vox--2020-10-22--6 ballot measures that could change the criminal justice system

This November , six ballot measures in five states will give voters a chance to make significant changes to their criminal justice systems .
In Oklahoma , voters could ban harsh sentencing enhancements that can keep people in prison longer for nonviolent crimes .
In California , voters will consider three measures : one to affirm the end of cash bail , another to let people vote while on parole , and a third to roll back recent criminal justice reforms .
In Nebraska and Utah , voters could prohibit slavery as a criminal punishment , including forced prison labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approve a controversial crime victims ’ rights law .
Not all of these are for reform as many people think of it today .
Some of the initiatives , particularly in California and Kentucky , have been criticized by activists seeking to end mass incarceration and the war on drugs .
But depending on how voters take these initiatives , they could continue the broader work of the past decade to reel back America ’ s punitive criminal justice system .
Galvanized by Black Lives Matter , other civil rights causes , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lawmakers and the public have become increasingly critical of the system , which has made America the world ’ s leader in incarceration and spawned a vast network of consequences , from oppressive voting laws for people convicted of felonies to the continued use of forced labor as a criminal penalty .
Coupled with always-important local and state races for sheriffs , prosecutors , and judges , and local ballot initiatives , Election Day gives Americans a direct say in this system .
It ’ s also at the local and state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact on the justice system : The vast majority of the country ’ s 18,000 police agencies are run by towns , cities , counties , and states , and about 88 percent of people in prison are held at the state level .
There are a lot of criminal justice measures on the ballot in 2020 , ranging from marijuana legalization to drug decriminalization to local police reforms .
But here are six of this year ’ s biggest statewide measures and what they could do to change the system .
Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American lawmakers have increasingly moved to reduce the country ’ s massive prison population — the largest incarcerated population in the world .
As part of that , they ’ ve aimed to reduce penalties for nonviolent crimes in particular .
Oklahoma State Question 805 is a continuation of those efforts .
Under current law , Oklahoma prosecutors and judges can use previous nonviolent felony convictions to impose a longer sentence for a defendant .
That includes several more years or even up to life in prison .
The ballot measure would prohibit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exception for anyone who has ever been convicted of a violent felony .
It would also retroactively apply to people who received longer sentences due to such an enhancement , potentially reducing their punishment .
Supporters claim that the measure would help reduce overly punitive prison sentences and cut Oklahoma ’ s prison population , which was the largest in the country — and the world — as of 2018 .
That would make the criminal justice system not only more fair , supporters argue , but also less expensive , since locking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Opponents claim that reducing prison sentences , particularly for people with criminal records , would lead to more crime — reducing the potential deterrent of a long prison sentence and letting would-be repeat offenders out sooner .
They say the higher cost of incarceration is worth the public safety gains .
The research suggests that shorter prison sentences , relative to the US baseline , don ’ t lead to more crime .
In 2017 , David Roodman of the Open Philanthropy Project conducted an extensive review of the evidence on longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tougher sentences hardly deter crime , and that while imprisoning people temporarily stops them from committing crime outside prison walls , it also tends to increase their criminality after release .
As a result , ‘ tough-on-crime ’ initiatives can reduce crime in the short run but cause offsetting harm in the long run.
” In short , longer prison sentences can actually make people more likely to commit crimes in the long term .
At the same time , locking people up for long periods of time is very costly .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting people in prison , which the Prison Policy Initiative estimated at $ 182 billion a year for the US in 2017 .
There ’ s also the social cost of people being ripped away from their families and communities ; as one example , the New York Times calculated in 2015 that for every 100 Black women not in jail or prison in America , there are only 83 Black men — what amounts to 1.5 million “ missing ” men who can ’ t be there for their kids , family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s these costs that have driven reformers , now in Oklahoma , to cut back on mass incarceration .
It ’ s unclear what the initiative ’ s chances of passing are , due to a lack of good polling on it .
But Oklahoma voters in 2016 approved two criminal justice reform measures — in the same year they voted for President Donald Trump — so there ’ s a history of voters there taking up reform .
In 2018 , California lawmakers passed SB 10 to abolish cash bail .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the signatures for a referendum on SB 10 before it could take effect — leaving it to voters to decide the future of cash bail in California with Proposition 25 .
Right now , California courts can require defendants to pay to get out of jail , with a promise that they ’ ll get their money back when their trials are over .
SB 10 would seek to replace that with a risk assessment system : Defendants would be released or kept in jail , depending on an evaluation of their risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court .
Advocates argue that the new system would cut back racial and economic disparities , because the financial cost of cash bail today disproportionately impacts poor people — particularly low-income people of color — who have to stay in jail if they can ’ t afford to pay .
But critics claim that abolishing cash bail would let people released from jail commit more crimes , leading to an increase in crime .
Bail bonds agents also oppose the measures , fearing that the reforms will put them out of business .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to some controversy ) , have already taken steps to reform and even abolish their bail systems .
In places that previously adopted cash bail reforms , they seem to be going well .
In New Jersey , 2016 reforms led to a drop in the pretrial jail population of more than 40 percent , with defendants spending around 40 percent less time awaiting trial in jail .
Almost 90 percent of defendants showed up at court appearances , and roughly a quarter of people awaiting trial committed new crimes — both of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the changed system .
Overall , crime actually dropped in New Jersey after the reform ’ s passage .
But New Jersey ’ s system is also financially strained , showing the high potential costs of running a pretrial assessment system .
Now California voters will decide if they want to take similar steps .
Right now , it looks like the issue could go either way , with one poll on the issue showing supporters of ending cash bail ahead but a whopping 29 percent of voters undecided .
On Proposition 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parole should be allowed to vote .
As it stands , California lets people vote even while they ’ re on one form of legal supervision after a crime : probation .
But if they ’ re released early from prison and put on parole , they ’ re not allowed to vote .
Most states don ’ t let people vote while they ’ re in prison , on parole , or on probation .
So California is already a bit more liberal on this issue than the majority of states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ state — and the rest of the country — toward letting people vote after they complete their sentences .
Some have pushed for letting people vote in prison , though only two states , Maine and Vermont , currently allow that .
California isn ’ t going that far , but merely removing one of these remaining categories of disenfranchisement : People in prison would still be unable to vote , but those released on parole would regain the right .
That could restore the right to vote to tens of thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nearly 120,000 people this year will be disenfranchised while on parole in California .
Advocates of the change argue that people released from prison have already served the worst of their punishment .
They ’ re being released on parole to reintegrate into society — and regaining the right to vote is a crucial element of doing that .
And the experience of people on probation , which isn ’ t too different from parole , shows that this can work fine .
Opponents say that people convicted of felonies should lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their punishment .
At the very least , people convicted of felonies shouldn ’ t regain the right to vote until they complete their sentences — including for prison , parole , and probation .
With parole in particular , they claim that parole is an extension of prison time and some of the restrictions that prison entails .
The issue , then , comes down to a set of philosophical questions : Can someone at some point do something so terrible that they lose their right to vote ?
And if so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Where voters seem likely to stand is unclear right now , with no good polling on the issue in California .
While much of the country , including California , works to reform its criminal justice system and make it less punitive , one ballot measure this year would actually roll back reforms .
California ’ s Proposition 20 would elevate several crimes , particularly types of theft and fraud , so they can also be charged as felonies , rather than only misdemeanors — in effect resulting in more prison time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as classifying more crimes as “ violent , ” to make it harder for inmates to qualify for parole — keeping people in prison longer .
And it would make it easier to lock people up for a probation violation — possibly resulting in more people in prison .
The measure largely targets reforms Californians have passed in recent years to reduce incarceration , which lawmakers and the public embraced after the courts , including the US Supreme Court , ruled that the state ’ s horribly overcrowded prisons amounted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures have been successful — cutting the state ’ s jail and prison population , all while crime continued to decrease throughout California .
Supporters of Proposition 20 , however , disagree with the reforms .
They argue that the measure is necessary to crack down on crime — invoking many of the same arguments used by “ tough on crime ” advocates as they drove up incarceration in previous decades .
They claim some of the crimes that are currently classified “ nonviolent ” under state law to allow parole are really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the measure argue that it would move California ’ s criminal justice system backward .
A report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice concluded that Proposition 20 would put thousands more people in jail or prison and cost the state $ 154 million to $ 457 million a year while failing to reduce crime further .
It also found Proposition 20 “ will particularly harm communities of color ” — reflecting the racial disparities ingrained in the broader criminal justice system .
It ’ s really a representation of the broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more incarceration , unshaken by the recent research disputing their claims , continue to push for a more punitive criminal justice system .
Reformers , now on the defensive , insist more incarceration is costly and doesn ’ t actually make the public safer .
California voters will have a chance to decide which side they ’ re on this November .
It ’ s not clear where voters stand now , due to a lack of good polling .
5 ) Nebraska Amendment 1 and Utah Amendment C : End slavery as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment abolished slavery , but it left a major exception : Slavery or involuntary servitude is allowed “ as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
” Some states have enshrined similar exceptions into their constitutions and laws , allowing slavery or involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime .
These exemptions are used to , for example , force prison inmates to work for no pay — which is still at times done by some prisons and jails .
Nebraska ’ s Amendment 1 and Utah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , removing language in their state constitutions that allows slavery or involuntary servitude as forms of criminal punishment .
Supporters of the measures argue for them in moral terms .
They say the ballot measures continue America ’ s long road toward righting its previous racial injustices , especially given that the criminal justice system disproportionately incarcerates and penalizes Black people .
The change could also help block the prison system from profiting off the labor of inmates — a profit motive that could incentivize the perpetuation of mass incarceration .
To the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are incarcerated , supporters say , inmates can voluntarily opt in to it , with existing incentives that can reduce prison sentences based on good behavior and rehabilitation .
There ’ s no official opposition to either state ’ s ballot measure .
But it ’ s unclear how likely either is to pass due to a lack of polling .
Marsy ’ s Law aims to ensure that crime victims — often defined to include not just the direct victims of crimes but also their family members — are heard and protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the murdered sister of Marsy ’ s Law for All founder Henry Nicholas , the law gives victims the right to be told about criminal proceedings , be present at proceedings , be heard at proceedings , and be protected from the accused , among other changes .
According to the campaign , the law was inspired by the murder of Marsy Ann Nicholas .
After her death , her mother , Marcella Leach , ran into the accused murderer while he was out on bail .
The family had not been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — causing “ pain and suffering family members of murder victims so often endure , ” the campaign said .
That led Nicholas , the billionaire co-founder of Broadcom Corporation , to create Marsy ’ s Law and launch a national push for it .
So far , the measure has been approved in 11 states .
Kentucky voters approved Marsy ’ s Law in 2018 , but state courts invalidated the measure due to problems with the ballot language .
Now it ’ s on the ballot again in Kentucky as Constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , are critical of Marsy ’ s Law .
A blog post by the American Civil Liberties Union argued the measure undermines due process protections and may end up unworkable .
For example , Marsy ’ s Law may force governments to deprive defendants of some of their rights in order to respect the newly delineated rights of victims — even as the defendant , who may be wrongly accused of a crime , is facing the most serious consequences .
Jeanne Hruska , political director for the ACLU of New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not that the ACLU and other criminal justice reformers oppose legally protecting victims ’ rights .
Many states , in fact , have crime victim protections that reformers don ’ t object to .
It ’ s that , in their view , Marsy ’ s Law is not the right way to protect these victims .
There ’ s no recent , good polling on the topic in the state .
But given that Kentucky voters already approved a similar measure in 2018 , it seems likely to pass .
Will you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

This November, six ballot measures in five states will give voters a chance to make significant changes to their criminal justice systems.
In Oklahoma, voters could ban harsh sentencing enhancements that can keep people in prison longer for nonviolent crimes. In California, voters will consider three measures: one to affirm the end of cash bail, another to let people vote while on parole, and a third to roll back recent criminal justice reforms. In Nebraska and Utah, voters could prohibit slavery as a criminal punishment, including forced prison labor. And in Kentucky, voters could approve a controversial crime victims’ rights law.
Not all of these are for reform as many people think of it today. Some of the initiatives, particularly in California and Kentucky, have been criticized by activists seeking to end mass incarceration and the war on drugs.
But depending on how voters take these initiatives, they could continue the broader work of the past decade to reel back America’s punitive criminal justice system. Galvanized by Black Lives Matter, other civil rights causes, and the high financial costs of mass incarceration, lawmakers and the public have become increasingly critical of the system, which has made America the world’s leader in incarceration and spawned a vast network of consequences, from oppressive voting laws for people convicted of felonies to the continued use of forced labor as a criminal penalty.
Coupled with always-important local and state races for sheriffs, prosecutors, and judges, and local ballot initiatives, Election Day gives Americans a direct say in this system. It’s also at the local and state level that voters can make the highest impact on the justice system: The vast majority of the country’s 18,000 police agencies are run by towns, cities, counties, and states, and about 88 percent of people in prison are held at the state level.
There are a lot of criminal justice measures on the ballot in 2020, ranging from marijuana legalization to drug decriminalization to local police reforms. But here are six of this year’s biggest statewide measures and what they could do to change the system.
1) Oklahoma State Question 805: Sentencing reform for nonviolent crimes
Over the past decade and a half, American lawmakers have increasingly moved to reduce the country’s massive prison population — the largest incarcerated population in the world. As part of that, they’ve aimed to reduce penalties for nonviolent crimes in particular.
Oklahoma State Question 805 is a continuation of those efforts. Under current law, Oklahoma prosecutors and judges can use previous nonviolent felony convictions to impose a longer sentence for a defendant. That includes several more years or even up to life in prison.
The ballot measure would prohibit that for nonviolent offenses — with an exception for anyone who has ever been convicted of a violent felony. It would also retroactively apply to people who received longer sentences due to such an enhancement, potentially reducing their punishment.
Supporters claim that the measure would help reduce overly punitive prison sentences and cut Oklahoma’s prison population, which was the largest in the country — and the world — as of 2018. That would make the criminal justice system not only more fair, supporters argue, but also less expensive, since locking people up costs a lot of money.
Opponents claim that reducing prison sentences, particularly for people with criminal records, would lead to more crime — reducing the potential deterrent of a long prison sentence and letting would-be repeat offenders out sooner. They say the higher cost of incarceration is worth the public safety gains.
The research suggests that shorter prison sentences, relative to the US baseline, don’t lead to more crime. In 2017, David Roodman of the Open Philanthropy Project conducted an extensive review of the evidence on longer prison sentences. He concluded that “tougher sentences hardly deter crime, and that while imprisoning people temporarily stops them from committing crime outside prison walls, it also tends to increase their criminality after release. As a result, ‘tough-on-crime’ initiatives can reduce crime in the short run but cause offsetting harm in the long run.”
In short, longer prison sentences can actually make people more likely to commit crimes in the long term.
At the same time, locking people up for long periods of time is very costly. There’s the actual financial cost of putting people in prison, which the Prison Policy Initiative estimated at $182 billion a year for the US in 2017. There’s also the social cost of people being ripped away from their families and communities; as one example, the New York Times calculated in 2015 that for every 100 Black women not in jail or prison in America, there are only 83 Black men — what amounts to 1.5 million “missing” men who can’t be there for their kids, family, or community while incarcerated.
It’s these costs that have driven reformers, now in Oklahoma, to cut back on mass incarceration.
It’s unclear what the initiative’s chances of passing are, due to a lack of good polling on it. But Oklahoma voters in 2016 approved two criminal justice reform measures — in the same year they voted for President Donald Trump — so there’s a history of voters there taking up reform.
2) California Proposition 25: A referendum on ending cash bail
In 2018, California lawmakers passed SB 10 to abolish cash bail. But within months, state activists gathered the signatures for a referendum on SB 10 before it could take effect — leaving it to voters to decide the future of cash bail in California with Proposition 25.
Right now, California courts can require defendants to pay to get out of jail, with a promise that they’ll get their money back when their trials are over. SB 10 would seek to replace that with a risk assessment system: Defendants would be released or kept in jail, depending on an evaluation of their risk to public safety and for returning to court.
Advocates argue that the new system would cut back racial and economic disparities, because the financial cost of cash bail today disproportionately impacts poor people — particularly low-income people of color — who have to stay in jail if they can’t afford to pay.
But critics claim that abolishing cash bail would let people released from jail commit more crimes, leading to an increase in crime. Bail bonds agents also oppose the measures, fearing that the reforms will put them out of business.
Other states, including New York (to some controversy), have already taken steps to reform and even abolish their bail systems.
In places that previously adopted cash bail reforms, they seem to be going well. In New Jersey, 2016 reforms led to a drop in the pretrial jail population of more than 40 percent, with defendants spending around 40 percent less time awaiting trial in jail. Almost 90 percent of defendants showed up at court appearances, and roughly a quarter of people awaiting trial committed new crimes — both of which were similar to the rates before the changed system. Overall, crime actually dropped in New Jersey after the reform’s passage.
But New Jersey’s system is also financially strained, showing the high potential costs of running a pretrial assessment system.
Now California voters will decide if they want to take similar steps. Right now, it looks like the issue could go either way, with one poll on the issue showing supporters of ending cash bail ahead but a whopping 29 percent of voters undecided.
3) California Proposition 17: Parolees seek the vote in California
On Proposition 17, Californians will decide if people on parole should be allowed to vote.
As it stands, California lets people vote even while they’re on one form of legal supervision after a crime: probation. But if they’re released early from prison and put on parole, they’re not allowed to vote.
Most states don’t let people vote while they’re in prison, on parole, or on probation. So California is already a bit more liberal on this issue than the majority of states. But reformers have tried to push the state — and the rest of the country — toward letting people vote after they complete their sentences. Some have pushed for letting people vote in prison, though only two states, Maine and Vermont, currently allow that.
California isn’t going that far, but merely removing one of these remaining categories of disenfranchisement: People in prison would still be unable to vote, but those released on parole would regain the right.
That could restore the right to vote to tens of thousands of Californians. According to the Sentencing Project, nearly 120,000 people this year will be disenfranchised while on parole in California.
Advocates of the change argue that people released from prison have already served the worst of their punishment. They’re being released on parole to reintegrate into society — and regaining the right to vote is a crucial element of doing that. And the experience of people on probation, which isn’t too different from parole, shows that this can work fine.
Opponents say that people convicted of felonies should lose their right to vote as part of their punishment. At the very least, people convicted of felonies shouldn’t regain the right to vote until they complete their sentences — including for prison, parole, and probation. With parole in particular, they claim that parole is an extension of prison time and some of the restrictions that prison entails.
The issue, then, comes down to a set of philosophical questions: Can someone at some point do something so terrible that they lose their right to vote? And if so, can they ever regain that right?
Where voters seem likely to stand is unclear right now, with no good polling on the issue in California.
4) California Proposition 20: Roll back criminal justice reforms
While much of the country, including California, works to reform its criminal justice system and make it less punitive, one ballot measure this year would actually roll back reforms.
California’s Proposition 20 would elevate several crimes, particularly types of theft and fraud, so they can also be charged as felonies, rather than only misdemeanors — in effect resulting in more prison time. It would also make several changes, such as classifying more crimes as “violent,” to make it harder for inmates to qualify for parole — keeping people in prison longer. And it would make it easier to lock people up for a probation violation — possibly resulting in more people in prison.
The measure largely targets reforms Californians have passed in recent years to reduce incarceration, which lawmakers and the public embraced after the courts, including the US Supreme Court, ruled that the state’s horribly overcrowded prisons amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
The reform measures have been successful — cutting the state’s jail and prison population, all while crime continued to decrease throughout California.
Supporters of Proposition 20, however, disagree with the reforms. They argue that the measure is necessary to crack down on crime — invoking many of the same arguments used by “tough on crime” advocates as they drove up incarceration in previous decades. They claim some of the crimes that are currently classified “nonviolent” under state law to allow parole are really violent or high-level offenses.
Opponents of the measure argue that it would move California’s criminal justice system backward. A report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice concluded that Proposition 20 would put thousands more people in jail or prison and cost the state $154 million to $457 million a year while failing to reduce crime further. It also found Proposition 20 “will particularly harm communities of color” — reflecting the racial disparities ingrained in the broader criminal justice system.
It’s really a representation of the broader fight about mass incarceration. Supporters of more incarceration, unshaken by the recent research disputing their claims, continue to push for a more punitive criminal justice system. Reformers, now on the defensive, insist more incarceration is costly and doesn’t actually make the public safer.
California voters will have a chance to decide which side they’re on this November. It’s not clear where voters stand now, due to a lack of good polling.
5) Nebraska Amendment 1 and Utah Amendment C: End slavery as a criminal punishment
America’s 13th Amendment abolished slavery, but it left a major exception: Slavery or involuntary servitude is allowed “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”
Some states have enshrined similar exceptions into their constitutions and laws, allowing slavery or involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime. These exemptions are used to, for example, force prison inmates to work for no pay — which is still at times done by some prisons and jails.
Nebraska’s Amendment 1 and Utah’s Amendment C would change that, removing language in their state constitutions that allows slavery or involuntary servitude as forms of criminal punishment.
Supporters of the measures argue for them in moral terms. They say the ballot measures continue America’s long road toward righting its previous racial injustices, especially given that the criminal justice system disproportionately incarcerates and penalizes Black people. The change could also help block the prison system from profiting off the labor of inmates — a profit motive that could incentivize the perpetuation of mass incarceration.
To the extent that work can benefit people who are incarcerated, supporters say, inmates can voluntarily opt in to it, with existing incentives that can reduce prison sentences based on good behavior and rehabilitation.
There’s no official opposition to either state’s ballot measure. But it’s unclear how likely either is to pass due to a lack of polling.
6) Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1: Another push for Marsy’s Law
Marsy’s Law aims to ensure that crime victims — often defined to include not just the direct victims of crimes but also their family members — are heard and protected throughout the criminal trial process. Named after the murdered sister of Marsy’s Law for All founder Henry Nicholas, the law gives victims the right to be told about criminal proceedings, be present at proceedings, be heard at proceedings, and be protected from the accused, among other changes.
According to the campaign, the law was inspired by the murder of Marsy Ann Nicholas. After her death, her mother, Marcella Leach, ran into the accused murderer while he was out on bail. The family had not been notified he had been released on bail — causing “pain and suffering family members of murder victims so often endure,” the campaign said. That led Nicholas, the billionaire co-founder of Broadcom Corporation, to create Marsy’s Law and launch a national push for it.
So far, the measure has been approved in 11 states. Kentucky voters approved Marsy’s Law in 2018, but state courts invalidated the measure due to problems with the ballot language. Now it’s on the ballot again in Kentucky as Constitutional Amendment 1.
Some criminal justice reformers, however, are critical of Marsy’s Law. A blog post by the American Civil Liberties Union argued the measure undermines due process protections and may end up unworkable. For example, Marsy’s Law may force governments to deprive defendants of some of their rights in order to respect the newly delineated rights of victims — even as the defendant, who may be wrongly accused of a crime, is facing the most serious consequences.
Jeanne Hruska, political director for the ACLU of New Hampshire, wrote:
There are ways of guaranteeing victim’s rights without making constitutional mistakes. For instance, in New Hampshire, our comprehensive victims’ rights statute preempts conflict between rights by stating that victims’ rights shall be enforced “to the extent . . . they are not inconsistent with the constitutional or statutory rights of the accused.” This language recognizes that victims’ rights may come into conflict with defendants’ rights and that our justice system works only if defendants’ rights against the state are upheld. Marsy’s Law has no comparable language.
It’s not that the ACLU and other criminal justice reformers oppose legally protecting victims’ rights. Many states, in fact, have crime victim protections that reformers don’t object to. It’s that, in their view, Marsy’s Law is not the right way to protect these victims.
There’s no recent, good polling on the topic in the state. But given that Kentucky voters already approved a similar measure in 2018, it seems likely to pass.


vox--2020-10-22--The Vox Senate interview: Jaime Harrison talks about the coalition of voters needed to win South Car

The Vox Senate interview: Jaime Harrison talks about the coalition of voters needed to win South Carolina

Jaime Harrison has done what few expected : Polls now have him within single digits of Sen. Lindsey Graham in the South Carolina Senate race .
The degree of support he ’ s received has surprised many , including Harrison himself .
“ I ’ m amazed by it , ” he told Vox .
“ I got into this race because I knew I had a shot , but not in my wildest dreams did I imagine a campaign growing like this campaign has grown.
” This past quarter , Harrison raised $ 57 million — the most money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single quarter in history , according to the New York Times .
These funds have allowed Harrison to compete statewide in South Carolina in a way not many Democrats have been able to in the past , enabling him to close the double-digit polling gap with which he started his campaign .
Harrison is among the Democrats who ’ ve picked up strong momentum this year amid a polarizing presidential race .
The path to an ultimate win over Graham is a tough one , however : Harrison will need an expansive coalition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and strong Democratic turnout .
According to Cook Political Report ’ s Jessica Taylor , Democrats have previously capped out at 48 percent voter support in the state .
Harrison spoke with Vox about his expectations for Republican support and the legislation he ’ d prioritize if he ’ s elected .
This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity .
At the start of this campaign , there was a sense from some people that this was potentially a long shot .
And now you ’ re at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lindsey Graham .
So , I was wondering if you could talk about what you ’ ve done since the launch of your campaign to build up this support ?
Well , you know , this has been a grassroots movement that we ’ ve built here in South Carolina .
When I first started , we didn ’ t have an email list , so we had to build it from the ground up .
I think folks here in South Carolina were just so hungry for change .
They were so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unifying message .
They were hungry for some leadership that was going to focus on them and their families and their communities .
We have gotten thousands of volunteers , I think we ’ re on 14 or 15,000 people who signed up to volunteer for our campaign .
We ’ ve gotten well over a million contributions — small dollars — contributions from every county in South Carolina , and people are just so excited .
I ’ m amazed by it .
I always knew that I had a shot .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ race because I knew I had a shot .
But not in my wildest dreams did I imagine a campaign growing like this campaign has grown .
I had seen Cook Political Report note that there ’ s typically a 48 percent ceiling for Democrats in federal races in South Carolina .
And I was wondering if you could talk about what the coalition of voters looks like that you see getting your campaign to either the majority or the plurality that you need to ultimately win ?
I think in the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Republicans who are just fed up with where things are going in the direction of the state , who don ’ t like the divisive politics that they see each and every day , who are looking for somebody who ’ s going to focus on not what is the Democratic solution or the Republican solution , but what is the right solution for our community ?
And that ’ s where I am .
You know , I say this often : Lindsey Graham is trying to scare people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to inspire people to support me .
And it ’ s a different way of looking at the world .
And so what we have seen is that we are attracting a section of Republican supporters who don ’ t like the direction of the country and where we ’ re going .
We are winning overwhelmingly with independents over Lindsey Graham , and we have lockclad support with Democratic voters .
So that ’ s the coalition that we have .
When you ’ re able to get somebody like Dick Wilkerson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s [ presidential campaign ] finance committee ... You know , he has voted for Republicans in the state , ran one of the largest companies in South Carolina — Michelin — and to have him come from being a Lindsey supporter to a Jamie Harrison supporter , it just demonstrates that things are changing in the state .
[ One of the advertising efforts that Harrison ’ s campaign has invested in targets conservative voters in an attempt to convince them to support a third-party candidate instead of Graham .
If enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these shifts could help Harrison win with less than a majority of the vote . ]
If President Trump ends up winning South Carolina , do you see ticket splitters being part of this coalition as well ?
And have you seen signs of their support for your campaign ?
Oh , yeah , I mean , there are a number of folks who we have seen and who have said that they can not support Lindsey Graham .
They don ’ t think he ’ s an honest person and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting for them .
We believe that we ’ re going to get some crossover support .
And we appreciate it .
In the end of the day , our focus is on the race to win the United States Senate .
And we believe that we are well positioned to do just that .
What would be your first legislative priority if you ’ re elected to the Senate ?
I just rolled out a rural hope agenda about a month ago .
And that ’ s to rebuild and revitalize rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a five-part plan [ that ] focuses on infrastructure , health care , education , economic opportunities , and also includes a Farmer ’ s Bill of Rights .
And so I believe that in order to move South Carolina from the top of all of the bad lists to the top of all the good lists , we have to figure out how [ to ] address the historical disparities and inequities that we find in our rural communities in the state , and so that ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicaid expansion is something you ’ ve highlighted frequently in the past .
I ’ m wondering how you would ensure that South Carolinians currently in that expansion gap receive coverage if you ’ re elected to the Senate .
One of the things I think we need to look at is — Doug Jones has a bill called the [ States Achieve Medicaid Expansion ] SAME Act , which in essence restarts the clock for the states that have yet to expand Medicaid .
So it gives them a new window to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government picks up 100 percent of the cost of Medicaid .
I believe that we need to pass the SAME Act .
You ’ ve previously said that you ’ re wary of eliminating the filibuster at this point .
But I ’ m curious : If Mitch McConnell continues to do what he ’ s done in the past and block Democratic priorities in the new term , like expansions to health care coverage , is there potential you would reconsider that position ?
It ’ s about opening a Pandora @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is [ that ] there may be short-term political gains , but are we comfortable with long-term repercussions for that ?
For me , it is about the most vulnerable in our society .
There are a lot of programs that they rely upon .
And are we willing ... to jeopardize those programs and the safety net that is for those communities ?
And I ’ m just not willing to take that risk at this point .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Jaime Harrison has done what few expected: Polls now have him within single digits of Sen. Lindsey Graham in the South Carolina Senate race.
The degree of support he’s received has surprised many, including Harrison himself.
“I’m amazed by it,” he told Vox. “I got into this race because I knew I had a shot, but not in my wildest dreams did I imagine a campaign growing like this campaign has grown.”
This past quarter, Harrison raised $57 million — the most money any Senate candidate has raised in a single quarter in history, according to the New York Times. These funds have allowed Harrison to compete statewide in South Carolina in a way not many Democrats have been able to in the past, enabling him to close the double-digit polling gap with which he started his campaign. Harrison is among the Democrats who’ve picked up strong momentum this year amid a polarizing presidential race.
The path to an ultimate win over Graham is a tough one, however: Harrison will need an expansive coalition of voters — including crossover Republicans — and strong Democratic turnout. According to Cook Political Report’s Jessica Taylor, Democrats have previously capped out at 48 percent voter support in the state.
Harrison spoke with Vox about his expectations for Republican support and the legislation he’d prioritize if he’s elected. This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.
Li Zhou
At the start of this campaign, there was a sense from some people that this was potentially a long shot. And now you’re at a point where you’re tied with Lindsey Graham. So, I was wondering if you could talk about what you’ve done since the launch of your campaign to build up this support?
Jaime Harrison
Well, you know, this has been a grassroots movement that we’ve built here in South Carolina.
When I first started, we didn’t have an email list, so we had to build it from the ground up. I think folks here in South Carolina were just so hungry for change. They were so hungry for a positive message, a unifying message. They were hungry for some leadership that was going to focus on them and their families and their communities.
We have gotten thousands of volunteers, I think we’re on 14 or 15,000 people who signed up to volunteer for our campaign. We’ve gotten well over a million contributions — small dollars — contributions from every county in South Carolina, and people are just so excited.
I’m amazed by it. I always knew that I had a shot. You know, I got into this race because I knew I had a shot. But not in my wildest dreams did I imagine a campaign growing like this campaign has grown.
Li Zhou
I had seen Cook Political Report note that there’s typically a 48 percent ceiling for Democrats in federal races in South Carolina. And I was wondering if you could talk about what the coalition of voters looks like that you see getting your campaign to either the majority or the plurality that you need to ultimately win?
Jaime Harrison
I think in the end, this is about Democrats, independents, and Republicans who are just fed up with where things are going in the direction of the state, who don’t like the divisive politics that they see each and every day, who are looking for somebody who’s going to focus on not what is the Democratic solution or the Republican solution, but what is the right solution for our community? And that’s where I am.
You know, I say this often: Lindsey Graham is trying to scare people to support him. I’m trying to inspire people to support me. And it’s a different way of looking at the world. And so what we have seen is that we are attracting a section of Republican supporters who don’t like the direction of the country and where we’re going. We are winning overwhelmingly with independents over Lindsey Graham, and we have lockclad support with Democratic voters. So that’s the coalition that we have.
When you’re able to get somebody like Dick Wilkerson, who was on Lindsey Graham’s [presidential campaign] finance committee ... You know, he has voted for Republicans in the state, ran one of the largest companies in South Carolina — Michelin — and to have him come from being a Lindsey supporter to a Jamie Harrison supporter, it just demonstrates that things are changing in the state.
[One of the advertising efforts that Harrison’s campaign has invested in targets conservative voters in an attempt to convince them to support a third-party candidate instead of Graham. If enough of these voters do not support Graham, these shifts could help Harrison win with less than a majority of the vote.]
Li Zhou
If President Trump ends up winning South Carolina, do you see ticket splitters being part of this coalition as well? And have you seen signs of their support for your campaign?
Jaime Harrison
Oh, yeah, I mean, there are a number of folks who we have seen and who have said that they cannot support Lindsey Graham. They don’t think he’s an honest person and they don’t think he’s fighting for them.
We believe that we’re going to get some crossover support. And we appreciate it. In the end of the day, our focus is on the race to win the United States Senate. And we believe that we are well positioned to do just that.
Li Zhou
What would be your first legislative priority if you’re elected to the Senate?
Jaime Harrison
I just rolled out a rural hope agenda about a month ago. And that’s to rebuild and revitalize rural communities across South Carolina. And it’s a five-part plan [that] focuses on infrastructure, health care, education, economic opportunities, and also includes a Farmer’s Bill of Rights.
And so I believe that in order to move South Carolina from the top of all of the bad lists to the top of all the good lists, we have to figure out how [to] address the historical disparities and inequities that we find in our rural communities in the state, and so that’s going to be one of my top priorities.
Li Zhou
Medicaid expansion is something you’ve highlighted frequently in the past. I’m wondering how you would ensure that South Carolinians currently in that expansion gap receive coverage if you’re elected to the Senate.
Jaime Harrison
One of the things I think we need to look at is — Doug Jones has a bill called the [States Achieve Medicaid Expansion] SAME Act, which in essence restarts the clock for the states that have yet to expand Medicaid. So it gives them a new window to have a few years in which the federal government picks up 100 percent of the cost of Medicaid. I believe that we need to pass the SAME Act.
Li Zhou
You’ve previously said that you’re wary of eliminating the filibuster at this point. But I’m curious: If Mitch McConnell continues to do what he’s done in the past and block Democratic priorities in the new term, like expansions to health care coverage, is there potential you would reconsider that position?
Jaime Harrison
It’s about opening a Pandora’s box, and the question is [that] there may be short-term political gains, but are we comfortable with long-term repercussions for that? For me, it is about the most vulnerable in our society. There are a lot of programs that they rely upon. And are we willing ... to jeopardize those programs and the safety net that is for those communities? And I’m just not willing to take that risk at this point.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-22--How to watch the last Trump-Biden debate

Three weeks , a White House coronavirus outbreak , and a set of dueling town halls later , President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden are headed back to the debate stage for their second and final debate of the 2020 presidential election .
The debate will take place on Thursday , October 22 , at Belmont University in Nashville , Tennessee , starting at 9 pm ET , and will run for 90 minutes .
( That ’ s 8-9:30 pm CT , 7-8:30 pm MT , and 6-7:30 pm PT ) .
Kristen Welker , a journalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a big deal , and thus you ’ ll be able to watch it essentially everywhere .
Fox , ABC , NBC , and CBS will air it , as well as CNN , MSNBC , Fox News , CSPAN , Univision , and Telemundo .
The debate will stream live on YouTube and can also be found on Apple TV , Amazon Fire TV , Roku , and for an audio version , on NPR .
Vox will also embed a livestream here closer to the debate start time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump-Biden debates this election cycle , but the schedule got mucked up when the president contracted Covid-19 .
( He actually may have had it during the first debate in Cleveland , since it ’ s still not clear when he last tested negative before his diagnosis . )
The Commission on Presidential Debates , which is in charge of organizing the events , tried to make the second debate virtual as a safety precaution .
Trump declared he wouldn ’ t do it in that format , so it was canceled .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in separate town halls aired at the same time last Thursday .
This debate is on track to be a bit of a doozy .
The Trump camp has already been complaining that Welker is going to be unfair to him .
“ She ’ s always been terrible & unfair , just like most of the Fake News reporters , but I ’ ll still play the game , ” the president tweeted over the weekend .
After Welker announced the debate topics — fighting Covid-19 , American families , race in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and leadership — Trump ’ s campaign manager , Bill Stepien , sent a letter to the debate commission complaining that they weren ’ t foreign policy-focused .
He wrote that the topics were already discussed “ at length ” during the first debate and said the campaigns had previously agreed to the foreign policy theme .
Biden press secretary TJ Ducklo said in a statement that the campaigns and commission agreed “ months ago ” that the moderator would choose the topics and that the Trump campaign was lying to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s essentially going on here is that Trump wants to talk about conspiracy theories on Biden and his son Hunter , and some other fringe online theories , and Biden wants to talk about the coronavirus . )
The first debate had lots of interruptions , to the point that it was hard for the audience to follow what was going on and moderator Chris Wallace often seemed to have lost control .
So this time around , the rules are getting a bit of an update .
Each candidate will still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moderator ’ s initial question at the start of each segment — but now , while one talks , the other one ’ s microphone will be muted so he can ’ t interrupt .
After those initial statements , they ’ ll get to duke it out .
Will the change help ?
We ’ ll see .
The debate is still taking place in the midst of a pandemic .
At least 11 Covid cases were linked to the first debate in Cleveland ; hopefully this time around , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — including the Trump family — will keep their masks on .
We are in the final stretch Thursday is just 12 days before Election Day , and it ’ s been a chaotic year leading up to it .
Given the pace of news this election cycle , the wild churn of events will probably continue up to and potentially even past voting .
Still , one thing has remained relatively unchanged over the past few months : Biden is ahead in the polls .
Then again , so was Hillary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Electoral College , winning by millions of votes doesn ’ t always mean winning the White House .
But overall , Biden ’ s lead has been pretty substantial and pretty stable for most of the race .
According to a RealClearPolitics average of polls , Biden is up more than 8 percentage points nationally .
A poll of likely voters released on Tuesday by the New York Times and Siena College found that Biden is ahead of Trump by 9 points nationally and found that even on the economy , where voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Biden are now basically tied .
As Vox ’ s Dylan Scott recently wrote , Biden also seems to be doing pretty well in some important swing states , including Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin , which helped swing the election in Trump ’ s direction in 2016 .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s averages of state polls , the race is very tight in places that in a better year for Trump would be safe bets , such as Ohio , Iowa , and Georgia .
But as Scott noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t win , and things could ultimately break in his direction .
Trump appears to be at least somewhat aware the polls aren ’ t looking great for him and is making all sorts of efforts to turn the tide of the race .
Thursday ’ s debate will likely be the candidates ’ final chance to make the case for themselves with such an enormous platform and audience .
The first debate was such a mess , with all the cross-talk and interruptions , that it ’ s hard to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe the trusty mute button will render this debate different .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Three weeks, a White House coronavirus outbreak, and a set of dueling town halls later, President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden are headed back to the debate stage for their second and final debate of the 2020 presidential election.
The debate will take place on Thursday, October 22, at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, starting at 9 pm ET, and will run for 90 minutes. (That’s 8-9:30 pm CT, 7-8:30 pm MT, and 6-7:30 pm PT). Kristen Welker, a journalist at NBC News, will moderate.
It’s a big deal, and thus you’ll be able to watch it essentially everywhere. Fox, ABC, NBC, PBS, and CBS will air it, as well as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CSPAN, Univision, and Telemundo. The debate will stream live on YouTube and can also be found on Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Roku, and for an audio version, on NPR.
There were supposed to be three Trump-Biden debates this election cycle, but the schedule got mucked up when the president contracted Covid-19. (He actually may have had it during the first debate in Cleveland, since it’s still not clear when he last tested negative before his diagnosis.) The Commission on Presidential Debates, which is in charge of organizing the events, tried to make the second debate virtual as a safety precaution. Trump declared he wouldn’t do it in that format, so it was canceled. Ultimately, he and Biden took part in separate town halls aired at the same time last Thursday.
This debate is on track to be a bit of a doozy. The Trump camp has already been complaining that Welker is going to be unfair to him. “She’s always been terrible & unfair, just like most of the Fake News reporters, but I’ll still play the game,” the president tweeted over the weekend.
After Welker announced the debate topics — fighting Covid-19, American families, race in America, climate change, national security, and leadership — Trump’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien, sent a letter to the debate commission complaining that they weren’t foreign policy-focused. He wrote that the topics were already discussed “at length” during the first debate and said the campaigns had previously agreed to the foreign policy theme.
Biden press secretary TJ Ducklo said in a statement that the campaigns and commission agreed “months ago” that the moderator would choose the topics and that the Trump campaign was lying to avoid talking about the pandemic. (What’s essentially going on here is that Trump wants to talk about conspiracy theories on Biden and his son Hunter, and some other fringe online theories, and Biden wants to talk about the coronavirus.)
The first debate had lots of interruptions, to the point that it was hard for the audience to follow what was going on and moderator Chris Wallace often seemed to have lost control. So this time around, the rules are getting a bit of an update. Each candidate will still be given two minutes to respond to the moderator’s initial question at the start of each segment — but now, while one talks, the other one’s microphone will be muted so he can’t interrupt. After those initial statements, they’ll get to duke it out. Will the change help? We’ll see.
The debate is still taking place in the midst of a pandemic. At least 11 Covid cases were linked to the first debate in Cleveland; hopefully this time around, that number will be zero, and everybody — including the Trump family — will keep their masks on.
We are in the final stretch
Thursday is just 12 days before Election Day, and it’s been a chaotic year leading up to it. Given the pace of news this election cycle, the wild churn of events will probably continue up to and potentially even past voting.
Still, one thing has remained relatively unchanged over the past few months: Biden is ahead in the polls. Then again, so was Hillary Clinton in 2016. And because of the Electoral College, winning by millions of votes doesn’t always mean winning the White House. But overall, Biden’s lead has been pretty substantial and pretty stable for most of the race.
According to a RealClearPolitics average of polls, Biden is up more than 8 percentage points nationally. A poll of likely voters released on Tuesday by the New York Times and Siena College found that Biden is ahead of Trump by 9 points nationally and found that even on the economy, where voters have generally rated Trump higher, he and Biden are now basically tied.
As Vox’s Dylan Scott recently wrote, Biden also seems to be doing pretty well in some important swing states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which helped swing the election in Trump’s direction in 2016. According to FiveThirtyEight’s averages of state polls, the race is very tight in places that in a better year for Trump would be safe bets, such as Ohio, Iowa, and Georgia. But as Scott noted, none of this means Trump can’t win, and things could ultimately break in his direction.
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.
Trump appears to be at least somewhat aware the polls aren’t looking great for him and is making all sorts of efforts to turn the tide of the race.
Thursday’s debate will likely be the candidates’ final chance to make the case for themselves with such an enormous platform and audience. The first debate was such a mess, with all the cross-talk and interruptions, that it’s hard to believe many voters could have been swayed. Maybe the trusty mute button will render this debate different.


vox--2020-10-22--Swing-state Pennsylvanians are divided on fracking. Here’s why.

Natural gas fracking has been getting a lot of air time on the campaign trail in recent weeks .
In the final presidential debate , President Donald Trump once again claimed that former Vice President Joe Biden would ban fracking .
“ I have never said I oppose fracking , ” Biden replied .
“ What I will do with fracking over time is make sure we can capture the emissions from fracking , capture the emissions from gas.
” Trump tried to make the same claim in Pennsylvania , a key swing state , earlier this week .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Erie , Pennsylvania , on Tuesday , Trump played a compilation of video clips in which former Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris described their plans to transition away from fossil fuels .
“ Joe Biden will ban fracking and abolish Pennsylvania energy , ” Trump told the crowd , followed by a chorus of boos .
Hydraulic fracturing , or fracking , has allowed the US to dramatically increase its oil and gas production in Pennsylvania and various other states over the last decade .
Biden ’ s plan to tackle climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bring greenhouse emissions to zero by 2050 , but it doesn ’ t call for banning fracking .
Trump , who has no climate plan of his own , has been taking shots at Biden ’ s climate and energy initiatives as part of a broader effort to attract voters in battleground states .
But his campaign has not seen a dramatic turnaround in Pennsylvania .
Biden has maintained his lead in the polls — and is currently ahead by 6 percent on average , according to FiveThirtyEight .
Whether Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reelection is unclear .
Natural gas fracking is concentrated in Pennsylvania ’ s Republican-leaning counties , and 77 percent of Republicans said they supported the industry in an August CBS/YouGov poll .
This means Trump ’ s rhetoric could energize his base ; on the other hand , the same poll showed that 52 percent of sampled registered voters oppose fracking , so it may not win over suburban residents .
What is clear is that even as it ’ s become a focal point in the election , the fracking industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has left producers in debt and jobs have declined .
Fracking has also caused health and environmental damage in several states across the country , and is likely a major source of emissions of methane , an exceptionally potent greenhouse gas .
Clean energy advocates say that a shift to investing in renewables would help to create a stable economy for a state that has long been dominated by the boom and bust cycles of extractive industries .
What happened to the natural gas boom ?
Pennsylvania has been a key state in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tapped into the Marcellus shale , the largest US gas field by proven reserves , which lies below much of its territory .
Over the last 10 years since the boom began , it has become the country ’ s number two gas producer behind Texas .
In 2019 , Pennsylvania produced a record amount of natural gas through fracking , but the growth in production belies the industry ’ s instability .
The glut in gas has driven prices down and left even the top producers saddled with debt .
The fracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of jobs .
According to statistics commissioned by the state ’ s Department of Environmental Protection , the natural gas industry , including extraction , transmission , and electricity generation , employed just under 24,000 people in 2019 .
Jobs in the sector have shrunk 7 percent since 2017 , and only represent a tiny fraction of the state ’ s overall employment .
Of course , others have also benefitted from fracking , including landowners who have received royalties from companies drilling on their land , and services that support the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a teacher who lives in the fracking hotspot of Beaver County along the state ’ s southwestern border , sees people growing less enamored .
She also serves as a volunteer for the Beaver County Marcellus Awareness Community where she has learned about the environmental , health , and safety risks involved with fracking .
“ I feel like we are at a kind of transition point now where people are starting to say , ‘ Wait a second you know this seemed like a great thing , and we were really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re seeing some of issues and some really bad things starting to happen , ’ ” said Meyer .
She first became involved in advocacy work around fracking when she heard about the explosion of Energy Transfer Corporation pipeline in her county back in 2018 .
The explosion , which officials linked to a landslide , luckily didn ’ t cause any casualties but it destroyed a home and left the surrounding area charred .
Meyer said for her and many of her neighbors who have pipelines running in close proximity — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident was a wake-up call .
Fracking , which uses chemical-laced fluids to break open rock seams , has also led to some cases of water contamination and air pollution .
In late June , the state ’ s Attorney General Josh Shapiro released the results of a two-year investigation that widely condemned the industry for its pollution , and faulted the government for not holding corporations in check .
“ The bottom line is , this was a failure , ” Shapiro said at a news conference , according to the Philadelphia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent abuse by the big corporations ... but they didn ’ t. ” Despite the downsides of the fracking boom , the state government has propped up the industry , most recently offering a massive tax break to Shell to build a major plastic factory that will make use of some of the extra natural gas in the state .
Josh McNeil , the executive director of Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania , which opposes fracking , said that it is time for the state to break free of extractive industries that have caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months ago now , the legislature gave away a [ $ 670 ] million handout to build petrochemical plants in the state , and they did that to create a market for natural gas .
I ’ m not seeing anything like that for solar or wind.
” “ We would like to see an even playing field that allows solar and wind , which in many cases are already cheaper than coal and gas , get the same kind of treatment.
” Recent polling shows that Pennsylvanians support increased electricity generation from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managing the transition away from fossil fuels is a concern for some .
“ Certainly there are people who , with good intentions , are concerned about the fracking industry leaving .
And certainly there are communities who think , you know , we need this to come into our communities—there still is that.
” In this election cycle , this has led some workers to vocally support Trump and his pro-fracking stance .
The Boilermakers Local 154 union have endorsed Trump and refuted Biden ’ s assertion in the last town hall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backing .
Other unions have been throwing their weight behind Biden , assuming that he will maintain the status quo .
Shannon Smith , communications and development manager at the nonprofit FracTracker Alliance said , “ I ’ ve heard from union leaders recently that they aren ’ t going to vote for Trump because they trust that Biden is not going to instate a fracking ban , ” which she adds wouldn ’ t even be feasible .
But ultimately she said natural gas production will have to come down .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , carbon dioxide emissions , including those from burning natural gas , have to be decreased to net zero by 2050 for the world to avoid the worst impacts of global warming .
Biden ’ s climate plan calls for investment in communities that have been dependent on fossil fuels , which she sees as critical .
“ We need candidates who are going to help figure out that transition because it will happen.
” Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 you .
If you haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Natural gas fracking has been getting a lot of air time on the campaign trail in recent weeks.
In the final presidential debate, President Donald Trump once again claimed that former Vice President Joe Biden would ban fracking. “I have never said I oppose fracking,” Biden replied. “What I will do with fracking over time is make sure we can capture the emissions from fracking, capture the emissions from gas.”
Trump tried to make the same claim in Pennsylvania, a key swing state, earlier this week. In front of a crowd of thousands gathered in Erie, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, Trump played a compilation of video clips in which former Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris described their plans to transition away from fossil fuels.
“Joe Biden will ban fracking and abolish Pennsylvania energy,” Trump told the crowd, followed by a chorus of boos.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has allowed the US to dramatically increase its oil and gas production in Pennsylvania and various other states over the last decade. Biden’s plan to tackle climate change sets a target for the country to bring greenhouse emissions to zero by 2050, but it doesn’t call for banning fracking.
Trump, who has no climate plan of his own, has been taking shots at Biden’s climate and energy initiatives as part of a broader effort to attract voters in battleground states. But his campaign has not seen a dramatic turnaround in Pennsylvania. Biden has maintained his lead in the polls — and is currently ahead by 6 percent on average, according to FiveThirtyEight.
Related The best case for and against a fracking ban
Whether Trump’s pro-fracking talk will help his chances of reelection is unclear. Natural gas fracking is concentrated in Pennsylvania’s Republican-leaning counties, and 77 percent of Republicans said they supported the industry in an August CBS/YouGov poll. This means Trump’s rhetoric could energize his base; on the other hand, the same poll showed that 52 percent of sampled registered voters oppose fracking, so it may not win over suburban residents.
What is clear is that even as it’s become a focal point in the election, the fracking industry is struggling. An oversupply of gas has left producers in debt and jobs have declined. Fracking has also caused health and environmental damage in several states across the country, and is likely a major source of emissions of methane, an exceptionally potent greenhouse gas. Clean energy advocates say that a shift to investing in renewables would help to create a stable economy for a state that has long been dominated by the boom and bust cycles of extractive industries.
What happened to the natural gas boom?
Pennsylvania has been a key state in the fracking revolution, as companies have tapped into the Marcellus shale, the largest US gas field by proven reserves, which lies below much of its territory. Over the last 10 years since the boom began, it has become the country’s number two gas producer behind Texas.
In 2019, Pennsylvania produced a record amount of natural gas through fracking, but the growth in production belies the industry’s instability. The glut in gas has driven prices down and left even the top producers saddled with debt.
The fracking boom also has not created a huge number of jobs. According to statistics commissioned by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, the natural gas industry, including extraction, transmission, and electricity generation, employed just under 24,000 people in 2019. Jobs in the sector have shrunk 7 percent since 2017, and only represent a tiny fraction of the state’s overall employment.
Of course, others have also benefitted from fracking, including landowners who have received royalties from companies drilling on their land, and services that support the natural gas industry.
But Rachel Meyer, a teacher who lives in the fracking hotspot of Beaver County along the state’s southwestern border, sees people growing less enamored. She also serves as a volunteer for the Beaver County Marcellus Awareness Community where she has learned about the environmental, health, and safety risks involved with fracking.
“I feel like we are at a kind of transition point now where people are starting to say, ‘Wait a second you know this seemed like a great thing, and we were really excited about it, but now we’re seeing some of issues and some really bad things starting to happen,’” said Meyer.
She first became involved in advocacy work around fracking when she heard about the explosion of Energy Transfer Corporation pipeline in her county back in 2018. The explosion, which officials linked to a landslide, luckily didn’t cause any casualties but it destroyed a home and left the surrounding area charred. Meyer said for her and many of her neighbors who have pipelines running in close proximity — or even through — their properties the incident was a wake-up call.
Fracking, which uses chemical-laced fluids to break open rock seams, has also led to some cases of water contamination and air pollution.
In late June, the state’s Attorney General Josh Shapiro released the results of a two-year investigation that widely condemned the industry for its pollution, and faulted the government for not holding corporations in check.
“The bottom line is, this was a failure,” Shapiro said at a news conference, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. “Regulators were supposed to prevent abuse by the big corporations ... but they didn’t.”
Evening out the energy playing field
Despite the downsides of the fracking boom, the state government has propped up the industry, most recently offering a massive tax break to Shell to build a major plastic factory that will make use of some of the extra natural gas in the state.
Josh McNeil, the executive director of Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania, which opposes fracking, said that it is time for the state to break free of extractive industries that have caused boom and bust cycles.
“Two months ago now, the legislature gave away a [$670] million handout to build petrochemical plants in the state, and they did that to create a market for natural gas. I’m not seeing anything like that for solar or wind.”
“We would like to see an even playing field that allows solar and wind, which in many cases are already cheaper than coal and gas, get the same kind of treatment.”
Recent polling shows that Pennsylvanians support increased electricity generation from renewable energy. But Meyer said that managing the transition away from fossil fuels is a concern for some. “Certainly there are people who, with good intentions, are concerned about the fracking industry leaving. And certainly there are communities who think, you know, we need this to come into our communities—there still is that.”
In this election cycle, this has led some workers to vocally support Trump and his pro-fracking stance. The Boilermakers Local 154 union have endorsed Trump and refuted Biden’s assertion in the last town hall that he had the union’s backing.
Other unions have been throwing their weight behind Biden, assuming that he will maintain the status quo.
Shannon Smith, communications and development manager at the nonprofit FracTracker Alliance said, “I’ve heard from union leaders recently that they aren’t going to vote for Trump because they trust that Biden is not going to instate a fracking ban,” which she adds wouldn’t even be feasible.
But ultimately she said natural gas production will have to come down. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon dioxide emissions, including those from burning natural gas, have to be decreased to net zero by 2050 for the world to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Biden’s climate plan calls for investment in communities that have been dependent on fossil fuels, which she sees as critical.
“We need candidates who are going to help figure out that transition because it will happen.”


vox--2020-10-22--Trump on Covid-19: “I take full responsibility. It’s not my fault.”

President Donald Trump seemed poised to take responsibility for his failure on Covid-19 at Thursday ’ s presidential debate — and then he didn ’ t .
“ I take full responsibility , ” Trump said .
He immediately continued : “ It ’ s not my fault it came here .
It ’ s China ’ s fault.
” It ’ s a big contradiction , but it ’ s emblematic of Trump ’ s approach to the coronavirus .
Time and time again , Trump has tried to downplay the coronavirus and dodge responsibility , all while failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy approach that experts recommend .
Asked about failures on testing early on , Trump said in March , “ I don ’ t take responsibility at all.
” Asked about the 1,000 Covid-19 deaths a day in the US at the time , Trump said in July , “ It is what it is.
” Meanwhile , Trump has deliberately downplayed the pandemic , demanded states reopen too quickly , punted problems with testing and tracing down to local and state governments with more limited resources than the federal government , mocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health institutions instead of letting science lead the response .
The result : America is faring much worse than many of its developed peers .
The US is in the top 15 percent among developed countries for confirmed Covid-19 deaths , and has almost six times the death rate as the median developed nation .
If the US had the same death rate as , for example , Canada , nearly 140,000 more Americans would likely be alive today .
Many experts have laid this failure on Trump .
“ It begins in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ends in many ways , with the Trump administration , ” Ashish Jha , the faculty director of the Harvard Global Health Institute , previously told me .
“ If George W. Bush had been president , if John McCain had been president , if Mitt Romney had been president , this would have looked very different.
” For more on Trump ’ s failures on Covid-19 , read Vox ’ s full explainer .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 you .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump seemed poised to take responsibility for his failure on Covid-19 at Thursday’s presidential debate — and then he didn’t.
“I take full responsibility,” Trump said. He immediately continued: “It’s not my fault that it came here. It’s China’s fault.”
It’s a big contradiction, but it’s emblematic of Trump’s approach to the coronavirus. Time and time again, Trump has tried to downplay the coronavirus and dodge responsibility, all while failing to embrace the kind of messaging and policy approach that experts recommend.
Asked about failures on testing early on, Trump said in March, “I don’t take responsibility at all.” Asked about the 1,000 Covid-19 deaths a day in the US at the time, Trump said in July, “It is what it is.”
Meanwhile, Trump has deliberately downplayed the pandemic, demanded states reopen too quickly, punted problems with testing and tracing down to local and state governments with more limited resources than the federal government, mocked masks, and tried to politicize public health institutions instead of letting science lead the response.
The result: America is faring much worse than many of its developed peers. The US is in the top 15 percent among developed countries for confirmed Covid-19 deaths, and has almost six times the death rate as the median developed nation. If the US had the same death rate as, for example, Canada, nearly 140,000 more Americans would likely be alive today.
Many experts have laid this failure on Trump. “It begins in many ways, and you could argue it ends in many ways, with the Trump administration,” Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, previously told me. “If George W. Bush had been president, if John McCain had been president, if Mitt Romney had been president, this would have looked very different.”
For more on Trump’s failures on Covid-19, read Vox’s full explainer.


vox--2020-10-22--Mysterious emails and convenient leaks: The Trump campaign’s Hunter Biden attacks, explained

In what ’ s a remarkable series of coincidences or — more likely — an orchestrated campaign , three separate sources have begun providing emails and text messages involving Joe Biden ’ s son Hunter to conservative journalists and Republican politicians over the past week .
The contents of what was purportedly Hunter ’ s laptop were first provided to the New York Post last week by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani .
A computer repair store owner claimed the laptop was left at his store , but questions have been raised about whether that story is accurate and whether all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authentic .
But since then , two disgruntled former business partners of Hunter — Bevan Cooney and Tony Bobulinski — have provided their own emails and texts about Hunter to pro-Trump journalists or GOP politicians .
These emails and texts have been quickly tweeted out or published by these outlets ( notably Breitbart News , Fox News , the Daily Caller , the Federalist , and the Wall Street Journal editorial page ) , usually spun in inflammatory ways with a minimum of skeptical or contextual reporting .
And Thursday afternoon , news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential debate as an invited guest of President Donald Trump .
( Cooney was evidently unavailable since he is currently serving a sentence in federal prison for securities fraud . )
All this is part of an effort by the Trump campaign to argue that Joe Biden is corruptly tied to his son ’ s questionable business dealings with overseas interests .
And they ’ ve complained that the mainstream media is trying to ignore or suppress this story .
Yet these emails and texts from Hunter have deliberately been given to staunchly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be skeptical , to question whether they truly prove what their handlers claim , or to publicize data points that don ’ t fit the Trump campaign ’ s preferred message .
The particular problem here is that , so far , there is almost nothing from Joe Biden himself in the released messages ( other than an exchange where the former vice president comforts his despondent , drug-addicted son ) .
There is a fair amount of Hunter making claims about his father , but that could be Hunter throwing his father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s knowledge .
Careful investigative journalists would take some time to ascertain what actually happened here , but it certainly seems that much of this material has been deliberately held back for the last few weeks before the election .
That , combined with the manner in which it ’ s being released , makes it all feel a whole lot like a last-minute dirty trick .
There are now three separate batches of Hunter-related emails Despite the fact that President Donald Trump continues to own a business employing his children that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump ’ s final play in his reelection campaign is to argue that Joe Biden is corrupt because his son Hunter accepted large payments from foreign entities .
This isn ’ t a new play .
Trump ’ s attempts to drum up dirt on the Bidens related to Hunter ’ s work for a Ukrainian gas company ended up getting him impeached last year .
And for most of 2020 , the efforts from various Republicans to revive the attacks on Hunter seemed to flop .
But now , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta ’ s hacked emails in October 2016 , emails , texts , and photos with or about Hunter are being leaked out through several sources in an attempt to generate a barrage of negative stories about the Bidens before Election Day .
Some of this new material has been tied directly to the Trump camp — through Rudy Giuliani , who claimed a computer store owner gave him Hunter ’ s laptop , which had supposedly been left there .
No concrete evidence has yet emerged to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly investigating whether these emails are tied to a foreign influence campaign .
The newer development is that two former business associates of Hunter have entered the picture , suddenly providing their emails and texts with Hunter to conservative journalists and GOP politicians .
The first , Bevan Cooney , is currently in prison for fraud .
The emails he has provided so far — to journalists Matthew Tyrmand and Peter Schweizer — do not actually show him having direct contact with Hunter ( Cooney seemed mainly to interact with Hunter ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was also convicted of fraud ) .
So Cooney ’ s emails have gotten less attention .
Then there ’ s Tony Bobulinski , who was involved in efforts by Hunter Biden and James Biden ( Joe ’ s brother ) to make a business partnership with a Chinese energy tycoon , Ye Jianming , in 2017 .
Bobulinski released a statement claiming that Joe Biden was involved as well to some extent , and released documents on Wednesday and Thursday to various conservative journalists .
Though he claimed to be “ not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his material seems awfully politically savvy , and he will be an invited Trump guest at Thursday ’ s debate .
The two things the Trump campaign wants to prove The retort from Biden supporters to all this has usually been that Hunter is not running for president — Joe is .
Trump ’ s team is well aware of that , so their top priority has been to try and tie Hunter ’ s work to Joe Biden in whatever way they can .
And they ’ ve tried to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump ’ s team has tried to argue that , as vice president , Joe Biden took action designed to help Hunter ’ s clients in some way .
Their highest-profile example — the vice president urging the firing of Ukraine ’ s prosecutor general — was widely debunked last year , since the prosecutor general was himself corrupt and many Western governments and institutions wanted him removed for that reason .
So , more recently , they ’ ve attempted to argue that Vice President Biden was “ soft ” on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese interests .
But again , it ’ s difficult to see how Biden ’ s views on China differed from the rest of the Obama administration or were out of the norm for his party and the time in any significant way .
Second , Trump ’ s team has hoped to prove that Joe Biden himself got a share of Hunter ’ s money .
Yet Joe Biden ’ s tax returns and financial disclosure forms show no sign of any such thing .
And after the Obama administration , Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 million in 2017 and 2018 — mainly from speaking fees and book payments — so they certainly weren ’ t hurting for cash .
Yet there is an alleged email provided by Tony Bobulinski about the deal with the Chinese energy tycoon , sent by Hunter business associate James Gilliar to Bobulinski and Hunter in May 2017 , that suggests a split of equity for their new business venture .
In addition for “ 20 H ” ( 20 percent for Hunter ) and “ 10 Jim ” ( 10 percent for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line : “ 10 held by H for the big guy ?
” Bobulinski claims “ the big guy ” means Joe Biden .
But that line notably ends in a question mark .
And if accurate , it is unclear whether Joe Biden himself ( by then the former vice president ) actually knew about it — or whether Hunter was throwing around his name without his knowledge .
Furthermore , there is also a message six days after this one where Hunter says that his “ Chairman ” gave him “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ chairman ” is Joe Biden , which if true would seem to suggest he turned down Hunter ’ s offer .
In any case , the deal involving Bobulinski ended up falling apart .
Subsequently , entities tied to the Chinese energy tycoon did end up send nearly $ 5 million to an account held by Hunter , as Hunter tried to negotiate a gas deal for the Chinese company in Louisiana — yet , again , there ’ s no indication this had anything to do with Joe Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ being involved in business with his family , nor in any overseas business whatsoever .
He has never held stock in any such business arrangements nor has any family member or any other person ever hold stock for him , ” Andrew Bates , a spokesperson for the Biden campaign , said in a statement Thursday .
Actual investigative reporters would put in the time to ascertain , to the best of their ability , what actually happened here .
But this is much more akin to an opposition research dump — so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there by conservative journalists with little context or supplementary information , to help Trump make it part of his final campaign push .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

In what’s a remarkable series of coincidences or — more likely — an orchestrated campaign, three separate sources have begun providing emails and text messages involving Joe Biden’s son Hunter to conservative journalists and Republican politicians over the past week.
The contents of what was purportedly Hunter’s laptop were first provided to the New York Post last week by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. A computer repair store owner claimed the laptop was left at his store, but questions have been raised about whether that story is accurate and whether all the information allegedly on the laptop is authentic.
But since then, two disgruntled former business partners of Hunter — Bevan Cooney and Tony Bobulinski — have provided their own emails and texts about Hunter to pro-Trump journalists or GOP politicians. These emails and texts have been quickly tweeted out or published by these outlets (notably Breitbart News, Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Federalist, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page), usually spun in inflammatory ways with a minimum of skeptical or contextual reporting.
And Thursday afternoon, news broke that Bobulinski will attend the final presidential debate as an invited guest of President Donald Trump. (Cooney was evidently unavailable since he is currently serving a sentence in federal prison for securities fraud.)
All this is part of an effort by the Trump campaign to argue that Joe Biden is corruptly tied to his son’s questionable business dealings with overseas interests. And they’ve complained that the mainstream media is trying to ignore or suppress this story.
Yet these emails and texts from Hunter have deliberately been given to staunchly pro-Trump reporters and media outlets unlikely to be skeptical, to question whether they truly prove what their handlers claim, or to publicize data points that don’t fit the Trump campaign’s preferred message.
The particular problem here is that, so far, there is almost nothing from Joe Biden himself in the released messages (other than an exchange where the former vice president comforts his despondent, drug-addicted son). There is a fair amount of Hunter making claims about his father, but that could be Hunter throwing his father’s name around without his father’s knowledge.
Careful investigative journalists would take some time to ascertain what actually happened here, but it certainly seems that much of this material has been deliberately held back for the last few weeks before the election. That, combined with the manner in which it’s being released, makes it all feel a whole lot like a last-minute dirty trick.
There are now three separate batches of Hunter-related emails
Despite the fact that President Donald Trump continues to own a business employing his children that regularly accepts large payments from foreign entities, Trump’s final play in his reelection campaign is to argue that Joe Biden is corrupt because his son Hunter accepted large payments from foreign entities.
This isn’t a new play. Trump’s attempts to drum up dirt on the Bidens related to Hunter’s work for a Ukrainian gas company ended up getting him impeached last year. And for most of 2020, the efforts from various Republicans to revive the attacks on Hunter seemed to flop.
But now, in a manner seemingly intended to echo the leak of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s hacked emails in October 2016, emails, texts, and photos with or about Hunter are being leaked out through several sources in an attempt to generate a barrage of negative stories about the Bidens before Election Day.
Some of this new material has been tied directly to the Trump camp — through Rudy Giuliani, who claimed a computer store owner gave him Hunter’s laptop, which had supposedly been left there. No concrete evidence has yet emerged to disprove that story, but authorities are reportedly investigating whether these emails are tied to a foreign influence campaign.
The newer development is that two former business associates of Hunter have entered the picture, suddenly providing their emails and texts with Hunter to conservative journalists and GOP politicians.
The first, Bevan Cooney, is currently in prison for fraud. The emails he has provided so far — to journalists Matthew Tyrmand and Peter Schweizer — do not actually show him having direct contact with Hunter (Cooney seemed mainly to interact with Hunter’s then-business partner, Devon Archer, who was also convicted of fraud). So Cooney’s emails have gotten less attention.
Then there’s Tony Bobulinski, who was involved in efforts by Hunter Biden and James Biden (Joe’s brother) to make a business partnership with a Chinese energy tycoon, Ye Jianming, in 2017. Bobulinski released a statement claiming that Joe Biden was involved as well to some extent, and released documents on Wednesday and Thursday to various conservative journalists. Though he claimed to be “not a political person,” the rollout of his material seems awfully politically savvy, and he will be an invited Trump guest at Thursday’s debate.
The two things the Trump campaign wants to prove
The retort from Biden supporters to all this has usually been that Hunter is not running for president — Joe is.
Trump’s team is well aware of that, so their top priority has been to try and tie Hunter’s work to Joe Biden in whatever way they can. And they’ve tried to do so in two main ways.
First, Trump’s team has tried to argue that, as vice president, Joe Biden took action designed to help Hunter’s clients in some way. Their highest-profile example — the vice president urging the firing of Ukraine’s prosecutor general — was widely debunked last year, since the prosecutor general was himself corrupt and many Western governments and institutions wanted him removed for that reason.
So, more recently, they’ve attempted to argue that Vice President Biden was “soft” on China because Hunter had business ties to Chinese interests. But again, it’s difficult to see how Biden’s views on China differed from the rest of the Obama administration or were out of the norm for his party and the time in any significant way.
Second, Trump’s team has hoped to prove that Joe Biden himself got a share of Hunter’s money. Yet Joe Biden’s tax returns and financial disclosure forms show no sign of any such thing. And after the Obama administration, Joe and Jill Biden made more than $15 million in 2017 and 2018 — mainly from speaking fees and book payments — so they certainly weren’t hurting for cash.
Yet there is an alleged email provided by Tony Bobulinski about the deal with the Chinese energy tycoon, sent by Hunter business associate James Gilliar to Bobulinski and Hunter in May 2017, that suggests a split of equity for their new business venture. In addition for “20 H” (20 percent for Hunter) and “10 Jim” (10 percent for James Biden), it includes the line: “10 held by H for the big guy ?”
Bobulinski claims “the big guy” means Joe Biden. But that line notably ends in a question mark. And if accurate, it is unclear whether Joe Biden himself (by then the former vice president) actually knew about it — or whether Hunter was throwing around his name without his knowledge.
Furthermore, there is also a message six days after this one where Hunter says that his “Chairman” gave him “an emphatic NO.” Fox News claims the “chairman” is Joe Biden, which if true would seem to suggest he turned down Hunter’s offer.
In any case, the deal involving Bobulinski ended up falling apart. Subsequently, entities tied to the Chinese energy tycoon did end up send nearly $5 million to an account held by Hunter, as Hunter tried to negotiate a gas deal for the Chinese company in Louisiana — yet, again, there’s no indication this had anything to do with Joe Biden.
“Joe Biden has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any overseas business whatsoever. He has never held stock in any such business arrangements nor has any family member or any other person ever hold stock for him,” Andrew Bates, a spokesperson for the Biden campaign, said in a statement Thursday.
Actual investigative reporters would put in the time to ascertain, to the best of their ability, what actually happened here. But this is much more akin to an opposition research dump — so it’s just been put out there by conservative journalists with little context or supplementary information, to help Trump make it part of his final campaign push.