vox--2020-02-22--Greyhound will no longer consent to warrantless searches by border patrol agents

The Greyhound Lines bus company announced on Friday that it will stop allowing border enforcement agents to conduct warrantless immigration checks aboard its buses .
The announcement by the nation ’ s largest bus company came a week after the Associated Press reported that an internal Customs and Border Patrol ( CBP ) memo stated that private bus companies had to grant agents consent before they could board .
Greyhound had previously said it believed federal law required it to comply with border agents ’ requests to board its buses , regardless of whether they had warrants , a practice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a statement , Greyhound now says that it will tell the Department of Homeland Security , under which CBP falls , that it will no longer assent to warrantless searches of private areas of its company , including buses , terminals , and company offices .
The company said it also plans to develop training to ensure drivers and other employees follow the new policy .
“ Our primary concern is the safety of our customers and team members , and we are confident these changes will lead to an improved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Greyhound statement said .
The AP , which first reported on the new policy , said it had not received comment from CBP officials .
In a statement to The Hill , a CBP official wrote that searches of buses were “ consistent with law and in direct support of immediate border enforcement efforts , and such operations function as a means of preventing smuggling and other criminal organizations from exploitation of existing transportation hubs to travel further into the United States.
” Viral videos began spreading in early 2018 of border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including Amtrak trains , to ask passengers for proof of citizenship .
Such incidents were filmed across the country , in Florida and upstate New York , among other places .
In response , the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) and other politicians and organizations called on these companies to enact specific policies against warrantless searches .
The ACLU argued that these unwarranted searches aboard Greyhound and other transit companies ’ vehicles violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution , which outlaws “ unreasonable searches and seizures , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement searches .
“ We are pleased to see Greyhound clearly communicate that it does not consent to racial profiling and harassment on its buses , ” Andrea Flores , deputy director of policy for the ACLU ’ s Equality Division , told the AP .
The ACLU has also accused CBP of racially profiling riders during these stops .
CBP has said that it asks all passengers aboard for their papers regardless of their appearance .
Greyhound is currently being sued in California court on the grounds that its allowance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of consumer protection laws .
In January 2019 , a local comedian in Portland , Oregon , shared his encounter with CBP agents who detained him on a bus from Spokane , Washington .
The agents alleged that his papers , documenting his status as an asylum seeker , were falsified .
This interaction — which like many others , went viral — exposed a deep , and ongoing , confusion over how and where border enforcement agencies , including both CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement , or ICE , can conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks can take place within 100 miles of any land or water border , a swath of land in which more than half of Americans live .
All of Florida is within 100 miles of a border , for example ; so is most of New York .
Bus searches at the northern border increased under Trump , according to an investigation by NBC , which found that such checks took place under the Obama administration as well , but required approval from officials at CBP headquarters .
That latter requirement was eliminated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current rules , individuals can not be detained during searches unless agents have “ reasonable suspicion ” that criminal activity , such as smuggling , is taking place .
The ACLU has long argued that unwarranted searches aboard Greyhound and other transit companies violate the US Constitution .
But Greyhound had argued that those protections don ’ t apply to private transportation companies .
“ We are required by federal law to comply with the requests of federal agents .
To suggest we have lawful choice in the matter is tendentious and false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s parent company , FirstGroup PLC , said last summer .
But according to the memo reported on by the AP , the former CBP head agreed that warrantless boarding , without consent from the company , violates the Fourth Amendment .
“ When transportation checks occur on a bus at non-checkpoint locations , the agent must demonstrate that he or she gained access to the bus with the consent of the company ’ s owner or one of the company ’ s employees , ” the memo , signed by then-chief Carla @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the end of January .
Still , even with clearer guidance about what private transit companies must comply with , the law about where and when law enforcement can conduct sweeps remains murky in some places .
For example , racial profiling is not completely illegal during searches : as Vox ’ s Alexia Fernández Campbell has written , race can be part of the equation when determining reasonable suspicion : In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce , a 1975 Supreme Court case , the Court ruled that it was a violation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop a car only because the driver looked Mexican .
But while the Court agreed that “ apparent Mexican ancestry ” does not , on its own , justify reasonable suspicion that a person is undocumented , the justices did rule that it is a “ relevant factor.
” To justify a stop , the Court said an agent needs several reasons to pull over a car near the border , such as observing a heavily loaded van or a car with an unusual number of passengers .
That could also include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live in Mexico , relying on such factors as the mode of dress and haircut.
” In other words , race can be part of the equation .
And this sort of ambiguity remains an issue of import , particularly given the new policy does not mean searches will end , only warrantless ones .

The Greyhound Lines bus company announced on Friday that it will stop allowing border enforcement agents to conduct warrantless immigration checks aboard its buses.
The announcement by the nation’s largest bus company came a week after the Associated Press reported that an internal Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) memo stated that private bus companies had to grant agents consent before they could board.
Greyhound had previously said it believed federal law required it to comply with border agents’ requests to board its buses, regardless of whether they had warrants, a practice that began to ramp up in 2018.
In a statement, Greyhound now says that it will tell the Department of Homeland Security, under which CBP falls, that it will no longer assent to warrantless searches of private areas of its company, including buses, terminals, and company offices. The company said it also plans to develop training to ensure drivers and other employees follow the new policy.
“Our primary concern is the safety of our customers and team members, and we are confident these changes will lead to an improved experience for all parties involved,” the Greyhound statement said.
The AP, which first reported on the new policy, said it had not received comment from CBP officials. In a statement to The Hill, a CBP official wrote that searches of buses were “consistent with law and in direct support of immediate border enforcement efforts, and such operations function as a means of preventing smuggling and other criminal organizations from exploitation of existing transportation hubs to travel further into the United States.”
Viral videos began spreading in early 2018 of border patrol agents entering private buses and trains, including Amtrak trains, to ask passengers for proof of citizenship. Such incidents were filmed across the country, in Florida and upstate New York, among other places.
In response, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other politicians and organizations called on these companies to enact specific policies against warrantless searches. The ACLU argued that these unwarranted searches aboard Greyhound and other transit companies’ vehicles violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which outlaws “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and mandates the use of warrants for law enforcement searches.
“We are pleased to see Greyhound clearly communicate that it does not consent to racial profiling and harassment on its buses,” Andrea Flores, deputy director of policy for the ACLU’s Equality Division, told the AP.
The ACLU has also accused CBP of racially profiling riders during these stops. CBP has said that it asks all passengers aboard for their papers regardless of their appearance.
Greyhound is currently being sued in California court on the grounds that its allowance of border agents aboard amounts to a violation of consumer protection laws.
There’s been ongoing confusion about border enforcement policy
In January 2019, a local comedian in Portland, Oregon, shared his encounter with CBP agents who detained him on a bus from Spokane, Washington. The agents alleged that his papers, documenting his status as an asylum seeker, were falsified.
This interaction — which like many others, went viral — exposed a deep, and ongoing, confusion over how and where border enforcement agencies, including both CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, can conduct enforcement work.
By law, documentation checks can take place within 100 miles of any land or water border, a swath of land in which more than half of Americans live. All of Florida is within 100 miles of a border, for example; so is most of New York.
Bus searches at the northern border increased under Trump, according to an investigation by NBC, which found that such checks took place under the Obama administration as well, but required approval from officials at CBP headquarters. That latter requirement was eliminated by the Trump administration.
Under the current rules, individuals cannot be detained during searches unless agents have “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity, such as smuggling, is taking place. The ACLU has long argued that unwarranted searches aboard Greyhound and other transit companies violate the US Constitution. But Greyhound had argued that those protections don’t apply to private transportation companies.
“We are required by federal law to comply with the requests of federal agents. To suggest we have lawful choice in the matter is tendentious and false,” a spokesperson for Greyhound’s parent company, FirstGroup PLC, said last summer.
But according to the memo reported on by the AP, the former CBP head agreed that warrantless boarding, without consent from the company, violates the Fourth Amendment.
“When transportation checks occur on a bus at non-checkpoint locations, the agent must demonstrate that he or she gained access to the bus with the consent of the company’s owner or one of the company’s employees,” the memo, signed by then-chief Carla Provost.
Provost retired from the agency at the end of January.
Still, even with clearer guidance about what private transit companies must comply with, the law about where and when law enforcement can conduct sweeps remains murky in some places. For example, racial profiling is not completely illegal during searches: as Vox’s Alexia Fernández Campbell has written, race can be part of the equation when determining reasonable suspicion:
In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, a 1975 Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment for Border Patrol agents to stop a car only because the driver looked Mexican. But while the Court agreed that “apparent Mexican ancestry” does not, on its own, justify reasonable suspicion that a person is undocumented, the justices did rule that it is a “relevant factor.” To justify a stop, the Court said an agent needs several reasons to pull over a car near the border, such as observing a heavily loaded van or a car with an unusual number of passengers. That could also include “the characteristic appearance of persons who live in Mexico, relying on such factors as the mode of dress and haircut.” In other words, race can be part of the equation.
And this sort of ambiguity remains an issue of import, particularly given the new policy does not mean searches will end, only warrantless ones.


vox--2020-02-22--The Nevada caucus tool is an iPad and a Google Form

Here we go again !
Fresh off the unmitigated disaster that was the Iowa Democratic caucuses , Nevada is kicking off caucuses of its own .
After understandably scrapping its plans to use an app made by Shadow Inc. , the company behind Iowa ’ s ill-fated caucus app , the Nevada State Democratic Party came up with a last-minute replacement — just in time for the early voting that began on February 15 .
The replacement is a “ tool ” — reportedly ( and , again , understandably ) party leaders intentionally stayed away from calling it an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iPads equipped with “ caucus calculators ” accessed through a simple Google form .
The caucus process differs depending on the state ( and political party ) that does them .
Nevada has been the third in the country to hold its Democratic nominating contest since 2008 .
Then-Sen. Harry Reid argued that his state better reflected the diversity of America ’ s population than Iowa ( the first caucus ) and New Hampshire ( the first primary ) did , so should have the chance to be an influential part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada ’ s Democratic caucus will be held on February 22 , with early voting taking place February 15 to 18 .
This is the first time the caucus has had early voting , allowing registered Democrats to make their choice in person at any early voting location in their county .
( While the caucuses are considered closed to non-affiliated voters , Nevada has same-day voting registration . )
On February 22 , caucus-goers will report to their precinct and stand on the side of the room designated for the candidate they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get a certain threshold of support — typically 15 percent , depending on the number of delegates at stake — they ’ ll be considered non-viable and their supporters will have to “ realign ” to a viable candidate ( or not vote at all ) .
There will also be paper ballot backups — which , if the caucuses are anything like Iowa ’ s , will come in handy .
Once that ’ s all figured out , voters pick delegates to represent their selections at conventions .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be decided by a drawing of playing cards .
Yes , that ’ s right : In Vegas fashion , whichever group picks the highest card wins the delegate .
If the groups pick the same card , the winner is chosen according to the card ’ s suit ( spades being the highest , then hearts , diamonds , and finally clubs ) .
The candidate who gets the most delegates — not the one who gets the most votes — is considered the winner .
This year is the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope being that the option will increase participation among potential voters who can ’ t make the February 22 event .
Early voters will submit their top three to five choices on a paper ballot .
If a voter ’ s first choice doesn ’ t meet the threshold , their vote will be awarded to the next viable candidate on their list .
The new rules also limit the number of realignment rounds to one .
Also , precinct chairs will have to submit both the raw vote totals as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much like Iowa ’ s precinct chairs did .
That means they ’ ll report three sets of numbers : the first round of votes , the votes after the realignment , and the number of delegates awarded .
In previous contests , precinct chairs simply reported the number of delegates won .
While this increases transparency , it also adds several new steps to the reporting process .
These complications are likely why state party leaders planned to use a new smartphone app to help chairs report all those extra numbers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) app in 2016 , this year would have been Nevada ’ s first caucus that uses one .
Nevada paid Shadow at least $ 60,000 to develop the app — and recommended the company to the organizers of the Iowa caucuses .
In the original Nevada plan , the app would send early votes to precinct chairs that would be combined with the in-person caucus totals .
The app would then calculate the combined results and report them back to the state party headquarters .
Similar to the Iowa caucus , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place , according to the Reno Gazette-Journal .
The smartphone app is dead .
Long live the iPad “ tool.
” In the wake of the Iowa caucus , Nevada quickly distanced itself from Shadow , saying it would not be using its apps and was “ currently evaluating the best path forward.
” But it didn ’ t say much about what that path was .
News outlets reported Saturday that the party was demonstrating a “ caucus tool ” ( the party discouraged volunteers from referring to it as an app @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s new negative connotations ) to be preloaded onto iPads distributed to precinct chairs .
Preloading the tool sounds like a good idea , considering how many Iowa chairs had difficulty downloading their apps onto their mobile devices , let alone actually running them .
On February 13 , a memo from the state party went out to campaigns that shed a little more light on the process : The tool is , in fact , a “ caucus calculator ” — accessed through a Google form — that would help precinct chairs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how many delegates to award the ones who did .
The process sounds very similar to the functions of the app it replaces .
The party said it consulted with the Democratic National Committee , the Department of Homeland Security , and Google to ensure security from potential hackers , which was , once upon a time , the primary concern about the caucus apps .
Chairs will have to report their results either through a phone hotline or by taking a photo of their reporting sheets and texting them to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three days before the caucus is set to begin — the Nevada State Democratic Party released training guides showing precinct chairs how to operate the iPad tool : Yes , the instructions include steps such as “ open iPad case , ” but , considering Iowa ’ s issues with some precinct chairs being entirely unfamiliar with smartphone apps , it ’ s probably a good idea to not assume any prior knowledge .
Nevertheless , those familiar with Google Forms will feel right at home : Chairs will also be completing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will require them to do the same basic math the iPad tool is supposed to do for them .
The most complicated part of the process — calculating re-aligned early voting results — still remains a bit of a mystery ; the guide simply tells chairs to click “ next ” and the new totals will automatically appear , apparently distributed by the tool behind the scenes : Once again , it looks like we ’ ll just have to hope the tool works as required come caucus night .
Update February 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post has been updated to add new details about the caucus tool and process .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

Here we go again!
Fresh off the unmitigated disaster that was the Iowa Democratic caucuses, Nevada is kicking off caucuses of its own. After understandably scrapping its plans to use an app made by Shadow Inc., the company behind Iowa’s ill-fated caucus app, the Nevada State Democratic Party came up with a last-minute replacement — just in time for the early voting that began on February 15.
The replacement is a “tool” — reportedly (and, again, understandably) party leaders intentionally stayed away from calling it an “app” — which involves party-distributed iPads equipped with “caucus calculators” accessed through a simple Google form.
How Nevada’s Democratic caucuses work
The caucus process differs depending on the state (and political party) that does them. Nevada has been the third in the country to hold its Democratic nominating contest since 2008. Then-Sen. Harry Reid argued that his state better reflected the diversity of America’s population than Iowa (the first caucus) and New Hampshire (the first primary) did, so should have the chance to be an influential part of the presidential nominating process.
This year, Nevada’s Democratic caucus will be held on February 22, with early voting taking place February 15 to 18. This is the first time the caucus has had early voting, allowing registered Democrats to make their choice in person at any early voting location in their county. (While the caucuses are considered closed to non-affiliated voters, Nevada has same-day voting registration.)
On February 22, caucus-goers will report to their precinct and stand on the side of the room designated for the candidate they prefer. If a candidate doesn’t get a certain threshold of support — typically 15 percent, depending on the number of delegates at stake — they’ll be considered non-viable and their supporters will have to “realign” to a viable candidate (or not vote at all). There will also be paper ballot backups — which, if the caucuses are anything like Iowa’s, will come in handy.
Once that’s all figured out, voters pick delegates to represent their selections at conventions. In the event of a tie, the delegate will be decided by a drawing of playing cards. Yes, that’s right: In Vegas fashion, whichever group picks the highest card wins the delegate. If the groups pick the same card, the winner is chosen according to the card’s suit (spades being the highest, then hearts, diamonds, and finally clubs).
The candidate who gets the most delegates — not the one who gets the most votes — is considered the winner.
What changed in 2020
This year is the first to allow for early voting, the hope being that the option will increase participation among potential voters who can’t make the February 22 event. Early voters will submit their top three to five choices on a paper ballot. If a voter’s first choice doesn’t meet the threshold, their vote will be awarded to the next viable candidate on their list. The new rules also limit the number of realignment rounds to one.
Also, precinct chairs will have to submit both the raw vote totals as well as the delegate counts to party headquarters, much like Iowa’s precinct chairs did. That means they’ll report three sets of numbers: the first round of votes, the votes after the realignment, and the number of delegates awarded. In previous contests, precinct chairs simply reported the number of delegates won. While this increases transparency, it also adds several new steps to the reporting process.
These complications are likely why state party leaders planned to use a new smartphone app to help chairs report all those extra numbers. While Iowa had used a (different) app in 2016, this year would have been Nevada’s first caucus that uses one. Nevada paid Shadow at least $60,000 to develop the app — and recommended the company to the organizers of the Iowa caucuses.
In the original Nevada plan, the app would send early votes to precinct chairs that would be combined with the in-person caucus totals. The app would then calculate the combined results and report them back to the state party headquarters. Similar to the Iowa caucus, there would be phone and paper backups in place, according to the Reno Gazette-Journal.
The smartphone app is dead. Long live the iPad “tool.”
In the wake of the Iowa caucus, Nevada quickly distanced itself from Shadow, saying it would not be using its apps and was “currently evaluating the best path forward.” But it didn’t say much about what that path was. News outlets reported Saturday that the party was demonstrating a “caucus tool” (the party discouraged volunteers from referring to it as an app, presumably due to the term’s new negative connotations) to be preloaded onto iPads distributed to precinct chairs. Preloading the tool sounds like a good idea, considering how many Iowa chairs had difficulty downloading their apps onto their mobile devices, let alone actually running them.
On February 13, a memo from the state party went out to campaigns that shed a little more light on the process: The tool is, in fact, a “caucus calculator” — accessed through a Google form — that would help precinct chairs figure out which candidates met the threshold and how many delegates to award the ones who did. The process sounds very similar to the functions of the app it replaces. The party said it consulted with the Democratic National Committee, the Department of Homeland Security, and Google to ensure security from potential hackers, which was, once upon a time, the primary concern about the caucus apps.
Chairs will have to report their results either through a phone hotline or by taking a photo of their reporting sheets and texting them to the party headquarters.
On February 19 — three days before the caucus is set to begin — the Nevada State Democratic Party released training guides showing precinct chairs how to operate the iPad tool:
Yes, the instructions include steps such as “open iPad case,” but, considering Iowa’s issues with some precinct chairs being entirely unfamiliar with smartphone apps, it’s probably a good idea to not assume any prior knowledge. Nevertheless, those familiar with Google Forms will feel right at home:
Chairs will also be completing a paper “math poster” worksheet that will require them to do the same basic math the iPad tool is supposed to do for them.
The most complicated part of the process — calculating re-aligned early voting results — still remains a bit of a mystery; the guide simply tells chairs to click “next” and the new totals will automatically appear, apparently distributed by the tool behind the scenes:
Once again, it looks like we’ll just have to hope the tool works as required come caucus night.
Update February 22, 2020, 4:40 pm: This post has been updated to add new details about the caucus tool and process.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-02-22--The Nevada caucuses’ importance, and potential chaos, explained

The Nevada caucuses are the typically glossed-over third contest in the presidential nominating process .
But with the disaster of the Iowa caucuses in the rearview and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) on the rise , the western state has more influence — and potential drama — than ever .
Nevada caucuses take place on Saturday , February 22 ; voters will head to caucus sites at 10 am PT/1 pm ET and will start voting around 12 pm PT/3pm ET .
We ’ re no longer in extremely white Iowa and New Hampshire ; Nevada is the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must appeal to Latino , African American , and Asian American and Pacific Islander voters , many of whom are also union members .
Importantly , a good deal of ranked-choice early voting has already happened — nearly 75,000 caucus total early ballots cast as of Wednesday .
“ It ’ s a really interesting and diverse state .
If you want to look at Super Tuesday and how a candidate is going to do , look at Nevada , ” said Rebecca Katz , a progressive strategist and former staffer for Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential cycles , Nevada has been an afterthought , sandwiched in the middle of Iowa , New Hampshire , and South Carolina .
But Iowa and New Hampshire didn ’ t do much to winnow the Democratic field ; just three Democratic candidates dropped out after New Hampshire — Sen. Michael Bennett ( D-CO ) , entrepreneur Andrew Yang , and former Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick .
“ Nevada is the only state that is representative of our country : 30 percent Hispanic , 9 percent African American , ” former Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interview last May .
“ Our balance is so interesting .
We have a heavy Filipino population here .
So the caucuses are just remarkably good for the country.
” Nevada could also be a harbinger for the general election ; while the state increasingly leans Democratic , Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by just 2 points there in 2016 .
Even though much of the national press is focusing on East Coast and Midwestern states , a number of political experts say Democrats ’ political future lies in the West , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If you want to do well in the West , you have to come to Nevada , ” Reid told me .
But first , the caucuses have to actually go well — especially after the Iowa disaster .
Reid and state Democrats are laser focused on ensuring a smooth process to protect Nevada ’ s early state status .
Despite the Nevada Democratic party rolling out a live “ caucus calculator tool ” to tally the votes , Democrats in the state are still nervous about the impact human error could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How the Nevada caucuses will work The Nevada caucuses will partially follow Iowa ’ s caucus framework , but there will be some differences as Democrats here try to avoid a similar catastrophic outcome .
First , the similarities .
As Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop has written , Nevada Democrats will also report three sets of results on caucus day : the initial vote total , a final vote total taken after realignment and the elimination of candidates who didn ’ t get to 15 percent of the vote , and lastly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The big difference between Iowa and Nevada is there will be no third-party app ; both state parties were initially using the same app by Shadow Inc. , but Nevada Democrats quickly dropped it after multiple precinct chairs in Iowa couldn ’ t log on , or complained of crashing ( which led to further problems like jammed phone lines for those trying to call in their results ) .
The Nevada Democratic Party decided it ’ s also going to rely on phones to report caucus results .
In doing so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ iPad-based calculator tool , ” which local outlet the Nevada Independent reported was essentially a Google Form page linked to a Google spreadsheet .
Still , human error was one of the biggest flaws in Iowa ’ s process .
Besides making sure precinct chairs are trained and ready to report three sets of results , there ’ s not a lot Nevada Democrats can do to ward off that element of uncertainty .
Reid ’ s party is a well-oiled machine , but as Iowa demonstrated — anything can happen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the caucuses in the form of early voting .
Democrats established early voting locations around the state to encourage more voting , and so far we ’ ve seen tens of thousands of people take advantage of it .
These voters were asked to rank rank up to five candidates depending on their preferences .
As Prokop writes , come caucus day , these ballots will be sorted by precinct and incorporated into the in-person caucus before realignment .
Nevada Democrats are projecting confidence they can avoid Iowa ’ s mistakes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elements to deal with .
We ’ ll see how they handle them on Saturday .
Who needs to win in Nevada Polls and political insiders alike predict Sanders as the favorite to win the Nevada caucuses — but a lot could change between now and then .
First of all , there are still a ton of candidates still in the game ; the great winnowing that was supposed to occur in Iowa and New Hampshire never really happened .
There are still eight Democratic candidates , including the top five of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , former South Bend , Ind .
Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) and Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) .
Sanders ’ s momentum out of New Hampshire helped boost a large , months-long campaign operation in Nevada .
His campaign has been organizing there for 10 months ; they ’ re up to around 250 dedicated staff and 11 field offices .
State and national polls show Sanders doing very well among Latino voters ; a February Morning Consult national poll showed his support among these voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We canvass all day long ... we canvass , text and call at all hours because we know people are home at different hours , ” Sanders Nevada state director Sarah Michelsen told me .
“ I ’ m very confident in our program .
We ’ re not taking anything for granted and we ’ re not leaving anything on the field.
” But Sanders could hit some pitfalls ; he ’ s received something of an anti-endorsement from Nevada ’ s powerful Culinary Union , which is afraid of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ union insurance .
Medicare-for-all was just the start of a nasty fight between Culinary and a contingent of Sanders ’ s online supporters .
The Culinary Union has made it very clear they don ’ t like Sanders , but they also aren ’ t endorsing anyone .
That ’ s not good news for moderate candidates who were hoping to receive a bump from the group .
Biden and Warren ultimately could have the most to lose from a poor performance in Nevada ; after lackluster performances in earlier states , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here to propel them forward .
A loss here could be especially damaging for Biden , who came in fourth place in Iowa and fifth place in New Hampshire .
Biden ’ s big argument is he ’ s strong with nonwhite voters , so a loss here could hurt him in South Carolina — where his campaign has been banking on a win .
He has little room for error in Nevada .
“ We feel competitive about the place we ’ re in and good about our operation , ” a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Warren is also looking for a second wind after placing a decent third in Iowa and disappointing fourth in New Hampshire .
The addition of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at Wednesday night ’ s Nevada debate gave Warren an opening to be far more fiery than we ’ ve seen in previous debates .
She came out swinging at Bloomberg , Buttigieg , and Biden ( among others ) — and didn ’ t stop as the night wore on .
Her campaign reported raising $ 425,000 in 30 minutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of newfound momentum .
Warren ’ s campaign has already laid out their strategy to stay in the race until Super Tuesday and beyond , but she needs a good night in one of the early states .
Even the candidates who are riding momentum out of New Hampshire could hit a snag here in Nevada .
Klobuchar saw a surprise bump with her close third-place finish in the New Hampshire primary , but she ’ s scrambling to size up a small campaign in the state .
Even with large crowds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters .
“ The uphill battle is introducing her to people who weren ’ t familiar with her , ” a Klobuchar staffer told Vox .
“ We ’ re trying to be as aggressive as we can.
” Buttigieg , who has a much larger campaign staff here , faces fundamentally the same problem with nonwhite voters .
A recent Data for Progress Nevada poll showed Buttigieg ’ s unfavorables were higher than his favorables among Latinos , 48-32 , with 20 percent saying they hadn ’ t heard enough yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Univision showed just 5 of Latinos said they intended to vote for him , with 21 percent saying they hadn ’ t heard enough about him .
Buttigieg is trying to make as many of those introductions as he can .
He has barnstormed the state with a dozen events in the last week , and his campaign said they ’ re getting more people signing up to volunteer or work as precinct captains on their behalf .
“ We were a little bit late to the game here relative to other candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We definitely feel the momentum here on the ground.
” Nevada is the most diverse early voting state — and it ’ s heavily working-class Reid was instrumental in getting Nevada into the roster of early states in 2006 .
Simply put , he thought Iowa and New Hampshire were too white to have such an outsized role picking the next president .
“ You go to New Hampshire .
There are not any minorities there .
Nobody lives there , ” Reid told the Washington Post in 2015 .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few people there , but again it ’ s a place that does not demonstrate what America is all about , for a lot of different reasons.
” Reid believed diverse states in the mix would force presidential candidates to think about issues impacting nonwhite voters .
He rankled party leaders in the other early states , but he also had a point — New Hampshire and Iowa are both more than 90 percent white .
With a population that ’ s 30 percent Hispanic/Latino , 10 percent African American , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada is more representative of America as a whole .
“ You ’ re going to get a lot of folks who have ideas of what America should look like from their perspective , instead of just the folks in Iowa or New Hampshire , ” Erika Washington , executive director of nonpartisan group Make It Work Nevada told me in an interview last year .
Nevada is also heavily working-class .
A huge chunk of the state ’ s population works in the service industry : cooking , cleaning , and bartending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada ’ s economic juggernauts .
“ It is very blue-collar , partially because we ’ re a hospitality state , ” Washington said .
“ Everyone comes here to forget their problems and cause some ruckus ... but who is cleaning up after you ?
Who is making sure you are safe ?
These are all blue-collar , hardworking folks who are doing it in very hot weather and who have families.
” That presents unique challenges to campaigns trying to reach voters , especially ones working various shifts at hotels , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community takes a machine , which is why unions are such formidable players in Nevada state politics .
There are none more powerful than the Culinary Workers Union — the same group that organized a 1991 workers strike at the Frontier Hotel that lasted more than six years .
The union is highly sought after during election years .
If it backs a candidate , it turns into a veritable political army , working the phones and knocking doors in Las Vegas suburbs for months .
“ [ It ] is not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s essentially the Hispanic turnout machine , ” said Jon Ralston , editor of the Nevada Independent and the state ’ s political dean .
“ If you can get the Culinary Union to go out for you and go out for you hard , that can be a game changer.
” No campaign is getting the benefit of the Culinary Union ’ s turnout machine in the 2020 primary ; nor is anyone getting the coveted endorsement of Harry Reid .
Harry Reid is also sitting on the sidelines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada heats up , all eyes are on Reid , the powerful former Senate majority leader , party boss , and arguably the catalyst for the creation of the caucuses .
But Reid is keeping things close to the vest for now .
He recently showed up to an early voting location to cast an “ uncommitted ” caucus card .
Reid told me in an interview last year he won ’ t make an endorsement until the caucuses are over .
He readily admitted he encouraged Warren ( whom he “ thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for president , and still considers Biden a “ friend.
” When Sanders had a heart attack in Las Vegas in October , Reid visited him in the hospital .
“ [ Warren ] knows I can ’ t endorse her , I can ’ t endorse Joe or anybody else , ” Reid told me last year .
“ But that doesn ’ t mean I can ’ t tell everybody how good they are.
” A person close to Reid told me he is staying on the sidelines when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on making sure these caucuses run smoothly .
Still , Reid ’ s influence is being felt in many other ways .
A number of top staffers in multiple campaigns got their start in his Senate office , and candidates including Sanders are attempting to replicate his playbook for winning elections in Nevada : organize heavily and turn out Latino voters en masse .
“ Harry Reid unlocked this system in Nevada where you have a young population , you have a population that is integrated into labor unions , and Reid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to vote , ” Stephen Nuño-Perez , a senior analyst for the Latino polling firm Latino Decisions told me in a recent interview .
“ This is the playbook , and it ’ s a natural fit for Sanders ’ s style of how he envisions politics.
” Reid ’ s endorsement will be key to whoever wins the 2020 nomination .
But that person needs to win over the rest of Nevada Democrats first .

Next up, Nevada.
The Nevada caucuses are the typically glossed-over third contest in the presidential nominating process. But with the disaster of the Iowa caucuses in the rearview and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on the rise, the western state has more influence — and potential drama — than ever.
Nevada caucuses take place on Saturday, February 22; voters will head to caucus sites at 10 am PT/1 pm ET and will start voting around 12 pm PT/3pm ET. We’re no longer in extremely white Iowa and New Hampshire; Nevada is the most diverse of the early states and candidates must appeal to Latino, African American, and Asian American and Pacific Islander voters, many of whom are also union members. Importantly, a good deal of ranked-choice early voting has already happened — nearly 75,000 caucus total early ballots cast as of Wednesday.
“It’s a really interesting and diverse state. If you want to look at Super Tuesday and how a candidate is going to do, look at Nevada,” said Rebecca Katz, a progressive strategist and former staffer for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
In past presidential cycles, Nevada has been an afterthought, sandwiched in the middle of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. But Iowa and New Hampshire didn’t do much to winnow the Democratic field; just three Democratic candidates dropped out after New Hampshire — Sen. Michael Bennett (D-CO), entrepreneur Andrew Yang, and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
“Nevada is the only state that is representative of our country: 30 percent Hispanic, 9 percent African American,” former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told me in an interview last May. “Our balance is so interesting. We have a heavy Filipino population here. So the caucuses are just remarkably good for the country.”
Nevada could also be a harbinger for the general election; while the state increasingly leans Democratic, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by just 2 points there in 2016. Even though much of the national press is focusing on East Coast and Midwestern states, a number of political experts say Democrats’ political future lies in the West, and Nevada is the regional bellwether.
“If you want to do well in the West, you have to come to Nevada,” Reid told me.
But first, the caucuses have to actually go well — especially after the Iowa disaster. Reid and state Democrats are laser focused on ensuring a smooth process to protect Nevada’s early state status. Despite the Nevada Democratic party rolling out a live “caucus calculator tool” to tally the votes, Democrats in the state are still nervous about the impact human error could have the night of the vote.
How the Nevada caucuses will work
The Nevada caucuses will partially follow Iowa’s caucus framework, but there will be some differences as Democrats here try to avoid a similar catastrophic outcome.
First, the similarities. As Vox’s Andrew Prokop has written, Nevada Democrats will also report three sets of results on caucus day: the initial vote total, a final vote total taken after realignment and the elimination of candidates who didn’t get to 15 percent of the vote, and lastly, a delegate number. Prokop writes:
Those three sets of numbers added complexity to the tallying in Iowa — and provided many more opportunities for human error to become evident. The New York Times estimated that there were “inconsistencies in the reported data” for at least one in six Iowa precincts. And the same could well prove true in Nevada.
The big difference between Iowa and Nevada is there will be no third-party app; both state parties were initially using the same app by Shadow Inc., but Nevada Democrats quickly dropped it after multiple precinct chairs in Iowa couldn’t log on, or complained of crashing (which led to further problems like jammed phone lines for those trying to call in their results).
The Nevada Democratic Party decided it’s also going to rely on phones to report caucus results. In doing so, the state party is ditching an “iPad-based calculator tool,” which local outlet the Nevada Independent reported was essentially a Google Form page linked to a Google spreadsheet.
Still, human error was one of the biggest flaws in Iowa’s process. Besides making sure precinct chairs are trained and ready to report three sets of results, there’s not a lot Nevada Democrats can do to ward off that element of uncertainty. Reid’s party is a well-oiled machine, but as Iowa demonstrated — anything can happen.
There’s also a new layer to the caucuses in the form of early voting. Democrats established early voting locations around the state to encourage more voting, and so far we’ve seen tens of thousands of people take advantage of it. These voters were asked to rank rank up to five candidates depending on their preferences.
As Prokop writes, come caucus day, these ballots will be sorted by precinct and incorporated into the in-person caucus before realignment.
As in Iowa, any supporters of candidates with more than 15 percent support in the precinct (including both in-person and early votes) get locked in. Supporters of candidates below that threshold, though, get to realign. They can back a viable candidate, combine forces to make a nonviable candidate viable, or refuse to support anyone. Once this in-person realignment is done, then the early votes who backed nonviable candidates as their first preference get realigned. They are allotted to their highest-ranking choice who is now viable in the room.
Nevada Democrats are projecting confidence they can avoid Iowa’s mistakes, but there are a lot of additional elements to deal with. We’ll see how they handle them on Saturday.
Who needs to win in Nevada
Polls and political insiders alike predict Sanders as the favorite to win the Nevada caucuses — but a lot could change between now and then.
First of all, there are still a ton of candidates still in the game; the great winnowing that was supposed to occur in Iowa and New Hampshire never really happened. There are still eight Democratic candidates, including the top five of Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
Sanders’s momentum out of New Hampshire helped boost a large, months-long campaign operation in Nevada. His campaign has been organizing there for 10 months; they’re up to around 250 dedicated staff and 11 field offices. State and national polls show Sanders doing very well among Latino voters; a February Morning Consult national poll showed his support among these voters growing as Biden’s fell.
“We canvass all day long ... we canvass, text and call at all hours because we know people are home at different hours,” Sanders Nevada state director Sarah Michelsen told me. “I’m very confident in our program. We’re not taking anything for granted and we’re not leaving anything on the field.”
But Sanders could hit some pitfalls; he’s received something of an anti-endorsement from Nevada’s powerful Culinary Union, which is afraid of what his Medicare-for-all plan could do to their union insurance. Medicare-for-all was just the start of a nasty fight between Culinary and a contingent of Sanders’s online supporters.
The Culinary Union has made it very clear they don’t like Sanders, but they also aren’t endorsing anyone. That’s not good news for moderate candidates who were hoping to receive a bump from the group.
Biden and Warren ultimately could have the most to lose from a poor performance in Nevada; after lackluster performances in earlier states, both are banking on a show of strength here to propel them forward. A loss here could be especially damaging for Biden, who came in fourth place in Iowa and fifth place in New Hampshire. Biden’s big argument is he’s strong with nonwhite voters, so a loss here could hurt him in South Carolina — where his campaign has been banking on a win. He has little room for error in Nevada.
“We feel competitive about the place we’re in and good about our operation,” a Biden campaign aide in Nevada told Vox.
Warren is also looking for a second wind after placing a decent third in Iowa and disappointing fourth in New Hampshire. The addition of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at Wednesday night’s Nevada debate gave Warren an opening to be far more fiery than we’ve seen in previous debates. She came out swinging at Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Biden (among others) — and didn’t stop as the night wore on. Her campaign reported raising $425,000 in 30 minutes during the debate, a good indication of newfound momentum.
Warren’s campaign has already laid out their strategy to stay in the race until Super Tuesday and beyond, but she needs a good night in one of the early states.
Even the candidates who are riding momentum out of New Hampshire could hit a snag here in Nevada. Klobuchar saw a surprise bump with her close third-place finish in the New Hampshire primary, but she’s scrambling to size up a small campaign in the state. Even with large crowds, polls show Klobuchar falling behind with nonwhite voters.
“The uphill battle is introducing her to people who weren’t familiar with her,” a Klobuchar staffer told Vox. “We’re trying to be as aggressive as we can.”
Buttigieg, who has a much larger campaign staff here, faces fundamentally the same problem with nonwhite voters. A recent Data for Progress Nevada poll showed Buttigieg’s unfavorables were higher than his favorables among Latinos, 48-32, with 20 percent saying they hadn’t heard enough yet to say. A recent national poll by Univision showed just 5 of Latinos said they intended to vote for him, with 21 percent saying they hadn’t heard enough about him.
Buttigieg is trying to make as many of those introductions as he can. He has barnstormed the state with a dozen events in the last week, and his campaign said they’re getting more people signing up to volunteer or work as precinct captains on their behalf.
“We were a little bit late to the game here relative to other candidates,” a Buttigieg staffer told Vox. “We definitely feel the momentum here on the ground.”
Nevada is the most diverse early voting state — and it’s heavily working-class
Reid was instrumental in getting Nevada into the roster of early states in 2006. Simply put, he thought Iowa and New Hampshire were too white to have such an outsized role picking the next president.
“You go to New Hampshire. There are not any minorities there. Nobody lives there,” Reid told the Washington Post in 2015. “You go to Iowa. There are a few people there, but again it’s a place that does not demonstrate what America is all about, for a lot of different reasons.”
Reid believed diverse states in the mix would force presidential candidates to think about issues impacting nonwhite voters. He rankled party leaders in the other early states, but he also had a point — New Hampshire and Iowa are both more than 90 percent white. With a population that’s 30 percent Hispanic/Latino, 10 percent African American, and 10 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, Nevada is more representative of America as a whole.
“You’re going to get a lot of folks who have ideas of what America should look like from their perspective, instead of just the folks in Iowa or New Hampshire,” Erika Washington, executive director of nonpartisan group Make It Work Nevada told me in an interview last year.
Nevada is also heavily working-class. A huge chunk of the state’s population works in the service industry: cooking, cleaning, and bartending for the hotels and casinos that are Nevada’s economic juggernauts.
“It is very blue-collar, partially because we’re a hospitality state,” Washington said. “Everyone comes here to forget their problems and cause some ruckus ... but who is cleaning up after you? Who is making sure you are safe? These are all blue-collar, hardworking folks who are doing it in very hot weather and who have families.”
That presents unique challenges to campaigns trying to reach voters, especially ones working various shifts at hotels, restaurants and casinos. Helping organize that community takes a machine, which is why unions are such formidable players in Nevada state politics.
There are none more powerful than the Culinary Workers Union — the same group that organized a 1991 workers strike at the Frontier Hotel that lasted more than six years. The union is highly sought after during election years. If it backs a candidate, it turns into a veritable political army, working the phones and knocking doors in Las Vegas suburbs for months.
“[It] is not just a great turnout machine for workers, but it’s essentially the Hispanic turnout machine,” said Jon Ralston, editor of the Nevada Independent and the state’s political dean. “If you can get the Culinary Union to go out for you and go out for you hard, that can be a game changer.”
No campaign is getting the benefit of the Culinary Union’s turnout machine in the 2020 primary; nor is anyone getting the coveted endorsement of Harry Reid.
Harry Reid is also sitting on the sidelines — for now
As the race in Nevada heats up, all eyes are on Reid, the powerful former Senate majority leader, party boss, and arguably the catalyst for the creation of the caucuses.
But Reid is keeping things close to the vest for now. He recently showed up to an early voting location to cast an “uncommitted” caucus card. Reid told me in an interview last year he won’t make an endorsement until the caucuses are over. He readily admitted he encouraged Warren (whom he “thinks the world of”) to run for president, and still considers Biden a “friend.” When Sanders had a heart attack in Las Vegas in October, Reid visited him in the hospital.
“[Warren] knows I can’t endorse her, I can’t endorse Joe or anybody else,” Reid told me last year. “But that doesn’t mean I can’t tell everybody how good they are.”
A person close to Reid told me he is staying on the sidelines when it comes to the candidates, and is instead focused on making sure these caucuses run smoothly.
Still, Reid’s influence is being felt in many other ways. A number of top staffers in multiple campaigns got their start in his Senate office, and candidates including Sanders are attempting to replicate his playbook for winning elections in Nevada: organize heavily and turn out Latino voters en masse.
“Harry Reid unlocked this system in Nevada where you have a young population, you have a population that is integrated into labor unions, and Reid uses particularly labor unions to get Latinos out to vote,” Stephen Nuño-Perez, a senior analyst for the Latino polling firm Latino Decisions told me in a recent interview. “This is the playbook, and it’s a natural fit for Sanders’s style of how he envisions politics.”
Reid’s endorsement will be key to whoever wins the 2020 nomination. But that person needs to win over the rest of Nevada Democrats first.


vox--2020-02-22--Renowned Catholic figure Jean Vanier has been accused of sexual manipulation and abuse

A man venerated in Catholic circles and beyond is alleged to have sexually abused six women over the course of decades , according to an internal report commissioned by the charity that he founded .
Jean Vanier , a Canadian who founded the nonprofit L ’ Arche to serve adults with intellectual disabilities , and who died last year at age 90 , engaged in “ manipulative and emotionally abusive ” sexual relationships with at least six women under the guise of providing spiritual guidance , according to a report conducted by L ’ Arche and released on its website @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vanier allegedly exerted a “ psychological hold ” over his alleged victims , all women living in France , and none of whom had disabilities themselves .
The report does not conclude whether there were additional alleged victims beyond the six who came forward and detailed their abuse .
“ The women each report that Jean Vanier initiated sexual behaviours with them , usually in the context of spiritual accompaniment .
Some of these women have been deeply wounded by these experiences , ” reads a summary of the report released by L @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the allegations to be “ credible.
” “ Jean Vanier asked each of the women to keep the nature of these events secret , ” the summary goes on to read .
“ They had no prior knowledge of each other ’ s experiences , but these women reported similar facts associated with highly unusual spiritual or mystical explanations used to justify these sexual behaviours.
” The investigation commenced in 2019 , shortly before Vanier ’ s death .
It was conducted by GCPS , a British consultancy focusing on abuse prevention .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stephan Posner and Stacy Cates-Carney , condemned Vanier ’ s alleged actions in a statement on Saturday .
“ We are shocked by these discoveries and unreservedly condemn these actions , which are in total contradiction with the values Jean Vanier claimed and are incompatible with the basic rules of respect and integrity of persons , and contrary to the fundamental principles on which L ’ Arche is based , ” they wrote .
As of midday on Saturday , the L ’ Arche website was demonstrating an error notice .
The website @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was dedicated to upholding his memory , displayed a message that its “ website will be closed until further notice.
” The allegations also include revelations about a cover up Referred to as a “ savior of people on the margins ” in his New York Times obituary , Vanier founded L ’ Arche in 1963 to create group homes and communities for people with intellectual disabilities .
Today , that Catholic organization operates 154 communities in 38 countries .
A fellow organization , Faith and Light , which operates as an ecumenical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 83 countries .
But the obituary makes no note of the man who Vanier identified as his “ spiritual mentor , ” Thomas Philippe , who was sanctioned by Church authorities and removed from ministry in the 1950s .
According to America magazine , a Catholic outlet , Vanier ’ s alleged behavior “ mirrored ” that of Philippe , who died in 1993 ; Vanier had repeatedly denied that he knew of Philippe ’ s abuses , but the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith , which promotes Church doctrine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s sanctioning in 1956 .
“ But the new investigation reveal that was not true , ” writes America ’ s Michael J. O ’ Loughlin in a explainer of the men ’ s relationship and allegations against them .
The L ’ Arche report states explicitly that Vanier “ lied .
He was aware of his mentor ’ s behaviors , ” and even adopted code names to communicate with his disgraced mentor .
Philippe ’ s behavior is part of what sparked L ’ Arche ’ s investigation into its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how abuse can be institutionally fostered has been a painful source of reckoning within many Catholic organizations in light of ongoing investigations into sexual abuse by priests .
This reckoning extends beyond Catholicism and into other religious orders , wrote Vivienne Faul , the Bishop of Bristol — a position within the Church of England , not the Catholic church — on Twitter : “ We need to learn what it is that produces and protects such abusers within the Christian church.
” Vanier ’ s story overlaps somewhat with reports about clerical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priest , which meant that sexual activity was not forbidden to him , the report said that he did not take action when alleged victims of his mentor , Philippe , shared information about their experiences with him .
In this way , he allegedly helped to cover up abuses taking place — even as he went on to commit similar abuses , of power and of people , himself .
Independent of his celebrity within religious circles , the narrative described in the report would seem to place Vanier in a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age of # MeToo : a man of power who leveraged his authority to engage in coercive sexual experiences .
Now many who admired him are left to question how to reconcile the good works that he did with the person the report finds he was in his personal life .
“ A terrible tragedy for those who were abused , ” wrote James Martin , a priest and editor-at-large for America magazine .
“ A time of deep sorrow for L ’ Arche and all its many members .
A grave disappointment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered him a saint , as I once did .
”

A man venerated in Catholic circles and beyond is alleged to have sexually abused six women over the course of decades, according to an internal report commissioned by the charity that he founded.
Jean Vanier, a Canadian who founded the nonprofit L’Arche to serve adults with intellectual disabilities, and who died last year at age 90, engaged in “manipulative and emotionally abusive” sexual relationships with at least six women under the guise of providing spiritual guidance, according to a report conducted by L’Arche and released on its website Saturday.
Between 1970 and 2005, Vanier allegedly exerted a “psychological hold” over his alleged victims, all women living in France, and none of whom had disabilities themselves. The report does not conclude whether there were additional alleged victims beyond the six who came forward and detailed their abuse.
“The women each report that Jean Vanier initiated sexual behaviours with them, usually in the context of spiritual accompaniment. Some of these women have been deeply wounded by these experiences,” reads a summary of the report released by L’Arche International. The report found the allegations to be “credible.”
“Jean Vanier asked each of the women to keep the nature of these events secret,” the summary goes on to read. “They had no prior knowledge of each other’s experiences, but these women reported similar facts associated with highly unusual spiritual or mystical explanations used to justify these sexual behaviours.”
The investigation commenced in 2019, shortly before Vanier’s death. It was conducted by GCPS, a British consultancy focusing on abuse prevention.
The organization’s international leaders, Stephan Posner and Stacy Cates-Carney, condemned Vanier’s alleged actions in a statement on Saturday.
“We are shocked by these discoveries and unreservedly condemn these actions, which are in total contradiction with the values Jean Vanier claimed and are incompatible with the basic rules of respect and integrity of persons, and contrary to the fundamental principles on which L’Arche is based,” they wrote.
As of midday on Saturday, the L’Arche website was demonstrating an error notice. The website for the Jean Vanier Association, which was dedicated to upholding his memory, displayed a message that its “website will be closed until further notice.”
The allegations also include revelations about a cover up
Referred to as a “savior of people on the margins” in his New York Times obituary, Vanier founded L’Arche in 1963 to create group homes and communities for people with intellectual disabilities. Today, that Catholic organization operates 154 communities in 38 countries. A fellow organization, Faith and Light, which operates as an ecumenical Christian organization, operates 1,500 communities in 83 countries.
But the obituary makes no note of the man who Vanier identified as his “spiritual mentor,” Thomas Philippe, who was sanctioned by Church authorities and removed from ministry in the 1950s. According to America magazine, a Catholic outlet, Vanier’s alleged behavior “mirrored” that of Philippe, who died in 1993; Vanier had repeatedly denied that he knew of Philippe’s abuses, but the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which promotes Church doctrine, directed that Vanier be informed of Philippe’s sanctioning in 1956.
“But the new investigation reveal that was not true,” writes America’s Michael J. O’Loughlin in a explainer of the men’s relationship and allegations against them. The L’Arche report states explicitly that Vanier “lied. He was aware of his mentor’s behaviors,” and even adopted code names to communicate with his disgraced mentor.
Philippe’s behavior is part of what sparked L’Arche’s investigation into its internal culture. But broader questions about how abuse can be institutionally fostered has been a painful source of reckoning within many Catholic organizations in light of ongoing investigations into sexual abuse by priests.
This reckoning extends beyond Catholicism and into other religious orders, wrote Vivienne Faul, the Bishop of Bristol — a position within the Church of England, not the Catholic church — on Twitter: “We need to learn what it is that produces and protects such abusers within the Christian church.”
Thinking of those who had the courage to disclose, all those who have been part of the L’Arche community and all those who have been betrayed. But we need to learn what it is that produces and protects such abusers within the Christian church
https://t.co/9AjB4mk14O — Bishopviv (@Bishopviv1) February 22, 2020
Vanier’s story overlaps somewhat with reports about clerical abuse: although he was not a priest, which meant that sexual activity was not forbidden to him, the report said that he did not take action when alleged victims of his mentor, Philippe, shared information about their experiences with him. In this way, he allegedly helped to cover up abuses taking place — even as he went on to commit similar abuses, of power and of people, himself.
Independent of his celebrity within religious circles, the narrative described in the report would seem to place Vanier in a position that is a familiar one in the age of #MeToo: a man of power who leveraged his authority to engage in coercive sexual experiences.
Now many who admired him are left to question how to reconcile the good works that he did with the person the report finds he was in his personal life.
“A terrible tragedy for those who were abused,” wrote James Martin, a priest and editor-at-large for America magazine. “A time of deep sorrow for L’Arche and all its many members. A grave disappointment for all who admired him, and considered him a saint, as I once did.”


vox--2020-02-22--Half of South Korea’s coronavirus cases are linked to a controversial religious organization

There ’ s been a rapid spike in coronavirus disease , or Covid-19 , cases in South Korea , and about half of the 433 confirmed cases are linked to a secretive religious group often viewed with suspicion by more traditional religious sects .
At least 182 Covid-19 cases have come from the Shincheonji Church of Jesus in the city of Daegu , which is the fourth-largest in the country .
The group itself is often considered a cult in South Korea by mainstream churches : it was founded in 1984 by Lee Man-hee , who claims he is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is the only person who can interpret the Bible and promises to take 144,000 people to heaven with him on the Day of Judgement .
Despite its unorthodox background , the church boasts at least 150,000 members .
There is growing concern the current number of confirmed cases in South Korea — already nearly eight times what it was early last week — will rise .
Currently , 6,037 people being tested , and more than 1,250 church members have reported potential Covid-19 symptoms .
The church is at the center of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these confirmed cases can be traced back to one person : Patient no .
31 , a 61-year-old woman who is a devout follower of Shincheonji .
The woman first checked in to a hospital following a small car accident .
On the fourth day of her stay , she developed a fever , but refused to get checked for the virus because she hadn ’ t traveled abroad or been in contact with anyone contaminated .
She was finally tested on Monday , and on Tuesday she received positive results .
Up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the hospital at least four times to attend services that attracted up to 1,000 people .
Shincheonji ’ s method of worshipping during these services could have contributed to the spread of the virus among its congregation , according to the Korea Center for Disease Control .
Members are expected to kneel in tight rows and aren ’ t allowed to cover their faces with items like glasses or face masks .
After patient no .
31 ’ s case went public , church members reportedly received social media messages that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small groups and to deny their affiliation to the church if public health officials asked .
The church , however , later denounced these messages , claiming they didn ’ t come from the group ’ s leadership and that the church member behind the messages had been punished .
Church leaders also said that they ’ ve been fully cooperating with the government ’ s quarantine efforts , and have closed all of their 74 sanctuaries across the country , providing worship services online instead .
In a message to his worshippers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government instructions and avoid gathering in groups .
“ This disease outbreak is the work of the devil , which is hellbent on stopping the rapid growth of the Shincheonji , ” he wrote .
Despite these instructions , government officials have faced difficulty in discovering the whereabouts of about 700 Shincheonji members who have yet to be tested for the virus , according to The New York Times .
Many members , the Times notes , work to keep their affiliation with the church secret due to negative connotations that surround the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to figure out how patient no .
31 contracted the virus , though KCDC Director Jung Eun-kyeong acknowledged that the church had invited Koreans from northeastern China to South Korea as part of their evangelical work .
She said they were also looking into reports that the organization had opened a church in Wuhan — the epicenter of the disease — although the group has erased all references of it from their website .
The government is taking drastic measures in response to the surge in cases The rapid rise of confirmed cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has led to deep concern among residents of Daegu : Public spaces , such as parks , movie theaters , and stores , are reportedly empty as people avoid them in fear of getting ill .
In response , the government has decided to close thousands of community centers and daycare facilities across the country .
The government ’ s most drastic measure , however , might be the ban on political rallies outdoors — a surprising move considering how such rallies are a common part of daily life in Seoul .
Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activities for the near future .
“ In accordance with law and principles , the government will sternly deal with acts that interfere with quarantine efforts , illegal hoarding of medical goods and acts that spark uneasiness through massive rallies , ” Chung said , according to Korea Times .
However , this public announcement hasn ’ t done much to stop large public gatherings .
Several conservative groups continued to hold political rallies in Gwanghwamoon on Saturday — which is considered the center of all political activism in Seoul and has hosted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resignation of President Moon Jae-in ( although to be clear , these conservative groups have tried to push the liberal president out of the office even before the Covid-19 began to spread ) .
The demonstrations reflect scenes that health officials remain particularly worried about and that Chung ’ s announcement was meant to minimize : elderly people in close proximity together outdoors .
Under city law , the organizers of rallies could be fined up to about $ 2,500 .
The ban on public gatherings comes as the government works to limit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that lives in close quarters : There are currently at least three confirmed cases — one each from the army , marines , and air force — in the country ’ s 600,000-member military .
All three servicepeople either recently visited or were stationed in Daegu .
In response , the military launched a mass quarantine of all soldiers who were in contact with the three sick troops , and has announced it will also shut down all vacations and visits indefinitely .
The effort is part of the government ’ s strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , now that it ’ s rapidly spread throughout the nation Chung said : “ Our efforts until now had been focused on blocking the illness from entering the country .
...
But we will now shift the focus on preventing the illness from spreading further in local communities .
”

There’s been a rapid spike in coronavirus disease, or Covid-19, cases in South Korea, and about half of the 433 confirmed cases are linked to a secretive religious group often viewed with suspicion by more traditional religious sects.
At least 182 Covid-19 cases have come from the Shincheonji Church of Jesus in the city of Daegu, which is the fourth-largest in the country. The group itself is often considered a cult in South Korea by mainstream churches: it was founded in 1984 by Lee Man-hee, who claims he is the second coming of Jesus.
Lee teaches he is the only person who can interpret the Bible and promises to take 144,000 people to heaven with him on the Day of Judgement. Despite its unorthodox background, the church boasts at least 150,000 members.
There is growing concern the current number of confirmed cases in South Korea — already nearly eight times what it was early last week — will rise. Currently, 6,037 people being tested, and more than 1,250 church members have reported potential Covid-19 symptoms.
The church is at the center of scrutiny in large part because several of these confirmed cases can be traced back to one person: Patient no. 31, a 61-year-old woman who is a devout follower of Shincheonji.
The woman first checked in to a hospital following a small car accident. On the fourth day of her stay, she developed a fever, but refused to get checked for the virus because she hadn’t traveled abroad or been in contact with anyone contaminated. She was finally tested on Monday, and on Tuesday she received positive results. Up until that point, she had slipped out of the hospital at least four times to attend services that attracted up to 1,000 people.
Shincheonji’s method of worshipping during these services could have contributed to the spread of the virus among its congregation, according to the Korea Center for Disease Control. Members are expected to kneel in tight rows and aren’t allowed to cover their faces with items like glasses or face masks.
After patient no. 31’s case went public, church members reportedly received social media messages that encouraged them to continue evangelical work in small groups and to deny their affiliation to the church if public health officials asked.
The church, however, later denounced these messages, claiming they didn’t come from the group’s leadership and that the church member behind the messages had been punished. Church leaders also said that they’ve been fully cooperating with the government’s quarantine efforts, and have closed all of their 74 sanctuaries across the country, providing worship services online instead. In a message to his worshippers, Lee encouraged members to adhere to government instructions and avoid gathering in groups.
“This disease outbreak is the work of the devil, which is hellbent on stopping the rapid growth of the Shincheonji,” he wrote.
Despite these instructions, government officials have faced difficulty in discovering the whereabouts of about 700 Shincheonji members who have yet to be tested for the virus, according to The New York Times. Many members, the Times notes, work to keep their affiliation with the church secret due to negative connotations that surround the organization.
The government is also struggling to figure out how patient no. 31 contracted the virus, though KCDC Director Jung Eun-kyeong acknowledged that the church had invited Koreans from northeastern China to South Korea as part of their evangelical work. She said they were also looking into reports that the organization had opened a church in Wuhan — the epicenter of the disease — although the group has erased all references of it from their website.
The government is taking drastic measures in response to the surge in cases
The rapid rise of confirmed cases in the mere span of a week has led to deep concern among residents of Daegu: Public spaces, such as parks, movie theaters, and stores, are reportedly empty as people avoid them in fear of getting ill.
In response, the government has decided to close thousands of community centers and daycare facilities across the country. The government’s most drastic measure, however, might be the ban on political rallies outdoors — a surprising move considering how such rallies are a common part of daily life in Seoul. Prime Minister Chung Sye-Kyun also discouraged organized religious activities for the near future.
“In accordance with law and principles, the government will sternly deal with acts that interfere with quarantine efforts, illegal hoarding of medical goods and acts that spark uneasiness through massive rallies,” Chung said, according to Korea Times.
However, this public announcement hasn’t done much to stop large public gatherings. Several conservative groups continued to hold political rallies in Gwanghwamoon on Saturday — which is considered the center of all political activism in Seoul and has hosted demonstrations daily — to call for the resignation of President Moon Jae-in (although to be clear, these conservative groups have tried to push the liberal president out of the office even before the Covid-19 began to spread).
The demonstrations reflect scenes that health officials remain particularly worried about and that Chung’s announcement was meant to minimize: elderly people in close proximity together outdoors. Under city law, the organizers of rallies could be fined up to about $2,500.
LIVE IN SEOUL'S GWANGHWAMUN: This is absolute madness. Conservative groups have defied the ban on protests re: containing the spread of coronavirus in South Korea, which has surged. Most people here are elderly. They are singing "Imprison Moon Jae-in". Large police presence. pic.twitter.com/C8nanNTbA6 — Raphael Rashid (@koryodynasty) February 22, 2020
The ban on public gatherings comes as the government works to limit the spread of Covid-19 among another population that lives in close quarters: There are currently at least three confirmed cases — one each from the army, marines, and air force — in the country’s 600,000-member military. All three servicepeople either recently visited or were stationed in Daegu.
In response, the military launched a mass quarantine of all soldiers who were in contact with the three sick troops, and has announced it will also shut down all vacations and visits indefinitely.
The effort is part of the government’s strategy for fighting Covid-19 on a new front, now that it’s rapidly spread throughout the nation Chung said: “Our efforts until now had been focused on blocking the illness from entering the country. ... But we will now shift the focus on preventing the illness from spreading further in local communities.”


vox--2020-02-22--Justice Sotomayor warns the Supreme Court is doing special favors for the Trump administration

The Supreme Court voted along party lines Friday evening to allow a Trump administration rule restricting low-income immigrants ’ ability to enter the US to take full effect .
All four of the Court ’ s Democratic appointees dissented , with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing a sharply worded dissenting opinion accusing her Court of “ putting a thumb on the scale in favor of ” the Trump administration .
“ It is hard to say what is more troubling , ” Sotomayor wrote .
“ That the government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The Court ’ s decision in Wolf v. Cook County is a significant development in and of itself because of its potential impact on millions of immigrants .
Last August , the Trump administration announced a new rule governing who would be classified as a “ public charge ” — essentially someone reliant on government aid programs — and thus potentially unable to enter the United States , extend their visa , or obtain a green card .
The new rule gives immigration officials leeway to turn away immigrants deemed “ likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on a wide range of factors including use of certain public benefits and English language skills .
As much as 69 percent of the more than 5 million individuals who received a green card over the past five years have at least one negative factor against them under the new rule , and thus might have been denied immigration benefits had the new rule been in effect .
Sotomayor is concerned the Supreme Court is granting too many stays — and for good reason Sotomayor ’ s dissent focuses less on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public charge rule is legal , and more on what she describes as a “ now-familiar pattern ” in the administration ’ s interactions with the Supreme Court .
At least two lower courts handed down orders blocking the new public charge rule — one of those decisions blocked the rule across the country , while the other blocked it only in Illinois .
Last month , the Supreme Court voted 5-4 along familiar partisan lines to stay the lower court order blocking the rule on a nationwide basis .
Friday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Illinois .
Until recently , it was extraordinarily unusual for the government to seek such a stay from the justices while a case was still winding its way through lower courts .
As Sotomayor warned in a dissenting opinion last September , “ granting a stay pending appeal should be an ‘ extraordinary ’ act .
Unfortunately , it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal.
” According to a recent paper by University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck , “ in less than three years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has filed at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court ( including ten during the October 2018 Term alone ) ” — and Vladeck ’ s paper did not include the Trump administration 's two applications in the public charge cases .
By comparison , “ during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations , the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications — averaging one every other Term.
” The Trump administration , moreover , has a high win rate when it seeks extraordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s achieved a partial or full victory in about 65 percent of the cases where it asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block a lower court ’ s opinion .
As Sotomayor explains in her Wolf opinion , it is very unusual for the Supreme Court to grant such relief so easily .
Because the Supreme Court is the final word on nearly all questions of federal law , it typically likes to let novel legal issues percolate in the lower courts before handing down a final command .
“ Stay applications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and constitutional questions that have not been ventilated fully in the lower courts , on abbreviated timetables and without oral argument , ” Sotomayor writes in her Wolf dissent .
They also “ upend the normal appellate process , putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won a stay.
” And in this Supreme Court , that party is almost always the Trump administration .
The Supreme Court ’ s stay decisions weaken safeguards built into the court system There is a simple reason the justices ordinarily like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If a lower court gets a decision wrong , the same issue is likely to come before other judges who may reach the correct conclusion .
As these decisions proliferate , they provide more and more guidance to other judges and , ultimately , to the justices themselves .
When the justices take their time , in other words , they are able to benefit from the wisdom of many judges — and they are more likely to decide a case correctly .
When the justices rush , by contrast , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority in the country , an error by the justices is much harder to correct than an error by a lower court .
Sotomayor ’ s opinion is a warning that the Supreme Court ’ s Republican majority appears to care more about bailing out the Trump administration than it does careful deliberation that ensures the law is read properly .
It ’ s also a warning that the Supreme Court appears to be bending the rules for Trump and Trump alone .
As Sotomayor writes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others .
”

The Supreme Court voted along ideological lines Friday evening to allow a Trump administration rule restricting low-income immigrants’ ability to enter the US to take full effect. All four of the Court’s Democratic appointees dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing a sharply worded dissenting opinion accusing her Court of “putting a thumb on the scale in favor of” the Trump administration.
“It is hard to say what is more troubling,” Sotomayor wrote. “That the government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.”
The Court’s decision in Wolf v. Cook County is a significant development in and of itself because of its potential impact on millions of immigrants. Last August, the Trump administration announced a new rule governing who would be classified as a “public charge” — essentially someone reliant on government aid programs — and thus potentially unable to enter the United States, extend their visa, or obtain a green card. The new rule gives immigration officials leeway to turn away immigrants deemed “likely to be a public charge,” based on a wide range of factors including use of certain public benefits and English language skills.
As much as 69 percent of the more than 5 million individuals who received a green card over the past five years have at least one negative factor against them under the new rule, and thus might have been denied immigration benefits had the new rule been in effect.
Sotomayor is concerned the Supreme Court is granting too many stays — and for good reason
Sotomayor’s dissent focuses less on the question of whether the Trump administration's public charge rule is legal, and more on what she describes as a “now-familiar pattern” in the administration’s interactions with the Supreme Court.
At least two lower courts handed down orders blocking the new public charge rule — one of those decisions blocked the rule across the country, while the other blocked it only in Illinois. Last month, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 along familiar partisan lines to stay the lower court order blocking the rule on a nationwide basis. Friday’s order stays the decision blocking it in Illinois.
Until recently, it was extraordinarily unusual for the government to seek such a stay from the justices while a case was still winding its way through lower courts. As Sotomayor warned in a dissenting opinion last September, “granting a stay pending appeal should be an ‘extraordinary’ act. Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal.”
According to a recent paper by University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, “in less than three years, [Trump’s] Solicitor General has filed at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court (including ten during the October 2018 Term alone)” — and Vladeck’s paper did not include the Trump administration's two applications in the public charge cases. By comparison, “during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications — averaging one every other Term.”
The Trump administration, moreover, has a high win rate when it seeks extraordinary relief from the Supreme Court. It’s achieved a partial or full victory in about 65 percent of the cases where it asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block a lower court’s opinion.
As Sotomayor explains in her Wolf opinion, it is very unusual for the Supreme Court to grant such relief so easily.
Because the Supreme Court is the final word on nearly all questions of federal law, it typically likes to let novel legal issues percolate in the lower courts before handing down a final command. “Stay applications force the Court to consider important statutory and constitutional questions that have not been ventilated fully in the lower courts, on abbreviated timetables and without oral argument,” Sotomayor writes in her Wolf dissent. They also “upend the normal appellate process, putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won a stay.”
And in this Supreme Court, that party is almost always the Trump administration.
The Supreme Court’s stay decisions weaken safeguards built into the court system
There is a simple reason the justices ordinarily like to wait to decide novel legal questions. If a lower court gets a decision wrong, the same issue is likely to come before other judges who may reach the correct conclusion. As these decisions proliferate, they provide more and more guidance to other judges and, ultimately, to the justices themselves.
When the justices take their time, in other words, they are able to benefit from the wisdom of many judges — and they are more likely to decide a case correctly. When the justices rush, by contrast, they short-circuit this entire process. And because the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority in the country, an error by the justices is much harder to correct than an error by a lower court.
Sotomayor’s opinion is a warning that the Supreme Court’s Republican majority appears to care more about bailing out the Trump administration than it does careful deliberation that ensures the law is read properly. It’s also a warning that the Supreme Court appears to be bending the rules for Trump and Trump alone. As Sotomayor writes, “the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others.”


vox--2020-02-22--The race for presidential delegates has begun. Track them here.

Share All sharing options for : The race for presidential delegates has begun .
Track them here .
The magic number to win the Democratic Party ’ s nomination for president is 1,991 delegates .
It could take months to officially get there .
Presidential candidates are all competing for a majority of 3,979 pledged delegates .
Separately , there are also 771 automatic delegates , otherwise known as “ superdelegates.
” But after a contentious 2016 primary , the Democratic National Committee changed its rules around superdelegates so they may now vote on the first ballot to select a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a campaign has secured a supermajority of pledged delegates .
( Otherwise , they weigh in in the event of a second round of voting at the convention . )
Candidates are competing for these delegates against a backdrop of complex rules : Delegates are awarded proportionally , and most states and districts require a minimum threshold of 15 percent of the primary or caucus vote to earn pledged delegates .
This makes the contest a bit fairer , but also means it ’ s much harder to secure that magic number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the year .
The Iowa caucuses officially kicked off the delegate race on February 3 .
But while the early states are all about gaining momentum , the race is ultimately about who can bag the most delegates and get to that magic number .
This could all be over very quickly if one candidate racks up an insurmountable lead , or it could drag on into the spring and summer , ahead of the Democratic National Convention in July .
Vox has a delegate tracker , in partnership with our friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Politics .
It ’ s easiest to think about the primary race in three phases , as we explained in our primary calendar .
• Phase one : The early states .
This is the all-important opening salvo of Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina , but their importance is all about momentum — not delegates .
Taken together , these four states account for 155 delegates , or just 4 percent of the total pledged allocated delegates .
• Phase two : Super Tuesday and the mid-March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday and its 15 contests are when the presidential race shifts into a true national primary .
A total of 1,344 delegates will be allotted on Super Tuesday alone — about 33 percent of the total .
And 11 more state contests are up for grabs on March 10 and 17 .
By the time March 17 rolls around , 61 percent of the pledged delegates will be allotted .
• Phase three : The slog .
As Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop noted , we could either have a pretty good sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-March , or the primary could still be contested , as it was in 2016 .
If the latter , the contests to decide the winner will happen from March 18 to June 6 .
Those three months will be when the remaining 39 percent of delegates will be allotted ; the most important day in this stretch is April 28 , when New York and Pennsylvania vote , among others .
The four earliest states don ’ t contain a lot of delegates , but they act to winnow the field to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be especially important this year , with more than 10 candidates still in the race .
Winnowing the field is half the battle .
The race to bag delegates starts in earnest on Super Tuesday .
“ It ’ s a virtual national primary because there are so many states .
The math itself changes , and every network has some sort of chart showing the projected delegate count , ” longtime California Democratic consultant Bill Carrick told Vox recently .
And this is not just about winning states , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district level .
Most states award both delegates based on state-level totals as well as delegates in each individual district .
District-level delegates are the voters and local activists who sign up through their state party to act as delegates — together they make up the vast majority of eligible delegates .
It is critical for Democratic candidates to get at least a 15 percent threshold in states or individual congressional districts in order to qualify for pledged delegates .
And a big part of figuring out delegate math means campaigns have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain districts with demographics that could be favorable for them .
Here ’ s a breakdown of the delegate math , both pledged delegates and automatic delegates : Again , it ’ s worth noting the biggest DNC rules changes were around superdelegates .
That means these 771 superdelegates will largely sit on the sidelines on the first ballot , unless there ’ s already a candidate with a supermajority of pledged delegates .
Correction : An earlier version of this story said it takes 1990 delegates to win the Democratic nomination .
@ @ @ @ @ @

Share All sharing options for: The race for presidential delegates is well underway. Track them here.
The magic number to win the Democratic Party’s nomination for president is 1,991 pledged delegates.
No candidate has yet reached that number, but following the March 17 primaries, former Vice President Joe Biden became the first to cross the 1,000 pledged delegate mark, and has established a significant lead on his closest rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders. The final candidate remaining in the race, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, has won only two delegates so far.
Beyond the race’s 3,979 pledged delegates, there are also 771 automatic delegates, otherwise known as “superdelegates.” After a contentious 2016 primary, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) changed its rules around superdelegates so they may now vote on the first ballot to select a nominee at the Democratic National Convention only if a campaign has secured a supermajority of pledged delegates. Otherwise, they weigh in during a second round of voting at the convention.
Candidates are competing for these delegates against a backdrop of complex rules: Delegates are awarded proportionally, and most states and districts require a minimum threshold of 15 percent of the primary or caucus vote to earn pledged delegates. This may make the contest fairer but means it’s harder to secure that magic number in a contested primary until much later in the year.
The Iowa caucuses officially kicked off the delegate race on February 3. But while the early states were all about gaining momentum, the race is ultimately about who can bag the most delegates and get to that magic number. March was a critical month for delegate math: Super Tuesday, March 10, and the three contests on March 17 got us more than 50 percent of the way there.
Now that those contests have concluded, Biden has racked up a delegate lead that will be difficult for Sanders to surmount. But many states have still yet to vote, and the contest could continue on further into the spring and summer, ahead of the Democratic National Convention in July.
Vox has a tracker for the total number of delegates awarded, in partnership with our friends at Decision Desk and the Virginia Center for Politics.
Delegate math, briefly explained
The four earliest states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — didn’t contain a lot of delegates, but they did winnow the field. This was especially important this year, as several Democratic candidates were still in the race on Super Tuesday, March 3, the first time a large number of delegates were up for grabs.
Winnowing the field — now down, essentially, to Sanders and Biden — is half the battle. The other half is winning enough of the vote to rack up an insurmountable delegate lead.
Doing this is not just about winning states: It’s also about winning delegates at a congressional district level. Most states award delegates proportionally based on state-level totals as well as delegates in each district. District-level delegates are the voters and local activists who sign up through their state party to act as delegates to the convention — together they make up the vast majority of pledged delegates.
It is critical for candidates to get at least a 15 percent threshold in states or individual congressional districts to qualify for pledged delegates. And a big part of figuring out delegate math means campaigns have to focus on crunching the numbers to target certain districts with demographics that could be favorable for them.
For instance, Sanders focused heavily on states with Latinx voters in March, counting on big wins in California and Nevada to boost his delegate count. That did not quite work out as the senator’s campaign hoped, but Biden’s big bets on Southern states that had large black electorates did pay dividends.
Here’s a breakdown of the delegate categories, both for pledged delegates and automatic delegates:
Pledged delegates
District level: 2,591
At-large: 898
Party leaders and state and local elected officials (PLEO): 490
Total: 3,979
Automatic (“super”) delegates
Democratic National Committee members: 445
Democratic members of Congress: 280
Democratic governors: 24
Party leaders: 22
Total: 771
It’s worth noting the DNC’s biggest rules changes were around superdelegates. That means these 771 superdelegates will largely sit on the sidelines on the first ballot unless there’s already a candidate with a supermajority of pledged delegates.
Correction: An earlier version of this story said it takes 1,990 delegates to win the Democratic nomination. The correct number is 1,991.