans pushed their claim that Facebook , among other social media companies , was tampering with the election .
Members of both parties were also angered when Facebook inadvertently blocked a slew of campaign advertisements from going up days before the election .
The frustration over Facebook ’ s ad policies reflects both sides ’ broader frustrations with its handling of organic content .
Democrats seem like they ’ re only growing more upset about rampant misinformation on the platform in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Biden spokesperson , recently accused the company of “ shredding the fabric of our democracy ” in a series of tweets lambasting Facebook ’ s failure to clamp down on content that promoted Trump ’ s false accusations of widespread voter fraud and claims of victory .
At the same time , conservatives , including the Georgia Republican Senate candidates , have continued to argue that Facebook is censoring them .
Other Republican frustrations with Facebook concern its voter registration efforts .
Trump ’ s digital director once argued , without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to register voters was a ploy to register more Biden voters than Trump voters .
Some Republican secretaries of state even wrote to the company objecting to its Voter Information Center , an online platform for helping people register to vote , discouraging the effort and arguing it was redundant .
With what ’ s happening with Georgia , it seems clear that neither side will let up in their criticism of Facebook .
At the same time , this latest episode is a reminder that companies like Facebook and Google have by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections , and that political content , from misinformation to candidate advertisements to hyperpartisan Facebook pages , do not exist in a vacuum .
In this most recent case , the move to extend a ban on political ads might have a technical explanation .
But for the candidates in Georgia , it has a real impact on their campaign plans .
Facebook ’ s policies leading up to one state ’ s runoff elections could influence which party controls the Senate — and whether Biden can push through a ledger of Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a reminder that the company ’ s influence over politics seems to only be growing .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

Less than a week after Joe Biden secured a victory in the 2020 presidential election, it looked like Facebook’s post-election plan was backfiring.
In November, the company announced it would extend its ban on political ads for at least another month, and possibly longer, in an attempt to quell confusion over an election that President Donald Trump lost but still hasn’t conceded. Google similarly told advertisers it was unlikely to lift its political ad ban in November or December, according to the Wall Street Journal. Then, last week, Google lifted its ban on political advertisements.
On Tuesday, Facebook said that it too had changed course, announcing that it would lift its political ad ban for the campaigns in Georgia. The announcement came following criticisms from both the Republican and Democratic Senate candidates in the race, and after the company had said it did not have the technical ability in the short term to make exceptions to its national political ad ban. The company’s overall hold on political ads remains in effect, according to a blog post published by the company.
“[W]e have developed a process to allow advertisers to run ads with the purpose of reaching voters in Georgia about Georgia’s runoff elections,” said the post, adding that it would focus on onboarding advertisers with “direct involvement” in the Georgia election.
Since the 2016 election, Facebook has sought to avoid intense and continued criticism over its policies on political ads. Now, as the latest presidential election season is drawn out by an extra couple of months due to the dual runoff in Georgia that will decide control of the Senate, some claimed the political ad ban’s extension constituted voter suppression.
The frustration with Facebook’s handling of the election extends well beyond its political ad policy. Democrats and others have condemned the social media platform for enabling viral misinformation. The Biden campaign, in particular, has criticized Facebook’s approach, which often involves applying mealy-mouthed labels to content rather than removing posts that push conspiracy theories about voter fraud and sow doubt in the election. At the same time, Republicans complain that Facebook is systematically biased against conservatives and that tech companies unfairly censor right-wing voices. (These complaints usually lack evidence.)
The week after the election, Facebook seemed to respond to the litany of criticism in a blog post. The company wrote that, despite conservatives frequently dominating the lists of the most-engaged content on its platform, most of what people see on Facebook is not hyperpartisan political content.
Both sides are upset about how the platform treats organic content, but they’re also anxious about maintaining their ability to advertise on Facebook — a way to more directly spread their messaging on the site. So as the presidential election begins to appear in our rearview mirror and the Georgia runoff approaches, the problem of Facebook being bad for democracy — one that Facebook itself has admitted to — isn’t going away.
The Georgia runoff has both parties mad at Facebook — again
In Georgia, Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are challenging Republican incumbents Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, respectively, in separate races in January.
Because Facebook and Google were not allowing any political ads to run on their platforms, which is an extension of previous policies, the candidates hadn’t been able to use the two highly valued digital platforms to reach voters with advertisements or supply them with information about Georgia’s somewhat unusual runoff-election process. This, of course, is happening in the midst of a pandemic, when in-person campaign activities are limited.
While Google has not revealed much about its plan to extend the political ad ban, Facebook’s director of product management, Rob Leathern, offered some detail about his company’s decision on Twitter, explaining that the company’s systems don’t have a way to enable an exemption to the political ad pause for individual advertisers.
We do not have the technical ability in the short term to enable political ads by state or by advertiser, and we are also committed to giving political advertisers equal access to our tools and services. (4/4) — Rob Leathern (@robleathern) November 11, 2020
Critics quickly pointed out that Facebook, which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, has had years and a seemingly endless supply of resources to build this feature.
Now, Facebook seems to have figured out how to make such an exception work. Starting Wednesday, previously approved advertisers working on the race in Georgia will be able to run campaigns through Facebook’s system, the company said in the Tuesday blog post. Facebook said its decision was influenced by experts who emphasized the importance of Facebook to political campaigns. The company also said that it was continuing its election integrity efforts — including helping voters sign up to vote in the runoff election before the registration deadline last week — and directing voters to accurate information about the election.
Neither Facebook nor Google responded to earlier requests for comment.
The extension of the ad ban had left the Georgia Senate candidates to question how Facebook — and, to a lesser extent, Google — would continue to impact the election. The Democratic Georgia Senate campaigns have accused Facebook of allowing its algorithms to boost misinformation and hyperpartisan right-wing accounts.
Miryam Lipper, communications director for the Ossoff campaign, told Recode in a statement in November that the companies “are putting their fingers on the scale for millionaire Republican candidates” and “ignoring the rampant disinformation on their platforms.” Terrence Clark, a spokesperson for Warnock’s campaign, said that by “preventing campaigns from sharing crucial information about how to register to vote, sign up for an absentee ballot, and how to ensure their vote counts,” the platforms were engaging in voter suppression.
Meanwhile, Republicans had resorted to accusing the social network of anti-conservative bias, which has become the party’s signature talking point on tech companies. In a tweet Thursday, Loeffler accused the companies of “silencing conservatives” and “suppressing free speech.” Perdue’s campaign spokesperson told Recode in November the bans constituted “an infringement of basic First Amendment rights.”
Republicans and Democrats have dueling complaints about Facebook
While their particular grievances may be different, politicians from both parties have been increasingly vocal about their frustrations with Facebook since the 2016 election. Things especially heated up in the weeks before November 3.
For example, conservatives fumed after the platform limited the distribution of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden. The outrage ultimately spurred a Senate hearing in which Republicans pushed their claim that Facebook, among other social media companies, was tampering with the election. Members of both parties were also angered when Facebook inadvertently blocked a slew of campaign advertisements from going up days before the election.
The frustration over Facebook’s ad policies reflects both sides’ broader frustrations with its handling of organic content. Democrats seem like they’re only growing more upset about rampant misinformation on the platform in the days after the election. Bill Russo, a Biden spokesperson, accused the company of “shredding the fabric of our democracy” in a series of November tweets lambasting Facebook’s failure to clamp down on content that promoted Trump’s false accusations of widespread voter fraud and claims of victory.
We knew this would happen. We pleaded with Facebook for over a year to be serious about these problems. They have not.
Our democracy is on the line. We need answers. — Bill Russo (@BillR) November 10, 2020
At the same time, conservatives, including the Georgia Republican Senate candidates, continued to argue that Facebook is censoring them.
Other Republican frustrations with Facebook concern its voter registration efforts. Trump’s digital director once argued, without evidence, that Facebook’s attempt to register voters was a ploy to register more Biden voters than Trump voters. Some Republican secretaries of state even wrote to the company objecting to its Voter Information Center, an online platform for helping people register to vote, discouraging the effort and arguing it was redundant.
With what’s happening with Georgia, it seems clear that neither side will let up in their criticism of Facebook. At the same time, this latest episode is a reminder that companies like Facebook and Google have by no means perfected their policies toward US elections, and that political content, from misinformation to candidate advertisements to hyperpartisan Facebook pages, do not exist in a vacuum.
In this most recent case, the move to extend a ban on political ads might have had a technical explanation. But for the candidates in Georgia, it had a real impact on their campaign plans. Even with Facebook’s political ad ban being lifted now, the candidates have lost out on more than a month of time to push digital advertisements, and missed the critical window for registering new voters in the state.
After all, Facebook’s policies leading up to one state’s runoff elections could influence which party controls the Senate — and whether Biden can push through a ledger of Democratic policies without hurdles from Republicans. It’s a reminder that the company’s influence over politics seems to only be growing.
Update, December 15: This article has been updated to reflect Facebook and Google changing their political ad policies.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-11-12--How Biden’s FCC could fix America’s internet

When Joe Biden is inaugurated as president on January 20 , he stands to oversee a Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) that could do remarkable things .
Among other things , the new FCC could bridge the digital divide , ensuring all Americans have access to the internet .
But even though Biden ’ s victory is assured , the future of the FCC hangs in the balance .
The Trump administration ’ s FCC has had a particular agenda .
Under the leadership of Chairman Ajit Pai , the agency has pushed to deregulate the industries under its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a business-friendly environment with few rules , little accountability , and minimal oversight for some of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world .
In the months and years to come , the FCC is likely to reverse some of those policies , especially Pai ’ s most controversial decision : repealing net neutrality , a policy that required internet service providers to treat all types of internet traffic the same .
But getting broadband internet in as many homes as possible during the pandemic is many Democrats ’ most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration failed to accomplish .
“ Because the Trump FCC failed to meaningfully address the digital divide , tens of millions of Americans still lack high-speed internet , ” Rep. Anna Eshoo ( D-CA ) told Recode .
“ This worsens the impacts of the pandemic , and the Biden administration has to take this head-on.
” She added : “ Every person in our country must have high-speed internet .
Period .
We ’ ve failed for too long to expand access to rural and tribal areas , and too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadband.
” The Biden administration ’ s FCC can and likely will aid this effort by making the internet more affordable and accessible .
This could involve providing more subsidies to lower-income people , continuing its work increasing broadband access , and opening up more radio frequency bands for high-speed 5G networks in order to bring the United States to the level of its peers .
The agency is also poised to restore net neutrality and reclassify broadband internet as a Title II service , which would give the FCC more authority over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agency will also probably let Trump ’ s anti-social media Section 230 rulemaking mission die .
With these goals in mind , Biden will get to pick a new FCC chair , who will do much to set the agency ’ s agenda .
Beyond that , we don ’ t yet know who that chair will be , how many of the five commissioner seats will be available to be filled , or which party will have control of the Senate .
A Republican-majority Senate may well make it much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refuse to vote on laws that could provide funding needed for Democrat-chaired FCC initiatives .
Experts and FCC insiders told Recode they foresee a Biden FCC that goes back to trying to govern and reclaims some of the authority it ceded under Trump .
And the FCC ’ s glass ceiling may finally break with the first chairwoman in its 86-year history .
Where the FCC is now The legacy of Pai ’ s FCC will be a “ light-touch ” approach and mass scale deregulation .
Proponents say this encourages investment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favors businesses at the expense of consumers .
While Pai ’ s FCC has made an effort to bring broadband internet to rural and tribal communities — which overwhelmingly benefits red states — it hasn ’ t done much to make those services affordable to lower-income people .
“ We still don ’ t really know what the results of [ Pai ’ s ] multi-billions of dollars to rural internet service providers will be , ” Gigi Sohn , a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Technology & Law Policy who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the Obama administration , told Recode .
“ I hope it results in a lot more people being connected , but that ’ s the smallest part of the digital divide .
The biggest part of the digital divide is affordability .
He never talks about that.
” Much to the consternation of many Democrats , including the FCC ’ s Democratic commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks , the agency has dragged its feet on updating programs like E-Rate and Lifeline that could help people afford increasingly necessary internet services in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be remembered for repealing the Obama-era ’ s net neutrality decision , which he vehemently opposed as a minority party commissioner .
When Trump took office and promoted Pai to chair , he immediately set about undoing that decision .
Under Chairman Tom Wheeler , the Obama FCC had classified broadband internet as a Title II service , subjecting it to increased oversight and establishing internet service as a necessary utility for Americans .
This meant internet access would no longer be treated as a luxury , like cable television , but rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pai ’ s FCC reclassified broadband as a Title I service which was largely under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission .
This was perhaps one of the most controversial decisions in the FCC ’ s history , seen by its opponents as a gift to internet service providers that could now charge consumers more for accessing certain sites or using different internet services .
Pai framed it as “ restoring internet freedom ” and encouraging internet service providers to pour more money into extending their reach across the country without having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut into their bottom line .
Pai ’ s order was protested by millions of Americans , in person and online .
Meanwhile , millions of comments supporting the end of net neutrality were determined to be fake .
So that ’ s how Pai ’ s FCC began .
Here ’ s how it ’ s going : Pai ’ s reign will likely end , ironically enough , with an attempt to introduce more regulation through Section 230 , a 25-year-old law that lets websites moderate third party content as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content ( with a few exceptions ) .
Simply put , you can sue a Twitter user if they tweet something defamatory about you , but you can ’ t sue Twitter .
This is what allows websites that rely on user-generated content to exist .
Trump hoped to weaponize the FCC , a supposedly independent agency that has become increasingly partisan in recent years , against social media companies that he believes censor conservative speech by making rules that could remove their Section 230 protections .
Repealing or significantly changing Section 230 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rallying cry in the latter half of his one-term presidency .
But Republican lawmakers ’ bills that would change Section 230 to force platforms to be “ politically neutral ” in their moderation or make their moderation rules more transparent and clear to users have so far come to nothing .
An executive order Trump issued in late May attempted to circumvent the legislative process by asking the FCC to “ clarify ” what content platforms can and can not moderate if they want to keep their Section 230 protections .
Some scoffed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was both wrong and in direct conflict with Pai ’ s reasoning behind repealing the Obama-era ’ s net neutrality rules .
In effect , Pai ’ s willingness to accede to Trump ’ s demands over Section 230 means his tenure , once defined by the desire to impose as few rules as possible on private businesses , will likely end with a failed attempt to introduce more rules on some of the biggest companies in the world .
Rosenworcel and Starks have publicly stated that they do not think the FCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and this opinion seems to be shared by Democratic lawmakers .
While Biden expressed a desire to revoke Section 230 to the New York Times in January — an opinion that a campaign spokesperson told Recode he hasn ’ t changed — he has yet to follow that up with any proposed action to do so , and Section 230 is not likely to be a major priority for the administration anytime soon .
The Trump FCC could still try to get something done with Section 230 before the administration changes hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have enough time since it still needs to confirm a new commissioner in order to get the majority it would need to do anything meaningful .
House Democrats have also asked the FCC to stop any work on controversial items .
This request was made of the Obama FCC when Trump won the election , and it was followed .
At the time , then-commissioner Pai issued a statement supporting the pause , so it would be hypocritical for him to forge ahead with the controversial Section 230 business .
Wheeler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s second term , said he would be disappointed in Pai if he refused to honor the Democrats ’ request but not necessarily surprised : “ It wouldn ’ t be beyond the way that the Trump administration has been operating : ‘ It ’ s all about us.
’ ” Pai has yet to publicly acknowledge that Biden won the election at all .
When Recode asked about his plans during the transition period , he did not respond .
Who will be on the FCC when Biden takes office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the same political party and currently has a 3-2 majority of Republicans .
But it won ’ t have the same lineup when Biden takes office .
Michael O ’ Rielly , a Republican commissioner nominated by Obama , finished his first full term in July 2019 .
But Trump rescinded his renomination after O ’ Rielly stated that he didn ’ t think the FCC should regulate Section 230 .
Trump then nominated National Telecommunications and Information Administration ( NTIA ) senior adviser Nathan Simington , who assisted in carrying out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is seen as a Trump loyalist .
But Simington is not a sure thing to be confirmed before Biden takes office .
Republicans likely feel that they have more important things to address before they lose the executive branch in January , and they may want to go with a commissioner they pick instead of the outgoing president ’ s choice , which was largely based on his personal vendetta against social media companies .
At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee on Tuesday , Simington wouldn ’ t commit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ E-Rate program , which provides discounted internet access to schools and libraries , into homes that have become classrooms during the pandemic .
Perhaps in an attempt to demonstrate how much work is now being done in alternate spaces , Sen. Ed Markey ( D-MA ) asked Simington about E-Rate via video chat from the backseat of his car .
He did not seem to like Simington ’ s answers .
Meanwhile , Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) threatened to place a hold on Simington ’ s confirmation because of his association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order .
A spokesperson for Blumenthal told Recode that the senator has “ significant concerns ” about Simington ’ s independence , integrity , and judgment .
And then there ’ s Pai ’ s future .
Biden will get to appoint his own chair when he takes office , and chairs traditionally leave the agency when a new administration comes in .
But Pai won ’ t have to do that — he can stay on as a commissioner until his term expires , which could be as late as 2023 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanting to stay at the FCC in a lesser role , but Republicans may ask him to stay to have a 2-2 split if Simington is not confirmed .
The most likely outcome , however , is that Pai packs up his trademark giant mug and goes .
“ It really is a fascinating situation here , ” Wheeler said .
“ If Ajit sticks with precedent , then it ’ s 2-1 [ with a Democratic majority ] .
If he doesn ’ t , then he can stymie any action until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s time to approve somebody.
” There is also the question of who Biden will select as the FCC ’ s new chair , if he does indeed get the opportunity .
Many believe that Biden will appoint a woman here , as the FCC has never had a chairwoman in its 86-year history ( unless you count Mignon Clyburn ’ s acting chairwomanship for several months in 2013 ) .
Clyburn and Rosenworcel have been circulated as likely choices here .
Both have FCC experience and both have championed broadband affordability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsidizes phone bills for low-income people , to include broadband internet .
But Clyburn seems to have moved on from her time at the FCC , which ended in 2018 .
She joined the boards of Lionsgate in July and RingCentral , a cloud communications provider , in November .
The Senate would also have to confirm Clyburn , and with a Republican majority it may well refuse to do so .
That could be a point in Rosenworcel ’ s favor , since she doesn ’ t have to be confirmed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to close what she calls the “ homework gap ” between students who have access to reliable high-speed internet to do their schoolwork at home and students who don ’ t .
That gap has never been more apparent or destructive than during the pandemic .
“ Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel is brilliant and effective , and possesses a broad and deep knowledge of all things FCC , ” Rep. Eshoo said in an email .
“ Hands down , she ’ s my # 1 choice for Chairwoman of the FCC .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One.
” Of course , it ’ s also entirely possible that Biden nominates someone else — perhaps even someone completely unexpected — to head up the FCC .
Clinton-era FCC chair Reed Hundt , for example , was unknown and had very little to no telecommunications experience before he was appointed .
He was , however , Vice President Al Gore ’ s college roommate .
“ I know that a whole bunch of people want it , ” Wheeler said .
“ The fact of the matter is that Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 47 years .
He knows a lot of people , and it doesn ’ t have to be the usual suspects.
” What the FCC will do Having a Democratic majority will make it significantly easier for whoever becomes the new FCC chair to accomplish their vision .
But even without that advantage , there are ways to get things done .
“ There ’ s still a lot you can do because the chair controls the bureau and the offices , ” Harold Feld , senior vice president at open internet advocacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ And you can do a lot on what ’ s called delegated authority .
… The chairman is not toothless in terms of the ability to use the power of the FCC.
” What ’ s pretty clear is that a Biden FCC will want to do as much as possible to address the digital divide .
Broadband affordability is a major part of this .
Along with expanding E-Rate and Lifeline programs and continuing work to increase access in rural and tribal areas , expect a Biden FCC to reverse the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a Title II service under the Communications Act .
This would subject broadband internet carriers to the same increased oversight and rate regulations that phone companies have .
So , where Pai had to ask companies not to cut off homes or businesses from the internet if they couldn ’ t pay their bills during the pandemic and to expand their low-income programs , an FCC that classified broadband as a Title II carrier would have more leverage to require it .
There is also one possible privacy benefit if internet service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wheeler pointed out .
Under Title II , the FCC was able to establish the authority to require ISPs to get consumers ’ permission before sharing certain information about their internet lives , including browsing history , location , and email contents .
This was seen as a big win for data privacy , and Wheeler hopes that the new FCC will find a way to restore those privacy protections .
The Biden FCC will also have to help facilitate the spread of 5G across the country and will be responsible for freeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide it .
Increased 5G access would give more Americans access to higher internet speeds in more places , which has become a priority during the pandemic .
While the current FCC is already working on this effort , some think the Biden administration will promote the inter-agency cooperation necessary to do it quickly .
During the Trump administration , different agencies fought over spectrum , which held back efforts to open up more bands and expand 5G ’ s potential .
“ The way that Trump ran things was to set everybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It has become much more of a problem in that federal agencies have now just increasingly said ‘ no ’ to the FCC .
...
It ’ s critically important that a Biden administration takes steps to smooth this over.
” All this said , it ’ s hard to say with certainty just what the Biden administration can do , especially when it comes to this already atypical transition process .
The uncertainty regarding the new FCC even extends now to when and if the Biden transition team will get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration will hold out for as long as possible just to make life difficult for the Biden team .
Given the issues on the table — bridging the digital divide , restoring net neutrality , and expanding 5G — any delay in getting the new FCC running would ultimately be to the detriment of the American people .
But there will be a new FCC eventually .
“ It ’ s gon na be interesting , ” Wheeler said .
“ This will be a great time to be chairman of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

President Biden has named Jessica Rosenworcel as the acting chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Rosenworcel, a two-term commissioner who has championed closing the digital divide, restoring net neutrality, and women (she even has a podcast where she talks to women in various communications fields). She’ll head up a divided FCC with two Democrats and two Trump-loyalist Republicans — at least until whoever Biden picks to be the third Democratic commissioner is confirmed.
That pick may well be the permanent chair. Typically, the new president brings in someone new to be the FCC chair, but it’s not unprecedented for an acting chair to get the permanent spot. Trump did just that with Ajit Pai, who was a commissioner before being named as chair. Rosenworcel, an Obama appointee, is seen as a contender for the top job, and she has supporters.
“Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel is brilliant and effective, and possesses a broad and deep knowledge of all things FCC,” Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) told Recode in November. “Hands down, she’s my No. 1 choice for chairwoman of the FCC. She would hit the ground running from day one.”
Biden’s FCC has the potential to do remarkable things after four years of the business-friendly “light-touch” approach that defined Trump’s FCC, such as making the internet more accessible and affordable for everyone. And with a Democratic majority in the Senate, it’s more likely than ever that the president will be able to appoint a third Democratic member to pass some of those measures.
Under Pai’s leadership, the FCC pushed to deregulate the industries under its purview. This meant there were few rules, little accountability, and minimal oversight for some of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world. But in the months and years to come, the FCC is likely to reverse some of those policies, especially Pai’s most controversial decision: repealing net neutrality, a policy that required internet service providers to treat all types of internet traffic the same.
Getting broadband internet in as many homes as possible during the pandemic is many Democrats’ most urgent goal. It’s also something they feel the Trump administration failed to accomplish.
“Because the Trump FCC failed to meaningfully address the digital divide, tens of millions of Americans still lack high-speed internet,” Eshoo said. “This worsens the impacts of the pandemic, and the Biden administration has to take this head-on.”
She added: “Every person in our country must have high-speed internet. Period. We’ve failed for too long to expand access to rural and tribal areas, and too many urban communities can’t afford broadband.”
The Biden administration’s FCC can aid this effort by providing more subsidies to lower-income people, continuing its work increasing broadband access, and opening up more radio frequency bands for high-speed 5G networks in order to bring the United States to the level of its peers. The agency is also poised to restore net neutrality and reclassify broadband internet as a Title II service, which would give the FCC more authority over carriers.
Experts and FCC insiders told Recode they foresee a Biden FCC that goes back to trying to govern and reclaims some of the authority it ceded under Trump. And the FCC’s glass ceiling may finally break with its first chairwoman in the agency’s 86-year history.
Where the FCC is now
Pai left the FCC on January 20, the day Biden was sworn in. The legacy of Pai’s FCC will be a “light-touch” approach and mass-scale deregulation. Proponents say this encourages investment and innovation, and opponents argue that it favors businesses at the expense of consumers. While Pai’s FCC made an effort to bring broadband internet to rural and tribal communities — which overwhelmingly benefits red states — it didn’t do much to make those services affordable to lower-income people.
“We still don’t really know what the results of [Pai’s] multibillions of dollars to rural internet service providers will be,” Gigi Sohn, a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Technology & Law Policy who was a staff member of the FCC during the Obama administration, told Recode. “I hope it results in a lot more people being connected, but that’s the smallest part of the digital divide. The biggest part of the digital divide is affordability. He never talks about that.”
Much to the consternation of many Democrats, including Rosenworcel and the other Democratic commissioner, Geoffrey Starks, the agency dragged its feet on updating programs like E-Rate and Lifeline that could help people afford increasingly necessary internet services in their homes.
But Pai will perhaps best be remembered for repealing the Obama-era net neutrality decision, which he vehemently opposed as a minority party commissioner. When Trump took office and promoted Pai to chair, he immediately set about undoing that decision. Under Chairman Tom Wheeler, the Obama FCC had classified broadband internet as a Title II service, subjecting it to increased oversight and establishing internet service as a necessary utility for Americans. This meant internet access would no longer be treated as a luxury, like cable television, but rather protected and ensured like telephone service. Pai’s FCC reclassified broadband as a Title I service, which put it largely under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission.
This was perhaps one of the most controversial decisions in the FCC’s history, seen by its opponents as a gift to internet service providers that could now charge consumers more for accessing certain sites or using different internet services. Pai framed it as “restoring internet freedom” and encouraging internet service providers to pour more money into extending their reach across the country without having to worry about burdensome regulations that would cut into their bottom line. Pai’s order was protested by millions of Americans, in person and online. Meanwhile, millions of comments supporting the end of net neutrality were determined to be fake.
So that’s how Pai’s FCC began. Here’s how it ended: Pai’s FCC tenure ended with a half-hearted attempt to introduce more regulation through Section 230, a 25-year-old law that lets websites moderate third-party content as they see fit without being liable for that content (with a few exceptions). Simply put, you can sue a Twitter user if they tweet something defamatory about you, but you can’t sue Twitter. This is what allows websites that rely on user-generated content to exist. Trump hoped to weaponize the FCC, a supposedly independent agency that has become increasingly partisan in recent years, against social media companies that he believes censor conservative speech by making rules that could remove their Section 230 protections.
Repealing or significantly changing Section 230 became Trump and his surrogates’ rallying cry in the latter half of his one-term presidency. But Republican lawmakers’ bills that would change Section 230 to force platforms to be “politically neutral” in their moderation or make their moderation rules more transparent and clear to users came to nothing. An executive order Trump issued in late May 2020 attempted to circumvent the legislative process by asking the FCC to “clarify” what content platforms can and cannot moderate if they want to keep their Section 230 protections.
Some scoffed at this authority, arguing that it was wrong and in direct conflict with Pai’s reasoning behind repealing net neutrality rules. Less than two weeks before his time with the FCC would end — and in full Trump-distancing mode — Pai said he wouldn’t move forward with rule-making on Section 230. Even so, Pai’s willingness to accede to Trump’s demands over Section 230 means his tenure, which was once defined by the desire to impose as few rules as possible on private businesses, ended with a failed attempt to introduce more rules for some of the biggest companies in the world.
Do not expect Biden’s FCC to pick up where Trump’s left off on Section 230. Rosenworcel and Starks have publicly stated that they do not think the FCC should play a role in Section 230, and this opinion seems to be shared by Democratic lawmakers. While Biden expressed a desire to revoke Section 230 to the New York Times in January — an opinion that a campaign spokesperson told Recode he hasn’t changed — he has yet to follow that up with any proposed action to do so, and Section 230 is not likely to be a major priority for the administration anytime soon (Congress, however, might be willing to give the law another look).
Who will be on the FCC when Biden takes office
The FCC can only have three commissioners from the same political party, which leaves one open spot for Biden to fill now. The two Republicans, Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington, are Trump picks whose terms won’t expire until well into Biden’s presidency, thanks to Simington’s rushed confirmation just a month before Trump left office. Carr and Simington were seen as proponents of Trump’s vision for the FCC, but that doesn’t really mean much now that he’s gone and Democrats have control of the Senate.
That leaves the question of who Biden will select as the FCC’s new permanent chair. Many expect Biden to appoint a woman, as the FCC has never had a chairwoman in its 86-year history and Rosenworcel is now only its second acting chairwoman (Mignon Clyburn was the acting chairwoman for several months in 2013). Clyburn and Rosenworcel have been circulated as likely choices here. Both have FCC experience and both have championed broadband affordability and expanding the Lifeline program, which subsidizes phone bills for low-income people, to include broadband internet.
But Clyburn seems to have moved on from her time at the FCC, which ended in 2018. She joined the board of Lionsgate last July and of RingCentral, a cloud communications provider, last November. Rosenworcel has long advocated for FCC measures to close what she calls the “homework gap” between students who have access to reliable high-speed internet to do their schoolwork at home and students who don’t. That gap has never been more apparent or destructive than during the pandemic.
There’s also Starks, the other Democratic commissioner. He’s a long shot at this point, given that Biden went with Rosenworcel as acting chair. Civil rights advocacy group Color of Change recently rallied for Starks, who is Black, to get the chair, saying in a statement: “The Biden-Harris Administration must ensure that regulatory agencies like the FCC are steered by people who reflect the communities most impacted by the policy decisions they dictate ... As FCC Chair, Starks will be the leader we need to restore essential protections for millions of Black Americans who rely on digital spaces for information and commerce.”
It’s also entirely possible that Biden nominates someone else — perhaps even someone completely unexpected — to head up the FCC. Clinton-era FCC chair Reed Hundt, for example, was unknown and had very little to no telecommunications experience before he was appointed. He was, however, Vice President Al Gore’s college roommate.
“I know that a whole bunch of people want it,” Wheeler, the former FCC chair, told Recode. “The fact of the matter is that Joe Biden’s been around this town for 47 years. He knows a lot of people, and it doesn’t have to be the usual suspects.”
What the FCC will do
It’s pretty clear that the Biden FCC will want to do as much as possible to address the digital divide. Broadband affordability is a major part of this. Along with expanding E-Rate and Lifeline programs and continuing work to increase access in rural and tribal areas, expect a Biden FCC to reverse the net neutrality repeal and reclassify broadband internet as a Title II service under the Communications Act. This would subject broadband internet carriers to the same increased oversight and rate regulations that phone companies have. So, where Pai had to ask companies not to cut off homes or businesses from the internet if they couldn’t pay their bills during the pandemic and to expand their low-income programs (the results of which are up for debate), an FCC that classified broadband as a Title II carrier would have more leverage to require it.
There is also one possible privacy benefit if internet service providers become Title II carriers, as Wheeler pointed out. Under Title II, the FCC was able to establish the authority to require ISPs to get consumers’ permission before sharing certain information about their internet lives, including browsing history, location, and email contents. This was seen as a big win for data privacy, and Wheeler hopes that the new FCC will find a way to restore those privacy protections.
The Biden FCC will also have to help facilitate the spread of 5G across the country and will be responsible for freeing up more bands in the spectrum to provide it. Increased 5G access would give more Americans access to higher internet speeds in more places, which has become a priority during the pandemic. While the current FCC is already working on this effort, some think the Biden administration will promote the interagency cooperation necessary to do it quickly. During the Trump administration, different agencies fought over spectrum, which held back efforts to open up more bands and expand 5G’s potential.
“The way that Trump ran things was to set everybody against each other,” Harold Feld, senior vice president at open internet advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Recode. “It has become much more of a problem in that federal agencies have now just increasingly said ‘no’ to the FCC. ... It’s critically important that a Biden administration takes steps to smooth this over.”
It’s now up to Biden to pick his new commissioner (and possible chair). And in the meantime, it’s on Rosenworcel to set the agency’s agenda. There are still a lot of unknowns, but one thing is almost certain: The light-touch era is over.
“It’s gonna be interesting,” Wheeler said. “This will be a great time to be chairman of the FCC.”
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-11-12--80 percent of those who died of Covid-19 in Texas county jails were never convicted of a crime

Over 230 people have died from Covid-19 in Texas ’ s correctional facilities — and in county jails , nearly 80 percent of them were in pretrial detention and hadn ’ t even been convicted of a crime , according to a new report .
A team of researchers at the University of Austin at Texas reviewed data from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ( TDCJ ) , which has reported that at least 231 people have died of Covid-19 in the state ’ s correctional facilities between March and October .
This report only looked at state-operated prisons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on how Texas ’ s Covid-19 prison policies had fared .
The 231 figure is likely to be a conservative count .
As the researchers note , TDCJ and county jails update death reports after autopsies are conducted , sometimes months after the fact .
Additionally , many people have “ died without ever having been tested for COVID , ” and others died due to a preexisting conditioned worsened by the virus and are not counted in this figure .
The death of an inmate is tragic regardless of their conviction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reveals the state ’ s lack of urgency in keeping as many people safe as possible .
Of the inmates in prison who died , nine of them had been approved for parole and were awaiting release , 21 of them had served 90 percent or more of their sentence , and 58 percent of those who died in prisons were eligible for parole .
Texas isn ’ t alone : Despite the alarms sounded by policy experts , correctional officers , and prisoners themselves earlier this year , Covid-19 has been allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , correctional officers , and the surrounding communities for months .
Civil rights groups and criminal justice experts advocated reducing the prison population as much as possible to flatten the curve .
Unfortunately , few states took serious action to combat the virus in prisons and jails — according to a June ACLU report , no state earned more than a D- , and most earned F ’ s .
As the pandemic was spreading through the US in the spring , prisons quickly became one of the epicenters of the crisis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April : In Rikers Island in New York City , the jail ’ s top doctor called the coronavirus outbreak there — one of the largest in the country , with hundreds sick — a “ public health disaster unfolding before our eyes.
” As of April 20 , the confirmed infection rate in New York City jails was more than 9 percent , compared to less than 2 percent in New York City more broadly , according to the Legal Aid Society .
In Michigan ’ s Parnall Correctional Facility , 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff tested positive for the coronavirus as of April 15 , according to the Detroit Free Press .
When controlling for population , that makes the outbreak there even worse than Cook County ’ s or Rikers Island ’ s .
In Ohio , more than one in five of the state ’ s confirmed cases are in the prison system , the Columbus Dispatch reported .
The Marion Correctional Institution , where 73 percent of inmates tested positive for the virus , makes up a majority of those cases .
Correctional facilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Catherine Kim reported for Vox in early April .
Jails and prisons are overcrowded , inmates “ share everything from cells to showers to dining spaces , ” and inmates have “ few resources for proper hygiene.
” Without room to social distance , proper hygiene becomes even more important .
As Kim reported , “ most correctional facilities do not provide soap , ” and hand sanitizer has been banned in most prisons “ because it can be used to brew toxic alcoholic drinks.
” It ’ s a horrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the local communities , which are also left vulnerable to infection as workers commute between work and home .
The researchers place blame firmly on the state ’ s leadership , concluding that “ Texas ’ failure to curb the spread of the virus in its corrections facilities ” has resulted in a “ devastating impact on the people who live and work in our state ’ s prisons and jails .
”

Over 230 people have died from Covid-19 in Texas’s correctional facilities — and in county jails, nearly 80 percent of them were in pretrial detention and hadn’t even been convicted of a crime, according to a new report.
A team of researchers at the University of Austin at Texas reviewed data from the the Texas Justice Initiative which collects information from multiple sources including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). They found that at least 231 people have died of Covid-19 in the state’s correctional facilities between March and October. This report only looked at state-operated prisons and county-operated jails, as researchers were focused on how Texas’s Covid-19 prison policies had fared.
The 231 figure is likely to be a conservative count. As the researchers note, TDCJ and county jails update death reports after autopsies are conducted, sometimes months after the fact. Additionally, many people have “died without ever having been tested for COVID,” and others died due to a preexisting conditioned worsened by the virus and are not counted in this figure.
The death of an inmate is tragic regardless of their conviction status, but the UT Austin report reveals the state’s lack of urgency in keeping as many people safe as possible. Of the inmates in prison who died, nine of them had been approved for parole and were awaiting release, 21 of them had served 90 percent or more of their sentence, and 58 percent of those who died in prisons were eligible for parole.
Texas isn’t alone: Despite the alarms sounded by policy experts, correctional officers, and prisoners themselves earlier this year, Covid-19 has been allowed to ravage prison populations, harming inmates, correctional officers, and the surrounding communities for months. Civil rights groups and criminal justice experts advocated reducing the prison population as much as possible to flatten the curve. Unfortunately, few states took serious action to combat the virus in prisons and jails — according to a June ACLU report, no state earned more than a D-, and most earned F’s.
As the pandemic was spreading through the US in the spring, prisons quickly became one of the epicenters of the crisis, as my colleague German Lopez reported in April:
In Rikers Island in New York City, the jail’s top doctor called the coronavirus outbreak there — one of the largest in the country, with hundreds sick — a “public health disaster unfolding before our eyes.” As of April 20, the confirmed infection rate in New York City jails was more than 9 percent, compared to less than 2 percent in New York City more broadly, according to the Legal Aid Society. In Michigan’s Parnall Correctional Facility, 10 percent of prisoners and 21 percent of staff tested positive for the coronavirus as of April 15, according to the Detroit Free Press. When controlling for population, that makes the outbreak there even worse than Cook County’s or Rikers Island’s. In Ohio, more than one in five of the state’s confirmed cases are in the prison system, the Columbus Dispatch reported. The Marion Correctional Institution, where 73 percent of inmates tested positive for the virus, makes up a majority of those cases.
Correctional facilities provide the perfect storm for an outbreak, as Catherine Kim reported for Vox in early April. Jails and prisons are overcrowded, inmates “share everything from cells to showers to dining spaces,” and inmates have “few resources for proper hygiene.” Without room to social distance, proper hygiene becomes even more important. As Kim reported, “most correctional facilities do not provide soap,” and hand sanitizer has been banned in most prisons “because it can be used to brew toxic alcoholic drinks.”
It’s a horrible situation for inmates, staff, and the local communities, which are also left vulnerable to infection as workers commute between work and home. The researchers place blame firmly on the state’s leadership, concluding that “Texas’ failure to curb the spread of the virus in its corrections facilities” has resulted in a “devastating impact on the people who live and work in our state’s prisons and jails.”