vox--2020-10-27--4 upcoming Supreme Court cases will reveal who Amy Coney Barrett really is

Just over one month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s passing , the Senate voted almost entirely along party lines to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court .
President Trump has been quite clear that he thinks “ it ’ s very important that we have nine Justices ” if we have a contested election , strongly suggesting that Trump expects Barrett to rule in his favor if the election ends up in front of the Court .
The incoming justice has been coy about whether she would do so — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involving the 2020 election in the first place .
During her confirmation hearing , Democratic senators repeatedly asked Barrett whether she would commit to recuse from cases related to the 2020 election , due to the appearance of impropriety created by Trump ’ s comments .
Barrett , however , would only offer a vague promise of “ fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal ” if asked to sit out an election case .
Similarly , while Barrett ’ s record suggests that she agrees with the Republican Party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her scholarship discusses legal theory at a very high level of generality and offers little insight into how she would decide specific cases .
We know that Barrett will be a very conservative justice .
But we don ’ t yet know if she will embrace the radical , even nihilistic approach preferred by someone like Justice Clarence Thomas , who has suggested that federal child labor laws are unconstitutional .
We don ’ t know how much she ’ ll feel bound by precedent , or whether she ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative “ originalists ” like herself read the law in ways that are wildly at odds with the public ’ s preferences .
But these are contentious times , and the Supreme Court has an unusually contentious docket .
Almost immediately after joining the Court , Barrett will confront cases that seek to move the law dramatically to the right — often relying on arguments that even many leading conservatives view as ridiculous .
The four cases below will likely help us gain an understanding of whether Barrett is a right-wing outlier , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The votes she casts in these cases , and the specific legal arguments that she signs onto , may show us just how hostile the Court ’ s newest member is to democracy , and whether she ’ s willing to embrace deeply radical legal arguments that undermine progressive policy or punish interest groups aligned with the Democratic Party .
To be sure , Democrats should not necessarily heave a sigh of relief even if Barrett rejects the conservative position in each of these lawsuits .
These four cases represent some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and there are others that could well be revelatory .
How Barrett rules on them should offer a window into just how radical the newest justice is likely to be .
Earlier this month , the Supreme Court handed down a brief order in Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar , which left in place a Pennsylvania state Supreme Court decision allowing some mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day to be counted — although it is far from clear that this decision will remain in place now that Barrett is on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Party was a defeat for the GOP , which hoped to have these ballots tossed out .
But the Court divided 4-4 in Republican Party , meaning that Barrett could potentially provide the fifth vote to trash these ballots .
The Pennsylvania GOP has already asked the Supreme Court to reconsider this case .
So Barrett ’ s very first action as a justice could be to hand the GOP a victory against voting rights .
One of the GOP ’ s primary arguments in Republican Party — an argument that three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gore ( 2000 ) — is astonishingly radical .
The GOP argues that only the state ’ s Republican-controlled legislature — not the state Supreme Court or some other body — is allowed to determine how Pennsylvania chooses presidential electors .
Taken to its logical extreme , the Republican Party ’ s argument could invalidate state constitutional provisions protecting the right to vote , at least in presidential elections .
It could even allow Republicans to steal the 2020 election for President Trump .
This latter point may seem far-fetched , but bear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ each State shall appoint , in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct , ” members of the Electoral College .
In its briefs in Republican Party , the GOP focuses on the word “ Legislature , ” claiming that only the Pennsylvania state legislature may set the state ’ s rules for choosing presidential electors , and not the state Supreme Court .
For more than a century , the Supreme Court has understood the word “ legislature , ” when used in this or similar contexts , to refer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within that state .
As the Court held most recently in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission ( 2015 ) , the word “ legislature ” should be read “ in accordance with the State ’ s prescriptions for lawmaking , which may include the referendum and the Governor ’ s veto.
” Similarly , if a state ’ s constitution protects voting rights and gives the state Supreme Court the power to interpret state law , then the state Supreme Court may make binding decisions regarding how state law or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a presidential election .
The Arizona decision was 5-4 , however , with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing the majority opinion .
While the four dissenting justices in Republican Party did not explain why they voted with the GOP , it ’ s not unreasonable to think that they voted the way they did because they agree with the GOP ’ s hyper-literal interpretation of the word “ legislature.
” Indeed , two of those four dissenters , Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , signaled that they do agree with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion handed down Monday night .
So what would it mean if Justice Barrett provides the fifth vote for this interpretation of the Constitution ?
For starters , it could mean that state constitutional provisions protecting the right to vote would no longer function in presidential elections .
The GOP is quite explicit about this in one of its briefs , claiming that to the extent that the Pennsylvania Constitution conflicts with the GOP ’ s understanding of the word “ Legislature , ” “ the State Constitution must give way.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the Supreme Court embraces the GOP ’ s understanding of the word “ Legislature , ” Republicans could potentially hand down pivotal rulings in battleground states that hand Trump a second term .
Although every state has a law providing that the state ’ s electoral votes will be decided in a popular election , the Constitution does not actually require such an election .
Again , it provides that “ each State shall appoint ” presidential electors “ in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.
” Under the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit , only the elected representatives in the state ’ s legislative body are allowed to make this determination .
The state courts are cut out of the process because the judicial branch is not the “ Legislature.
” A similar logic could apply to Pennsylvania ’ s Democratic governor — again , because the governor is part of the state ’ s executive branch , not the “ Legislature.
” In other words , Republican-controlled legislatures in states like Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and Michigan could potentially overrule the voters of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contested count , and simply assign their states ’ electoral votes to Trump .
All three states have Democratic governors , but if the Supreme Court reads the word “ Legislature ” in a hyper-literal way , those governors would not be allowed to veto such legislation .
One of Barrett ’ s very first actions as a justice could be to weigh in on such a question .
To be clear , we don ’ t know for sure if the Court ’ s conservatives would take such an argument all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court ’ s 4-4 vote in Republican Party certainly left the door open to such a reading .
On November 10 , just one week after Election Day , the Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas , the latest effort by Republican lawyers to repeal the Affordable Care Act through litigation .
Unlike previous efforts to convince the Supreme Court to take out Obamacare , however , the plaintiffs ’ arguments in this lawsuit are widely viewed as laughable even among conservative opponents of Obamacare .
As Yuval Levin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the National Review , the Texas lawsuit “ doesn ’ t even merit being called silly .
It ’ s ridiculous.
” As originally enacted , the Affordable Care Act required most Americans to either carry health insurance or pay at least $ 695 in additional taxes .
The Supreme Court upheld this requirement , commonly known as the “ individual mandate , ” as a valid exercise of Congress ’ s power to levy taxes in National Federation of Individual Business v. Sebelius ( 2012 ) .
The 2017 tax law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively repealed the individual mandate by reducing the amount of the tax for people who do not have insurance to zero dollars .
The plaintiffs argue that this zeroed-out mandate — which tells people that they must be insured or else they ’ ll be forced to pay absolutely nothing — is unconstitutional .
Their theory is that the original mandate was upheld as a tax , and a zero dollar tax is no tax at all .
That ’ s a plausible argument , but hardly an airtight one .
It also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academic argument .
Who cares if a “ mandate ” that does nothing at all is constitutional or not ?
The answer can be summarized in one word : “ severability.
” When a court strikes down a provision of law that is part of a broader statute , it often must ask whether the rest of the statute can stand without the invalid provision .
Ordinarily , this is a speculative inquiry .
The court must try to figure out what law Congress would have enacted if it had known that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struck down .
But in Texas , no speculation is necessary .
Congress spent the bulk of 2017 debating whether to repeal the Affordable Care Act .
Ultimately , it didn ’ t have the votes to do so .
So it repealed just one provision : the individual mandate .
We know , in other words , that Congress would have preferred to leave the rest of the law intact if the zeroed-out mandate were struck down , because Congress left the rest of the law intact !
This conclusion is bolstered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Murphy v. NCAA ( 2018 ) , which held that courts should preserve as much of the statute as possible if they strike down one provision .
“ In order for other ... provisions to fall , ” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court in Murphy , “ it must be ‘ evident that [ Congress ] would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power , independently of [ those ] which [ are ] not.
’ ” There ’ s also another glaring problem with the Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear a lawsuit challenging a particular legal provision unless the plaintiff has been injured in some way by that law — this is a requirement known as “ standing.
” But no one is injured by a zero dollar tax , so no one should have standing to raise the arguments presented in the Texas case .
Yuval Levin , in other words , is correct .
The plaintiffs ’ arguments in Texas are ridiculous .
If Barrett accepts them , it raises very serious questions about whether the new justice is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views from the law .
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides that “ representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers , counting the whole number of persons in each state , excluding Indians not taxed.
” This is unambiguous text .
With a narrow exception for certain Native Americans , all “ persons ” must be counted in the decennial census , regardless of their immigration status .
And yet , last July , President Trump released a memorandum announcing that “ for the purpose of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ census , it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.
” Thus , in violation of the plain text of the Constitution , Trump would not allow the census to count undocumented immigrants for the purpose of determining how much representation each state receives in the House of Representatives .
Notably , about 20 percent of the estimated 10.6 million undocumented immigrants in the United States live in California .
If Trump ’ s unconstitutional plan — which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. New York — succeeds , then the nation ’ s largest blue state could lose as many as three House seats .
( It ’ s likely that Texas , a one-time Republican stronghold that is starting to trend toward Democrats , would also be hit hard . )
In his memorandum , Trump tries to get around the Constitution ’ s explicit text by claiming that undocumented immigrants do not count as “ inhabitants ” of the state where they live .
“ Although the Constitution requires the ‘ persons in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ’ to be enumerated in the census , ” Trump claims , “ that requirement has never been understood to include in the apportionment base every individual physically present within a State ’ s boundaries at the time of the census.
” As Trump correctly notes , there are many people who may be present in the United States — tourists visiting from other nations , foreign diplomats , and businesspeople , for example — who are not counted by the census .
“ The term ‘ persons in each State ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ‘ inhabitants ’ of each State should be included , ” Trump argues , and “ determining which persons should be considered ‘ inhabitants ’ for the purpose of apportionment requires the exercise of judgment.
” At the most general level , Trump is right that someone needs to determine which individuals who may be temporarily present in a state do not count as a resident of that state .
But that doesn ’ t mean that Trump himself gets to make this determination , or that this decision can be made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejected Trump ’ s argument explains , “ it does not follow that illegal aliens — a category defined by legal status , not residence — can be excluded ” from the census by claiming that they are not “ inhabitants ” of a state .
“ To the contrary , ” the court continues , while quoting from Merriam-Webster ’ s dictionary , “ the ordinary definition of the term ‘ inhabitant ’ is ‘ one that occupies a particular place regularly , routinely , or for a period of time.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state for “ many years or even decades.
” They are as much “ inhabitants ” of those states as any other resident .
The three-judge panel — two appointed by George W. Bush , one by Barack Obama — ruled unanimously .
The legal questions in the New York case are , in the words of the lower court that rejected Trump ’ s arguments , “ not particularly close or complicated.
” More than four decades ago , in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ( 1977 ) , the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , under certain circumstances , charge “ agency fees ” to non-members of the union .
These fees are intended to reimburse the union for services it provides to such non-members .
Then , in 2018 , the Supreme Court decided Janus v. AFSCME by a 5-4 vote along party lines .
Janus overruled Abood , and held that public sector unions may not charge agency fees to non-members .
So , from 1977 until 2018 , agency fees charged by public sector unions were legal .
And they were legal because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevertheless , anti-union litigators have , since Janus , brought a wave of cases claiming that unions have to pay back many of the agency fees that they charged prior to the Court ’ s decision in Janus — again , during a period when it was legal for unions to charge such fees .
Though these cases have not fared well for the anti-union side in the lower courts , many of them are now before the Supreme Court .
For the time being , at least , the Supreme Court has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases or not .
But the justices have discussed these anti-union cases at multiple conferences — a sign that at least some members of the Court want to take them up .
As one of the federal appeals courts that rejected these lawsuits explained , “ the Rule of Law requires that parties abide by , and be able to rely on , what the law is , ” not what the law may become in the future .
It would be extraordinary if Barrett — or any other justice — voted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Supreme Court itself held to be legal at the time that the union engaged in those actions .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Well, that happened.
Just over one month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, the Senate voted almost entirely along party lines to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.
President Trump has been quite clear that he thinks “it’s very important that we have nine Justices” if we have a contested election, strongly suggesting that Trump expects Barrett to rule in his favor if the election ends up in front of the Court. The incoming justice has been coy about whether she would do so — or even whether she will hear cases involving the 2020 election in the first place.
During her confirmation hearing, Democratic senators repeatedly asked Barrett whether she would commit to recuse from cases related to the 2020 election, due to the appearance of impropriety created by Trump’s comments. Barrett, however, would only offer a vague promise of “fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal” if asked to sit out an election case.
Similarly, while Barrett’s record suggests that she agrees with the Republican Party’s opposition to abortion and Obamacare, much of her scholarship discusses legal theory at a very high level of generality and offers little insight into how she would decide specific cases.
We know that Barrett will be a very conservative justice. But we don’t yet know if she will embrace the radical, even nihilistic approach preferred by someone like Justice Clarence Thomas, who has suggested that federal child labor laws are unconstitutional. We don’t know how much she’ll feel bound by precedent, or whether she’ll be moved by public opinion in cases where conservative “originalists” like herself read the law in ways that are wildly at odds with the public’s preferences.
But these are contentious times, and the Supreme Court has an unusually contentious docket. Almost immediately after joining the Court, Barrett will confront cases that seek to move the law dramatically to the right — often relying on arguments that even many leading conservatives view as ridiculous.
The four cases below will likely help us gain an understanding of whether Barrett is a right-wing outlier, even within an increasingly conservative federal judiciary. The votes she casts in these cases, and the specific legal arguments that she signs onto, may show us just how hostile the Court’s newest member is to democracy, and whether she’s willing to embrace deeply radical legal arguments that undermine progressive policy or punish interest groups aligned with the Democratic Party.
To be sure, Democrats should not necessarily heave a sigh of relief even if Barrett rejects the conservative position in each of these lawsuits. These four cases represent some of the most extreme arguments before the Court, and there are others that could well be revelatory. How Barrett rules on them should offer a window into just how radical the newest justice is likely to be.
1) Pennsylvania mail-in ballots and the 2020 election
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court handed down a brief order in Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, which left in place a Pennsylvania state Supreme Court decision allowing some mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day to be counted — although it is far from clear that this decision will remain in place now that Barrett is on the Court.
On the surface, Republican Party was a defeat for the GOP, which hoped to have these ballots tossed out. But the Court divided 4-4 in Republican Party, meaning that Barrett could potentially provide the fifth vote to trash these ballots.
The Pennsylvania GOP has already asked the Supreme Court to reconsider this case. So Barrett’s very first action as a justice could be to hand the GOP a victory against voting rights.
One of the GOP’s primary arguments in Republican Party — an argument that three justices seemed to endorse in Bush v. Gore (2000) — is astonishingly radical. The GOP argues that only the state’s Republican-controlled legislature — not the state Supreme Court or some other body — is allowed to determine how Pennsylvania chooses presidential electors. Taken to its logical extreme, the Republican Party’s argument could invalidate state constitutional provisions protecting the right to vote, at least in presidential elections.
It could even allow Republicans to steal the 2020 election for President Trump.
This latter point may seem far-fetched, but bear with me. The Constitution provides that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” members of the Electoral College. In its briefs in Republican Party, the GOP focuses on the word “Legislature,” claiming that only the Pennsylvania state legislature may set the state’s rules for choosing presidential electors, and not the state Supreme Court.
For more than a century, the Supreme Court has understood the word “legislature,” when used in this or similar contexts, to refer to whatever the valid lawmaking process is within that state. As the Court held most recently in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), the word “legislature” should be read “in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the Governor’s veto.”
Similarly, if a state’s constitution protects voting rights and gives the state Supreme Court the power to interpret state law, then the state Supreme Court may make binding decisions regarding how state law or a state constitution should be interpreted during a presidential election.
The Arizona decision was 5-4, however, with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing the majority opinion. While the four dissenting justices in Republican Party did not explain why they voted with the GOP, it’s not unreasonable to think that they voted the way they did because they agree with the GOP’s hyper-literal interpretation of the word “legislature.”
Indeed, two of those four dissenters, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, signaled that they do agree with the GOP’s approach in an opinion handed down Monday night.
So what would it mean if Justice Barrett provides the fifth vote for this interpretation of the Constitution? For starters, it could mean that state constitutional provisions protecting the right to vote would no longer function in presidential elections. The GOP is quite explicit about this in one of its briefs, claiming that to the extent that the Pennsylvania Constitution conflicts with the GOP’s understanding of the word “Legislature,” “the State Constitution must give way.”
But that’s only the beginning. If the Supreme Court embraces the GOP’s understanding of the word “Legislature,” Republicans could potentially hand down pivotal rulings in battleground states that hand Trump a second term.
Although every state has a law providing that the state’s electoral votes will be decided in a popular election, the Constitution does not actually require such an election. Again, it provides that “each State shall appoint” presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
Under the Republican Party’s theory in the Pennsylvania lawsuit, only the elected representatives in the state’s legislative body are allowed to make this determination. The state courts are cut out of the process because the judicial branch is not the “Legislature.” A similar logic could apply to Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor — again, because the governor is part of the state’s executive branch, not the “Legislature.”
In other words, Republican-controlled legislatures in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan could potentially overrule the voters of their state, or stop a close and contested count, and simply assign their states’ electoral votes to Trump. All three states have Democratic governors, but if the Supreme Court reads the word “Legislature” in a hyper-literal way, those governors would not be allowed to veto such legislation.
One of Barrett’s very first actions as a justice could be to weigh in on such a question. To be clear, we don’t know for sure if the Court’s conservatives would take such an argument all the way to that conclusion. But the Court’s 4-4 vote in Republican Party certainly left the door open to such a reading.
2) Obamacare
On November 10, just one week after Election Day, the Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas, the latest effort by Republican lawyers to repeal the Affordable Care Act through litigation. Unlike previous efforts to convince the Supreme Court to take out Obamacare, however, the plaintiffs’ arguments in this lawsuit are widely viewed as laughable even among conservative opponents of Obamacare.
As Yuval Levin, a prominent conservative policy wonk, wrote in the National Review, the Texas lawsuit “doesn’t even merit being called silly. It’s ridiculous.”
As originally enacted, the Affordable Care Act required most Americans to either carry health insurance or pay at least $695 in additional taxes. The Supreme Court upheld this requirement, commonly known as the “individual mandate,” as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to levy taxes in National Federation of Individual Business v. Sebelius (2012).
The 2017 tax law signed by President Trump, however, effectively repealed the individual mandate by reducing the amount of the tax for people who do not have insurance to zero dollars. The plaintiffs argue that this zeroed-out mandate — which tells people that they must be insured or else they’ll be forced to pay absolutely nothing — is unconstitutional. Their theory is that the original mandate was upheld as a tax, and a zero dollar tax is no tax at all.
That’s a plausible argument, but hardly an airtight one. It also shouldn’t be more than an academic argument. Who cares if a “mandate” that does nothing at all is constitutional or not?
The answer can be summarized in one word: “severability.” When a court strikes down a provision of law that is part of a broader statute, it often must ask whether the rest of the statute can stand without the invalid provision. Ordinarily, this is a speculative inquiry. The court must try to figure out what law Congress would have enacted if it had known that a single provision of that law would be struck down.
But in Texas, no speculation is necessary. Congress spent the bulk of 2017 debating whether to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Ultimately, it didn’t have the votes to do so. So it repealed just one provision: the individual mandate.
We know, in other words, that Congress would have preferred to leave the rest of the law intact if the zeroed-out mandate were struck down, because Congress left the rest of the law intact!
This conclusion is bolstered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), which held that courts should preserve as much of the statute as possible if they strike down one provision. “In order for other ... provisions to fall,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court in Murphy, “it must be ‘evident that [Congress] would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of [those] which [are] not.’”
There’s also another glaring problem with the Texas lawsuit. Federal courts are not allowed to hear a lawsuit challenging a particular legal provision unless the plaintiff has been injured in some way by that law — this is a requirement known as “standing.” But no one is injured by a zero dollar tax, so no one should have standing to raise the arguments presented in the Texas case.
Yuval Levin, in other words, is correct. The plaintiffs’ arguments in Texas are ridiculous. If Barrett accepts them, it raises very serious questions about whether the new justice is capable of distinguishing her own conservative political views from the law.
3) The census and undocumented immigrants
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides that “representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.” This is unambiguous text. With a narrow exception for certain Native Americans, all “persons” must be counted in the decennial census, regardless of their immigration status.
And yet, last July, President Trump released a memorandum announcing that “for the purpose of the reapportionment of Representatives following the 2020 census, it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.” Thus, in violation of the plain text of the Constitution, Trump would not allow the census to count undocumented immigrants for the purpose of determining how much representation each state receives in the House of Representatives.
Notably, about 20 percent of the estimated 10.6 million undocumented immigrants in the United States live in California. If Trump’s unconstitutional plan — which is now before the justices in Trump v. New York — succeeds, then the nation’s largest blue state could lose as many as three House seats. (It’s likely that Texas, a one-time Republican stronghold that is starting to trend toward Democrats, would also be hit hard.)
In his memorandum, Trump tries to get around the Constitution’s explicit text by claiming that undocumented immigrants do not count as “inhabitants” of the state where they live.
“Although the Constitution requires the ‘persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed,’ to be enumerated in the census,” Trump claims, “that requirement has never been understood to include in the apportionment base every individual physically present within a State’s boundaries at the time of the census.”
As Trump correctly notes, there are many people who may be present in the United States — tourists visiting from other nations, foreign diplomats, and businesspeople, for example — who are not counted by the census. “The term ‘persons in each State’ has been interpreted to mean that only the ‘inhabitants’ of each State should be included,” Trump argues, and “determining which persons should be considered ‘inhabitants’ for the purpose of apportionment requires the exercise of judgment.”
At the most general level, Trump is right that someone needs to determine which individuals who may be temporarily present in a state do not count as a resident of that state. But that doesn’t mean that Trump himself gets to make this determination, or that this decision can be made arbitrarily.
As a federal court that rejected Trump’s argument explains, “it does not follow that illegal aliens — a category defined by legal status, not residence — can be excluded” from the census by claiming that they are not “inhabitants” of a state. “To the contrary,” the court continues, while quoting from Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, “the ordinary definition of the term ‘inhabitant’ is ‘one that occupies a particular place regularly, routinely, or for a period of time.’”
Many undocumented immigrants reside in a state for “many years or even decades.” They are as much “inhabitants” of those states as any other resident. The three-judge panel — two appointed by George W. Bush, one by Barack Obama — ruled unanimously.
The legal questions in the New York case are, in the words of the lower court that rejected Trump’s arguments, “not particularly close or complicated.”
4) Union-busting litigation
More than four decades ago, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), the Supreme Court held that public sector unions may, under certain circumstances, charge “agency fees” to non-members of the union. These fees are intended to reimburse the union for services it provides to such non-members.
Then, in 2018, the Supreme Court decided Janus v. AFSCME by a 5-4 vote along party lines. Janus overruled Abood, and held that public sector unions may not charge agency fees to non-members.
So, from 1977 until 2018, agency fees charged by public sector unions were legal. And they were legal because the Supreme Court said they were legal.
Nevertheless, anti-union litigators have, since Janus, brought a wave of cases claiming that unions have to pay back many of the agency fees that they charged prior to the Court’s decision in Janus — again, during a period when it was legal for unions to charge such fees. Though these cases have not fared well for the anti-union side in the lower courts, many of them are now before the Supreme Court.
For the time being, at least, the Supreme Court has not announced whether it will hear these cases or not. But the justices have discussed these anti-union cases at multiple conferences — a sign that at least some members of the Court want to take them up.
As one of the federal appeals courts that rejected these lawsuits explained, “the Rule of Law requires that parties abide by, and be able to rely on, what the law is,” not what the law may become in the future. It would be extraordinary if Barrett — or any other justice — voted to sanction unions for actions that, again, the Supreme Court itself held to be legal at the time that the union engaged in those actions.


vox--2020-10-27--Suburban women could be Trump’s undoing

Suburban women could be Trump’s undoing

This is the first in a series of articles looking at the voters who could be the most decisive in the 2020 election .
Before she got Covid-19 , Katie Mazzocco had a plan for every part of her life .
The 34-year-old entrepreneur and mother of two always voted , but she wasn ’ t involved with political organizing before Donald Trump was elected in 2016 .
Like thousands of others , Mazzocco was equal parts frightened and energized by Trump ’ s presidency .
Ahead of the 2020 election , she had a plan to make hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in her Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , suburb — part of a key swing district — to encourage her neighbors to vote this fall .
Now her old life is completely unrecognizable .
Mazzocco ’ s once-packed days are mostly spent in bed , suffering long-term Covid-19 complications that oscillate between brain fog and excruciating chest pains .
“ On a daily basis , I ’ m still trying to hold my body together , ” Mazzocco told me in a recent interview .
“ Some days , I can ’ t even talk.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ now on pause .
She rarely has the energy to help her 10-year-old twins with their at-home schoolwork .
Her husband , a teacher at a local school district , instructs his students from home these days .
Mazzocco counts a good day as one where she can walk to the bathroom by herself and brush her teeth , rather than slumped over the shoulder of one of her daughters , her husband , or her mother — who lives with the family to assist with child care , cooking , and cleaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insane because I ’ m such a go-getter and high achiever , ” Mazzocco told me .
“ Some days my brain is online ... some days it ’ s like being flattened .
It ’ s agonizing.
” Mazzocco is part of a relatively small group of Covid-19 patients with long-term complications .
But she ’ s one of millions of women across the United States whose working and personal lives have been upended by the pandemic .
Vox interviewed several such women around the country and found them organizing from their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time for complacency is over .
Many of them have stories similar to Mazzocco ’ s .
They were previously engaged voters who paid attention to politics , but Trump ’ s win made them realize voting alone wasn ’ t enough .
A grassroots army powered by women is developing through their networks of PTA moms , neighbors , and friends .
“ I feel like when you activate women , there ’ s this contagiousness where other women see that and are like , ‘ Okay , I can do this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a teacher and mother of two who lives in the suburbs outside Kansas City , Kansas .
Organizing is one of the few things Mazzocco can still do from her bed — getting out the vote by texting and writing letters .
Her reach is impressive .
She estimates she ’ s texted upward of 10,000 people encouraging them to vote and helping them make a plan , averaging about 100 to 200 conversations each week .
And even though life is a daily struggle , Mazzocco is hopeful that this election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think people are excited about it and hoping for change , ” she told me .
“ I want everyone to realize they can be so connected ; it ’ s not that hard.
” Suburban women , once a reliable bloc for Republicans , drove a blue wave for House Democrats in the 2018 midterms .
If 2018 was a symbolic rebuke of Trump , pollsters of both parties expect a show of force against Trump from these women in 2020 .
The lasting effects of the pandemic have only intensified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Common sense suggests that suburban women were skeptical about Trump before the pandemic , ” said Republican pollster Whit Ayres .
“ Having their lives utterly disrupted by school closings and trying to help 6- and 7-year-olds learn virtually while also holding down a job has simply exacerbated their preexisting skepticism about Trump.
” In mid-October , Trump stood onstage in Johnstown , Pennsylvania — about 65 miles away from Pittsburgh — and practically begged suburban women to vote for him .
“ Suburban women , will you please like me ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damn neighborhood , okay ?
” Trump has good reason to be worried about women in Pennsylvania and other swing states .
National and state surveys show that Democratic candidate Joe Biden , on average , is polling around 25 points better than Trump among women ( Hillary Clinton polled 14 points ahead of Trump with women in 2016 ) .
If Biden ’ s massive margin holds on Election Day , it would make it the biggest gender gap for a Democratic candidate in history .
Democrats believe they can count on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most reliable voting bloc .
They ’ re more worried about white women , a group Trump narrowly won in 2016 — driven especially by those without college degrees .
White college-educated women voted for Clinton over Trump 51 to 44 percent in 2016 , but their support has grown and solidified even more four years later .
They prefer Biden by nearly 20 points , according to an early October Fox News poll .
A late October Midwestern state poll from Fox contained more bad news for Trump ; it showed suburban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan , 29 points in Pennsylvania , and 21 points in Wisconsin .
There ’ s a simple reason for these numbers .
Trump revels in being rude , macho , and chaotic — all things many women voters despise , pollsters told me .
“ They really didn ’ t like Donald Trump ’ s personal style ; they thought he was a bully , they thought he was divisive , ” said veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake , who advises Biden ’ s campaign .
“ They hate chaos .
Suburban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s largely Trump ’ s attitude toward women , his belligerence , his style , and his conduct , ” he said .
Trump ’ s list of insults has gotten so long that the New York Times started counting them ( 598 insults as of 2019 ) .
Lately , the target of the president ’ s ire is America ’ s revered top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci , whom Trump called a “ disaster ” and one of a group of “ idiots ” on a recent call with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhetoric has gotten to the point where Claire Reagan , the teacher , and her husband keep the television off when their young children are around , to avoid them seeing the president at all .
“ I don ’ t want my children to speak the way the president speaks , ” said Reagan , who lives in a conservative-leaning suburb outside Kansas City , Kansas .
“ My kids , they know who Barack Obama is .
We want them to see what strong , calm leadership looks like , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitt Romney had been elected .
It ’ s been very difficult to navigate how we expose our children to national politics .
It ’ s not something I think will enrich my children ’ s understanding of how people who make the rules behave.
” About four years after giving birth to her second child close to the 2016 election , Reagan was determined not to have her third child on November 3 , 2020 .
She told me she had recently pushed back her scheduled C-section until after Election Day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in the hospital on Election Day , ” Reagan said .
“ I was a billion months pregnant in the 2016 election ; ironically , I ’ m a billion months pregnant right now.
” She added , “ I just remember how heavy 2016 felt.
” Suburbs like Reagan ’ s used to be prime Republican territory .
The 2018 midterms were the first real wake-up call for the GOP that the suburbs , and white suburban women , were moving away from them .
It wasn ’ t always this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost college-educated white voters by a massive 19 percentage points .
During the 2014 midterms , Democrats continued their downward streak with the group , losing them by 16 points ( both midterms were banner years for Republicans ) .
But the 2018 midterms saw white suburbanites do a stunning 180-degree turn : White college-educated voters voted for Democratic candidates by 8 points .
“ Republicans for the first time in memory lost the suburban vote in 2018 , ” Ayres told me .
“ There is no sign at all that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything , they are voting more strongly for Democrats today.
” The 2018 midterms saw a symbolic rebuke of Trump in the suburbs , giving Democratic House candidates wins even in reach districts in South Carolina , Utah , Oklahoma , and Kansas .
This year , Trump is on the ballot .
The story about suburban women in 2020 isn ’ t just about them voting for a Democratic presidential candidate .
It ’ s about a new wave of women-led grassroots organizing in some of the reddest parts of the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races .
Erin Woods ’ s foray into organizing in her suburban Kansas City , Kansas , neighborhood really started after the Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017 , threatening to undo the protections for preexisting conditions without which her insurance costs would skyrocket .
Before the ACA , Woods had been rejected from multiple health insurance companies for having had a preexisting condition .
She estimates she paid around $ 40,000 in unnecessary premiums over several years .
“ I paid more for myself in premiums than we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Woods told me .
“ Once I went back and looked at it , I was like , ‘ Oh , my gosh , this was a couple years of college.
’ ” No one in her neighborhood really talked politics before 2016 , Woods remembers .
But she started having conversations with other parents at PTA meetings and her friends , and then started emailing people encouraging them to call their senators and representatives during the 2017 ACA repeal push in Washington , DC .
Her email list morphed into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also wanted to get engaged in politics .
It has since grown to about 150 people who make phone calls , do literature drops , and write postcards to encourage others to vote , Woods estimates .
“ It ’ s not that the men aren ’ t there , but if you ’ re reading the room , a lot of the people doing the work right now are women ” It ’ s turned into a large , spiraling network mostly of women who bring in their friends organically .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ text and email chains that light up whenever a new Biden/Harris sign goes up on a neighbor ’ s front lawn .
Women like Reagan and Anita Parsa , who is friends with Woods and part of her organizing group , described themselves as informed and moderately engaged voters before 2016 .
Many identify as unaffiliated , supporting individual candidates over any one party .
Now they are members of an army of galvanized women organizing from their homes .
Some are nursing new babies , while others are watching their kids go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their friends whom to vote for , these women are just encouraging their friends to vote , period .
“ I have gotten to know more women who are involved through my involvement , ” said Parsa .
“ It ’ s kind of infectious ; it gives you permission to talk about stuff that you wouldn ’ t otherwise.
” These women could leave a mark on their heavily Republican state .
Kansas is certainly not considered a swing state .
But it is not immune to the political changes of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate race coming two years after Democrats won the governor ’ s race and a House seat .
One Republican pollster recently told me the suburbs outside Kansas City are “ ground zero for suburban women fleeing the president.
” Some of these neighborhoods boast mansions , the homes of doctors and lawyers .
They ’ re traditionally moderate Republican areas , but there are many more signs for Biden , Democratic Senate candidate Barbara Bollier , and local Democratic candidates dotting the manicured lawns these days .
Keeping in mind the old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t vote , ” Reagan noted that she sees more Democratic signs in front of people ’ s houses compared to Republican ones on the side of the road — a sign that voters casting ballots for Democrats are willing to make a public statement in 2020 .
“ It ’ s a country-club-joining , fancy-car-driving neighborhood , ” said Parsa , who lives in Mission Hills , a suburban neighborhood outside Kansas City .
“ I do not think we have shifted dramatically left in this area , I think this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates in the GOP are , and their feckless , fawning allowance of anything Trump wants to do.
” Trump may have spurred their involvement , but these women also recognize they can effect the most change in their local offices .
Right now , the main focus for Reagan , Parsa , and Woods is to break the Republican supermajority in the Kansas legislature ( there ’ s little chance of actually flipping it ) .
And with women making up the bulk of this organizing group in Kansas City ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dream to get more women elected to office — in hopes of addressing issues like education , child care , and health care .
“ It ’ s not that the men aren ’ t there , but if you ’ re reading the room , a lot of the people doing the work right now are women , ” said Reagan .
“ A lot of the local campaigns that I ’ ve been in contact with , almost all of them are being run by women.
” The second major factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP is the fact that American suburbs are simply a lot more diverse than they used to be .
Far from the all-white enclaves of the 1960s and ’ 70s , America ’ s suburbs today are diversifying — much like the rest of the country .
“ It ’ s hugely important to understanding how these suburbs are changing , ” said Boston College political science professor David Hopkins , who has researched them extensively .
Vastly changing suburbs could be the key to Democratic success in Southern and Western states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Arizona and Georgia now look to be in play for Democrats in 2020 , owing to a combination of diversifying suburbs and moderate white voters turned off by Trump .
A 2015 Brookings Institution report found that nonwhite people represented at least 35 percent of the suburban population in 36 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas .
And recent analysis from the New York Times found the number of census tracts with all-white residents in the United States has cratered — going from about 25 percent in 1980 to just 5 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ located in rural areas .
Rather than focusing on health care or education even in the middle of a pandemic , Trump has settled on race-baiting messages about suburban housing and “ law and order.
” “ The ‘ suburban housewife ’ will be voting for me , ” Trump tweeted in August .
“ They want safety & are thrilled that I ended the long running program where low income housing would invade their neighborhood.
” But Trump ’ s political overtures to American suburbs in 2020 reveal his fundamental misunderstanding about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has an understanding of suburbia that comes from kind of a bygone era , ” said Hopkins .
“ When he thinks suburbia , he thinks white people who are scared of Black people in cities , and violence in cities.
” Suburbs today look a lot like the neighborhood of community college professor Daisy Foxx , 65 , who lives in a suburban neighborhood outside Fayetteville , North Carolina — another major 2020 swing state where Biden and Trump are statistically tied .
Foxx , who is African American , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her neighborhood is majority African American , with the rest of the population composed of Latino and white families .
“ It ’ s just home , ” Foxx said .
“ What matters to me is I have a nice place to stay , a church to go to.
” There are few yard signs for either party in front of the large homes in Foxx ’ s neighborhood , but she said there ’ s little doubt whom many people are voting for .
“ In my neighborhood we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frankly , getting him out of office , ” Foxx told me .
“ It has a lot to do with Covid-19 and how he ’ s divided this country .
I ’ ve never seen it so divided .
It ’ s like a sickness in the atmosphere , and it ’ s just horrific.
” Foxx has never liked Trump .
But like so many other women , she ’ s seen Trump ’ s lack of leadership around Covid-19 directly impact her life in the past year .
Foxx wondered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her Christmas decorations this year , or if she ’ d see her grandchildren during the holidays .
And she was fervent in her desire for white women to match their Black counterparts at the voting booths and cast a ballot for the Biden/Harris ticket .
“ African American women have been clear : We know exactly who will do a better job for us and our community , ” Foxx said .
“ I hope my white counterparts are looking at this.
” The political gender gap is cutting into marriages The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and men Trump in the polls cuts into everyday life — even some marriages .
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake noted the gender gap is “ huge ” among non-college-educated white men and women .
“ You have a record number of non-college-educated married white women married to Trump voters , ” Lake said .
Martha , a retired nurse who lives outside of Shreveport , Louisiana , is in one of these politically split marriages ( she declined to give her last name due to privacy concerns ) .
Martha told me she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third-party in the 2016 election .
Her husband , she says , didn ’ t really pay much attention to politics until he found Trump in 2016 .
This year , she ’ s voting for Biden and her husband is sticking staunchly with Trump .
Politics has become a toxic subject in her household .
“ In a lot of ways he ’ s a very good man , but we don ’ t talk about politics at all , ” Martha told me .
“ When we do , we fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone to a couple marches ; I told my husband I was going to them .
He didn ’ t say anything .
I can ’ t sit and phone bank because he would be sitting here judging me.
” Martha was suspicious of Trump from the get-go , believing in 2016 that the Republican candidate was a “ con man.
” But it ’ s not just Trump ’ s character she finds problematic ; as someone who grew up low-income and relied on government support , she is deeply opposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ net .
She also disagrees with Trump ’ s actions to seal off the border to immigrants seeking asylum and dislikes the president ’ s trade wars with other countries .
“ I think he has diminished our country in the world because of his separatist policies , ” she said .
“ It started out as a character thing , but it ’ s evolved into both.
” The thing Martha struggles to understand the most is why her husband and other formerly close friends who support Trump defend him like he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rather than a politician .
“ Is [ Trump ] more important to you than me ?
” she remembered asking her husband once .
“ He just looked at me ; he didn ’ t answer me.
” Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Share All sharing options for: Suburban women have had their lives upended by Covid-19. Trump might pay the price.
This is the first in a series of stories looking at the people who could cast the most decisive votes in the 2020 election. You can read Dylan Scott’s story on Rust Belt workers here and Li Zhou’s story on Arizona youth here.
Before she got Covid-19, Katie Mazzocco had a plan for every part of her life.
The 34-year-old entrepreneur and mother of two always voted, but she wasn’t involved with political organizing before Donald Trump was elected in 2016. Like thousands of others, Mazzocco was equal parts frightened and energized by Trump’s presidency. Ahead of the 2020 election, she had a plan to make hundreds of calls a day and knock on doors in her Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, suburb — part of a key swing district — to encourage her neighbors to vote this fall.
Now her old life is completely unrecognizable. Mazzocco’s once-packed days are mostly spent in bed, suffering long-term Covid-19 complications that oscillate between brain fog and excruciating chest pains.
“On a daily basis, I’m still trying to hold my body together,” Mazzocco told me in a recent interview. “Some days, I can’t even talk.”
Her once flourishing self-owned business is now on pause. She rarely has the energy to help her 10-year-old twins with their at-home schoolwork. Her husband, a teacher at a local school district, instructs his students from home these days. Mazzocco counts a good day as one where she can walk to the bathroom by herself and brush her teeth, rather than slumped over the shoulder of one of her daughters, her husband, or her mother — who lives with the family to assist with child care, cooking, and cleaning.
“It’s driving me insane because I’m such a go-getter and high achiever,” Mazzocco told me. “Some days my brain is online ... some days it’s like being flattened. It’s agonizing.”
Mazzocco is part of a relatively small group of Covid-19 patients with long-term complications. But she’s one of millions of women across the United States whose working and personal lives have been upended by the pandemic. Vox interviewed several such women around the country and found them organizing from their kitchens and living rooms — deciding the time for complacency is over.
Many of them have stories similar to Mazzocco’s. They were previously engaged voters who paid attention to politics, but Trump’s win made them realize voting alone wasn’t enough. A grassroots army powered by women is developing through their networks of PTA moms, neighbors, and friends.
“I feel like when you activate women, there’s this contagiousness where other women see that and are like, ‘Okay, I can do this too,’” said Claire Reagan, a teacher and mother of two who lives in the suburbs outside the Kansas City metro area.
Organizing is one of the few things Mazzocco can still do from her bed — getting out the vote by texting and writing letters. Her reach is impressive. She estimates she’s texted upward of 10,000 people encouraging them to vote and helping them make a plan, averaging about 100 to 200 conversations each week. And even though life is a daily struggle, Mazzocco is hopeful that this election will bring about real change.
“I think people are excited about it and hoping for change,” she told me. “I want everyone to realize they can be so connected; it’s not that hard.”
Suburban women, once a reliable bloc for Republicans, drove a blue wave for House Democrats in the 2018 midterms. If 2018 was a symbolic rebuke of Trump, pollsters of both parties expect a show of force against Trump from these women in 2020. The lasting effects of the pandemic have only intensified their revolt against the president.
“Common sense suggests that suburban women were skeptical about Trump before the pandemic,” said Republican pollster Whit Ayres. “Having their lives utterly disrupted by school closings and trying to help 6- and 7-year-olds learn virtually while also holding down a job has simply exacerbated their preexisting skepticism about Trump.”
Why Trump repels many suburban women
In mid-October, Trump stood onstage in Johnstown, Pennsylvania — about 65 miles away from Pittsburgh — and practically begged suburban women to vote for him.
“Suburban women, will you please like me?” Trump pleaded. “I saved your damn neighborhood, okay?”
Trump has good reason to be worried about women in Pennsylvania and other swing states. National and state surveys show that Democratic candidate Joe Biden, on average, is polling around 25 points better than Trump among women (Hillary Clinton polled 14 points ahead of Trump with women in 2016). If Biden’s massive margin holds on Election Day, it would make it the biggest gender gap for a Democratic candidate in history.
Democrats believe they can count on Black women, the party’s most reliable voting bloc. They’re more worried about white women, a group Trump narrowly won in 2016 — driven especially by those without college degrees. White college-educated women voted for Clinton over Trump 51 to 44 percent in 2016, but their support has grown and solidified even more four years later. They prefer Biden by nearly 20 points, according to an early October Fox News poll. A late October Midwestern state poll from Fox contained more bad news for Trump; it showed suburban women preferring Biden by 35 points in Michigan, 29 points in Pennsylvania, and 21 points in Wisconsin.
There’s a simple reason for these numbers. Trump revels in being rude, macho, and chaotic — all things many women voters despise, pollsters told me.
“They really didn’t like Donald Trump’s personal style; they thought he was a bully, they thought he was divisive,” said veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who advises Biden’s campaign. “They hate chaos. Suburban women really want stability.”
Ayres, the Republican pollster, agreed.
“It’s largely Trump’s attitude toward women, his belligerence, his style, and his conduct,” he said.
Trump’s list of insults has gotten so long that the New York Times started counting them (598 insults as of 2019). Lately, the target of the president’s ire is America’s revered top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, whom Trump called a “disaster” and one of a group of “idiots” on a recent call with his campaign staff.
Trump’s rhetoric has gotten to the point where Claire Reagan, the teacher, and her husband keep the television off when their young children are around, to avoid them seeing the president at all.
“I don’t want my children to speak the way the president speaks,” said Reagan, who lives in a conservative-leaning suburb outside the Kansas City metro area. “My kids, they know who Barack Obama is. We want them to see what strong, calm leadership looks like, and I can say the same thing if Mitt Romney had been elected. It’s been very difficult to navigate how we expose our children to national politics. It’s not something I think will enrich my children’s understanding of how people who make the rules behave.”
About four years after giving birth to her second child close to the 2016 election, Reagan was determined not to have her third child on November 3, 2020. She told me she had recently pushed back her scheduled C-section until after Election Day.
“I didn’t want to be in the hospital on Election Day,” Reagan said. “I was a billion months pregnant in the 2016 election; ironically, I’m a billion months pregnant right now.” She added, “I just remember how heavy 2016 felt.”
Suburbs like Reagan’s used to be prime Republican territory. The 2018 midterms were the first real wake-up call for the GOP that the suburbs, and white suburban women, were moving away from them.
It wasn’t always this way. In 2010, Democratic candidates lost college-educated white voters by a massive 19 percentage points. During the 2014 midterms, Democrats continued their downward streak with the group, losing them by 16 points (both midterms were banner years for Republicans). But the 2018 midterms saw white suburbanites do a stunning 180-degree turn: White college-educated voters voted for Democratic candidates by 8 points.
“Republicans for the first time in memory lost the suburban vote in 2018,” Ayres told me. “There is no sign at all that they are moving back toward Republicans. If anything, they are voting more strongly for Democrats today.”
The 2018 midterms saw a symbolic rebuke of Trump in the suburbs, giving Democratic House candidates wins even in reach districts in South Carolina, Utah, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
This year, Trump is on the ballot.
Trump has galvanized a movement among suburban women
The story about suburban women in 2020 isn’t just about them voting for a Democratic presidential candidate. It’s about a new wave of women-led grassroots organizing in some of the reddest parts of the country, focused largely on state and local races.
Erin Woods’s foray into organizing in her suburban neighborhood of Leawood, Kansas, really started after the Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017, threatening to undo the protections for preexisting conditions without which her insurance costs would skyrocket.
Before the ACA, Woods had been rejected from multiple health insurance companies for having had a preexisting condition. She estimates she paid around $40,000 in unnecessary premiums over several years.
“I paid more for myself in premiums than we did for the rest of the family,” Woods told me. “Once I went back and looked at it, I was like, ‘Oh, my gosh, this was a couple years of college.’”
No one in her neighborhood really talked politics before 2016, Woods remembers. But she started having conversations with other parents at PTA meetings and her friends, and then started emailing people encouraging them to call their senators and representatives during the 2017 ACA repeal push in Washington, DC. Her email list morphed into a physical group of 20 friends who also wanted to get engaged in politics. It has since grown to about 150 people who make phone calls, do literature drops, and write postcards to encourage others to vote, Woods estimates.
“It’s not that the men aren’t there, but if you’re reading the room, a lot of the people doing the work right now are women”
It’s turned into a large, spiraling network mostly of women who bring in their friends organically. These networks live in private Facebook groups and text and email chains that light up whenever a new Biden/Harris sign goes up on a neighbor’s front lawn.
Women like Reagan and Anita Parsa, who is friends with Woods and part of her organizing group, described themselves as informed and moderately engaged voters before 2016. Many identify as unaffiliated, supporting individual candidates over any one party. Now they are members of an army of galvanized women organizing from their homes. Some are nursing new babies, while others are watching their kids go off to college.
Rather than telling their friends whom to vote for, these women are just encouraging their friends to vote, period.
“I have gotten to know more women who are involved through my involvement,” said Parsa. “It’s kind of infectious; it gives you permission to talk about stuff that you wouldn’t otherwise.”
These women could leave a mark on their heavily Republican state. Kansas is certainly not considered a swing state. But it is not immune to the political changes of the suburbs — evident in a surprisingly competitive Senate race coming two years after Democrats won the governor’s race and a House seat. One Republican pollster recently told me the suburbs outside Kansas City are “ground zero for suburban women fleeing the president.”
Some of these neighborhoods boast mansions, the homes of doctors and lawyers. They’re traditionally moderate Republican areas, but there are many more signs for Biden, Democratic Senate candidate Barbara Bollier, and local Democratic candidates dotting the manicured lawns these days. Keeping in mind the old politics adage that “yard signs don’t vote,” Reagan noted that she sees more Democratic signs in front of people’s houses compared to Republican ones on the side of the road — a sign that voters casting ballots for Democrats are willing to make a public statement in 2020.
“It’s a country-club-joining, fancy-car-driving neighborhood,” said Parsa, who lives in Mission Hills, a suburban neighborhood outside Kansas City. “I do not think we have shifted dramatically left in this area, I think this is a recognition of how extreme the candidates in the GOP are, and their feckless, fawning allowance of anything Trump wants to do.”
Trump may have spurred their involvement, but these women also recognize they can effect the most change in their local offices. Right now, the main focus for Reagan, Parsa, and Woods is to break the Republican supermajority in the Kansas legislature (there’s little chance of actually flipping it). And with women making up the bulk of this organizing group in Kansas City’s suburbs, there’s also a dream to get more women elected to office — in hopes of addressing issues like education, child care, and health care.
“It’s not that the men aren’t there, but if you’re reading the room, a lot of the people doing the work right now are women,” said Reagan. “A lot of the local campaigns that I’ve been in contact with, almost all of them are being run by women.”
Trump fundamentally doesn’t understand the suburbs
The second major factor driving the suburban revolt against the Trump-led GOP is the fact that American suburbs are simply a lot more diverse than they used to be. Far from the all-white enclaves of the 1960s and ’70s, America’s suburbs today are diversifying — much like the rest of the country.
“It’s hugely important to understanding how these suburbs are changing,” said Boston College political science professor David Hopkins, who has researched them extensively. Vastly changing suburbs could be the key to Democratic success in Southern and Western states that previously were reliably Republican. Red states like Arizona and Georgia now look to be in play for Democrats in 2020, owing to a combination of diversifying suburbs and moderate white voters turned off by Trump.
A 2015 Brookings Institution report found that nonwhite people represented at least 35 percent of the suburban population in 36 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas. And recent analysis from the New York Times found the number of census tracts with all-white residents in the United States has cratered — going from about 25 percent in 1980 to just 5 percent in 2017, most of which were located in rural areas.
Rather than focusing on health care or education even in the middle of a pandemic, Trump has settled on race-baiting messages about suburban housing and “law and order.”
“The ‘suburban housewife’ will be voting for me,” Trump tweeted in August. “They want safety & are thrilled that I ended the long running program where low income housing would invade their neighborhood.”
But Trump’s political overtures to American suburbs in 2020 reveal his fundamental misunderstanding about who lives there.
“I think Trump has an understanding of suburbia that comes from kind of a bygone era,” said Hopkins. “When he thinks suburbia, he thinks white people who are scared of Black people in cities, and violence in cities.”
Suburbs today look a lot like the neighborhood of community college professor Daisy Foxx, 65, who lives in a suburban neighborhood outside Fayetteville, North Carolina — another major 2020 swing state where Biden and Trump are statistically tied. Foxx, who is African American, has lived here since 1996. She estimates her neighborhood is majority African American, with the rest of the population composed of Latino and white families.
“It’s just home,” Foxx said. “What matters to me is I have a nice place to stay, a church to go to.”
There are few yard signs for either party in front of the large homes in Foxx’s neighborhood, but she said there’s little doubt whom many people are voting for.
“In my neighborhood we’re very much concerned about Trump and, frankly, getting him out of office,” Foxx told me. “It has a lot to do with Covid-19 and how he’s divided this country. I’ve never seen it so divided. It’s like a sickness in the atmosphere, and it’s just horrific.”
Foxx has never liked Trump. But like so many other women, she’s seen Trump’s lack of leadership around Covid-19 directly impact her life in the past year. Foxx wondered aloud whether she should even put up her Christmas decorations this year, or if she’d see her grandchildren during the holidays. And she was fervent in her desire for white women to match their Black counterparts at the voting booths and cast a ballot for the Biden/Harris ticket.
“African American women have been clear: We know exactly who will do a better job for us and our community,” Foxx said. “I hope my white counterparts are looking at this.”
The political gender gap is cutting into marriages
The historic gender gap between women supporting Biden and men Trump in the polls cuts into everyday life — even some marriages.
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake noted the gender gap is “huge” among non-college-educated white men and women.
“You have a record number of non-college-educated married white women married to Trump voters,” Lake said.
Martha, a retired nurse who lives outside of Shreveport, Louisiana, is in one of these politically split marriages (she declined to give her last name due to privacy concerns). Martha told me she used to be a Republican and voted third-party in the 2016 election. Her husband, she says, didn’t really pay much attention to politics until he found Trump in 2016. This year, she’s voting for Biden and her husband is sticking staunchly with Trump. Politics has become a toxic subject in her household.
“In a lot of ways he’s a very good man, but we don’t talk about politics at all,” Martha told me. “When we do, we fight. We argue terribly. I have gone to a couple marches; I told my husband I was going to them. He didn’t say anything. I can’t sit and phone bank because he would be sitting here judging me.”
Martha was suspicious of Trump from the get-go, believing in 2016 that the Republican candidate was a “con man.” But it’s not just Trump’s character she finds problematic; as someone who grew up low-income and relied on government support, she is deeply opposed to Republican efforts to dismantle the social safety net. She also disagrees with Trump’s actions to seal off the border to immigrants seeking asylum and dislikes the president’s trade wars with other countries.
“I think he has diminished our country in the world because of his separatist policies,” she said. “It started out as a character thing, but it’s evolved into both.”
The thing Martha struggles to understand the most is why her husband and other formerly close friends who support Trump defend him like he’s a member of their family, rather than a politician.
“Is [Trump] more important to you than me?” she remembered asking her husband once. “He just looked at me; he didn’t answer me.”


vox--2020-10-27--Trump’s pullback of pollution controls is even more hazardous than you think

Trump ’ s pullback of pollution controls is even more hazardous than you think Share All sharing options for : Trump ’ s pullback of pollution controls is even more hazardous than you think The Permian Basin is one of the most prolific oil and gas plays in the world , responsible for more than a third of the United States ’ oil and one-sixth of gas production last year .
The formation in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico that has minted fortunes and transformed the country into a global petroleum supplier is also ground zero for the worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
“ You don ’ t know what you ’ re breathing , ” said Gene Collins , a minister and community activist in Odessa , Texas .
It could get worse .
The US Environmental Protection Agency in August rescinded controls installed by the Obama administration to curb releases of methane , a potent , planet-warming gas leaked during oil and gas production , processing , and transportation .
The action , expected but nonetheless condemned by environmentalists , had a little-noticed side effect : Experts say it could lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or VOCs , and hazardous air pollutants — chemicals that cause smog and are linked to cancer , respiratory illnesses , and a growing list of other ailments .
In documents supporting the rollback , the EPA predicted the industry will save $ 19 million annually in compliance costs .
It acknowledged , however , that the change would likely degrade air quality .
“ The EPA expects that forgone VOC emission reductions will degrade air quality and are likely to adversely affect health and welfare … but did not quantify these effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in documents supporting the rule change .
Translation : The change will likely worsen air pollution and harm people ’ s health .
But the EPA didn ’ t bother to estimate the potential extent of the damage , despite what ’ s at stake for people living in communities like Odessa .
The oil and gas sector is the nation ’ s largest industrial emitter of methane , a greenhouse gas with 28 times more heat-trapping power than carbon dioxide .
Under President Barack Obama , the EPA in 2012 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of both methane and VOCs from the oil and gas industry .
“ These commonsense steps will help to combat climate change and reduce air pollution that harms public health , ” Dan Utech , Obama ’ s deputy assistant for energy and climate change , wrote when the 2016 rules were proposed .
Many oil and gas groups were unhappy with the new constraints .
The Independent Petroleum Association of America , which represents thousands of independent producers and service companies , accused the EPA of siding with “ extreme environmental activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ virtually no impact ” on reducing global warming .
The American Petroleum Institute , the largest US oil and gas trade association , said the rules were duplicative and costly , and undermined the progress companies were making on their own to reduce emissions .
President Donald Trump ’ s EPA moved quickly to unwind the pollution safeguards in 2017 , making good on the new president ’ s promise to remove regulations that stood in the way of the industry ’ s growth and promote US “ dominance ” of global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two Obama-era rules were redundant , since methane and VOCs are often co-emitted .
Because methane is the primary ingredient in natural gas , oil and gas companies also had a built-in incentive to limit leaks , the agency said .
“ The Trump administration recognizes that methane is valuable , and the industry has an incentive to minimize leaks and maximize its use , ” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement announcing the rollbacks .
“ Since 1990 , natural gas production in the United States has almost doubled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas industry have fallen by nearly 15 percent .
Our regulations should not stifle this innovation and progress.
” Independent research , however , suggests methane emissions in the oil and gas sector are far higher than what the EPA ’ s data shows .
One 2018 study , published in the journal Science , found that emissions in the oil and gas supply chain could be 60 percent higher than EPA estimates , “ likely because existing inventory methods miss emissions released during abnormal operating conditions , ” the authors wrote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this year , researchers using new satellite data found that methane emissions in the Permian Basin likely were more than twice as high as what the agency ’ s data predicts .
The EPA ’ s own estimates show that upending the regulations will lead to the release of an additional 850,000 tons of methane , 140,000 tons of VOCs , and 5,000 tons of other hazardous air pollutants from 2021 to 2030 .
Asked how these numbers square with the agency ’ s mission to protect the environment and public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t answer .
But she said overall air quality in the US “ continues to improve ” and average concentrations of ground-level ozone dropped by 21 percent between 1990 and 2018 .
VOCs are gases , some of which pose serious health risks .
Benzene , for example , is a carcinogen .
Collectively , VOCs contribute to ground-level ozone , or smog , formation , which can exacerbate asthma and cause other respiratory problems .
And new research shows VOCs and other hazardous air pollutants may worsen the effects of Covid-19 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lisa McKenzie , a clinical assistant professor at the University of Colorado ’ s Anschutz Medical Campus , has found that benzene concentrations in the air around oil and gas operations in Colorado are about twice as high as they are in Denver , whose air isn ’ t exactly pristine .
“ The closer you live to an oil and gas site , the higher your risk of cancer … and the higher your risk for respiratory and neurological effects , ” she said .
And exposures to VOCs — especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operations might explain the increased risk of childhood leukemia and congenital heart defects McKenzie and her fellow researchers found near such operations .
David Brown , a toxicologist with the Pennsylvania-based Environmental Health Project , a research and advocacy organization , says VOCs can attach themselves to ultrafine particles and find their way deep into the lungs — and , ultimately , the bloodstream — causing heart disease and other ailments .
Exposures come not only from wells but also from compressor stations , which keep natural gas flowing through pipelines .
Someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a potent mixture of gases that includes formaldehyde ( a VOC and a carcinogen ) and carbon monoxide , Brown said .
Airborne exposures can also occur when VOC-rich well water escapes from kitchen faucets and showerheads .
Sharon Wilson , a Texan who has lived in the oil patch , is certified to use an infrared camera to record video of emissions that are invisible to the unaided eye .
For the past decade , Wilson has worked with the environmental group Earthworks to document air pollution and file reports with environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Permian Basin where the pungent odor that comes with oil and gas production is inescapable .
“ Even driving down the highway , I have to put my hand over my mouth and nose just trying to filter it some way , ” Wilson said .
Wilson bristles when she hears oil and gas companies and regulators refer to the emissions she records as “ leaks.
” This , she said , implies releases that are small and inadvertent , not intentional , large-scale venting or flaring of methane and VOCs .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people live on the Texas side alone , “ is covered in a big cloud , ” she said .
“ I ’ m not even worried about the leaks ; I ’ m worried about the geysers.
” Seth Shonkoff , a public health scientist with PSE Healthy Energy , a nonprofit research group based in Oakland , California , co-authored a 2017 study that found 17.6 million Americans lived within a mile of an active oil or gas well and a review of 37 studies last year examining hazardous air pollutants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — which identified 61 of these substances , including benzene and the VOCs toluene , ethylbenzene , and xylenes , a toxic brew commonly known as BTEX .
The chemicals came from wellheads , storage tanks , and other infrastructure .
The EPA ’ s pullback on methane will likely only make things worse , Shonkoff said .
“ At the end of the day , ” he said , “ a loosening of regulations for methane emissions from oil and gas development will result in an increase in health-damaging VOCs.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and energy-state politicians cheered as the EPA signed off on final rollbacks , which erased requirements that companies find and fix methane leaks and removed smog and greenhouse gas emission regulation of storage sites , large pipelines , and other parts of the transmission system .
An agency spokesperson said the move corrected “ legally flawed ” actions made by the EPA under Obama .
But some large oil and gas companies , including BP , ExxonMobil , and Shell , criticized the move amid fears that increasing methane emissions would erode arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to burning coal .
The American Petroleum Institute did not respond to requests for comment .
Jennifer Pett Marsteller , director of public affairs and communications for the Independent Petroleum Association of America , provided a policy document that argued the same technology is used to manage both methane and volatile organic compounds .
“ There was never a need nor was there a justification to change the regulated emission for oil and natural gas production operations from volatile organic compounds to methane , ” the IPAA wrote in the document .
From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been especially brutal , with record-setting wildfires on the West Coast and a parade of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico .
Sending more methane into the carbon-soaked atmosphere is unlikely to be well-received by the public .
In September , a coalition of environmental and civil rights groups sued to block the EPA rollbacks , arguing the agency ignored evidence about methane emissions and their harmful health effects on communities of color .
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last month issued a stay , temporarily preventing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil prices hammered first by the lack of pipeline capacity and then the coronavirus pandemic have slowed US oil and gas production , including in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico , providing some communities a brief respite from air pollution .
The Permian Basin was producing around 4.4 million barrels a day of oil in September , down almost half a million barrels from its peak in March , data from the US Energy Information Administration shows .
The number of oil rigs in the region dropped by nearly 70 percent during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials expect drilling to pick up later next year .
As oil and gas production bounces back , methane and VOC emissions are likely to follow and could climb higher due to the rollbacks , if the stay is lifted .
Ilan Levin , the Austin-based associate director of the Environmental Integrity Project , a nonprofit watchdog organization , says VOCs given off by oil and gas activity in the Permian Basin are generating smog “ in places where there didn ’ t use to be a problem , ” such as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A major source of this pollution is oilfield flaring — the burning of excess gas for safety reasons .
Flares are supposed to incinerate at least 98 percent of VOCs and other pollutants .
In fact , Levin said , “ They almost never operate as they ’ re designed to operate ” and wind up disgorging much larger quantities .
“ If you find an unlit flare , that ’ s a really bad thing , ” he said .
“ That means it ’ s venting pure , unburned gas.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recorded since the 1950s , state regulators said .
And flaring across the Permian Basin peaked in 2019 , according to data collected by independent research company Rystad Energy .
Collins , the minister in Odessa , doesn ’ t think the downturn will do much to reduce air pollution long-term .
For decades , he ’ s pushed local and federal officials to conduct more health studies and do more air pollution monitoring .
For a while , though , when the pandemic first hit and drilling in the Permian Basin slowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He even got to take a break from having to use a nebulizer that makes it easier for him to breathe .
“ I never had to use it for the three months that the economy out here was down , ” he said .
Jim Morris of the Center for Public Integrity contributed to this story .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little @ @ @ @

Trump’s pullback of pollution controls is even more hazardous than you think
Share All sharing options for: Trump’s pullback of pollution controls is even more hazardous than you think
The Permian Basin is one of the most prolific oil and gas plays in the world, responsible for more than a third of the United States’ oil and one-sixth of gas production last year.
The formation in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico that has minted fortunes and transformed the country into a global petroleum supplier is also ground zero for the worst oil and gas air pollution in the country.
“You don’t know what you’re breathing,” said Gene Collins, a minister and community activist in Odessa, Texas.
It could get worse.
The US Environmental Protection Agency in August rescinded controls installed by the Obama administration to curb releases of methane, a potent, planet-warming gas leaked during oil and gas production, processing, and transportation.
The action, expected but nonetheless condemned by environmentalists, had a little-noticed side effect: Experts say it could lead to higher emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, and hazardous air pollutants — chemicals that cause smog and are linked to cancer, respiratory illnesses, and a growing list of other ailments.
In documents supporting the rollback, the EPA predicted the industry will save $19 million annually in compliance costs. It acknowledged, however, that the change would likely degrade air quality.
“The EPA expects that forgone VOC emission reductions will degrade air quality and are likely to adversely affect health and welfare … but did not quantify these effects at this time,” the agency wrote in documents supporting the rule change.
Translation: The change will likely worsen air pollution and harm people’s health. But the EPA didn’t bother to estimate the potential extent of the damage, despite what’s at stake for people living in communities like Odessa.
A quick move to unwind the pollution safeguards
The oil and gas sector is the nation’s largest industrial emitter of methane, a greenhouse gas with 28 times more heat-trapping power than carbon dioxide.
Under President Barack Obama, the EPA in 2012 and 2016 finalized rules designed to curb emissions of both methane and VOCs from the oil and gas industry.
“These commonsense steps will help to combat climate change and reduce air pollution that harms public health,” Dan Utech, Obama’s deputy assistant for energy and climate change, wrote when the 2016 rules were proposed.
Many oil and gas groups were unhappy with the new constraints. The Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents thousands of independent producers and service companies, accused the EPA of siding with “extreme environmental activists” and said the regulations would have “virtually no impact” on reducing global warming. The American Petroleum Institute, the largest US oil and gas trade association, said the rules were duplicative and costly, and undermined the progress companies were making on their own to reduce emissions.
This series was made possible through a collaboration with the Center for Public Integrity, a DC-based nonprofit newsroom. Get updates on their work. You can also support Vox with a financial contribution. Learn more.
President Donald Trump’s EPA moved quickly to unwind the pollution safeguards in 2017, making good on the new president’s promise to remove regulations that stood in the way of the industry’s growth and promote US “dominance” of global energy markets.
The EPA argued that the two Obama-era rules were redundant, since methane and VOCs are often co-emitted. Because methane is the primary ingredient in natural gas, oil and gas companies also had a built-in incentive to limit leaks, the agency said.
“The Trump administration recognizes that methane is valuable, and the industry has an incentive to minimize leaks and maximize its use,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement announcing the rollbacks. “Since 1990, natural gas production in the United States has almost doubled, while methane emissions across the natural gas industry have fallen by nearly 15 percent. Our regulations should not stifle this innovation and progress.”
Independent research, however, suggests methane emissions in the oil and gas sector are far higher than what the EPA’s data shows.
One 2018 study, published in the journal Science, found that emissions in the oil and gas supply chain could be 60 percent higher than EPA estimates, “likely because existing inventory methods miss emissions released during abnormal operating conditions,” the authors wrote.
In a separate study published in Science earlier this year, researchers using new satellite data found that methane emissions in the Permian Basin likely were more than twice as high as what the agency’s data predicts.
The EPA’s own estimates show that upending the regulations will lead to the release of an additional 850,000 tons of methane, 140,000 tons of VOCs, and 5,000 tons of other hazardous air pollutants from 2021 to 2030.
Asked how these numbers square with the agency’s mission to protect the environment and public health, EPA spokesperson Enesta Jones didn’t answer. But she said overall air quality in the US “continues to improve” and average concentrations of ground-level ozone dropped by 21 percent between 1990 and 2018.
“Covered in a big cloud”
VOCs are gases, some of which pose serious health risks. Benzene, for example, is a carcinogen. Collectively, VOCs contribute to ground-level ozone, or smog, formation, which can exacerbate asthma and cause other respiratory problems. And new research shows VOCs and other hazardous air pollutants may worsen the effects of Covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.
Lisa McKenzie, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Colorado’s Anschutz Medical Campus, has found that benzene concentrations in the air around oil and gas operations in Colorado are about twice as high as they are in Denver, whose air isn’t exactly pristine. “The closer you live to an oil and gas site, the higher your risk of cancer … and the higher your risk for respiratory and neurological effects,” she said.
And exposures to VOCs — especially benzene — emitted from oil and gas operations might explain the increased risk of childhood leukemia and congenital heart defects McKenzie and her fellow researchers found near such operations.
David Brown, a toxicologist with the Pennsylvania-based Environmental Health Project, a research and advocacy organization, says VOCs can attach themselves to ultrafine particles and find their way deep into the lungs — and, ultimately, the bloodstream — causing heart disease and other ailments.
Exposures come not only from wells but also from compressor stations, which keep natural gas flowing through pipelines. Someone living near such a station might inhale a potent mixture of gases that includes formaldehyde (a VOC and a carcinogen) and carbon monoxide, Brown said. Airborne exposures can also occur when VOC-rich well water escapes from kitchen faucets and showerheads.
Sharon Wilson, a Texan who has lived in the oil patch, is certified to use an infrared camera to record video of emissions that are invisible to the unaided eye. For the past decade, Wilson has worked with the environmental group Earthworks to document air pollution and file reports with environmental authorities.
There are parts of the Permian Basin where the pungent odor that comes with oil and gas production is inescapable.
“Even driving down the highway, I have to put my hand over my mouth and nose just trying to filter it some way,” Wilson said.
Wilson bristles when she hears oil and gas companies and regulators refer to the emissions she records as “leaks.” This, she said, implies releases that are small and inadvertent, not intentional, large-scale venting or flaring of methane and VOCs.
The Permian Basin, where about 2 million people live on the Texas side alone, “is covered in a big cloud,” she said. “I’m not even worried about the leaks; I’m worried about the geysers.”
Seth Shonkoff, a public health scientist with PSE Healthy Energy, a nonprofit research group based in Oakland, California, co-authored a 2017 study that found 17.6 million Americans lived within a mile of an active oil or gas well and a review of 37 studies last year examining hazardous air pollutants released by upstream oil and gas activities — which identified 61 of these substances, including benzene and the VOCs toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, a toxic brew commonly known as BTEX. The chemicals came from wellheads, storage tanks, and other infrastructure.
The EPA’s pullback on methane will likely only make things worse, Shonkoff said. “At the end of the day,” he said, “a loosening of regulations for methane emissions from oil and gas development will result in an increase in health-damaging VOCs.”
A brief respite from air pollution
In August, some oil and gas companies and energy-state politicians cheered as the EPA signed off on final rollbacks, which erased requirements that companies find and fix methane leaks and removed smog and greenhouse gas emission regulation of storage sites, large pipelines, and other parts of the transmission system. An agency spokesperson said the move corrected “legally flawed” actions made by the EPA under Obama.
But some large oil and gas companies, including BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell, criticized the move amid fears that increasing methane emissions would erode arguments that natural gas is a cleaner alternative to burning coal.
The American Petroleum Institute did not respond to requests for comment.
Jennifer Pett Marsteller, director of public affairs and communications for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, provided a policy document that argued the same technology is used to manage both methane and volatile organic compounds.
“There was never a need nor was there a justification to change the regulated emission for oil and natural gas production operations from volatile organic compounds to methane,” the IPAA wrote in the document.
From a climate change standpoint, 2020 has been especially brutal, with record-setting wildfires on the West Coast and a parade of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Sending more methane into the carbon-soaked atmosphere is unlikely to be well-received by the public.
In September, a coalition of environmental and civil rights groups sued to block the EPA rollbacks, arguing the agency ignored evidence about methane emissions and their harmful health effects on communities of color. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last month issued a stay, temporarily preventing the rollbacks from taking effect.
Low oil prices hammered first by the lack of pipeline capacity and then the coronavirus pandemic have slowed US oil and gas production, including in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico, providing some communities a brief respite from air pollution. The Permian Basin was producing around 4.4 million barrels a day of oil in September, down almost half a million barrels from its peak in March, data from the US Energy Information Administration shows. The number of oil rigs in the region dropped by nearly 70 percent during that same period.
But US energy officials expect drilling to pick up later next year. As oil and gas production bounces back, methane and VOC emissions are likely to follow and could climb higher due to the rollbacks, if the stay is lifted.
Ilan Levin, the Austin-based associate director of the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit watchdog organization, says VOCs given off by oil and gas activity in the Permian Basin are generating smog “in places where there didn’t use to be a problem,” such as the Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico.
A major source of this pollution is oilfield flaring — the burning of excess gas for safety reasons. Flares are supposed to incinerate at least 98 percent of VOCs and other pollutants. In fact, Levin said, “They almost never operate as they’re designed to operate” and wind up disgorging much larger quantities. “If you find an unlit flare, that’s a really bad thing,” he said. “That means it’s venting pure, unburned gas.”
Flaring in Texas recently reached levels not recorded since the 1950s, state regulators said. And flaring across the Permian Basin peaked in 2019, according to data collected by independent research company Rystad Energy.
Collins, the minister in Odessa, doesn’t think the downturn will do much to reduce air pollution long-term. For decades, he’s pushed local and federal officials to conduct more health studies and do more air pollution monitoring.
For a while, though, when the pandemic first hit and drilling in the Permian Basin slowed, Collins had a little reprieve. He even got to take a break from having to use a nebulizer that makes it easier for him to breathe.
“I never had to use it for the three months that the economy out here was down,” he said.
Jim Morris of the Center for Public Integrity contributed to this story.