vox--2020-11-02--How Wikipedia is preparing for Election Day

If you ’ re looking for up-to-the-minute results on election night , Wikipedia might be one of the first sites to pop up in your Google search .
But , in this case , the crowd-sourced encyclopedia of human knowledge likely won ’ t have the immediate answers you seek .
And that ’ s by design .
In yet another election cycle defined by copious amounts of misinformation from a variety of sources , Wikipedia wants — and is set up — to be a carefully curated resource of impartial facts .
There ’ s no rush to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite the opposite , in fact ) .
It ’ s also difficult for trolls to vandalize associated pages , let alone keep those edits up for a prolonged period of time or to allow them to spread .
For the 2020 United States presidential election page , as well as the pages for presidential candidates Donald Trump and Joe Biden and vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris , only editors whose accounts are at least 30 days old and who have made at least 500 edits can change the article .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the site , call “ extended confirmed protection.
” The election page lock was put in place on October 21 by Molly White , who goes by the handle “ GorillaWarfare ” on the site .
She ’ s been a Wikipedia editor for almost 15 years and also serves as an administrator .
This gives her some additional abilities , like the power to lock pages .
But White is not anticipating any major issues on Wikipedia with regard to the upcoming election .
“ For the most part , things will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” White told Recode .
“ Wikipedia editors and administrators have plenty of tools at our disposal to ensure that our readers are only seeing accurate information , even as things are changing quickly behind the scenes.
” This probably won ’ t be the case elsewhere online .
Like Wikipedia , social media companies run on user-generated content , and they ’ re once again scrambling to come up with ways to stop the spread of misinformation and disinformation on their platforms .
After being blamed for influencing the outcome of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with how it will handle Election Day this year .
But Wikipedia , which will be 20 years old on January 15 , has been around longer than Facebook , Twitter , and YouTube .
This will be the sixth presidential election in Wikipedia ’ s lifetime , and the site ’ s all-volunteer army of thousands of editors has used those years of experience to develop and refine methods of combating lies and inaccuracies during prominent breaking new events while also identifying and deleting anything incorrect or poorly sourced that happens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editors are currently discussing how to handle Election Day and its results in public forums on the site .
They ’ re debating how many sources to use for election-related updates , which ones to rely on when a presumptive winner is declared , and how long after polls close to start adding the results to the page .
“ Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia , not a news organization , and so we are much more concerned with being accurate than we are with being quick , ” White said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission is to be a repository for all human knowledge .
The site has 55 million articles across its 300 versions — the most popular version , English , has 6.2 million articles .
Wikipedia is also one of the most-read websites in the world , with 1.5 billion unique visitors per month .
So while huge social media platforms tend to expose their users to content that generally fits their existing worldview and political sensibilities , Wikipedia has quietly emerged as a website for people who are actively seeking accurate information .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a community that strives to provide that information as neutrally and as accurately sourced as possible .
Wikipedia is ruled by consensus , its articles are fluid , and discussions over how and why they should be changed are ongoing .
Wikipedia putting up information about the presidential election is no different .
Most pages associated with the election and candidates have some kind of edit protection on them , though the level of protection might vary .
For example , while Harris currently has extended confirmed protection , her opponent , Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only “ semi-protected.
” That means edits can only be made by registered users whose accounts are at least four days old and have made at least 10 edits — though , again , this might change as Election Day nears .
Similarly , many United States politics-associated pages are also subject to additional rules limiting edits to reverse a previous edit or requiring a consensus to apply any edits that have been challenged .
To reach consensus , editors will typically argue their respective viewpoints on an article ’ s accompanying “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules and procedures to back up their case until a majority of editors agree on what to do next .
Administrators can block or ban editors who don ’ t follow those rules .
When it comes to the election results , editors are still hashing out whether the Associated Press ’ s projections are a good enough single source or if at least three news sources should be used .
They ’ re also considering just locking certain pages from edits for everyone except administrators for a set period of time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ community of editors to uphold them , “ moving slowly has been a Wikipedia superpower , ” Noam Cohen recently wrote in Wired .
That , Cohen added , makes the site a less attractive target “ to those bent on campaigns of misinformation with immediate payoffs.
” Vandalism is hard to add , usually doesn ’ t stay up for long , and therefore doesn ’ t spread widely .
While Facebook and Google have spent billions of dollars on content moderators and other measures to combat misinformation and abuse on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this work for free .
Wikipedia is hosted by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation , which covers its associated costs , including servers , software , and legal fees .
The Foundation relies on donations and gifts and gets a lot of them : The organization received $ 113 million last year alone .
“ The Foundation ’ s role is to support those folks in every way that that they need us to , ” Ryan Merkley , Wikimedia Foundation ’ s chief of staff , told Recode .
“ That means everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to running our security operation , to communications , fundraising .
But also working with trust and safety , and then supporting [ editors ] with the tools that they need in order to edit.
” Some of those tools include bots that can quickly detect article vandalism and either get rid of it or flag it to an editor .
Editors can also add articles to their “ watch lists ” to be immediately alerted of any changes ( nearly 550 editors have put the 2020 US presidential election page on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can lock pages that might or already have become targets for vandalism .
The Foundation has also done some of its own work to prepare for the election .
“ We put together an internal task force , with staff representatives from every part of the foundation who relate to disinformation , ” Merkley said .
“ So that includes the security team , trust and safety , legal policy , communications , our partnerships group that works with the other platforms that engage with Wikimedia content.
” Wikipedia has its own challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute anything to it .
This being the internet , not everyone operates in good faith or knows what they ’ re talking about , so the site has a longstanding reputation for inaccuracy .
That ’ s no longer wholly deserved , but Wikipedia itself will tell you that it ’ s not a reliable source for this very reason .
The site has also been criticized for systemic bias , with a lack of representation from certain demographics — there ’ s a lot of white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a hostile environment for minority editors .
The lack of diversity also has the potential for bias to make it into the articles themselves .
The Wikipedia Foundation and Wikipedians have made efforts to improve this , but they still have work to do .
Other things get overlooked on a site as big as Wikipedia , too .
For instance , you might stumble across vandalized articles , usually lurking in Wikipedia ’ s lower-trafficked corners , that have managed to escape the notice of editors .
You may even find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of articles written by someone who doesn ’ t really know the language they ’ re supposed to be written in .
While anyone can become a Wikipedia editor , only a tiny fraction of Wikipedia ’ s readers actually will .
And it ’ s deceptively difficult .
The initial process of making an edit is as simple as signing in and changing some text , but Wikipedia ’ s editorial rules and processes — and the various code words and language around them — can be a barrier to doing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ edit to be accepted .
But the people who get it , like White , may spend a considerable amount of their time doing unpaid work on the site .
They might also become the target of harassment as a result .
White , who spends two or three hours a day working on Wikipedia , said she ’ s been doxxed , threatened with violence and lawsuits , and people have even tried to get her fired from her day job because of it .
“ It is at best frustrating and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both care deeply about the importance of Wikipedia and I am also a very stubborn person who does not like to feel like I am giving in to threats , ” White said , attributing some of that harassment to her position as an administrator , her gender , and the controversial articles and topics she often works on ( she created the Boogaloo movement page , for example ) .
And Wikipedia is important .
It ’ s one of the top results for most internet searches , and so , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site people are most likely to visit when they want more information about something .
That means the stakes are high when big topics are involved .
Notably , its coverage of Covid-19 has drawn praise .
This involved the creation of a “ WikiProject ” dedicated to the virus with over 200 participating editors ( anyone can join ! )
who may focus on pandemic case data , the virus ’ s impact on specific locations , or the industries affected .
One professor who studies misinformation told the Washington Post that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a sea of pollution ” and handled the virus “ exceptionally well.
” “ There ’ s a lot of really great work done through these WikiProjects , especially during times of crisis where a lot of hard-hitting , late-breaking stuff is coming out , ” Zachary J. McDowell , an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago , told Recode .
So if Wikipedia , with its high visibility and wide-open door for anyone ’ s contributions , can still provide readers with well-sourced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the social media platforms that play such a big role in the spread of misinformation do the same ?
Clearly , some of them see the merits of Wikipedia ’ s work ; Facebook and Google use Wikipedia articles to provide additional knowledge in user searches .
Social media is designed to keep users on their platforms for as long as possible , both to show them as many ads as possible and to collect their data , which is then used to show them even more ads .
They are incentivized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that what you ’ re reading or seeing is accurate .
That business model is unlikely to change anytime soon .
Meanwhile , Wikipedia ’ s model is quite different .
“ [ Wikipedia has ] no algorithms designed to serve content in certain ways to some people , ” Merkley said .
“ None of that structure exists which can be later gamed , in order to advance this post about a person or to target this message to that person.
” Wikipedia is also very transparent , Merkley said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk pages will tell you , in great and granular detail , all the edits that have been made , who made them , and any associated discussions between editors about them .
This transparency helps create trust , but good luck getting , say , Facebook to implement it .
Facebook is notoriously secretive about its algorithms , which determine what you see on the site , from ads to posts from your friends to recommendations for groups you should join or people you should befriend .
These algorithms create filter bubbles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with your political viewpoints , offering little exposure to anything that might conflict with them .
You get what Facebook thinks you want to hear or watch what YouTube thinks you want to watch , and that ’ s not always what ’ s true .
“ It is essentially a game where the entire system is already rigged for disinformation , fake news , ” McDowell said .
“ It ’ s monetarily incentivized to get people riled up and to click .
It will always be a game where those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be the ones who are one step behind.
” McDowell ’ s studies include Wikipedia ’ s value as a teaching tool for information literacy .
He stresses that Wikipedia itself shouldn ’ t be seen as a source but rather as a collection of information , clearly cited , that users can follow if they want to learn more or verify what they ’ ve read .
“ Having a critical eye toward information is absolutely imperative right now , ” McDowell said .
“ And a lot of people don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media platforms have , in recent years , tried to hold back the flow of misinformation in some cases , including during the election .
Facebook has made rules around political ads , voter suppression , and even premature declarations of victory .
But social media still receives plenty of criticism from both sides of the aisle , and it will almost certainly be blamed for influencing the outcome of the election in some way , regardless of the winner .
Wikipedia , on the other hand , will just tell you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — as soon as its editors reach a consensus on what those sources are .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

If you’re looking for up-to-the-minute results on election night, Wikipedia might be one of the first sites to pop up in your Google search. But, in this case, the crowd-sourced encyclopedia of human knowledge likely won’t have the immediate answers you seek. And that’s by design.
In yet another election cycle defined by copious amounts of misinformation from a variety of sources, Wikipedia wants — and is set up — to be a carefully curated resource of impartial facts. There’s no rush to be the first to declare a winner (quite the opposite, in fact). It’s also difficult for trolls to vandalize associated pages, let alone keep those edits up for a prolonged period of time or to allow them to spread.
For the 2020 United States presidential election page, as well as the pages for presidential candidates Donald Trump and Joe Biden and vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, only editors whose accounts are at least 30 days old and who have made at least 500 edits can change the article. This is what Wikipedians, the editors who run the site, call “extended confirmed protection.”
The election page lock was put in place on October 21 by Molly White, who goes by the handle “GorillaWarfare” on the site. She’s been a Wikipedia editor for almost 15 years and also serves as an administrator. This gives her some additional abilities, like the power to lock pages. But White is not anticipating any major issues on Wikipedia with regard to the upcoming election.
“For the most part, things will be business as usual on Wikipedia,” White told Recode. “Wikipedia editors and administrators have plenty of tools at our disposal to ensure that our readers are only seeing accurate information, even as things are changing quickly behind the scenes.”
Help Vox’s reporting Vox wants to hear from you about your 2020 voting experience. To share, fill out this short Google form or email crowdsource@vox.com.
This probably won’t be the case elsewhere online. Like Wikipedia, social media companies run on user-generated content, and they’re once again scrambling to come up with ways to stop the spread of misinformation and disinformation on their platforms. After being blamed for influencing the outcome of the 2016 election, Facebook is particularly concerned with how it will handle Election Day this year.
But Wikipedia, which will be 20 years old on January 15, has been around longer than Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. This will be the sixth presidential election in Wikipedia’s lifetime, and the site’s all-volunteer army of thousands of editors has used those years of experience to develop and refine methods of combating lies and inaccuracies during prominent breaking new events while also identifying and deleting anything incorrect or poorly sourced that happens to make it onto their pages.
Wikipedia editors are currently discussing how to handle Election Day and its results in public forums on the site. They’re debating how many sources to use for election-related updates, which ones to rely on when a presumptive winner is declared, and how long after polls close to start adding the results to the page.
“Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a news organization, and so we are much more concerned with being accurate than we are with being quick,” White said.
Indeed, Wikipedia’s stated mission is to be a repository for all human knowledge. The site has 55 million articles across its 300 versions — the most popular version, English, has 6.2 million articles. Wikipedia is also one of the most-read websites in the world, with 1.5 billion unique visitors per month.
So while huge social media platforms tend to expose their users to content that generally fits their existing worldview and political sensibilities, Wikipedia has quietly emerged as a website for people who are actively seeking accurate information. What’s behind the effort is a community that strives to provide that information as neutrally and as accurately sourced as possible.
Wikipedia’s Election Day plan
Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, its articles are fluid, and discussions over how and why they should be changed are ongoing. Wikipedia putting up information about the presidential election is no different.
Most pages associated with the election and candidates have some kind of edit protection on them, though the level of protection might vary. For example, while Harris currently has extended confirmed protection, her opponent, Mike Pence, has a page that is only “semi-protected.” That means edits can only be made by registered users whose accounts are at least four days old and have made at least 10 edits — though, again, this might change as Election Day nears.
Similarly, many United States politics-associated pages are also subject to additional rules limiting edits to reverse a previous edit or requiring a consensus to apply any edits that have been challenged. To reach consensus, editors will typically argue their respective viewpoints on an article’s accompanying “talk” page, citing various Wikipedia rules and procedures to back up their case until a majority of editors agree on what to do next. Administrators can block or ban editors who don’t follow those rules.
When it comes to the election results, editors are still hashing out whether the Associated Press’s projections are a good enough single source or if at least three news sources should be used. They’re also considering just locking certain pages from edits for everyone except administrators for a set period of time.
With standards, rules, and a community of editors to uphold them, “moving slowly has been a Wikipedia superpower,” Noam Cohen recently wrote in Wired. That, Cohen added, makes the site a less attractive target “to those bent on campaigns of misinformation with immediate payoffs.” Vandalism is hard to add, usually doesn’t stay up for long, and therefore doesn’t spread widely.
While Facebook and Google have spent billions of dollars on content moderators and other measures to combat misinformation and abuse on their platforms, Wikipedia’s editors do this work for free. Wikipedia is hosted by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, which covers its associated costs, including servers, software, and legal fees. The Foundation relies on donations and gifts and gets a lot of them: The organization received $113 million last year alone.
“The Foundation’s role is to support those folks in every way that that they need us to,” Ryan Merkley, Wikimedia Foundation’s chief of staff, told Recode. “That means everything from keeping the servers up and running, to running our security operation, to communications, fundraising. But also working with trust and safety, and then supporting [editors] with the tools that they need in order to edit.”
Some of those tools include bots that can quickly detect article vandalism and either get rid of it or flag it to an editor. Editors can also add articles to their “watch lists” to be immediately alerted of any changes (nearly 550 editors have put the 2020 US presidential election page on their watch lists). And they can lock pages that might or already have become targets for vandalism.
The Foundation has also done some of its own work to prepare for the election.
“We put together an internal task force, with staff representatives from every part of the foundation who relate to disinformation,” Merkley said. “So that includes the security team, trust and safety, legal policy, communications, our partnerships group that works with the other platforms that engage with Wikimedia content.”
Wikipedia has its own challenges and high stakes
The guiding principle behind Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute anything to it. This being the internet, not everyone operates in good faith or knows what they’re talking about, so the site has a longstanding reputation for inaccuracy. That’s no longer wholly deserved, but Wikipedia itself will tell you that it’s not a reliable source for this very reason.
The site has also been criticized for systemic bias, with a lack of representation from certain demographics — there’s a lot of white English-speaking men who contribute — that can create a hostile environment for minority editors. The lack of diversity also has the potential for bias to make it into the articles themselves. The Wikipedia Foundation and Wikipedians have made efforts to improve this, but they still have work to do.
Other things get overlooked on a site as big as Wikipedia, too. For instance, you might stumble across vandalized articles, usually lurking in Wikipedia’s lower-trafficked corners, that have managed to escape the notice of editors. You may even find a version of Wikipedia that contains thousands of articles written by someone who doesn’t really know the language they’re supposed to be written in.
While anyone can become a Wikipedia editor, only a tiny fraction of Wikipedia’s readers actually will. And it’s deceptively difficult. The initial process of making an edit is as simple as signing in and changing some text, but Wikipedia’s editorial rules and processes — and the various code words and language around them — can be a barrier to doing it correctly, which is necessary for the edit to be accepted.
But the people who get it, like White, may spend a considerable amount of their time doing unpaid work on the site. They might also become the target of harassment as a result. White, who spends two or three hours a day working on Wikipedia, said she’s been doxxed, threatened with violence and lawsuits, and people have even tried to get her fired from her day job because of it.
“It is at best frustrating and at worst extremely frightening, but I both care deeply about the importance of Wikipedia and I am also a very stubborn person who does not like to feel like I am giving in to threats,” White said, attributing some of that harassment to her position as an administrator, her gender, and the controversial articles and topics she often works on (she created the Boogaloo movement page, for example).
And Wikipedia is important. It’s one of the top results for most internet searches, and so, for better or worse, Wikipedia is the site people are most likely to visit when they want more information about something. That means the stakes are high when big topics are involved.
Notably, its coverage of Covid-19 has drawn praise. This involved the creation of a “WikiProject” dedicated to the virus with over 200 participating editors (anyone can join!) who may focus on pandemic case data, the virus’s impact on specific locations, or the industries affected. One professor who studies misinformation told the Washington Post that Wikipedia was “a ray of hope in a sea of pollution” and handled the virus “exceptionally well.”
“There’s a lot of really great work done through these WikiProjects, especially during times of crisis where a lot of hard-hitting, late-breaking stuff is coming out,” Zachary J. McDowell, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told Recode.
So if Wikipedia, with its high visibility and wide-open door for anyone’s contributions, can still provide readers with well-sourced, neutral articles, why can’t the social media platforms that play such a big role in the spread of misinformation do the same? Clearly, some of them see the merits of Wikipedia’s work; Facebook and Google use Wikipedia articles to provide additional knowledge in user searches.
Freeing information from the algorithms
Social media is designed to keep users on their platforms for as long as possible, both to show them as many ads as possible and to collect their data, which is then used to show them even more ads. They are incentivized to keep your attention, not to ensure that what you’re reading or seeing is accurate. That business model is unlikely to change anytime soon. Meanwhile, Wikipedia’s model is quite different.
“[Wikipedia has] no algorithms designed to serve content in certain ways to some people,” Merkley said. “None of that structure exists which can be later gamed, in order to advance this post about a person or to target this message to that person.”
Wikipedia is also very transparent, Merkley said. An article’s associated history and talk pages will tell you, in great and granular detail, all the edits that have been made, who made them, and any associated discussions between editors about them.
This transparency helps create trust, but good luck getting, say, Facebook to implement it. Facebook is notoriously secretive about its algorithms, which determine what you see on the site, from ads to posts from your friends to recommendations for groups you should join or people you should befriend. These algorithms create filter bubbles of information that tends to line up with your political viewpoints, offering little exposure to anything that might conflict with them. You get what Facebook thinks you want to hear or watch what YouTube thinks you want to watch, and that’s not always what’s true.
“It is essentially a game where the entire system is already rigged for disinformation, fake news,” McDowell said. “It’s monetarily incentivized to get people riled up and to click. It will always be a game where those who are trying to control the information flow will be the ones who are one step behind.”
McDowell’s studies include Wikipedia’s value as a teaching tool for information literacy. He stresses that Wikipedia itself shouldn’t be seen as a source but rather as a collection of information, clearly cited, that users can follow if they want to learn more or verify what they’ve read.
“Having a critical eye toward information is absolutely imperative right now,” McDowell said. “And a lot of people don’t.”
For their part, social media platforms have, in recent years, tried to hold back the flow of misinformation in some cases, including during the election. Facebook has made rules around political ads, voter suppression, and even premature declarations of victory. But social media still receives plenty of criticism from both sides of the aisle, and it will almost certainly be blamed for influencing the outcome of the election in some way, regardless of the winner.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, will just tell you who reliable sources say the winner is — as soon as its editors reach a consensus on what those sources are.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-11-02--Here’s how to check if your ballot was received and accepted

So far , more than 60 million mail-in ballots have already been sent back to election officials .
If you voted by mail , you might be wondering : Is my ballot one of those ?
The answer to that question likely depends on your state , but most record the receipt of a mail-in ballot and in many cases note whether election officials have accepted or rejected it .
If your ballot hasn ’ t been received , or if it ’ s been rejected , there may be some steps you can take to remedy this — although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close , those options are narrowing .
Here ’ s how to find out the status of your mailed-in ballot and what to do if there ’ s a problem with it .
How to track your ballot Let ’ s start with the facts : It ’ s too late to vote by mail .
If you have your mail-in ballot in hand , your only option is to drop it off at an election office , polling site , or drop-off location before or on Election Day ( check what options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the drop-off deadlines ) .
Otherwise , plan to vote in person on Election Day .
If you ’ ve already voted by mail , or dropped off your ballot , most states offer a way to track that from the time you requested it to the time it was received by your local election officials ( here ’ s a good state-by-state list with links to each state ’ s website ) .
States and counties may use different methods to track your ballot , so if you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to your state election website ( you can also search for it here ) and see what options are available to you .
Some states also have an online voter portal , so you can check the ballot status there .
Obviously , what you ’ d like to see is that your ballot has been received and accepted .
If it hasn ’ t been received yet , don ’ t panic .
The ballot might still be on its way .
If you just recently dropped it off or mailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it just might not have been recorded yet .
The increase in voting by mail also means election officials just have a lot more ballots to sort through , and , as a consequence , it is going to take longer for some jurisdictions to get to each envelope and update their systems .
Election officials in New Jersey , for example , said there ’ s a week ’ s lag time in scanning ballots .
That ’ s maybe not reassuring , but it ’ s the reality in many places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back weeks and weeks ago and you still don ’ t see it as having been received , call your local election officials .
Many local election offices are being inundated by voters with similar concerns , so it may take a few tries .
When you do get an official on the phone , you should ask the status of your ballot — election officials may have information that hasn ’ t been posted yet .
If they say it hasn ’ t been received yet , ask what your options are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , such as Michigan , will let you “ spoil ” your mail-in ballot , allowing you to sign an affidavit canceling your mail ballot so you can then vote in person .
Some states , such as New York , allow in-person votes to override mail-in ballots automatically .
Some states may let you vote via provisional ballot , a kind of backup ballot that will count if you ’ re an eligible voter and another ballot isn ’ t received .
But every state has different rules , so make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials before you do anything .
If your ballot has been received , but it has been rejected or canceled , also check your state website to see what options are available to you .
Some states are supposed to notify voters and reach out to them directly if their ballot can ’ t be accepted — for example , if it ’ s missing a voter or witness signature .
But that notification might come in the mail , and who knows when it will arrive ; or election officials might not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address to swiftly contact you if your ballot is rejected .
And some states aren ’ t required to do so .
So if you ’ re concerned at all , call your local election office directly .
At least 18 states require election officials to contact voters if there ’ s a problem with a ballot and give them a chance to correct , or “ cure , ” their ballots , according to the National Conference of State Legislatures .
Other states have adopted new procedures to cure ballots starting this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the secretary of state ’ s office says that if your ballot has been rejected because it ’ s missing a signature or it came in “ naked ” ( when voters forget to include the outer “ secrecy ” envelope ) , you should plan to vote in person with a provisional ballot , and “ the county should count that vote so long as the voter meets other provisional ballot requirements , and the county determines that the voter is eligible to vote.
” The bottom line : Check your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amiss , check your state ’ s election rules ; if you can ’ t find the answer there , contact your local election officials and ask them what to do .
Unfortunately , there ’ s going to be a lot of uncertainty here The unprecedented number of mail-in ballots in 2020 , especially in states that aren ’ t used to handling so many absentee voters , means this was never going to be a problem-free experiment .
Mail-in ballots typically have a higher rate of rejection than ballots cast in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of voter fraud , but rather because humans are , well , human , and make mistakes .
Mail-in ballots can get rejected in some states if a voter ’ s ballot signature doesn ’ t match the one in their voter registration file .
Sometimes voters forget to sign at all , or use the wrong color ink .
And many ballots are disqualified because they arrive too late to be counted .
States do have different mail-in deadlines ; for example , some states require ballots to be received by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have been postmarked by Election Day , as long as they ’ re received by a certain date .
But , again , do not go by this if you haven ’ t postmarked your ballot ; it ’ s too risky .
That ’ s because some of these deadlines are still being litigated .
In Pennsylvania , for example , ballots need to be postmarked by November 3 , but they ’ ll be counted as long as they arrive by November 6 .
But Republicans are challenging that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received after Election Day in case there ’ s a court ruling that invalidates them .
Something similar is playing out in Minnesota .
All of which is to say there ’ s a lot of uncertainty , and some of the questions as to whether mail-in ballots may count are still , frustratingly , in flux .
And because we ’ re so close to Election Day , voters have dwindling options .
According to the US Elections Project , there are still about 30 million outstanding mail ballots — meaning of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , roughly one-third haven ’ t yet been returned .
That statistic may sound alarming , especially to Democrats who are more heavily voting by mail .
But Michael McDonald , the University of Florida professor who runs the US Election Project , has said this stat might be an overcount .
That ’ s because mail-in ballots may still be in transit , or they may have arrived at election offices but haven ’ t been logged yet , and because people who requested ballots may end up voting in person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states have never had to process so many mail ballots , so reporting delays and inconsistencies in reporting are understandable , ” McDonald wrote in a recent blog post .
“ When there were only tens of thousands of mail ballots statewide in some of these states , it was relatively easy to process the ballots and no one really cared about the few where someone may vote in-person.
” If you ’ re worried about the status of your mail-in ballot , that ’ s completely understandable .
You can check its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call your local election officials if you have questions , but with so many people calling , do that only if there ’ s an obvious reason to be concerned — for example , if your ballot has been rejected , or you mailed it in a really long time ago and it still hasn ’ t been received .
If you just sent in your ballot , it may still be en route .
Some states will still be counting ballots after Election Day — though , again , don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t voted yet .
Don ’ t freak out : If you ’ ve voted early , and followed the instructions , there ’ s already a very good chance your vote will count .

So far, more than 60 million mail-in ballots have already been sent back to election officials. If you voted by mail, you might be wondering: Is my ballot one of those?
The answer to that question likely depends on your state, but most record the receipt of a mail-in ballot and in many cases note whether election officials have accepted or rejected it. If your ballot hasn’t been received, or if it’s been rejected, there may be some steps you can take to remedy this — although, with one day until the polls close, those options are narrowing.
Here’s how to find out the status of your mailed-in ballot and what to do if there’s a problem with it.
How to track your ballot
Let’s start with the facts: It’s too late to vote by mail. If you have your mail-in ballot in hand, your only option is to drop it off at an election office, polling site, or drop-off location before or on Election Day (check what options are available to you where you live, and the drop-off deadlines). Otherwise, plan to vote in person on Election Day.
If you’ve already voted by mail, or dropped off your ballot, most states offer a way to track that from the time you requested it to the time it was received by your local election officials (here’s a good state-by-state list with links to each state’s website).
States and counties may use different methods to track your ballot, so if you’re not already enrolled in ballot tracking, go to your state election website (you can also search for it here) and see what options are available to you. Some states also have an online voter portal, so you can check the ballot status there.
Obviously, what you’d like to see is that your ballot has been received and accepted. If it hasn’t been received yet, don’t panic. The ballot might still be on its way. If you just recently dropped it off or mailed it in, it’s possible it just might not have been recorded yet.
The increase in voting by mail also means election officials just have a lot more ballots to sort through, and, as a consequence, it is going to take longer for some jurisdictions to get to each envelope and update their systems. Election officials in New Jersey, for example, said there’s a week’s lag time in scanning ballots. That’s maybe not reassuring, but it’s the reality in many places.
But if you sent your ballot back weeks and weeks ago and you still don’t see it as having been received, call your local election officials. Many local election offices are being inundated by voters with similar concerns, so it may take a few tries.
When you do get an official on the phone, you should ask the status of your ballot — election officials may have information that hasn’t been posted yet. If they say it hasn’t been received yet, ask what your options are, if there are any.
Some states, such as Michigan, will let you “spoil” your mail-in ballot, allowing you to sign an affidavit canceling your mail ballot so you can then vote in person. Some states, such as New York, allow in-person votes to override mail-in ballots automatically. Some states may let you vote via provisional ballot, a kind of backup ballot that will count if you’re an eligible voter and another ballot isn’t received. But every state has different rules, so make sure to check with your local election officials before you do anything.
If your ballot has been received, but it has been rejected or canceled, also check your state website to see what options are available to you. Some states are supposed to notify voters and reach out to them directly if their ballot can’t be accepted — for example, if it’s missing a voter or witness signature.
But that notification might come in the mail, and who knows when it will arrive; or election officials might not have your current phone number or email address to swiftly contact you if your ballot is rejected. And some states aren’t required to do so. So if you’re concerned at all, call your local election office directly.
At least 18 states require election officials to contact voters if there’s a problem with a ballot and give them a chance to correct, or “cure,” their ballots, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Other states have adopted new procedures to cure ballots starting this election.
In Pennsylvania, for example, the secretary of state’s office says that if your ballot has been rejected because it’s missing a signature or it came in “naked” (when voters forget to include the outer “secrecy” envelope), you should plan to vote in person with a provisional ballot, and “the county should count that vote so long as the voter meets other provisional ballot requirements, and the county determines that the voter is eligible to vote.”
The bottom line: Check your ballot status, and if anything seems amiss, check your state’s election rules; if you can’t find the answer there, contact your local election officials and ask them what to do.
Unfortunately, there’s going to be a lot of uncertainty here
The unprecedented number of mail-in ballots in 2020, especially in states that aren’t used to handling so many absentee voters, means this was never going to be a problem-free experiment.
Mail-in ballots typically have a higher rate of rejection than ballots cast in polling places. This isn’t because of voter fraud, but rather because humans are, well, human, and make mistakes.
Mail-in ballots can get rejected in some states if a voter’s ballot signature doesn’t match the one in their voter registration file. Sometimes voters forget to sign at all, or use the wrong color ink. And many ballots are disqualified because they arrive too late to be counted.
States do have different mail-in deadlines; for example, some states require ballots to be received by Election Day. Others will accept ballots that have been postmarked by Election Day, as long as they’re received by a certain date.
But, again, do not go by this if you haven’t postmarked your ballot; it’s too risky. That’s because some of these deadlines are still being litigated. In Pennsylvania, for example, ballots need to be postmarked by November 3, but they’ll be counted as long as they arrive by November 6. But Republicans are challenging that, so Pennsylvania has to separate out ballots received after Election Day in case there’s a court ruling that invalidates them. Something similar is playing out in Minnesota.
All of which is to say there’s a lot of uncertainty, and some of the questions as to whether mail-in ballots may count are still, frustratingly, in flux. And because we’re so close to Election Day, voters have dwindling options.
According to the US Elections Project, there are still about 30 million outstanding mail ballots — meaning of the 90 million ballots requested or sent out, roughly one-third haven’t yet been returned.
That statistic may sound alarming, especially to Democrats who are more heavily voting by mail. But Michael McDonald, the University of Florida professor who runs the US Election Project, has said this stat might be an overcount. That’s because mail-in ballots may still be in transit, or they may have arrived at election offices but haven’t been logged yet, and because people who requested ballots may end up voting in person instead.
“Election officials in many states have never had to process so many mail ballots, so reporting delays and inconsistencies in reporting are understandable,” McDonald wrote in a recent blog post. “When there were only tens of thousands of mail ballots statewide in some of these states, it was relatively easy to process the ballots and no one really cared about the few where someone may vote in-person.”
If you’re worried about the status of your mail-in ballot, that’s completely understandable. You can check its status online now. You can also call your local election officials if you have questions, but with so many people calling, do that only if there’s an obvious reason to be concerned — for example, if your ballot has been rejected, or you mailed it in a really long time ago and it still hasn’t been received.
If you just sent in your ballot, it may still be en route. Some states will still be counting ballots after Election Day — though, again, don’t bank on this if you haven’t voted yet. Don’t freak out: If you’ve voted early, and followed the instructions, there’s already a very good chance your vote will count.


vox--2020-11-02--An extremely conservative judge just rejected an effort to disenfranchise 127,000 voters

Democrats , and thousands of voters in Houston , spent much of the last few days fearing that a federal judge would order nearly 127,000 ballots tossed out .
But they got a moment to breathe on Monday afternoon , after a conservative judge ruled that he did not have jurisdiction over this case .
In a normal world , Hotze v. Hollins would be laughed out of court .
But the case was heard by Judge Andrew Hanen .
As my colleague Matt Yglesias wrote over the weekend , Hanen “ is one of the most right-wing and incautious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So there was a real possibility that Hotze , which seeks to invalidate nearly 127,000 votes in Harris County , Texas , could have ended in disaster for the voters who cast those ballots .
Harris County , which includes Houston , is one of the bluest parts of a state that features a competitive presidential race , and a US Senate seat that Democratic candidate MJ Hegar has an outside chance of winning .
When Hanen announced his ruling from the bench on Monday , he determined that the plaintiffs should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
Though Hanen said that he would “ probably ” have agreed with at least some of the plaintiffs ’ legal arguments if he has jurisdiction over them , he ultimately concluded that he did not .
Texas law permits early voting places to be located “ in any stationary structure ” or “ in a movable structure in the general election.
” Pursuant to this language , Harris County designated some structures that were large enough to accommodate a car as drive-through polling places .
The idea was that voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel safer voting in a location where they did not need to leave their car .
The plan to establish such drive-through sites was announced in mid-June .
After multiple public hearings that the Harris County Republican Party participated in , the county approved its plan to implement these sites on August 25 .
Early voting took place from October 13 through the 30th , and 126,912 ballots were cast in the drive-through sites , according to the county ’ s lawyers .
Nevertheless , the plaintiffs in Hotze , who include Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of the state legislature , waited until October 28 to file this lawsuit .
They now claim that more than 100,000 ballots , cast by voters who followed the rules set through a bipartisan consensus among Harris County and state-level officials , should be rejected .
The Texas Supreme Court already rejected a similar claim by these same plaintiffs , the second time the state ’ s all-Republican Court ruled against parties seeking to invalidate drive-through voting sites in Harris County .
And now they ’ ve also lost before Judge Hanen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plaintiff can not bring a suit in federal court unless they can show that they ’ ve been injured in some way by the law or procedure that they are challenging .
A plaintiff does not have “ standing ” to bring a suit if they can only demonstrate a “ generalized grievance , ” meaning that they share the same injury as the public as large .
Hanen ruled that these plaintiffs could not sure that they were injured by drive-through voting any more than anyone else might suffer because these ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be dismissed .
He also criticized them for not bringing this case in a more “ timely ” manner .
Hanen ’ s ruling , however , does not mean that this case is over .
The plaintiffs are likely to appeal to the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit , and potentially to the Supreme Court .
This case has no business being litigated in the first place because the plaintiffs waited so long There are a number of doctrines that prevent plaintiffs from waiting until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially if more than 100,000 people have relied on the system that the plaintiffs want to invalidate .
One of these doctrines is known as “ laches.
” As the Fifth Circuit has explained , “ laches is founded on the notion that equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.
” Yet the plaintiffs in Hotze didn ’ t just sleep on their rights ; they ’ ve spent the past several months acting as if they were tranquilized .
Harris County announced its initial plans to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s held multiple public meetings , and these drive-through polling sites were open for more than two weeks before these plaintiffs finally bothered to file a federal lawsuit .
If the doctrine of laches has any force , it should apply in this case .
A doctrine known as the “ Purcell principle ” also warns federal courts not to change a state ’ s election procedures as that election draws nigh .
As the Supreme Court held last April in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election rules on the eve of an election.
” Again , the plaintiffs in Hotze don ’ t just ask Judge Hanen to alter Texas ’ s election rules on the eve of an election — Hanen is holding a hearing on this case on Monday , literally on Election Day eve — they ask Hanen to alter those rules after millions of Texans have already voted .
If the Purcell principle means anything , it should apply in this case .
The Hotze plaintiffs misread both federal and state law The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris County set up the drive-through polling places in violation of state law .
But there are numerous problems with this argument .
For one thing , the Texas Supreme Court — which is made up entirely of Republicans — has twice rejected lawsuits seeking to invalidate drive-though voting in Harris County .
Current rules provide that the Texas Supreme Court has the final word on questions of Texas state law .
While several justices have recently indicated that they wish to overrule this longstanding rule , they have not yet done so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we accept the proposition that Judge Hanen is allowed to strike down the drive-through polling places if they violate state law , the fact remains that the polling places do not violate state law .
As noted above , Texas law provides that early voting sites may be located “ in any stationary structure ” or “ in a movable structure in the general election.
” Nothing in Texas state law provides that a “ structure ” ceases to be a viable polling place if it is large enough to accommodate drive-through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , point to a different provision of Texas law , which governs “ curbside ” voting .
Curbside voting is distinct from drive-through voting .
As the county ’ s lawyers explain , “ curbside voting is a practice in which an election official brings a ballot to a voter at a location outside the polling station , ” while drive-through voting “ allows a voter to enter the polling place in his or her vehicle and the act of voting occurs inside , rather than outside , the polling place.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contested polling places were classified as “ curbside ” voting sites , there is a strong argument that they would still be lawful .
Texas law provides that “ if a voter is physically unable to enter the polling place without ... likelihood of injuring the voter ’ s health , on the voter ’ s request , an election officer shall deliver a ballot to the voter at the polling place entrance or curb.
” In the middle of a pandemic , a voter may reasonably fear that they can not enter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their health .
Although Hanen is unlikely to have the final word in this case , the fact that he decided not to hear it is a sign that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail .
If any judge could have ruled in these plaintiffs ’ favor , Hanen is that judge .
Hanen is best known as the judge who blocked President Obama ’ s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents ( DAPA ) program , which would have allowed many undocumented parents of US citizens and lawful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States .
But Hanen did more than simply rule against these immigrants ; he conducted himself in a way that raises serious questions about his ability to control his temper — or to separate his nativist political views from the law .
At one point in the DAPA litigation , Hanen accused the Obama Justice Department of deliberately misleading him about an aspect of Obama ’ s immigration policies ( the DOJ lawyers say that they merely misunderstood a question that Hanen asked them ) .
Rather than giving these lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hanen handed down a draconian order sanctioning the lawyers , the Justice Department , and tens of thousands of immigrants who weren ’ t even before Hanen ’ s court .
Under the terms of this order , hundreds of Justice Department attorneys — most of whom had never appeared in Hanen ’ s courtroom in their lives — had to attend a remedial ethics course .
Hanen also ordered the Obama administration to turn over the names and addresses of approximately 50,000 undocumented immigrants , and he threatened to turn over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities.
” ( Hanen later agreed to stay this demand that 50,000 immigrants effectively be doxxed . )
Given this erratic past behavior by Hanen , the Hotze plaintiffs had at least some cause for optimism .
Now their hopes rest with the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court .

Democrats, and thousands of voters in Houston, spent much of the last few days fearing that a federal judge would order nearly 127,000 ballots tossed out. But they got a moment to breathe on Monday afternoon, after a conservative judge ruled that he did not have jurisdiction over this case.
In a normal world, Hotze v. Hollins would be laughed out of court. But the case was heard by Judge Andrew Hanen. As my colleague Matt Yglesias wrote over the weekend, Hanen “is one of the most right-wing and incautious figures in the entire federal judiciary.”
So there was a real possibility that Hotze, which seeks to invalidate nearly 127,000 votes in Harris County, Texas, could have ended in disaster for the voters who cast those ballots. Harris County, which includes Houston, is one of the bluest parts of a state that features a competitive presidential race, and a US Senate seat that Democratic candidate MJ Hegar has an outside chance of winning.
When Hanen announced his ruling from the bench on Monday, he determined that the plaintiffs should not have been in court in the first place. Though Hanen said that he would “probably” have agreed with at least some of the plaintiffs’ legal arguments if he has jurisdiction over them, he ultimately concluded that he did not.
Texas law permits early voting places to be located “in any stationary structure” or “in a movable structure in the general election.” Pursuant to this language, Harris County designated some structures that were large enough to accommodate a car as drive-through polling places. The idea was that voters who feared becoming infected with the coronavirus might feel safer voting in a location where they did not need to leave their car.
The plan to establish such drive-through sites was announced in mid-June. After multiple public hearings that the Harris County Republican Party participated in, the county approved its plan to implement these sites on August 25. Early voting took place from October 13 through the 30th, and 126,912 ballots were cast in the drive-through sites, according to the county’s lawyers.
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs in Hotze, who include Republican candidates for public office and a Republican member of the state legislature, waited until October 28 to file this lawsuit. They now claim that more than 100,000 ballots, cast by voters who followed the rules set through a bipartisan consensus among Harris County and state-level officials, should be rejected.
Related The Vox 2020 presidential election live blog
The Texas Supreme Court already rejected a similar claim by these same plaintiffs, the second time the state’s all-Republican Court ruled against parties seeking to invalidate drive-through voting sites in Harris County.
And now they’ve also lost before Judge Hanen. As a general rule, a plaintiff cannot bring a suit in federal court unless they can show that they’ve been injured in some way by the law or procedure that they are challenging. A plaintiff does not have “standing” to bring a suit if they can only demonstrate a “generalized grievance,” meaning that they share the same injury as the public as large.
Hanen ruled that these plaintiffs could not sure that they were injured by drive-through voting any more than anyone else might suffer because these ballots were cast, and thus their case must be dismissed. He also criticized them for not bringing this case in a more “timely” manner.
Hanen’s ruling, however, does not mean that this case is over. The plaintiffs are likely to appeal to the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and potentially to the Supreme Court.
This case has no business being litigated in the first place because the plaintiffs waited so long
There are a number of doctrines that prevent plaintiffs from waiting until the last minute to file a case — especially if more than 100,000 people have relied on the system that the plaintiffs want to invalidate.
One of these doctrines is known as “laches.” As the Fifth Circuit has explained, “laches is founded on the notion that equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.” Yet the plaintiffs in Hotze didn’t just sleep on their rights; they’ve spent the past several months acting as if they were tranquilized.
Harris County announced its initial plans to use drive-through voting more than four months ago. It’s held multiple public meetings, and these drive-through polling sites were open for more than two weeks before these plaintiffs finally bothered to file a federal lawsuit. If the doctrine of laches has any force, it should apply in this case.
A doctrine known as the “Purcell principle” also warns federal courts not to change a state’s election procedures as that election draws nigh. As the Supreme Court held last April in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, “lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
Again, the plaintiffs in Hotze don’t just ask Judge Hanen to alter Texas’s election rules on the eve of an election — Hanen is holding a hearing on this case on Monday, literally on Election Day eve — they ask Hanen to alter those rules after millions of Texans have already voted.
If the Purcell principle means anything, it should apply in this case.
The Hotze plaintiffs misread both federal and state law
The Hotze plaintiffs’ primary argument is that Harris County set up the drive-through polling places in violation of state law. But there are numerous problems with this argument.
For one thing, the Texas Supreme Court — which is made up entirely of Republicans — has twice rejected lawsuits seeking to invalidate drive-though voting in Harris County. Current rules provide that the Texas Supreme Court has the final word on questions of Texas state law. While several justices have recently indicated that they wish to overrule this longstanding rule, they have not yet done so in a majority opinion.
But even if we accept the proposition that Judge Hanen is allowed to strike down the drive-through polling places if they violate state law, the fact remains that the polling places do not violate state law.
As noted above, Texas law provides that early voting sites may be located “in any stationary structure” or “in a movable structure in the general election.” Nothing in Texas state law provides that a “structure” ceases to be a viable polling place if it is large enough to accommodate drive-through voting.
The Hotze plaintiffs, meanwhile, point to a different provision of Texas law, which governs “curbside” voting. Curbside voting is distinct from drive-through voting. As the county’s lawyers explain, “curbside voting is a practice in which an election official brings a ballot to a voter at a location outside the polling station,” while drive-through voting “allows a voter to enter the polling place in his or her vehicle and the act of voting occurs inside, rather than outside, the polling place.”
But in any event, even if the contested polling places were classified as “curbside” voting sites, there is a strong argument that they would still be lawful. Texas law provides that “if a voter is physically unable to enter the polling place without ... likelihood of injuring the voter’s health, on the voter’s request, an election officer shall deliver a ballot to the voter at the polling place entrance or curb.” In the middle of a pandemic, a voter may reasonably fear that they cannot enter a polling place without risking injury to their health.
Hanen is an extremely conservative judge
Although Hanen is unlikely to have the final word in this case, the fact that he decided not to hear it is a sign that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail. If any judge could have ruled in these plaintiffs’ favor, Hanen is that judge.
Hanen is best known as the judge who blocked President Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program, which would have allowed many undocumented parents of US citizens and lawful permanent residents to live and work in the United States. But Hanen did more than simply rule against these immigrants; he conducted himself in a way that raises serious questions about his ability to control his temper — or to separate his nativist political views from the law.
At one point in the DAPA litigation, Hanen accused the Obama Justice Department of deliberately misleading him about an aspect of Obama’s immigration policies (the DOJ lawyers say that they merely misunderstood a question that Hanen asked them). Rather than giving these lawyers the benefit of the doubt, however, Hanen handed down a draconian order sanctioning the lawyers, the Justice Department, and tens of thousands of immigrants who weren’t even before Hanen’s court.
Under the terms of this order, hundreds of Justice Department attorneys — most of whom had never appeared in Hanen’s courtroom in their lives — had to attend a remedial ethics course. Hanen also ordered the Obama administration to turn over the names and addresses of approximately 50,000 undocumented immigrants, and he threatened to turn over this sensitive information to the “proper authorities.” (Hanen later agreed to stay this demand that 50,000 immigrants effectively be doxxed.)
Given this erratic past behavior by Hanen, the Hotze plaintiffs had at least some cause for optimism. Now their hopes rest with the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court.


vox--2020-11-02--Boarded-up stores are another sign of election anxiety

Boards went up over windows around the country over the past week as businesses anticipated the potential for election-related unrest .
Media outlets reported plywood going up in cities from coast to coast : Retailers in New York City , Chicago , Detroit , Denver , Long Beach , San Francisco , Charleston , Indianapolis , Dearborn , Boston , Sacramento , Las Vegas , St. Louis , Los Angeles , Portland , Dallas , and Washington , DC , all took part .
It was an echo of images from the spring , when some of New York ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelter-in-place orders were issued in an effort to stave off the coronavirus pandemic .
And those images reappeared in the early summer when nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd at the hands of police officers sometimes turned violent , prompting business owners to protect property .
Some of the businesses that experienced destruction of property months ago are now bracing themselves again .
Meanwhile , the industries that provide the boards are booming .
Shain Jenkins , the manager of a hardware store near Seattle , told USA Today that plywood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The possibility for violence was also echoed in Walmart ’ s move on October 29 to remove ammunition and firearms from its displays in American stores due to “ civil unrest.
” The move seemed designed to discourage would-be violent actors from buying firearms .
But the company reversed course on October 30 , saying that the unrest had remained “ isolated ” and they would replace the displays .
Business owners ’ nervousness about the election is unsurprising given the events of 2020 and the national mood .
A USA Today/Suffolk University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three out of four voters were worried to some degree that there could be violence on Election Day .
Should former vice president Joe Biden win the election , only one in four said they were “ very confident ” in a peaceful transfer of power .
The perception is not unmerited , especially considering President Trump ’ s heightened rhetoric , repeated refusal to confirm that he would participate in a peaceful transfer of power , and his call for an “ army ” of poll watchers .
And experts have sounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s polarization carries with it a high risk of violence , depending on the election results .
But store preparations go beyond boarded-up windows .
The New York Times reported on October 30 that in a videoconference held by the National Retail Federation ( NRF ) , the world ’ s largest retail trade association , 120 representatives from 60 retail brands learned how to de-escalate customer tensions , including election-related situations .
The NRF has hired security consultants to help its members predict which cities may be most volatile on Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once would have seemed extreme on an Election Day eve , but now it seems reasonable , especially nearing the end of a year of heightened conflict and politicization .
Perhaps the best evidence of this comes in the fact that the NRF de-escalation training was originally developed to help retail employees deal with belligerent customers who refused to honor store policy and wear a mask .
So whether the precautions are necessary or simply the product of an extraordinarily jumpy year and toxic political climate , they ’ re far from surprising @

Boards went up over windows around the country over the past week as businesses anticipated the potential for election-related unrest. Media outlets reported plywood going up in cities from coast to coast: Retailers in New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Denver, Long Beach, San Francisco, Charleston, Indianapolis, Dearborn, Boston, Sacramento, Las Vegas, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Portland, Dallas, and Washington, DC, all took part.
Observers posted images on Twitter:
Shops in downtown SF boarding up in anticipation of the election. pic.twitter.com/lxYjkm82CI — Brock Keeling (@BrockKeeling) October 30, 2020
I never thought I would see so many buildings here in the nation’s capital boarded-up on the eve of a presidential election in anticipation of possible unrest. And it’s not just in DC. It’s happening in New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere around the country. So sad! pic.twitter.com/fmPnUBbr8T — Wolf Blitzer (@wolfblitzer) November 1, 2020
NYC, 5th Avenue preparing for election violence. pic.twitter.com/ObgA8ya6Tp — ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) November 2, 2020
It was an echo of images from the spring, when some of New York’s upscale stores boarded their windows as shelter-in-place orders were issued in an effort to stave off the coronavirus pandemic. And those images reappeared in the early summer when nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd at the hands of police officers sometimes turned violent, prompting business owners to protect property. Some of the businesses that experienced destruction of property months ago are now bracing themselves again.
It is hard to quantify these reports directly, beyond the images on social media. But the industries that provide the boards are booming. Shain Jenkins, the manager of a hardware store near Seattle, told USA Today that plywood demand had surged nearly 40 percent.
The possibility for violence was also echoed in Walmart’s move on October 29 to remove ammunition and firearms from its displays in American stores due to “civil unrest.” The move seemed designed to discourage would-be violent actors from buying firearms. But the company reversed course on October 30, saying that the unrest had remained “isolated” and they would replace the displays.
Business owners’ nervousness about the election is unsurprising given the events of 2020 and the national mood. A USA Today/Suffolk University poll published on October 28 found that three out of four voters were worried to some degree that there could be violence on Election Day. Should former vice president Joe Biden win the election, only one in four said they were “very confident” in a peaceful transfer of power.
The perception is not unmerited, especially considering President Trump’s heightened rhetoric, repeated refusal to confirm that he would participate in a peaceful transfer of power, and his call for an “army” of poll watchers. And experts have sounded the alarm, saying that the country’s polarization carries with it a higher than usual risk of violence, depending on the election results — although the overall risk may be low.
But store preparations go beyond boarded-up windows. The New York Times reported on October 30 that in a videoconference held by the National Retail Federation (NRF), the world’s largest retail trade association, 120 representatives from 60 retail brands learned how to de-escalate customer tensions, including election-related situations. The NRF has hired security consultants to help its members predict which cities may be most volatile on Election Day and prepare accordingly.
Boarding-up windows once would have seemed extreme on an Election Day eve, but now it seems reasonable, especially nearing the end of a year of heightened conflict and politicization. Perhaps the best evidence of this comes in the fact that the NRF de-escalation training was originally developed to help retail employees deal with belligerent customers who refused to honor store policy and wear a mask. So whether the precautions are necessary or simply the product of an extraordinarily jumpy year and toxic political climate, they’re far from surprising.


vox--2020-11-02--Trump just ended HealthCare.gov in Georgia

HealthCare.gov is the face of Obamacare , the online marketplace where millions of Americans sign up for health insurance — and now , two days before the 2020 election , the Trump administration has approved a plan to scrap the website in the swing state of Georgia .
In a Sunday announcement , which is highly unusual timing , as several health care experts noted , the US Department of Health and Human Services announced it had approved a plan from Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp to close HealthCare.gov to his state ’ s residents .
They will instead be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brokers or on private websites .
“ The Obamacare Exchanges have not worked for Georgians , leaving them with fewer options and skyrocketing premiums , ” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a Sunday statement .
“ Today ’ s approval of the state ’ s waiver will usher in a groundswell of healthcare innovation that will deliver lower costs , better care , and more choice to Georgians in the individual market.
” That statement is untrue on both counts .
Georgia ’ s uninsured rate today is 5 points lower today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Obamacare took full effect ( 18.8 percent in 2013 ) .
More than 430,000 Georgians buy their health insurance through HealthCare.gov , and almost all of them receive premium subsidies created by the health care law .
The reason the state ’ s uninsured rate isn ’ t even lower is its Republican leaders had refused to expand Medicaid through Obamacare , leaving 240,000 people without coverage .
( We ’ ll come back to this in a moment . )
So , contrary to Verma ’ s claims , the ACA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with health coverage .
Moreover , experts expect thousands of people in the state could lose coverage as a result of this new waiver .
The Center on Budget Policy and Priorities laid out the ways people could lose coverage or face higher medical costs as a result of eliminating HealthCare.gov in Georgia .
Consumers may be confused about where to buy coverage after seven years of using the federal website .
Insurer brokers have incentives to steer people to non-ACA coverage that doesn ’ t cover preexisting conditions .
Many private insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Evidence from past , far simpler transitions between federal and state marketplaces suggests that tens of thousands of Georgians might lose coverage simply because of the disruption from the state ’ s transition away from HealthCare.gov , ” the center ’ s analyst , Tara Straw , wrote .
The Trump administration is approving health care proposals that could lead to thousands of people losing health coverage For that reason alone , the Georgia waiver is arguably illegal .
The waiver program under which the plan has been approved specifically stipulates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to people losing coverage or costs increasing .
Georgia and Trump ’ s health department say the state ’ s plan won ’ t lead to coverage losses .
But outside experts disagree .
Christen Linke Young and Jason Levitis at the Brookings Institution pointed out in their analysis that more than 80 percent of Obamacare enrollees in Georgia don ’ t actively shop for their insurance ; they are simply reenrolled in the same plan or a similar one year after year .
The state assumes 90 percent of them would actively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an assumption that Young and Levitis call “ unreasonably optimistic.
” Instead , if you assume 95 percent of previously active shoppers find new coverage and 50 percent of the previously passive consumers also pick a new plan but the other 50 percent do not , that means about 50,000 people would become uninsured .
That would be a blatant violation of the ACA ’ s waiver requirements .
“ Despite the state ’ s claims to the contrary , the waiver proposal would likely cause tens of thousands of Georgia residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially in the first year , and therefore fails to satisfy the statutory requirement that a 1332 waiver may not decrease the number of people with health insurance coverage , ” they wrote .
But the Trump administration has repeatedly stretched its administrative authority to roll back Obamacare as far as it can go — and arguably beyond its legal bounds .
That was also the case of Medicaid work requirements , which Verma also recently approved in Georgia , a plan specifically designed to circumvent the previous court rulings blocking Medicaid work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would only partially cover the population meant to be covered by Medicaid expansion ( up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level instead of 133 percent ) , and it would impose work requirements for many of the newly eligible people .
So while the state estimates 64,000 people would gain coverage under the plan , that is a small fraction of the number of people who would gain coverage under regular expansion : just 11 percent , according to Georgetown University ’ s Center for Children and Families .
The state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent federal Medicaid expansion match under this plan , instead receiving its traditional 67 percent Medicaid match with the state on the hook for the other 33 percent .
“ Georgia ’ s approach severely limits access to health insurance during a pandemic , conditions it on having work hours during a recession with high unemployment ( especially in certain industries ) , and asks state taxpayers to pick up more of the tab at a time when state budgets are under considerable strain , ” Georgetown ’ s Joan Alker and Allexa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was already increasing under Trump , and it could still get worse if he ’ s reelected .
Even if Trump ’ s bid to get the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare fails , he would have four more years to approve proposals like this .
The only limitations would be whether states would want to take up the administration ’ s preferred policies — and clearly some , like Georgia , are — and whether the increasingly conservative judiciary would stop them .
To put it another way : These are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been approving in a swing state , on the eve of Election Day .
If Trump is reelected , his health officials will be unbound by any electoral concerns .
Georgia provides a preview of what the president could do if he wins a second term without having to pass a bill through Congress .
This story appears in VoxCare , a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America ’ s health care debate .
Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care @ @ @ @

HealthCare.gov is the face of Obamacare, the online marketplace where millions of Americans sign up for health insurance — and now, two days before the 2020 election, the Trump administration has approved a plan to scrap the website in the swing state of Georgia.
In a Sunday announcement, which is highly unusual timing, as several health care experts noted, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced it had approved a plan from Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp to close HealthCare.gov to his state’s residents. They will instead be asked to shop for health insurance through brokers or on private websites.
“The Obamacare Exchanges have not worked for Georgians, leaving them with fewer options and skyrocketing premiums,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a Sunday statement. “Today’s approval of the state’s waiver will usher in a groundswell of healthcare innovation that will deliver lower costs, better care, and more choice to Georgians in the individual market.”
That statement is untrue on both counts. Georgia’s uninsured rate today is 5 points lower today (13.7 percent) than it was before Obamacare took full effect (18.8 percent in 2013). More than 430,000 Georgians buy their health insurance through HealthCare.gov, and almost all of them receive premium subsidies created by the health care law. The reason the state’s uninsured rate isn’t even lower is its Republican leaders had refused to expand Medicaid through Obamacare, leaving 240,000 people without coverage. (We’ll come back to this in a moment.)
So, contrary to Verma’s claims, the ACA provided a lot of people in Georgia with health coverage. Moreover, experts expect thousands of people in the state could lose coverage as a result of this new waiver.
The Center on Budget Policy and Priorities laid out the ways people could lose coverage or face higher medical costs as a result of eliminating HealthCare.gov in Georgia. Consumers may be confused about where to buy coverage after seven years of using the federal website. Insurer brokers have incentives to steer people to non-ACA coverage that doesn’t cover preexisting conditions. Many private insurance exchanges sell noncompliant coverage alongside ACA plans.
“Evidence from past, far simpler transitions between federal and state marketplaces suggests that tens of thousands of Georgians might lose coverage simply because of the disruption from the state’s transition away from HealthCare.gov,” the center’s analyst, Tara Straw, wrote.
The Trump administration is approving health care proposals that could lead to thousands of people losing health coverage
For that reason alone, the Georgia waiver is arguably illegal. The waiver program under which the plan has been approved specifically stipulates that a state waiver cannot lead to people losing coverage or costs increasing.
Georgia and Trump’s health department say the state’s plan won’t lead to coverage losses. But outside experts disagree.
Christen Linke Young and Jason Levitis at the Brookings Institution pointed out in their analysis that 25 percent of Obamacare enrollees in Georgia don’t actively shop for their insurance; they are simply reenrolled in the same plan or a similar one year after year. The state assumes 90 percent of them would actively pick a new plan under this waiver, an assumption that Young and Levitis call “unreasonably optimistic.”
Instead, if you assume 95 percent of previously active shoppers find new coverage and 50 percent of the previously passive consumers also pick a new plan but the other 50 percent do not, that means about 50,000 people would become uninsured. That would be a blatant violation of the ACA’s waiver requirements.
“Despite the state’s claims to the contrary, the waiver proposal would likely cause tens of thousands of Georgia residents to lose their health insurance coverage, especially in the first year, and therefore fails to satisfy the statutory requirement that a 1332 waiver may not decrease the number of people with health insurance coverage,” they wrote.
But the Trump administration has repeatedly stretched its administrative authority to roll back Obamacare as far as it can go — and arguably beyond its legal bounds. That was also the case of Medicaid work requirements, which Verma also recently approved in Georgia, a plan specifically designed to circumvent the previous court rulings blocking Medicaid work requirements.
Georgia’s Medicaid plan would only partially cover the population meant to be covered by Medicaid expansion (up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level instead of 133 percent), and it would impose work requirements for many of the newly eligible people. So while the state estimates 64,000 people would gain coverage under the plan, that is a small fraction of the number of people who would gain coverage under regular expansion: just 11 percent, according to Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.
The state is also forgoing Obamacare’s 90 percent federal Medicaid expansion match under this plan, instead receiving its traditional 67 percent Medicaid match with the state on the hook for the other 33 percent.
“Georgia’s approach severely limits access to health insurance during a pandemic, conditions it on having work hours during a recession with high unemployment (especially in certain industries), and asks state taxpayers to pick up more of the tab at a time when state budgets are under considerable strain,” Georgetown’s Joan Alker and Allexa Gardner wrote.
The US uninsured rate was already increasing under Trump, and it could still get worse if he’s reelected. Even if Trump’s bid to get the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare fails, he would have four more years to approve proposals like this. The only limitations would be whether states would want to take up the administration’s preferred policies — and clearly some, like Georgia, are — and whether the increasingly conservative judiciary would stop them.
To put it another way: These are the health care plans that the Trump administration has been approving in a swing state, on the eve of Election Day. If Trump is reelected, his health officials will be unbound by any electoral concerns. Georgia provides a preview of what the president could do if he wins a second term without having to pass a bill through Congress.
This story appears in VoxCare, a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America’s health care debate. Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news.