vox--2020-10-11--A man was killed amid competing rallies in Denver

A person was shot and killed amid rallies between groups with opposing political views on Saturday in Denver , Colorado .
The exact circumstances of the shooting remain unclear , but Denver police indicated Saturday evening that the shooter was a local on-duty security guard .
The rallies were part of the ongoing anti-racist and far-right demonstrations that have occurred throughout the country in recent months .
After far-right activists organized a “ Patriot Rally ” for Saturday afternoon , left-leaning activists organized a counterprotest called a “ BLM-Antifa soup drive , ” an ironic nod to the accusation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political enemies .
Early reports suggest that the shooting victim , who has not yet been identified , was attending the Patriot Rally .
He was transported to a local hospital where he later died , Joe Montoya , chief of the Denver police department ’ s investigations division , said at a news conference Saturday evening .
Both the shooter and victim were white men , according to Montoya .
The shooter , identified as Matthew Dolloff by police , was a Pinkerton contractor hired by local NBC affiliate 9News to provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported on the protests .
The station said it has been hiring private security for station personnel covering protests since mid-summer , during which journalists were sometimes targeted by law enforcement .
The shooting — and the moments leading up to it — appear to have been captured by Helen H. Richardson ’ s photographs for the Denver Post and a video posted to Twitter .
The video shows a man in a “ Black Guns Matter ” shirt arguing with a group of men .
A member of that group , wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , moves out of the frame .
The photographs show some of what happens next : the man in the flag mask can be seen hitting the shooter in the face , and was captured spraying him with mace .
The series of pictures , like the video , concludes with the man with the American flag mask on the ground .
Amid the confusion following the shooting , a number of rumors , boosted by a small group of far-right social media influencers , spread that the shooter was an antifa supporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has said these rumors are false , and that the shooter has no affiliation with the antifa cause .
The shooting follows violence at a right-wing rally in Portland , Oregon , that left one man dead in August .
The shooting suspect in that incident , an antifa supporter , was shot and killed by federal law enforcement officials .
The story is still developing .
Here is what we know — and don ’ t — so far .
What we know • The shooting happened at 3:37 pm MT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came following competing rallies : a far-right “ Patriot Rally , ” and a “ BLM-Antifa soup drive ” counterprotest • NBC affiliate 9News says the shooter , 30-year-old Matthew Dolloff , was a private security guard hired to protect its staff • The shooter has not been charged , but is being held for “ investigation of first degree murder , ” according to the Denver Police Department • The victim was taken to a local hospital , where he died • The Denver Police Department has the shooter in custody • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the incident What we don ’ t know • The identity of the victim • What prompted the altercation that led to the shooting Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

A person was shot and killed amid rallies between groups with opposing political views on Saturday in Denver, Colorado. The exact circumstances of the shooting remain unclear, but Denver police indicated Saturday evening that the shooter was a local on-duty security guard.
The rallies were part of the ongoing anti-racist and far-right demonstrations that have occurred throughout the country in recent months. After far-right activists organized a “Patriot Rally” for Saturday afternoon, left-leaning activists organized a counterprotest called a “BLM-Antifa soup drive,” an ironic nod to the accusation that antifa groups throw cans of soup at political enemies.
Early reports suggest that the shooting victim, who has not yet been identified, was attending the Patriot Rally. He was transported to a local hospital where he later died, Joe Montoya, chief of the Denver police department’s investigations division, said at a news conference Saturday evening. Both the shooter and victim were white men, according to Montoya.
The shooter, identified as Matthew Dolloff by police, was a Pinkerton contractor hired by local NBC affiliate 9News to provide private security to its journalists as they reported on the protests. The station said it has been hiring private security for station personnel covering protests since mid-summer, during which journalists were sometimes targeted by law enforcement.
The shooting — and the moments leading up to it — appear to have been captured by Helen H. Richardson’s photographs for the Denver Post and a video posted to Twitter.
The video shows a man in a “Black Guns Matter” shirt arguing with a group of men. A member of that group, wearing a vest and an American flag mask, moves out of the frame. The photographs show some of what happens next: the man in the flag mask can be seen hitting the shooter in the face, and was captured spraying him with mace. The series of pictures, like the video, concludes with the man with the American flag mask on the ground.
Amid the confusion following the shooting, a number of rumors, boosted by a small group of far-right social media influencers, spread that the shooter was an antifa supporter. The Denver Police Department, however, has said these rumors are false, and that the shooter has no affiliation with the antifa cause.
The shooting follows violence at a right-wing rally in Portland, Oregon, that left one man dead in August. The shooting suspect in that incident, an antifa supporter, was shot and killed by federal law enforcement officials.
The story is still developing. Here is what we know — and don’t — so far.
What we know
What we don’t know


vox--2020-10-11--New national polls are disastrous for Trump — and state polls aren’t much better

With millions of votes already cast and just three weeks until Election Day , President Donald Trump does not appear to be making up ground in his reelection race against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
An ABC News/Washington Post national poll released Sunday found Biden leading Trump with likely voters by 12 percentage points , 54 percent to 42 percent , with the Libertarian and Green Party candidates together attracting just 3 percent of likely voters .
The poll was conducted entirely after Trump ’ s October 5 discharge from Walter Reed Medical Center , where he was treated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his lead from the last ABC/Post poll , which found Biden up 6 percentage points in late September .
These days , a 12 percentage point national lead for Biden is largely in line with overall polling averages .
FiveThirtyEight gives the Democratic candidate a 10.4 percentage point average lead , while Real Clear Politics puts Biden ’ s average lead at 9.8 percentage points .
And the ABC/Washington Post results align with other recent polls as well .
The University of Southern California ’ s tracking poll also posted new findings on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points .
A massive Pew Research Center poll , which surveyed more than 10,500 voters , showed a 10 point lead for Biden earlier this week .
This has been a steady race , with Biden holding a meaningful lead throughout the campaign — a marked difference from 2016 , when the polls were much more volatile .
Trump needs good news if he ’ s going to turn his campaign around .
He ’ s not getting it .
All of these polls were conducted nationally , and , of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national popular vote .
However , Trump hasn ’ t made much progress in the battleground states he will need to win to secure 270 votes in the Electoral College , either .
Fresh CBS News polling , taken from October 6 to 9 , found Biden leading Trump by 6 percentage points in Michigan and tied in Iowa , both states that Trump won in 2016 .
The new polling also showed Biden enjoying a 6 percentage point edge in Nevada , a state Hillary Clinton won in 2016 that Democrats want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls from Baldwin Wallace University showed Biden beating Trump in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ( with a 5 percentage point lead in the former and a 7 percentage point lead in the latter ) .
If he can ’ t win at least one state in the Midwestern trifecta — Michigan , Pennsylvania , or Wisconsin — that won him the White House in 2016 , Trump effectively has no path to 270 Electoral College votes , barring the highly unlikely scenario that he is able to flip states considered safely Democratic on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swing states , the odds are against Trump right now , based on FiveThirtyEight ’ s polling average : • In Michigan , Biden is averaging an 8 percentage point lead over Trump • Biden enjoys an average lead of 7.3 percentage points in Pennsylvania • Biden is also leading Trump by 7.2 percentage points on average in Wisconsin Two of the more Republican Midwestern states , Iowa and Ohio , are also drifting away from Trump after he won them by 8 percentage points or more in 2016 : • Biden currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FiveThirtyEight polling average for Iowa • The former vice president is also ahead by an average of 0.7 percentage points in Ohio Biden also leads Trump by 3 or 4 percentage points in both Arizona and Florida , two additional states Trump won in 2016 that Democrats don ’ t need to win to prevail in the Electoral College , but that would pad the margins of a Biden victory — making it harder for the president to challenge the results .
Trump , meanwhile , doesn ’ t appear to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the states where Clinton triumphed in 2016 .
Minnesota and Nevada have been considered the most likely targets for any map expansion on Trump ’ s part , but Biden is leading by 9.2 percentage points in the former and 6.8 percentage points in the latter , per the FiveThirtyEight averages .
Taking Biden ’ s strength in national and state polling together , FiveThirtyEight ’ s 2020 election forecast gives Biden 86 in 100 odds of winning the presidency .
That is substantially higher than Clinton ’ s 71 percent chance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong polls don ’ t mean he will win the presidency Biden ’ s apparent advantage doesn ’ t mean Trump can ’ t win , as Real Clear Politics analyst Sean Trende emphasized on Twitter .
Because of the Electoral College ’ s rightward lean , Trump could lose the popular vote by several percentage points and still win enough states ( by holding onto Florida , Pennsylvania , and Arizona , for starters ) to win a majority in the Electoral College .
How could that happen ?
Well , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the race , as undecided voters make up their minds , and perhaps as Republicans skeptical of Trump ultimately decide to stick with their party .
Pollsters could also be missing some Trump voters , leading them to underestimate his support as they did in critical states in the 2016 election .
In an interview with the New Yorker ’ s Isaac Chotiner , Trende pointed to Trump ’ s job approval — currently a few points higher ( 43.6 percent in the FiveThirtyEight average ) than his average support in election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one possible indicator of Trump ’ s ability to make up ground in the final weeks .
But , at this point , it seems fair to say everything would need to break right for Trump , and the polls would once again need to be significantly wrong , for the president to win another term .
The New York Times has a feature that estimates what the 2020 result would be if the state polls are as far off as they were in 2016 and , even under that scenario , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , when using polls to attempt to predict future events , it is important to never say never .
The 2016 election was a searing reminder that events with a 1-in-4 or 1-in-6 chance of happening can , and do , happen .
But with millions of people having already voted — and many others having already made up their minds — the polls suggest time may be running out for Trump to shake up the 2020 campaign .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

With millions of votes already cast and just three weeks until Election Day, President Donald Trump does not appear to be making up ground in his reelection race against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
An ABC News/Washington Post national poll released Sunday found Biden leading Trump with likely voters by 12 percentage points, 54 percent to 42 percent, with the Libertarian and Green Party candidates together attracting just 3 percent of likely voters. The poll was conducted entirely after Trump’s October 5 discharge from Walter Reed Medical Center, where he was treated for Covid-19. It shows Biden doubling his lead from the last ABC/Post poll, which found Biden up 6 percentage points in late September.
These days, a 12 percentage point national lead for Biden is largely in line with overall polling averages. FiveThirtyEight gives the Democratic candidate a 10.4 percentage point average lead, while Real Clear Politics puts Biden’s average lead at 9.8 percentage points.
And the ABC/Washington Post results align with other recent polls as well. The University of Southern California’s tracking poll also posted new findings on Sunday and found Biden up 11.75 percentage points. A massive Pew Research Center poll, which surveyed more than 10,500 voters, showed a 10 point lead for Biden earlier this week.
This has been a steady race, with Biden holding a meaningful lead throughout the campaign — a marked difference from 2016, when the polls were much more volatile. Trump needs good news if he’s going to turn his campaign around. He’s not getting it.
Trump continues to poll poorly in key swing states
All of these polls were conducted nationally, and, of course, presidential elections are not won by the national popular vote. However, Trump hasn’t made much progress in the battleground states he will need to win to secure 270 votes in the Electoral College, either.
Fresh CBS News polling, taken from October 6 to 9, found Biden leading Trump by 6 percentage points in Michigan and tied in Iowa, both states that Trump won in 2016. The new polling also showed Biden enjoying a 6 percentage point edge in Nevada, a state Hillary Clinton won in 2016 that Democrats want to hold in 2020.
New battleground-state polls from Baldwin Wallace University showed Biden beating Trump in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (with a 5 percentage point lead in the former and a 7 percentage point lead in the latter).
If he can’t win at least one state in the Midwestern trifecta — Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin — that won him the White House in 2016, Trump effectively has no path to 270 Electoral College votes, barring the highly unlikely scenario that he is able to flip states considered safely Democratic on election night.
In the most important swing states, the odds are against Trump right now, based on FiveThirtyEight’s polling average:
In Michigan, Biden is averaging an 8 percentage point lead over Trump
Biden enjoys an average lead of 7.3 percentage points in Pennsylvania
Biden is also leading Trump by 7.2 percentage points on average in Wisconsin
Two of the more Republican Midwestern states, Iowa and Ohio, are also drifting away from Trump after he won them by 8 percentage points or more in 2016:
Biden currently holds a 1 percentage point lead in the FiveThirtyEight polling average for Iowa
The former vice president is also ahead by an average of 0.7 percentage points in Ohio
Biden also leads Trump by 3 or 4 percentage points in both Arizona and Florida, two additional states Trump won in 2016 that Democrats don’t need to win to prevail in the Electoral College, but that would pad the margins of a Biden victory — making it harder for the president to challenge the results.
Trump, meanwhile, doesn’t appear to be in serious competition to win any of the states where Clinton triumphed in 2016. Minnesota and Nevada have been considered the most likely targets for any map expansion on Trump’s part, but Biden is leading by 9.2 percentage points in the former and 6.8 percentage points in the latter, per the FiveThirtyEight averages.
Taking Biden’s strength in national and state polling together, FiveThirtyEight’s 2020 election forecast gives Biden 86 in 100 odds of winning the presidency. That is substantially higher than Clinton’s 71 percent chance on Election Day 2016.
Biden’s strong polls don’t mean he will win the presidency
Biden’s apparent advantage doesn’t mean Trump can’t win, as Real Clear Politics analyst Sean Trende emphasized on Twitter. Because of the Electoral College’s rightward lean, Trump could lose the popular vote by several percentage points and still win enough states (by holding onto Florida, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, for starters) to win a majority in the Electoral College.
That translates to about a 1-in-7 chance. Let's call it 1-in-8 to make the math easy. We did this ad nauseum in 2016, seemingly to little effect, but that 1-in-8 chance is roughly the same chance of having three kids, all boys. That's not unusual. Trust me! 3/ — Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) October 11, 2020
If you rounded the other way, to 1-in-6, you'd have the chances of losing at Russian Roulette. Again, if you were playing Russian Roulette, you'd be really nervous, and probably focused on the ways you could lose, rather than win. 4/ — Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) October 11, 2020
How could that happen? Well, the polls could tighten over the final weeks of the race, as undecided voters make up their minds, and perhaps as Republicans skeptical of Trump ultimately decide to stick with their party. Pollsters could also be missing some Trump voters, leading them to underestimate his support as they did in critical states in the 2016 election.
In an interview with the New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner, Trende pointed to Trump’s job approval — currently a few points higher (43.6 percent in the FiveThirtyEight average) than his average support in election polls (41.9 percent) — as one possible indicator of Trump’s ability to make up ground in the final weeks.
But, at this point, it seems fair to say everything would need to break right for Trump, and the polls would once again need to be significantly wrong, for the president to win another term. The New York Times has a feature that estimates what the 2020 result would be if the state polls are as far off as they were in 2016 and, even under that scenario, it still projects a Biden win.
Of course, when using polls to attempt to predict future events, it is important to never say never. The 2016 election was a searing reminder that events with a 1-in-4 or 1-in-6 chance of happening can, and do, happen.
But with millions of people having already voted — and many others having already made up their minds — the polls suggest time may be running out for Trump to shake up the 2020 campaign.


vox--2020-10-11--Jaime Harrison’s record-breaking fundraising haul, briefly explained

Jaime Harrison , the Democrat challenging Sen. Lindsey Graham in South Carolina , raised a record-breaking $ 57 million last quarter in his bid to upset one of President Donald Trump ’ s most powerful allies in Congress .
According to Harrison ’ s campaign , it was the single largest fundraising total over three months for any Senate candidate ever , topping the $ 38 million Beto O ’ Rourke raised in the third quarter of 2018 when he was running against Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) .
The two candidates had been running even in their fundraising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadline for their last quarterly fundraising report .
Graham pulled in $ 29.9 million then ( and spent $ 15.4 million of it ) while Harrison at the time had raised $ 28.6 million ( and spent around $ 18 million ) .
Graham ’ s campaign has not yet reported its third-quarter fundraising total .
Harrison ’ s unexpectedly strong challenge against Graham has been driven by the kind of grassroots support reflected in his remarkable fundraising .
According to his campaign , the $ 57 million came from nearly 1 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributions ( some of them made repeat donations ) .
The Cook Political Report moved the race into the “ toss up ” category in the last few days .
The three most recent polls show the race effectively tied once you account for the margin of error ( Harrison leads by one point in one survey , Graham leads by one in another , and the two are tied in the third ) .
It is a striking turn for a state that hasn ’ t elected a Democrat to the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and that Trump carried by 14 points in 2016 .
Trump ’ s current weakness in the state ( polls show him leading Biden by a much smaller margin than in 2016 ) and Graham ’ s struggles to shore up conservative voters have made the race more competitive than anybody anticipated at the beginning of the year .
“ This race has earned a more competitive rating — underscoring just how fast the GOP majority is slipping away if they have to defend turf like this , ” Jessica Taylor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ and also how much Trump ’ s numbers have fallen across the board.
” Harrison , a 44-year-old former state party chair , began gaining ground earlier this year by airing positive television ads focused on his biography .
He has also taken Graham to task over health care ; the Republican authored one of the Senate ’ s Obamacare repeal bills that would have led to millions of people losing coverage , according to Congressional Budget Office estimates .
Covid-19 looms over the race as well , with Graham pointedly refusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent scheduled debate with Harrison .
( The candidates ended up doing separate interviews with the debate moderators instead . )
Graham has portrayed Harrison as a tool for the radical left and has worked to emphasize his own importance as the Senate Judiciary Committee chair .
He ’ s also seized on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to try to rally Republican voters to his side .
Graham has shown a palpable sense of desperation in recent weeks , particularly with respect to fundraising , going on Sean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September and asking the host and his audience to “ help me.
” South Carolina is still a fundamentally Republican state , though it is experiencing the same kind of demographic shift that is making Georgia and North Carolina battleground states .
In the end , the odds are probably against Harrison ; Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball still rates the race as leaning Republican .
Democrats don ’ t need South Carolina to win a Senate majority ( Maine , Colorado , Arizona , and North Carolina are all more likely targets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ match-up is a good indicator of the favorable national environment for the minority party .
And this huge windfall of cash in the final weeks of the campaign could help push Harrison closer to an upset .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Jaime Harrison, the Democrat challenging Sen. Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, raised a record-breaking $57 million last quarter in his bid to upset one of President Donald Trump’s most powerful allies in Congress.
According to Harrison’s campaign, it was the single largest fundraising total over three months for any Senate candidate ever, topping the $38 million Beto O’Rourke raised in the third quarter of 2018 when he was running against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
The two candidates had been running even in their fundraising at the end of June, the deadline for their last quarterly fundraising report. Graham pulled in $29.9 million then (and spent $15.4 million of it) while Harrison at the time had raised $28.6 million (and spent around $18 million). Graham’s campaign has not yet reported its third-quarter fundraising total.
Harrison’s unexpectedly strong challenge against Graham has been driven by the kind of grassroots support reflected in his remarkable fundraising. According to his campaign, the $57 million came from nearly 1 million individual donors who averaged $37 per contributions (some of them made repeat donations).
The Cook Political Report moved the race into the “toss up” category in the last few days. The three most recent polls show the race effectively tied once you account for the margin of error (Harrison leads by one point in one survey, Graham leads by one in another, and the two are tied in the third). It is a striking turn for a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1998 (long-time incumbent Fritz Hollings) and that Trump carried by 14 points in 2016.
Trump’s current weakness in the state (polls show him leading Biden by a much smaller margin than in 2016) and Graham’s struggles to shore up conservative voters have made the race more competitive than anybody anticipated at the beginning of the year.
“This race has earned a more competitive rating — underscoring just how fast the GOP majority is slipping away if they have to defend turf like this,” Jessica Taylor, an analyst for Cook, wrote, “and also how much Trump’s numbers have fallen across the board.”
Harrison, a 44-year-old former state party chair, began gaining ground earlier this year by airing positive television ads focused on his biography. He has also taken Graham to task over health care; the Republican authored one of the Senate’s Obamacare repeal bills that would have led to millions of people losing coverage, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Covid-19 looms over the race as well, with Graham pointedly refusing to get tested ahead of his most recent scheduled debate with Harrison. (The candidates ended up doing separate interviews with the debate moderators instead.)
Graham has portrayed Harrison as a tool for the radical left and has worked to emphasize his own importance as the Senate Judiciary Committee chair. He’s also seized on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to try to rally Republican voters to his side. Graham has shown a palpable sense of desperation in recent weeks, particularly with respect to fundraising, going on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show in September and asking the host and his audience to “help me.”
South Carolina is still a fundamentally Republican state, though it is experiencing the same kind of demographic shift that is making Georgia and North Carolina battleground states. In the end, the odds are probably against Harrison; Sabato’s Crystal Ball still rates the race as leaning Republican. Democrats don’t need South Carolina to win a Senate majority (Maine, Colorado, Arizona, and North Carolina are all more likely targets) but the competitiveness of the Graham-Harrison match-up is a good indicator of the favorable national environment for the minority party.
And this huge windfall of cash in the final weeks of the campaign could help push Harrison closer to an upset.


vox--2020-10-11--The battle over a Texas order limiting ballot drop-off locations, explained

Some Texas counties have worked to expand access to absentee voting amid the Covid-19 pandemic , and the state has responded by limiting those efforts .
On Friday , a federal judge ruled the state could not limit the number of ballot drop-off locations in each county .
But , on Saturday , Texas appealed the ruling , and a federal appeals court agreed that restrictions on ballot drop-off locations can stay in place until the judges officially rule .
On October 1 , Republican Gov .
Greg Abbott issued a proclamation that allowed for only one drop-off location in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , regardless of population or geographic size .
Abbott cited election security as a justification for the order .
But it eliminated multiple drop-off sites available for Texans ; for instance , Harris County — the third most populous county in the country and home to the state ’ s biggest city , Houston — had to shut 11 of its 12 drop-off sites .
Abbott ’ s decision immediately drew legal challenges from advocates and voting rights groups , who sued to reinstate the drop-off locations , arguing that Abbott changing procedures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after people have already started requesting their ballots — put an unreasonable burden on voters and ultimately undermined faith in the electoral process at this late stage .
On Friday , US District Court Judge Robert Pitman sided with those groups , saying Abbott ’ s order put an undue burden on older voters and voters with disabilities , who make up the majority of absentee voters in Texas .
Pitman wrote that Abbott ’ s restrictions would cause “ absentee voters , if they choose not to return their ballots in person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face the risk that their ballots will not be counted if the USPS is unable to timely deliver their ballot after it ’ s been requested or unable to timely return their completed ballot.
” “ These burdens fall disproportionately on voters who are elderly , disabled , or live in larger counties , ” Pitman wrote .
This battle over Texas drop boxes represents just one of the fights over voting in the state this election season , and one of hundreds of legal challenges over elections across the country .
Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters — and for advocates and some county clerks in Texas who wanted to see the drop-off locations reinstated .
But the governor ’ s office quickly appealed the decision , and a federal appeals court agreed to maintain the restrictions until it formally rules on the case .
The fight over these drop-off locations is not quite over , and the final outcome could make a big difference in how easy it is for Texans — particularly older ones — to vote in this election .
The fight over the Texas drop-off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States in March , right in the middle of primary season and ahead of a contentious general election .
All states had to consider the administration of their elections , whether by adopting additional safety protocols for in-person voting and vote counting , expanding mail-in voting , extending deadlines for ballot counting , or implementing cure processes so voters could fix mistakes on their mail-in ballots .
In Texas , Abbott expanded the state ’ s early in-person voting period by nearly a week ; it will now begin October 13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Texas voters could deliver their mail-in ballots in person to the clerk ’ s office .
Previously , voters had only been allowed to drop off mail-in ballots to the county clerk ’ s office on Election Day .
Voting by mail in Texas is still pretty restricted : Unlike other states , Texas did not loosen its mail-in voting requirements , which only allow people to vote absentee if they are over the age of 65 , have a physical disability or ailment , or are in jail or temporarily out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to challenge the age rule , but the courts denied the change .
( There have also been other lawsuits around mail-in voting , including a recent one where the Texas Supreme Court blocked Harris County from sending mail-in ballot applications to registered voters . )
So the Texas drop-off locations are strictly for absentee voters to hand-deliver their ballots , offering an alternative for those who do not want to send their ballots through the United States Postal Service because of questions about the USPS ’ s capacity to handle the influx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who just want to know , for sure , that their ballots have been received by election officials .
In Democratic-leaning Harris County , for example , 11 drop-off locations were clerk ’ s offices around the county .
The Harris County clerk ’ s office designated the 12th spot , at NRG Arena , as the main drop-off headquarters because , an official told me , it allowed for social distancing and more space to process applications during what was expected to be record election turnout .
Travis County , another blue-leaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But on October 1 , Abbott said , sorry , one drop-off location only .
According to a court filing made on Wednesday , Abbott argued that no Texas counties , except for Harris County , had ever had multiple drop-off locations before the July 2020 primary .
Abbott ’ s administration claimed having multiple drop-off locations was bad for election security , arguing in a court filing that they provided “ inconsistent safeguards to preserve the integrity of the election , such as a lack of poll watchers overseeing ballot deliveries.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , specifically vote-by-mail election fraud , has proven to be a frequent and enduring problem in Texas.
” Advocates , however , say this security argument is not grounded in reality .
Each drop-off location is staffed with sworn clerks , and voters must show a valid ID and give their signature at all locations .
“ There was no legitimate justification to reduce the number of ballot drop-off locations , ” Ravi Doshi , senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center , one of the groups bringing a legal challenge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ That has been said by county election officials , who are the ones that actually administer this election.
” Doshi added that some county clerks see the drop-off locations as more secure , since the ballots are going directly into the hands of election officials , avoiding the middleman of the USPS , and voters have to provide identification when they drop off their ballot .
Voter fraud in general is rare , and Texas ’ s attempt to investigate voter fraud unraveled after reviews of the citizenship status of voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abbott has echoed President Donald Trump ’ s false claims about fraud in mail-in voting , but many of the fears he has highlighted — say , someone filling out a ballot for someone else — are highly unlikely to happen at drop-off locations given the ID requirements .
Rather than being about election integrity , voting advocates say Abbott ’ s order was created to disadvantage populous counties by making drop-off sites difficult to access and increasing wait times .
“ It is just plain and simple voter suppression , ” Grace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women Voters of Texas , one of the groups that joined a lawsuit against Gov .
Abbott , told me earlier this week .
“ There is no other word — and it ’ s voter suppression that impacts people with disabilities and elderly voters.
” Harris County , for example , represents about 14 percent of Texas ’ s entire electorate , with 2.4 million registered voters .
Harris and Travis counties — where Houston and Austin are located , respectively — also have large populations of Democratic-leaning voters , including many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vera Jr. , national general counsel at the League of United Latin American Citizens ( LULAC ) , another party to the Texas litigation , told me earlier this week that Abbott ’ s order is directly targeting Democratic strongholds , and the many Black and Latino voters in those districts .
They want , he said , “ people who aren ’ t going to vote for Republicans , not to cast their vote .
That ’ s all this is designed for.
” The constant changing of the rules and locations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters to make and execute voting plans .
This , advocates say , is part of the goal ; not just to make it more difficult for people to vote by eliminating locations , but to make the process so convoluted that it may depress turnout .
“ If you can ’ t find a good rationale based on security , and you can ’ t find a good rationale based on administrative necessity , then what you ’ re left with is the rationale which is , ‘ We ’ re doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll help us get reelected by ensuring that fewer people are able to cast votes , ’ ” Justin Levitt , a law professor at Loyola Law School and former Justice Department official who worked on voting rights cases , told me .
Judge Pitman ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs ’ arguments , that shuttering the drop-off locations would disproportionately burden voters in large population centers who are older or have disabilities .
He also called Abbott ’ s arguments about security a “ pretext , ” finding that Abbott ’ s order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the drop-off locations follow the same protocol .
But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly appealed the decision to try to stop the judge ’ s order , saying it undermines election security and “ creates confusion on the eve of an election and threatens the integrity of the election.
” An appeals court then granted a stay in Pitman ’ s order , until it can hear the merits of the case — so , allowing the governor ’ s restrictions to remain in place , for now .
Attempts to limit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guise of guarding against voter fraud , and 2020 is no different .
As in Texas , officials in Pennsylvania , Montana , and New Jersey , among other states , have faced legal challenges citing fraud and security on new voting accommodations .
Using allegations of voter fraud to restrict voting isn ’ t new , even if GOP attacks on mail-in voting are outsize in a year when many millions more voters plan to vote by mail — and in an election where the president is currently trailing in many polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas , and really across the country , has deeper roots .
Changes in voting procedure — particularly changes that could expand the electorate or make it easier to vote — are often seen as threats to those with easy paths to election and reelection under the status quo .
“ The common element , unfortunately , is incumbents terribly interested in clinging to power and attempting to use their incumbency , to rewrite the rules for the election process in a way that changes the electorate , rather than changing hearts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Texas is no different .
Its changing demographics and politics mean the state is trending bluer in a way that could remake the electoral map .
Trump remains ahead in most Texas polls , but Democratic candidate Joe Biden is not far behind , and he ’ s investing money there .
This political context matters for Texas ’ s case .
The state is “ becoming much younger , much more ethnically and racially diverse , and much more urban , ” Brandon Rottinghaus , a professor and expert in Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me .
“ Those voters are more likely to support Democrats.
” Using voting rules to entrench power has historically been a bipartisan exercise , but Republicans are upholding that legacy in Texas right now .
The Republican-controlled legislature has used its power to try to add constraints on how Texans can vote , particularly over the past decade or so .
“ I can definitively say that Texas does not make it easy to vote , ” Rottinghaus said .
“ And it is happening concurrent with massive changes in Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of why Texas would attempt to shut drop-off locations in areas where they ’ re needed the most .
But some advocates have argued that the attempt to shut down the drop-off locations , and other battles over making it easier to vote in the pandemic , may backfire , motivating voters rather than turning them away .
“ I know that voters really care a lot about this election , ” Chimene , of the League of Women Voters of Texas , said .
“ And they ’ re not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting in this election.
” Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

A federal appeals court said late Monday that Texas can limit the number of ballot drop-off locations to one per county.
The ruling is the latest in a battle over voter access in Texas. It comes after a federal judge on Friday said the state could not limit the number of ballot drop-off locations in each county to one, saying it disadvantaged older voters and those with disabilities.
But Texas appealed, and now a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled the lower court, allowing Texas’s limitations on drop-off locations to stay in place. The judges, all three of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump, said the limitations on drop-box locations “still gives Texas absentee voters many ways to cast their ballots in the November 3 election.”
On October 1, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott issued a proclamation that allowed for only one drop-off location in each of Texas’s 254 counties, regardless of population or geographic size. Abbott cited election security as a justification for the order. But it eliminated multiple drop-off sites available for Texans; for instance, Harris County — the third most populous county in the country and home to the state’s biggest city, Houston — had to shut 11 of its 12 drop-off sites.
We’re seeing some wraparound action, but overall the line to drop of absentee ballots in Harris County is moving quickly. Thanks to Gov. Abbott’s proclamation this is now the only drop-off site in the county of more than 4.7 million. I’m live on @MSNBC w/ the latest all day. pic.twitter.com/n2mauqq20A — Priscilla Thompson (@PriscillaWT) October 6, 2020
Abbott’s decision immediately drew legal challenges from advocates and voting rights groups, who sued to reinstate the drop-off locations, arguing that Abbott changing procedures in the middle of the election — after people have already started requesting their ballots — put an unreasonable burden on voters and ultimately undermined faith in the electoral process at this late stage.
On Friday, US District Court Judge Robert Pitman sided with those groups, saying Abbott’s order put an undue burden on older voters and voters with disabilities, who make up the majority of absentee voters in Texas. Pitman wrote that Abbott’s restrictions would cause “absentee voters, if they choose not to return their ballots in person to avoid exposure to Covid-19, to face the risk that their ballots will not be counted if the USPS is unable to timely deliver their ballot after it’s been requested or unable to timely return their completed ballot.”
“These burdens fall disproportionately on voters who are elderly, disabled, or live in larger counties,” Pitman wrote.
But late on Monday, a higher court decided that Abbott’s order could remain in place, overturning Pitman’s decision. “These methods for remote voting outstrip what Texas law previously permitted in a pre-Covid world. The October 1 proclamation abridges no one’s right to vote,” the judges wrote.
This battle over Texas drop boxes represents just one of the fights over voting in the state this election season, and one of hundreds of legal challenges over elections across the country.
It’s not clear if this is the final decision in this fight, as the plaintiffs are weighing their options. But this ruling may ultimately make a big difference in how Texans vote in 2020.
The fight over the Texas drop-off locations, explained
The Covid-19 pandemic hit the United States in March, right in the middle of primary season and ahead of a contentious general election. All states had to consider the administration of their elections, whether by adopting additional safety protocols for in-person voting and vote counting, expanding mail-in voting, extending deadlines for ballot counting, or implementing cure processes so voters could fix mistakes on their mail-in ballots.
In Texas, Abbott expanded the state’s early in-person voting period by nearly a week; it will now begin October 13. That proclamation also expanded the period when Texas voters could deliver their mail-in ballots in person to the clerk’s office. Previously, voters had only been allowed to drop off mail-in ballots to the county clerk’s office on Election Day.
Voting by mail in Texas is still pretty restricted: Unlike other states, Texas did not loosen its mail-in voting requirements, which only allow people to vote absentee if they are over the age of 65, have a physical disability or ailment, or are in jail or temporarily out of the county. Texas Democrats tried to challenge the age rule, but the courts denied the change. (There have also been other lawsuits around mail-in voting, including a recent one where the Texas Supreme Court blocked Harris County from sending mail-in ballot applications to registered voters.)
So the Texas drop-off locations are strictly for absentee voters to hand-deliver their ballots, offering an alternative for those who do not want to send their ballots through the United States Postal Service because of questions about the USPS’s capacity to handle the influx of election ballots this year, or who just want to know, for sure, that their ballots have been received by election officials.
In Democratic-leaning Harris County, for example, 11 drop-off locations were clerk’s offices around the county. The Harris County clerk’s office designated the 12th spot, at NRG Arena, as the main drop-off headquarters because, an official told me, it allowed for social distancing and more space to process applications during what was expected to be record election turnout. Travis County, another blue-leaning area, had four drop-off locations.
But on October 1, Abbott said, sorry, one drop-off location only. According to a court filing made on Wednesday, Abbott argued that no Texas counties, except for Harris County, had ever had multiple drop-off locations before the July 2020 primary.
Abbott’s administration claimed having multiple drop-off locations was bad for election security, arguing in a court filing that they provided “inconsistent safeguards to preserve the integrity of the election, such as a lack of poll watchers overseeing ballot deliveries.” It also asserted that “election fraud, specifically vote-by-mail election fraud, has proven to be a frequent and enduring problem in Texas.”
Advocates, however, say this security argument is not grounded in reality. Each drop-off location is staffed with sworn clerks, and voters must show a valid ID and give their signature at all locations.
“There was no legitimate justification to reduce the number of ballot drop-off locations,” Ravi Doshi, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, one of the groups bringing a legal challenge, told me last week. “That has been said by county election officials, who are the ones that actually administer this election.”
Doshi added that some county clerks see the drop-off locations as more secure, since the ballots are going directly into the hands of election officials, avoiding the middleman of the USPS, and voters have to provide identification when they drop off their ballot.
Voter fraud in general is rare, and Texas’s attempt to investigate voter fraud unraveled after reviews of the citizenship status of voters swept up thousands of legitimate voters. Abbott has echoed President Donald Trump’s false claims about fraud in mail-in voting, but many of the fears he has highlighted — say, someone filling out a ballot for someone else — are highly unlikely to happen at drop-off locations given the ID requirements.
Rather than being about election integrity, voting advocates say Abbott’s order was created to disadvantage populous counties by making drop-off sites difficult to access and increasing wait times.
“It is just plain and simple voter suppression,” Grace Chimene, president of the League of Women Voters of Texas, one of the groups that joined a lawsuit against Gov. Abbott, told me last week. “There is no other word — and it’s voter suppression that impacts people with disabilities and elderly voters.”
Harris County, for example, represents about 14 percent of Texas’s entire electorate, with 2.4 million registered voters. Harris and Travis counties — where Houston and Austin are located, respectively — also have large populations of Democratic-leaning voters, including many Black and Latino voters.
Luis Roberto Vera Jr., national general counsel at the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), another party to the Texas litigation, told me last week that Abbott’s order is directly targeting Democratic strongholds, and the many Black and Latino voters in those districts. They want, he said, “people who aren’t going to vote for Republicans not to cast their vote. That’s all this is designed for.”
The constant changing of the rules and locations is also confusing, complicating attempts by voters to make and execute voting plans. This, advocates say, is part of the goal: not just to make it more difficult for people to vote by eliminating locations, but to make the process so convoluted that it may depress turnout.
“If you can’t find a good rationale based on security, and you can’t find a good rationale based on administrative necessity, then what you’re left with is the rationale which is, ‘We’re doing this because we believe they’ll help us get reelected by ensuring that fewer people are able to cast votes,’” Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Law School and former Justice Department official who worked on voting rights cases, told me.
Judge Pitman ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments, that shuttering the drop-off locations would disproportionately burden voters in large population centers who are older or have disabilities. He also called Abbott’s arguments about security a “pretext,” finding that Abbott’s order did not promote security, since all the drop-off locations follow the same protocol.
But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly appealed the decision to try to stop the judge’s order, saying it undermines election security and “creates confusion on the eve of an election and threatens the integrity of the election.”
Late Monday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas, basically saying that Abbott had already expanded opportunities for voting in the pandemic and that limiting the number of drop-off locations would not hinder Texans’ right to vote.
“Normally, if a voter wanted to hand-deliver her mail-in ballot, she would have had only one day to do it—Election Day,” the judges wrote. “Now, under the Governor’s expanded policy, she can deliver the ballot anytime until Election Day. That effectively gives voters forty extra days to hand-deliver a marked mail-in ballot to an early voting clerk.”
“And,” the judges added, “the voter still has the traditional option she has always had for casting a mail-in ballot: mailing it.”
Texas, a battleground
Attempts to limit the vote are often done under the guise of guarding against voter fraud, and 2020 is no different. As in Texas, officials in Pennsylvania, Montana, and New Jersey, among other states, have faced legal challenges citing fraud and security on new voting accommodations.
Using allegations of voter fraud to restrict voting isn’t new, even if GOP attacks on mail-in voting are outsize in a year when many millions more voters plan to vote by mail — and in an election where the president is currently trailing in many polls.
But what’s happening in Texas, and really across the country, has deeper roots. Changes in voting procedure — particularly changes that could expand the electorate or make it easier to vote — are often seen as threats to those with easy paths to election and reelection under the status quo.
“The common element, unfortunately, is incumbents terribly interested in clinging to power and attempting to use their incumbency to rewrite the rules for the election process in a way that changes the electorate, rather than changing hearts and minds of voters,” Levitt said.
Texas is no different. Its changing demographics and politics mean the state is trending bluer in a way that could remake the electoral map. Trump remains ahead in most Texas polls, but Democratic candidate Joe Biden is not far behind, and he’s investing money there.
This political context matters for Texas’s case. The state is “becoming much younger, much more ethnically and racially diverse, and much more urban,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor and expert in Texas politics at the University of Houston, told me. “Those voters are more likely to support Democrats.”
Using voting rules to entrench power has historically been a bipartisan exercise, but Republicans are upholding that legacy in Texas right now. The Republican-controlled legislature has used its power to try to add constraints on how Texans can vote, particularly over the past decade or so. “I can definitively say that Texas does not make it easy to vote,” Rottinghaus said. “And it is happening concurrent with massive changes in Texas politics.”
This context helps makes sense of why Texas would attempt to shut drop-off locations in areas where they’re needed the most. But some advocates have argued that the attempt to shut down the drop-off locations, and other battles over making it easier to vote in the pandemic, may backfire, motivating voters rather than turning them away.
“I know that voters really care a lot about this election,” Chimene, of the League of Women Voters of Texas, said. “And they’re not going to let anything stand in their way of voting in this election.”


vox--2020-10-12--The false link between Amy Coney Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale, explained

On Monday , the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett , Donald Trump ’ s nominee to take Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat on the Supreme Court , begin .
And the spectacle threatens to reignite a storm of controversy around Barrett ’ s religion that has been building since 2017 .
Barrett is a devout Catholic .
She has written before about her belief that Catholicism should affect a judge ’ s jurisprudence , and Democrats discussed her views widely when she was nominated to the federal bench in 2017 .
In a moment that has become infamous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared that “ the dogma lives loudly within you ” during Barrett ’ s hearing , a phrase some conservatives took to be an attack on Barrett ’ s Catholicism .
Barrett is also part of a small Catholic group known as People of Praise , and that ’ s where her religious affiliations get especially touchy .
Some liberals argue Barrett ’ s membership in this group , which teaches that husbands are the heads of families and have authority over their wives , signals that she will hand down religiously motivated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court , particularly when it comes to women ’ s reproductive freedom and the rights of the queer community .
Meanwhile , conservatives reply that Barrett is a high-powered federal judge who is also married , so she can ’ t be all that oppressed by her husband , and that liberal critiques of the way Barrett ’ s religion affects her judicial obligations are nothing more than anti-Catholic prejudice at work .
One of the weirder ways this debate has played out since Barrett was first discussed as a potential Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not People of Praise , the group she belongs to , is also one of the inspirations for The Handmaid ’ s Tale .
In Margaret Atwood ’ s 1985 dystopian novel ( and its recent TV adaptation ) , fertile women are forced to live as childbearing slaves called handmaids .
The group isn ’ t an established inspiration for the book — but the story has developed legs anyway .
The inaccurate link between the People of Praise and Atwood ’ s story , perpetuated by a series of confusing coincidences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Newsweek article and was later picked up by Reuters .
Both articles have since been corrected , but the right was furious at both .
The Washington Examiner called it a “ smear that just won ’ t die.
” Fox News noted several other outlets have mentioned Barrett and The Handmaid ’ s Tale in the same story .
To be absolutely clear : People of Praise is not an inspiration for The Handmaid ’ s Tale , and the group does not practice sexual slavery or any of the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ novel .
But the argument over whether or not the two are connected reflects the deeply contentious atmosphere in which Barrett ’ s nomination to the Supreme Court occurs — and the immense symbolic weight The Handmaid ’ s Tale carries in American popular culture .
The Handmaid ’ s Tale is actually inspired by People of Hope .
They ’ re different from People of Praise .
Two coincidences led to the idea of a People of Praise–Handmaid ’ s Tale connection .
The first coincidence is that the People of Praise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handmaid.
” As reported by the New York Times in 2017 , People of Praise members are all accountable to a personal adviser .
Those advisers offer guidance on major life decisions , including , per the Times , “ whom to date or marry , where to live , whether to take a job or buy a home , and how to raise children.
” And these advisers used to be called “ heads ” when they were men and “ handmaids ” when they were women .
They have since been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that when Margaret Atwood explained her Handmaid ’ s Tale inspirations to the New York Times in 1987 , she described one of them as “ a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect , which calls the women handmaids.
” Atwood did not at the time name the sect , so when her quote resurfaced in 2020 , it was very easy for some readers to think , Well , People of Praise is a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect that calls the women handmaids , so there you go .
Accordingly , on September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Praise was one of Atwood ’ s inspirations for The Handmaid ’ s Tale .
Asked about her inspiration for The Handmaid ’ s Tale by Politico as the controversy heated up , Atwood said she wasn ’ t sure which group she was talking about in 1987 .
Her archive of work and research is at the University of Toronto , where she can ’ t currently access it due to Covid-19 restrictions .
But she ’ s on the record as going through her Handmaid ’ s Tale archives for journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and during those interviews , she ’ s always cited People of Hope , a different Catholic charismatic spinoff that calls women handmaids .
Specifically , People of Hope is a fundamentalist group in New Jersey that some former members have said behaves like a cult and which has allegedly arranged marriages between teenagers .
The People of Hope call wives “ handmaids , ” and when Atwood saw that word in an Associated Press clipping about the group , she underlined it in pen .
It ’ s rumored that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of using the name to begin with .
In a weird wrinkle , the timing of the lore here doesn ’ t quite work out .
Reporting for the Star-Ledger in 2017 , Tom Deignan found that the story didn ’ t hit the AP until after The Handmaid ’ s Tale came out in 1985 , meaning that Atwood couldn ’ t have pulled the word “ handmaid ” from that mythical news article after all .
But regardless , the AP clipping in Atwood ’ s archives , the one that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People of Hope .
And while it ’ s plenty plausible that Atwood has indulged in a little self-mythologizing about her creative process over the years , it ’ s not really that relevant to any questions about Amy Coney Barrett and her religious leanings today .
The outrage over the controversy speaks to the symbolic weight Handmaid ’ s Tale holds today in American pop culture The slippage between People of Praise handmaids , People of Hope handmaids , and Margaret Atwood handmaids is where this whole misunderstanding originated .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling about the world Atwood was writing about in 1984 when she built Gilead , her theocratic dystopia .
Atwood was drawing from the cultural norms of lots of different North American charismatic Christian groups at the time , including harmless ones .
The reason there ’ s so much confusion about exactly where she took the word handmaid from is that handmaid is the kind of word a lot of North American charismatic Christian groups were into in 1984 : suggestive of purity , duty , and feminine obedience to divine will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these groups were practicing sexual slavery .
It means they were working with a very specific vocabulary , and the way Atwood made her dystopia feel real was by skillfully mimicking them .
But that this slippage occurred in 2020 is also telling about how immensely fearful people are , on both the right and the left , about America ’ s future — and how powerful The Handmaid ’ s Tale is as a symbol of what that future might look like .
People on the left look at Amy Coney Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion and marriage equality in explicitly religious terms , someone who they fear will , if seated on the Supreme Court , turn back the clock on both those issues .
They see a symbol of the same fear that drove protesters to don Handmaid robes at the Kavanaugh hearings in 2018 : the fear that women are going to lose control of their bodies , and that when that day comes , we might just as well be in Gilead .
So they have linked Barrett to The Handmaid ’ s Tale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now our culture ’ s most potent symbol for the idea of a world in which women ’ s bodies are not their own .
People on the religious right , meanwhile , see the left ’ s focus on Barrett ’ s Catholicism as confirmation that American Christianity is losing its cultural power , and that they may soon become a persecuted minority .
Articles that mistakenly link Barrett ’ s People of Praise to The Handmaid ’ s Tale , seen through this lens , become examples of the left trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disqualifying mark against her , and by extension to make all Christian faith disqualifying for higher office .
The result is a controversy about two political parties that increasingly see themselves as pushed to the breaking point — and who believe they have no space left to interact with the other side in good faith .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ @ @

On Monday, Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s nominee to take Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, was officially confirmed and sworn in. Barrett’s controversial confirmation was the final chapter of the spectacle surrounding her rapid nomination and confirmation, especially so close to a presidential election. And it only further served to reignite the extremely polarized conversation around Barrett’s religion that has been building since 2017.
Barrett is a devout Catholic. She has written before about her belief that Catholicism should affect a judge’s jurisprudence, and Democrats discussed her views widely when she was nominated to the federal bench in 2017. In a moment that has become infamous on the right, Sen. Dianne Feinstein declared that “the dogma lives loudly within you” during Barrett’s hearing, a phrase some conservatives took to be an attack on Barrett’s Catholicism.
Barrett is also part of a small Catholic group known as People of Praise, and that’s where her religious affiliations get especially touchy. Some liberals argue Barrett’s membership in this group, which teaches that husbands are the heads of families and have authority over their wives, signals that she will hand down religiously motivated conservative opinions as a Supreme Court justice, particularly when it comes to women’s reproductive freedom and the rights of the queer community.
Meanwhile, conservatives reply that Barrett is a high-powered judge who is also married, so she can’t be all that oppressed by her husband, and that liberal critiques of the way Barrett’s religion affects her judicial obligations are nothing more than anti-Catholic prejudice at work.
One of the weirder ways this debate has played out since Barrett was first discussed as a potential Supreme Court nominee is the fight over whether or not People of Praise, the group she belongs to, is also one of the inspirations for The Handmaid’s Tale. In Margaret Atwood’s 1985 dystopian novel (and its recent TV adaptation), fertile women are forced to live as childbearing slaves called handmaids. The group isn’t an established inspiration for the book — but the story has developed legs anyway.
The inaccurate link between the People of Praise and Atwood’s story, perpetuated by a series of confusing coincidences and uneven fact-checking, first emerged in a Newsweek article and was later picked up by Reuters. Both articles have since been corrected, but the right was furious at both. The Washington Examiner called it a “smear that just won’t die.” Fox News noted several other outlets have mentioned Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale in the same story.
To be absolutely clear: People of Praise is not an inspiration for The Handmaid’s Tale, and the group does not practice sexual slavery or any of the other dystopian practices Atwood wrote about in her novel. But the argument over whether or not the two are connected reflects the deeply contentious atmosphere in which Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court occurred — and the immense symbolic weight The Handmaid’s Tale carries in American popular culture.
The Handmaid’s Tale is actually inspired by People of Hope. They’re different from People of Praise.
Two coincidences led to the idea of a People of Praise–Handmaid’s Tale connection. The first coincidence is that the People of Praise once had a religious rank called “handmaid.” As reported by the New York Times in 2017, People of Praise members are all accountable to a personal adviser. Those advisers offer guidance on major life decisions, including, per the Times, “whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.” And these advisers used to be called “heads” when they were men and “handmaids” when they were women. They have since been renamed “leaders.”
The second coincidence is that when Margaret Atwood explained her Handmaid’s Tale inspirations to the New York Times in 1987, she described one of them as “a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect, which calls the women handmaids.” Atwood did not at the time name the sect, so when her quote resurfaced in 2020, it was very easy for some readers to think, Well, People of Praise is a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect that calls the women handmaids, so there you go. Accordingly, on September 21, Newsweek reported that People of Praise was one of Atwood’s inspirations for The Handmaid’s Tale.
Asked about her inspiration for The Handmaid’s Tale by Politico as the controversy heated up, Atwood said she wasn’t sure which group she was talking about in 1987. Her archive of work and research is at the University of Toronto, where she can’t currently access it due to Covid-19 restrictions. But she’s on the record as going through her Handmaid’s Tale archives for journalists plenty of times in the past, and during those interviews, she’s always cited People of Hope, a different Catholic charismatic spinoff that calls women handmaids.
Specifically, People of Hope is a fundamentalist group in New Jersey that some former members have said behaves like a cult and which has allegedly arranged marriages between teenagers. The People of Hope call wives “handmaids,” and when Atwood saw that word in an Associated Press clipping about the group, she underlined it in pen. It’s rumored that it’s here that she developed the idea of using the name to begin with.
In a weird wrinkle, the timing of the lore here doesn’t quite work out. Reporting for the Star-Ledger in 2017, Tom Deignan found that the story didn’t hit the AP until after The Handmaid’s Tale came out in 1985, meaning that Atwood couldn’t have pulled the word “handmaid” from that mythical news article after all. But regardless, the AP clipping in Atwood’s archives, the one that she always shows reporters, is about People of Hope. And while it’s plenty plausible that Atwood has indulged in a little self-mythologizing about her creative process over the years, it’s not really that relevant to any questions about Amy Coney Barrett and her religious leanings today.
The outrage over the controversy speaks to the symbolic weight Handmaid’s Tale holds today in American pop culture
The slippage between People of Praise handmaids, People of Hope handmaids, and Margaret Atwood handmaids is where this whole misunderstanding originated. And it is, in its own way, telling about the world Atwood was writing about in 1984 when she built Gilead, her theocratic dystopia.
Atwood was drawing from the cultural norms of lots of different North American charismatic Christian groups at the time, including harmless ones. The reason there’s so much confusion about exactly where she took the word handmaid from is that handmaid is the kind of word a lot of North American charismatic Christian groups were into in 1984: suggestive of purity, duty, and feminine obedience to divine will.
Again, that does not mean these groups were practicing sexual slavery. It means they were working with a very specific vocabulary, and the way Atwood made her dystopia feel real was by skillfully mimicking them.
But that this slippage occurred in 2020 is also telling about how immensely fearful people are, on both the right and the left, about America’s future — and how powerful The Handmaid’s Tale is as a symbol of what that future might look like.
People on the left look at Amy Coney Barrett and see someone who has denounced both abortion and marriage equality in explicitly religious terms, someone who they fear will, now that she is seated on the Supreme Court, turn back the clock on both those issues. They see a symbol of the same fear that drove protesters to don Handmaid robes at the Kavanaugh hearings in 2018: the fear that women are going to lose control of their bodies, and that when that day comes, we might just as well be in Gilead. So they have linked Barrett to The Handmaid’s Tale because The Handmaid’s Tale is now our culture’s most potent symbol for the idea of a world in which women’s bodies are not their own.
Related What Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court means for abortion rights
People on the religious right, meanwhile, see the left’s focus on Barrett’s Catholicism as confirmation that American Christianity is losing its cultural power, and that they may soon become a persecuted minority. Articles that mistakenly link Barrett’s People of Praise to The Handmaid’s Tale, viewed through this lens, become examples of the left trying to make Barrett’s religion a disqualifying mark against her, and by extension to make all Christian faith disqualifying for higher office.
The result is a controversy about two political parties that increasingly see themselves as pushed to the breaking point — and who believe they have no space left to interact with the other side in good faith.