vox--2020-10-14--How bad is your state’s Covid-19 outbreak?

America ’ s national Covid-19 epidemic continues , with the US ’ s daily new cases still higher than most developed nations and the country recently surpassing 215,000 deaths due to the disease .
At the state level , things can look even worse than the national picture .
Public health experts look at a few markers to determine how bad things are in each state : the number of daily new cases ; the infection rate , which can show how likely the virus is to spread ; and the percentage of tests that come back positive , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient testing .
A Vox analysis indicates the vast majority of states report alarming trends across all three benchmarks for coronavirus outbreaks .
Most states still report a high — sometimes very high — number of daily new Covid-19 cases .
Most still have high infection rates .
And most have test positive rates that are too high , indicating they don ’ t have enough tests to track and contain the scope of their outbreaks .
Across these benchmarks , just one state — Maine — fares well on all three metrics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively under control for now .
America ’ s outbreaks , reaching from California to Florida , are the result of the public and the country ’ s leaders never taking the virus seriously enough and , to the extent they did , letting their guard down prematurely .
States , with the support of President Donald Trump , moved to reopen — often before they saw sizable drops in daily new Covid-19 cases , and at times so quickly they didn ’ t have time to see if each phase of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
The public embraced the reopenings , going out and often not adhering to recommended precautions like physical distancing and wearing a mask .
Even as cases began to fall later in the summer , America ’ s overall caseload remained very high .
And yet many states moved to reopen once again , with much of the public embracing the looser restrictions and subsequently going out .
It ’ s this mix of government withdrawal and public complacency that experts have cited in explaining why states continue to struggle with getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a situation that didn ’ t have to be , ” Jaime Slaughter-Acey , an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota , told me .
“ For almost three months , you had opportunities to be proactive with respect to mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic and to help normalize culture to adopt practices that would stem the tide of transmissions as well as the development of Covid-19 complications .
… It was not prioritized over the economy.
” The effects are felt not just in terms of more infections , critical illnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but in the long-term financial impact as the economy struggles , many people still refuse to go out , and businesses resist reopening during a pandemic .
“ Dead people don ’ t shop .
They don ’ t spend money .
They don ’ t invest in things , ” Jade Pagkas-Bather , an infectious diseases expert and doctor at the University of Chicago , told me .
“ When you fail to invest in the health of your population , then there are longitudinal downstream effects.
” The benchmarks tracked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every important facet of the pandemic .
Hospital capacity was previously included among Vox ’ s metrics , but it ’ s been removed due to inconsistent data reporting .
The data for contact tracing , when “ disease detectives ” track down people who may have been infected and push them to quarantine , is also poor .
Some measures that are helpful for gauging if a state can safely start to reopen , like the total test count and whether cases have fallen in the previous two weeks , are excluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each state ’ s current Covid-19 outbreak .
Together , these three benchmarks help give an idea of how each state is doing in its fight against Covid-19 .
Nationwide , it ’ s pretty grim .
1 ) Most states have too many daily new Covid-19 infections What ’ s the goal ?
Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day , based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau .
Which states meet the goal ?
Maine and Vermont — just two states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most straightforward way to measure whether any place is experiencing a big coronavirus outbreak is to look at the number of daily new Covid-19 cases .
There ’ s no widely accepted metric for how many cases , exactly , is too many .
But experts told me that aiming for below four daily new cases per 100,000 is generally a good idea — a level low enough that a state can say it ’ s starting to get significant control over the virus .
A big caveat to this metric : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s testing .
Cases can only get picked up if states are actually testing people for the virus .
So if a state doesn ’ t have enough tests , it ’ s probably going to miss a lot of cases , and the reported cases won ’ t tell the full story .
That ’ s why it ’ s important not to use this benchmark by itself , but to use it alongside metrics like the test positive rate .
Along those lines , the number of daily new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Covid-19 outbreak .
If test results take a week to get reported to the state , then the count for daily new cases will really reflect the state of the outbreak for the previous week .
If testing is adequate in a state , though , the toll of daily new cases gives perhaps the best snapshot of how big a state ’ s Covid-19 outbreak is .
2 ) The coronavirus is spreading too quickly in most states What ’ s the goal ?
An effective reproduction number , or Rt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Rt.live , a site created by two Instagram founders and a data analyst .
Which states meet the goal ?
California , Delaware , Georgia , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Mississippi , Missouri , North Carolina , South Carolina , Texas , Washington , and West Virginia — a total of 13 states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
Why is this important ?
The Rt measures how many people are infected by each person with Covid-19 .
If the Rt is 1 , then an infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus to one other person .
If it ’ s 2 , then an infected person will spread it to two on average .
And so on .
It ’ s an attempt , then , to gauge how quickly a virus is spreading .
One way to think about it : Unlike the count for daily new cases , this gives you a snapshot not of a state ’ s Covid-19 outbreak today , but of where the outbreak is heading in the near future .
The goal is to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infection doesn ’ t lead to another , that would over time lead to zero new Covid-19 cases .
The estimated Rt can be very imprecise , with margins of error that make it hard to know for certain in any state if it ’ s really above or below 1 .
Different modelers can also come up with different estimates .
That ’ s , unfortunately , just the reality of using limited data to come up with a rough estimate of a disease ’ s overall spread .
The Rt also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are infected with Covid-19 , nine spread it to no one else , and one spreads it to 10 , that adds up to an Rt of 1 .
But it masks the fact that individuals , for whatever reason , can still cause superspreading events — which seem of particular concern with the coronavirus .
Still , the Rt is one of the better measures we have for tracking a pathogen ’ s spread across the whole population .
When paired with the other metrics on this list , it can give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s outbreak now and in the future .
3 ) Most states ’ positive rates for tests are too high What ’ s the goal ?
Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week , based on data from the Covid Tracking Project .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , California , Colorado , Connecticut , Hawaii , Illinois , Louisiana , Maine , Massachusetts , Michigan , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New York , Ohio , Rhode Island , Vermont , Washington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , DC , did as well .
( Mississippi is excluded due to recent problems with its test reports . )
Why is this important ?
To properly track and contain coronavirus outbreaks , states need to have enough testing .
There are all sorts of proposals for how much testing is needed in the US , up to the tens of millions .
But one way to see if a state is testing enough to match its outbreak is the rate of tests that come back positive .
An area with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lots of people , many of whom don ’ t have the disease or don ’ t show severe symptoms .
High positive rates indicate that only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested , so there ’ s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak .
The goal for the positive rate is , in an ideal world , zero percent , since that would suggest that Covid-19 is vanquished entirely .
More realistically , in a world going through a pandemic , the positive rate should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state reaches 5 percent , experts argue it should continue trying to push that number further down — to match nations like Germany , New Zealand , and South Korea that have gotten their positive rates below 3 percent and even 1 percent — in order to truly get ahold of their outbreaks .
As long as a state is above 5 percent , chances are it ’ s still missing a significant number of Covid-19 cases .
And the higher that number is , the more cases that are very likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state is reporting a low number of daily new cases , a high positive rate should be a cause for alarm — a sign that there ’ s an outbreak that ’ s only hidden due to a lack of testing .
And if your state is reporting a high number of daily new cases and a high positive rate , that ’ s all the more reason for concern , suggesting the epidemic is even worse than the total case count indicates .
This article is updated weekly , typically on Wednesdays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

America’s national Covid-19 epidemic continues, with the US’s daily new cases down from an early January peak but still higher than those of most developed nations — and the country recently surpassing 500,000 deaths due to the disease.
At the state level, things can look even worse than the national picture.
Public health experts look at a few markers to determine how bad things are in each state: the number of daily new cases; the infection rate, which can show how likely the virus is to spread; and the percentage of tests that come back positive, which should be low in a state with sufficient testing. Combined, these three benchmarks can tell you whether or not a state’s coronavirus outbreak is under control.
Vox’s analysis, updated weekly, shows the vast majority of states are reporting alarming trends for coronavirus cases based on these benchmarks. Only one state — Hawaii — fares well on all three metrics, suggesting the vast majority of states don’t have their outbreaks fully under control right now.
The US outbreaks are due to the failure of both the American public and the country’s leaders to take the virus seriously enough; to the extent they did, many let their guard down prematurely. With the support of former President Donald Trump, states moved to reopen — often before seeing sizable drops in daily new Covid-19 cases, and at times so quickly they weren’t able to tell whether each phase of their reopening plan was leading to too many new infections.
The public embraced the reopenings, resuming their usual day-to-day activities and often refusing to adhere to recommended precautions like physical distancing and mask-wearing.
Even as cases began to fall later in the summer, America’s overall caseload remained very high. Yet many states moved to reopen once more, with much of the public embracing the looser restrictions and subsequently going out.
It’s this mix of government withdrawal and public complacency that experts have cited in explaining why states continue to struggle with getting the coronavirus under control.
“It’s a situation that didn’t have to be,” Jaime Slaughter-Acey, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, previously told me, adding, “You had opportunities to be proactive with respect to mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic and to help normalize culture to adopt practices that would stem the tide of transmissions as well as the development of Covid-19 complications. … It was not prioritized over the economy.”
The effects are felt not just in terms of more infections, critical illnesses, new chronic conditions, and deaths, but in the long-term financial impact as the economy struggles, many people still refuse to go out, and businesses resist reopening during a pandemic.
“Dead people don’t shop. They don’t spend money. They don’t invest in things,” Jade Pagkas-Bather, an expert in infectious diseases and a doctor at the University of Chicago, previously told me. “When you fail to invest in the health of your population, then there are longitudinal downstream effects.”
With a Covid-19 vaccination campaign underway, a finish line to this crisis in finally visible. But until America reaches sufficient population protection — and, preferably, herd immunity — every day the coronavirus spreads means more illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths.
As the country works toward vaccinating everyone, the three benchmarks tracked by Vox give an idea of how each state is doing in its fight against Covid-19 in the meantime. Nationwide, it’s pretty grim.
1) Most states have too many daily new Covid-19 infections
What’s the goal? Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Just one — Hawaii.
Why is this important? The most straightforward way to measure whether any place is experiencing a big coronavirus outbreak is to look at the number of daily new Covid-19 cases.
There’s no widely accepted metric for how many cases, exactly, is too many. But experts told me that aiming for below four daily new cases per 100,000 is generally a good idea — a level low enough that a state can say it’s starting to get significant control over the virus.
A big caveat to this metric: It’s only as good as a state’s testing. Cases can only get picked up if states are actually testing people for the virus. So if a state doesn’t have enough tests, it’s probably going to miss a lot of cases, and the reported cases won’t tell the full story. That’s why it’s important not to use this benchmark by itself, but to use it alongside metrics like the test positive rate.
The number of daily new cases may also give a delayed snapshot of a Covid-19 outbreak. If test results take a week to get reported to the state, the count for daily new cases will really reflect the state of the outbreak for the previous week.
If testing is adequate in a state, though, the toll of daily new cases is perhaps the best insight as to how big a state’s Covid-19 outbreak is.
2) The coronavirus is spreading too quickly in some states
What’s the goal? An effective reproduction number, or Rt, below 1, based on data from the Centre for Mathematical Modeling of Infectious Diseases.
Which states meet the goal? All but Alaska, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming — 45 states, as well as Washington, DC.
Why is this important? The Rt measures how many people are infected by each person with Covid-19. If the Rt is 1, then an infected person will, on average, spread the coronavirus to one other person. If it’s 2, then an infected person will spread it to two on average. And so on.
It’s an attempt, then, to gauge how quickly a virus is spreading. One way to think about it: Unlike the count for daily new cases, this gives you a snapshot not of a state’s Covid-19 outbreak today, but of where the outbreak is heading in the near future.
The goal is to get the Rt below 1. If each infection doesn’t lead to another, that would over time lead to zero new Covid-19 cases.
The estimated Rt can be very imprecise, with margins of error that make it hard to know for certain in any state if it’s really above or below 1. Different modelers can also come up with different estimates. That’s, unfortunately, just the reality of using limited data to come up with a rough estimate of a disease’s overall spread.
The Rt also reflects an average. If 10 people are infected with Covid-19, nine spread it to no one else, and one spreads it to 10, that adds up to an Rt of 1. But it masks the fact that individuals, for whatever reason, can still cause superspreading events — which seem of particular concern with the coronavirus.
And the Rt is only as good as the data that goes into calculating it. If a state’s data is poor quality or inconsistent, it might skew the picture. That can help explain why some states with bad and continuing outbreaks may fare better on this benchmark than others.
Still, the Rt is one of the better measures we have for tracking a pathogen’s spread across the whole population. When paired with the other metrics on this list, it can give us a sense of each state’s outbreak now and in the future.
3) Most states’ positive rates for tests are too high
What’s the goal? Less than 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the previous week, based on data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center and the Covid Tracking Project.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — 24 states, as well as Washington, DC.
Why is this important? To properly track and contain coronavirus outbreaks, states need to have enough testing. There are all sorts of proposals for how much testing is needed in the US, up to the tens of millions.
But one way to see if a state is testing enough to match its outbreak is the rate of tests that come back positive. An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people, many of whom don’t have the disease or don’t show severe symptoms. High positive rates indicate that only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested, so there’s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak.
The goal for the positive rate is, in an ideal world, zero percent, since that would suggest that Covid-19 is vanquished entirely. More realistically, in a world going through a pandemic, the positive rate should be below 5 percent. But even if a state reaches 5 percent, experts argue it should continue trying to push that number further down — to match nations like Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, which have gotten their positive rates below 3 percent or even 1 percent — in order to truly get ahold of their outbreaks.
As long as a state is above 5 percent, chances are it’s still missing a significant number of Covid-19 cases. And the higher that number is, the more cases that are very likely getting missed.
So even if your state is reporting a low number of daily new cases, a high positive rate should be a cause for alarm — a sign that there’s an outbreak that’s only hidden due to a lack of testing. And if your state is reporting a high number of daily new cases and a high positive rate, that’s all the more reason for concern, suggesting the epidemic is even worse than the total case count indicates.
Sign up for the Weeds newsletter. Every Friday, you’ll get an explainer of a big policy story from the week, a look at important research that recently came out, and answers to reader questions — to guide you through the first 100 days of President Joe Biden’s administration.


vox--2020-10-14--5.2 million people can’t vote due to their felony record, according to a new report

Nearly 5.2 million Americans won ’ t be able to vote in this year ’ s election due to their felony record , according to a new report from the Sentencing Project .
It ’ s an improvement from 2016 , when 6.1 million couldn ’ t vote due to a felony record .
But it means 2.3 percent of Americans old enough to vote , including 6.3 percent of Black people otherwise eligible to vote , still don ’ t have a say in the country ’ s democracy .
The vast majority of people prohibited from voting aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of people disenfranchised are in prison or jail , while 10 percent are on parole and 22 percent are on felony probation .
The rest — 43 percent — have completed their sentences but still can ’ t vote .
There ’ s a lot of state variation .
In Maine and Vermont , where people can vote from prison , 0 percent of the voting-age population is disenfranchised by a felony record .
In Massachusetts , it ’ s 0.2 percent .
In Alabama , Mississippi , and Tennessee , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is prohibited from voting due to a felony record .
That reflects differences in state laws .
Only Maine and Vermont let everyone vote , even while they ’ re in prison .
The rest impose some restrictions on voting rights — in prison , on parole , on probation , some or all of the above , or after people complete these sentences .
The numbers are worse for Black voters , who are nearly four times as likely to be disenfranchised due to a felony record as non-Black Americans .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Black voting-age population can ’ t vote .
In Tennessee , more than one in five can ’ t vote .
In Alabama , Arizona , Florida , Iowa , Kentucky , Mississippi , Nebraska , South Dakota , and Virginia , more than one in 10 can ’ t .
This by and large reflects the massive racial disparities in the criminal justice system .
The Sentencing Project ’ s figures are a slight improvement compared to 2016 .
Several states , from Nevada to Louisiana to Florida , have since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who were previously disenfranchised .
Despite the changes , millions of voters remain disenfranchised .
In Florida alone , more than 1.1 million people are barred from voting due to a felony record , nearly 900,000 of whom have completed their felony sentences .
Although voters approved a measure restoring the right to vote to most Floridians who ’ ve completed sentences , lawmakers built exceptions into the law — requiring people to pay court fees , fines , and restitution before they ’ re allowed to vote again .
The Sentencing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimates , not headcounts .
That means it ’ s likely not completely accurate .
But it ’ s the best data we have , given gaps and other limitations in official data for the criminal justice system and voter disenfranchisement .
It paints a grim picture of voting rights in the US : Despite some progress in recent years , millions of Americans still aren ’ t allowed to vote due to a felony record .
For more on felon disenfranchisement , read Vox ’ s explainer .
Help keep Vox free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Nearly 5.2 million Americans won’t be able to vote in this year’s election due to their felony record, according to a new report from the Sentencing Project.
It’s an improvement from 2016, when 6.1 million couldn’t vote due to a felony record. But it means 2.3 percent of Americans old enough to vote, including 6.3 percent of Black people otherwise eligible to vote, still don’t have a say in the country’s democracy.
The vast majority of people prohibited from voting aren’t in prison. Only 25 percent of people disenfranchised are in prison or jail, while 10 percent are on parole and 22 percent are on felony probation. The rest — 43 percent — have completed their sentences but still can’t vote.
There’s a lot of state variation. In Maine and Vermont, where people can vote from prison, 0 percent of the voting-age population is disenfranchised by a felony record. In Massachusetts, it’s 0.2 percent. In Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, at least 8 percent of the voting-age population is prohibited from voting due to a felony record.
That reflects differences in state laws. Only Maine and Vermont let everyone vote, even while they’re in prison. The rest impose some restrictions on voting rights — in prison, on parole, on probation, some or all of the above, or after people complete these sentences.
The numbers are worse for Black voters, who are nearly four times as likely to be disenfranchised due to a felony record as non-Black Americans. In Wyoming, more than a third of the Black voting-age population can’t vote. In Tennessee, more than one in five can’t vote. In Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Virginia, more than one in 10 can’t. This by and large reflects the massive racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
The Sentencing Project’s figures are a slight improvement compared to 2016. Several states, from Nevada to Louisiana to Florida, have since restored voting rights for at least some people who were previously disenfranchised.
Despite the changes, millions of voters remain disenfranchised. In Florida alone, more than 1.1 million people are barred from voting due to a felony record, nearly 900,000 of whom have completed their felony sentences. Although voters approved a measure restoring the right to vote to most Floridians who’ve completed sentences, lawmakers built exceptions into the law — requiring people to pay court fees, fines, and restitution before they’re allowed to vote again.
The Sentencing Project’s data is based on estimates, not headcounts. That means it’s likely not completely accurate. But it’s the best data we have, given gaps and other limitations in official data for the criminal justice system and voter disenfranchisement.
It paints a grim picture of voting rights in the US: Despite some progress in recent years, millions of Americans still aren’t allowed to vote due to a felony record.
For more on felon disenfranchisement, read Vox’s explainer.


vox--2020-10-15--How to watch Trump and Biden’s dueling town halls on Thursday

After the Commission on Presidential Debates officially canceled this week ’ s second presidential debate , both President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden will host town halls of their own .
Biden ’ s event in Philadelphia will air from 8 to 9:30 pm ET on ABC , hosted by George Stephanopoulos .
It will be held in person , but in compliance with state and local health regulations and health experts ’ guidelines .
Trump ’ s will take place outdoors in Miami and will air on NBC from 8 to 9 pm ET .
Today show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hall , and Trump and Guthrie will each be situated at least 12 feet from each other and their audience .
The result is dueling town hall events , setting up competition between the candidates and networks for viewership ratings .
Both will also be streamed online , with Trump ’ s on the NBC News livestream and Biden ’ s on the ABC News stream .
The format isn ’ t new to either candidate ; Stephanopoulos hosted a town hall with Trump on September 15 in Philadelphia , and Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters in recent weeks , including one with NBC in Miami — where Thursday ’ s debate was going to take place — on October 5 .
The debate was canceled after the Trump campaign initially refused to agree to a virtual debate against Biden .
The whole debate schedule has been thrown into chaos after Trump announced that he had tested positive for the coronavirus early in the morning of October 2 , less than three days after the first presidential debate in Cleveland , Ohio .
After three days at Walter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned to the White House and has since resumed campaigning .
He spoke to a packed crowd on Saturday from the White House balcony , then held a full-scale rally on Monday evening in Sanford , Florida .
The president ’ s diagnosis , and those of more than 20 other people connected to the White House , made last Wednesday ’ s vice presidential debate uncertain .
Vice President Mike Pence never tested positive , but he was exposed to Trump and several others who did .
Despite the recommendations of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris be canceled or moved virtual , it was still held in person in Salt Lake City , Utah , albeit with some extra precautions .
Trump and his campaign protested vigorously against a virtual debate , alleging it would give Biden the opportunity to receive outside help .
The president has repeatedly and without evidence questioned his opponent ’ s mental acuity , even suggesting Biden would be using an earpiece at the first debate and demanding that he take a drug test .
Trump campaign manager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate commission announced the second debate would be virtual , saying “ we ’ ll pass on this sad excuse to bail out Joe Biden and do a rally instead.
” A virtual debate would thrust into the spotlight the reasons for it being held virtually — namely , the Trump administration ’ s inadequate response to the Covid-19 crisis and the president ’ s disregard for safety measures .
In response , Biden ’ s campaign said the Democratic nominee would not attend the debate if Trump refused to do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancel it .
In a statement last Friday evening , the commission said it is turning its attention to the final presidential debate , which is still scheduled for October 22 in Nashville , Tennessee .
The Trump campaign had proposed delaying each of the last two debates a week , to October 22 and 29 , respectively , but the Biden campaign has pushed back on that , instead saying the October 22 debate should now be the town hall .
As Biden spokesperson Kate Bedingfield pointed out in a statement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years has taken place later than October 22 .
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 .
Even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

After the Commission on Presidential Debates officially canceled this week’s second presidential debate, both President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden will host town halls of their own.
Biden’s event in Philadelphia will air from 8 to 9:30 pm ET on ABC, hosted by George Stephanopoulos. It will be held in person, but in compliance with state and local health regulations and health experts’ guidelines. Trump’s will take place outdoors in Miami and will air on NBC from 8 to 9 pm ET. Today show co-host Savannah Guthrie will moderate the town hall, and Trump and Guthrie will each be situated at least 12 feet from each other and their audience.
The result is dueling town hall events, setting up competition between the candidates and networks for viewership ratings. Both will also be streamed online, with Trump’s on the NBC News livestream and Biden’s on the ABC News stream.
The format isn’t new to either candidate; Stephanopoulos hosted a town hall with Trump on September 15 in Philadelphia, and Biden has held several town hall discussions with undecided voters in recent weeks, including one with NBC in Miami — where Thursday’s debate was going to take place — on October 5.
The debate was canceled after the Trump campaign initially refused to agree to a virtual debate against Biden.
The coronavirus has made holding live events difficult
The whole debate schedule has been thrown into chaos after Trump announced that he had tested positive for the coronavirus early in the morning of October 2, less than three days after the first presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio. After three days at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, he returned to the White House and has since resumed campaigning. He spoke to a packed crowd on Saturday from the White House balcony, then held a full-scale rally on Monday evening in Sanford, Florida.
The president’s diagnosis, and those of more than 20 other people connected to the White House, made last Wednesday’s vice presidential debate uncertain. Vice President Mike Pence never tested positive, but he was exposed to Trump and several others who did. Despite the recommendations of a number of health experts that the debate between Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris be canceled or moved virtual, it was still held in person in Salt Lake City, Utah, albeit with some extra precautions.
Trump and his campaign protested vigorously against a virtual debate, alleging it would give Biden the opportunity to receive outside help. The president has repeatedly and without evidence questioned his opponent’s mental acuity, even suggesting Biden would be using an earpiece at the first debate and demanding that he take a drug test.
Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien put out a statement after the debate commission announced the second debate would be virtual, saying “we’ll pass on this sad excuse to bail out Joe Biden and do a rally instead.” A virtual debate would thrust into the spotlight the reasons for it being held virtually — namely, the Trump administration’s inadequate response to the Covid-19 crisis and the president’s disregard for safety measures.
In response, Biden’s campaign said the Democratic nominee would not attend the debate if Trump refused to do so, so the debate commission decided to cancel it. In a statement last Friday evening, the commission said it is turning its attention to the final presidential debate, which is still scheduled for October 22 in Nashville, Tennessee.
The Trump campaign had proposed delaying each of the last two debates a week, to October 22 and 29, respectively, but the Biden campaign has pushed back on that, instead saying the October 22 debate should now be the town hall. As Biden spokesperson Kate Bedingfield pointed out in a statement, no presidential debate in the past 40 years has taken place later than October 22.


vox--2020-10-15--The often-overlooked reasons why young people don’t vote

Young people don ’ t flock to the poll like older Americans do .
In 2016 , only 46 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds voted , compared to 71 percent of those over 65 ; in 2012 , those numbers were pretty much the same .
Narratives around the youth vote have long centered around apathy — that young Americans just aren ’ t showing up , even though elections impact them on issues such as climate change and educational debt .
Michelle Obama said on a recent podcast episode , “ I understand the people who voted for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote at all , the young people , the women , that ’ s when you think , man , people think this is a game.
” Others insist that young people don ’ t vote because the candidates offered to them don ’ t represent their political views .
This was a key argument behind Bernie Sanders ’ s 2020 candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination , which was built on the idea of a political revolution of youth voter turnout inspired by his socialist-leaning political agenda .
( Youth voter turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Have we been as successful as I would hope in bringing young people in ?
The answer is no , ” he said . )
But the reality is that most young people are neither apathetic nor ideologically disengaged .
They aren ’ t turning out to vote because their lives are not set up for it .
Young people are attending college , often in a different location from where they grew up .
They ’ re working full-time or part-time while attending school , often at low-wage jobs that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have access to transportation .
They move around a lot , change schools , or study abroad .
They don ’ t know where they ’ ll be living three months in the future .
“ You think about the fact that most 40-year-olds ... have a stable workweek where you kind of know when you ’ ll fit voting in on that first Tuesday in November , ” said Sunshine Hillygus , a political science professor at Duke University who co-wrote a book on young voters , on the EdSurge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a far more fluid and unstable schedule and lifestyle.
” Registering to vote — and figuring out where and how to vote — can look easy on paper .
But for many young adults , getting clear instructions , along with all the variables that can change at the last minute , is more challenging than you might think .
Hillygus suggests reforms that ease the process of voting , such as preregistering young people to vote in high school or when they get their driver ’ s license at 16 , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools that connect government and politics with teens ’ everyday lives .
Vox spoke to three young people who encountered logistical difficulties that prevented or nearly prevented them from voting .
All of them wanted to make clear that they and their young peers do want to vote , but that the barriers to making it happen can feel daunting .
“ I wondered where my ballot would go , whether it would be mailed back to my address in Atlanta or Shanghai .
And my college was in Tennessee , so I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angelina Tran , 26 , just graduated with a master ’ s degree in education policy , Georgia For the last presidential election , which would have been my first time voting for president , I was in Shanghai , China , for a college semester abroad .
I signed up for an absentee ballot when I was home in Atlanta , Georgia .
But I didn ’ t know which address to put , and I think I ended up sending it to the generic study abroad office in Shanghai .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a lot of information on what it ’ s like to vote when you are living abroad , especially in a country that may have more barriers when it comes to receiving mail from your home country .
I wondered where my ballot would go , whether it would be mailed back to my address in Atlanta or Shanghai .
And my college was in Tennessee , so I had three locations to worry about — typical millennial , moving all over the place .
I remember calling and asking my mom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot , but my mom doesn ’ t speak English so she said no ; I wasn ’ t sure if that was actually the case .
I literally was like , “ Can I just vote online ?
” There was a group of us from across the US all studying abroad .
We were really sad when we heard the election results .
From my college , there were about 15 of us — I don ’ t think anyone abroad voted via absentee ballot .
China was just confusing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confusing .
The study abroad program , which assigns us to housing , that all wasn ’ t finalized until late in the process .
It just sucks that I couldn ’ t vote .
There ’ s definitely a sense of pride and accomplishment when you vote , especially since that was such a historic election — even though Georgia is pretty much conservative , so I knew which way it would go .
But I think the idea of voting , just as one person making a difference , was important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got back to the states , I was voting in local elections because that was so much easier to navigate .
But it was disappointing that the absentee ballot abroad was really confusing .
I wish there were easier ways for people abroad to vote .
“ I requested my absentee ballot months in advance .
It never came .
” I ’ m registered to vote in southwest Michigan but go to college in Massachusetts , and in this year ’ s primary , I requested my absentee ballot months in advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with four siblings along with my mom , my aunt , and my little cousin , so it ’ s kind of a crazy house and I wasn ’ t sure if it was my fault I never got my ballot or if it got thrown away .
This problem is only going to be amplified by a million come November .
I called the clerk and she promised me it was okay to go in and vote in person .
I ’ m not immunocompromised , and I live with people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wasn ’ t too worried , though I did wear gloves and a mask .
But I wondered if everybody else would feel just as comfortable to do so .
I was able to end up voting in the primary , but it was really confusing .
Especially with the news coming out of Georgia that 1,000 people had voted twice .
I question if that ’ s really what happened or if they requested an absentee ballot that never came and went in person as well .
The coronavirus has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I called my clerk and I talked to her about that .
I mentioned that I was going back to school in the fall , but I have no idea what ’ s going to happen or if we ’ ll still even be in school by November or if we ’ ll be sent home because of an outbreak .
She just said , “ Don ’ t worry about it , just let me know where you ’ ll be by the first week of October.
” And I was like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I didn ’ t even know what my school address was going to be until a couple weeks ago because I was supposed to be studying abroad and that got canceled , so they were waiting to see what opened up before putting me into a new dorm .
It wasn ’ t anybody else ’ s fault , it was just the logistical nightmares that Covid has caused .
But that happened to a bunch of people I know who are still trying to find places to live , on or off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have already been present are being amplified at a time like this .
Luckily , it all worked out and I was able to vote .
What really worries me is that all of those students are registering for absentee ballots at their college address .
And we ’ ve already had , what , a dozen colleges who have closed down schools and sent the kids home ?
Is their first priority really gon na be , “ I need to call my clerk and get my address changed ” ?
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Where am I gon na live for the next several months ?
How am I gon na do school ?
How am I gon na get all my stuff home ?
” This election , everyone I know is really motivated to vote in .
In 2018 , the conversation was like , “ How do I get a stamp ?
Where should I mail my absentee ballot ?
” This year it ’ s like , “ I have no idea what ’ s going on .
I don ’ t even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not about apathy .
It ’ s not about having a clear choice in November .
It ’ s all about this situation which has made preexisting roadblocks to voting 10 times more difficult to overcome .
I have friends that are like , “ I will make my mom come and drive to pick me up to take me home to vote if I have to .
If I have to book a flight to go home , I can ’ t really afford that , but I will figure it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sit out .
“ I was registered to vote at my home for the primary , which was about 45 minutes away from my campus , but I didn ’ t have a car ” During the 2016 election , I was a freshman .
I had just moved in on campus .
There was so much going on .
I was a work study student , I was an honors student , I had a full class load .
Unfortunately , my school did not close for Election Day , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were due that I wasn ’ t able to figure out how to vote .
I was registered to vote at my home for the primary , which was about 45 minutes away from my campus , but I didn ’ t have a car to go back home .
I didn ’ t know that you had to re-register to vote in your locality .
It was really hard to know where to go for that information as a 17-year-old .
It ’ s not that voting wasn ’ t important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because I already assumed I was registered to vote in Virginia , where my college was , I didn ’ t realize I had to vote in my home polling place .
Making that assumption definitely could have been combated with Google , but also making sure that educational gap is filled by the university , and holding my alma mater accountable for it , has become important to me because some people don ’ t know this stuff .
They don ’ t know where to look .
I didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election registrar .
It really comes down to that gap in education .
We have students coming from all kinds of school systems .
And at 17 years old , 18 years old , you ’ re not thinking about four years ahead of you .
You ’ re thinking about now .
I was a full-time student .
On top of that , my school is heavily dependent on financial aid , and that includes work study .
Freshman year , tuition was a significant expense for me and my family , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that work study money as possible to defer those payments .
That was my No .
1 priority .
I was really fortunate to have a work study position that was on campus because I didn ’ t have transportation .
But not having a car made it even harder to try and get home .
I would have had to take the train and I didn ’ t always have time to do that , and my parents didn ’ t necessarily have time to pick me up from the train @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my polling location closed .
That was definitely a hurdle .
My priority at the time was my school and my work .
I think not all , but many school systems are failing to connect the importance of civic engagement with our daily lives .
For a lot of young people who are getting ready to vote in this election or are just barely too young to vote now , they are starting to see how politics is involved in every single aspect of our lives .
So many young people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that voting can have , especially with Black Lives Matter , LGBTQ rights , or any other movements going on .
We have the power in voting who represents us in these spaces .
When it comes to young people voting , an added hurdle is worrying about having enough money to have a roof over your head .
You are considered a young adult , you graduate college , and you just want to make sure you have everything to stay alive — like food , water , and shelter .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s so hard to find time to vote for a lot of people who fit into that demographic .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Young people don’t flock to the poll like older Americans do. In 2016, only 46 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds voted, compared to 71 percent of those over 65; in 2012, those numbers were pretty much the same.
Narratives around the youth vote have long centered around apathy — that young Americans just aren’t showing up, even though elections impact them on issues such as climate change and educational debt. Michelle Obama said on a recent podcast episode, “I understand the people who voted for Trump. The people who didn’t vote at all, the young people, the women, that’s when you think, man, people think this is a game.”
Others insist that young people don’t vote because the candidates offered to them don’t represent their political views. This was a key argument behind Bernie Sanders’s 2020 candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, which was built on the idea of a political revolution of youth voter turnout inspired by his socialist-leaning political agenda. (Youth voter turnout disappointed Sanders in the 2020 primary: “Have we been as successful as I would hope in bringing young people in? The answer is no,” he said.)
But the reality is that most young people are neither apathetic nor ideologically disengaged. They aren’t turning out to vote because their lives are not set up for it.
Young people are attending college, often in a different location from where they grew up. They’re working full-time or part-time while attending school, often at low-wage jobs that can have unstable work schedules. They don’t have access to transportation. They move around a lot, change schools, or study abroad. They don’t know where they’ll be living three months in the future.
“You think about the fact that most 40-year-olds ... have a stable workweek where you kind of know when you’ll fit voting in on that first Tuesday in November,” said Sunshine Hillygus, a political science professor at Duke University who co-wrote a book on young voters, on the EdSurge podcast. “Whereas young people have a far more fluid and unstable schedule and lifestyle.”
Registering to vote — and figuring out where and how to vote — can look easy on paper. But for many young adults, getting clear instructions, along with all the variables that can change at the last minute, is more challenging than you might think. Hillygus suggests reforms that ease the process of voting, such as preregistering young people to vote in high school or when they get their driver’s license at 16, as well as better overall civic education in schools that connect government and politics with teens’ everyday lives.
Vox spoke to three young people who encountered logistical difficulties that prevented or nearly prevented them from voting. All of them wanted to make clear that they and their young peers do want to vote, but that the barriers to making it happen can feel daunting.
“I wondered where my ballot would go, whether it would be mailed back to my address in Atlanta or Shanghai. And my college was in Tennessee, so I had three locations to worry about.”
Angelina Tran, 26, just graduated with a master’s degree in education policy, Georgia
For the last presidential election, which would have been my first time voting for president, I was in Shanghai, China, for a college semester abroad.
I signed up for an absentee ballot when I was home in Atlanta, Georgia. But I didn’t know which address to put, and I think I ended up sending it to the generic study abroad office in Shanghai. It was really confusing. There wasn’t a lot of information on what it’s like to vote when you are living abroad, especially in a country that may have more barriers when it comes to receiving mail from your home country.
I wondered where my ballot would go, whether it would be mailed back to my address in Atlanta or Shanghai. And my college was in Tennessee, so I had three locations to worry about — typical millennial, moving all over the place. I remember calling and asking my mom at home if she received an absentee ballot, but my mom doesn’t speak English so she said no; I wasn’t sure if that was actually the case. I literally was like, “Can I just vote online?”
There was a group of us from across the US all studying abroad. We were really sad when we heard the election results. From my college, there were about 15 of us — I don’t think anyone abroad voted via absentee ballot. China was just confusing, just receiving any mail in general was confusing. The study abroad program, which assigns us to housing, that all wasn’t finalized until late in the process.
It just sucks that I couldn’t vote. There’s definitely a sense of pride and accomplishment when you vote, especially since that was such a historic election — even though Georgia is pretty much conservative, so I knew which way it would go. But I think the idea of voting, just as one person making a difference, was important to me. As soon as I got back to the states, I was voting in local elections because that was so much easier to navigate. But it was disappointing that the absentee ballot abroad was really confusing. I wish there were easier ways for people abroad to vote.
“I requested my absentee ballot months in advance. It never came. ”
Lucas Carroll, 20, college student, Massachusetts
I’m registered to vote in southwest Michigan but go to college in Massachusetts, and in this year’s primary, I requested my absentee ballot months in advance. It never came. I lived with four siblings along with my mom, my aunt, and my little cousin, so it’s kind of a crazy house and I wasn’t sure if it was my fault I never got my ballot or if it got thrown away. This problem is only going to be amplified by a million come November.
I called the clerk and she promised me it was okay to go in and vote in person. I’m not immunocompromised, and I live with people who are generally young and healthy, so I wasn’t too worried, though I did wear gloves and a mask. But I wondered if everybody else would feel just as comfortable to do so.
I was able to end up voting in the primary, but it was really confusing. Especially with the news coming out of Georgia that 1,000 people had voted twice. I question if that’s really what happened or if they requested an absentee ballot that never came and went in person as well.
The coronavirus has made everything a million times more difficult. I called my clerk and I talked to her about that. I mentioned that I was going back to school in the fall, but I have no idea what’s going to happen or if we’ll still even be in school by November or if we’ll be sent home because of an outbreak. She just said, “Don’t worry about it, just let me know where you’ll be by the first week of October.” And I was like, “I have no idea.”
I didn’t even know what my school address was going to be until a couple weeks ago because I was supposed to be studying abroad and that got canceled, so they were waiting to see what opened up before putting me into a new dorm. It wasn’t anybody else’s fault, it was just the logistical nightmares that Covid has caused. But that happened to a bunch of people I know who are still trying to find places to live, on or off campus. All of these barriers that have already been present are being amplified at a time like this. Luckily, it all worked out and I was able to vote.
What really worries me is that all of those students are registering for absentee ballots at their college address. And we’ve already had, what, a dozen colleges who have closed down schools and sent the kids home? Is their first priority really gonna be, “I need to call my clerk and get my address changed”? Or is it gonna be, “Where am I gonna live for the next several months? How am I gonna do school? How am I gonna get all my stuff home?”
This election, everyone I know is really motivated to vote in. In 2018, the conversation was like, “How do I get a stamp? Where should I mail my absentee ballot?” This year it’s like, “I have no idea what’s going on. I don’t even know where to start.” It’s not about apathy. It’s not about having a clear choice in November. It’s all about this situation which has made preexisting roadblocks to voting 10 times more difficult to overcome.
I have friends that are like, “I will make my mom come and drive to pick me up to take me home to vote if I have to. If I have to book a flight to go home, I can’t really afford that, but I will figure it out.” This election is too important to sit out.
“I was registered to vote at my home for the primary, which was about 45 minutes away from my campus, but I didn’t have a car”
Erika Neal, 22, graduate student in California
During the 2016 election, I was a freshman. I had just moved in on campus. There was so much going on. I was a work study student, I was an honors student, I had a full class load. Unfortunately, my school did not close for Election Day, and I had so many tests and assignments that were due that I wasn’t able to figure out how to vote.
I was registered to vote at my home for the primary, which was about 45 minutes away from my campus, but I didn’t have a car to go back home. I didn’t know that you had to re-register to vote in your locality. It was really hard to know where to go for that information as a 17-year-old.
It’s not that voting wasn’t important to me. It was. But because I already assumed I was registered to vote in Virginia, where my college was, I didn’t realize I had to vote in my home polling place. Making that assumption definitely could have been combated with Google, but also making sure that educational gap is filled by the university, and holding my alma mater accountable for it, has become important to me because some people don’t know this stuff. They don’t know where to look. I didn’t know there was such thing as an election registrar. It really comes down to that gap in education. We have students coming from all kinds of school systems. And at 17 years old, 18 years old, you’re not thinking about four years ahead of you. You’re thinking about now.
I was a full-time student. On top of that, my school is heavily dependent on financial aid, and that includes work study. Freshman year, tuition was a significant expense for me and my family, so I wanted to use as much of that work study money as possible to defer those payments. That was my No. 1 priority.
I was really fortunate to have a work study position that was on campus because I didn’t have transportation. But not having a car made it even harder to try and get home. I would have had to take the train and I didn’t always have time to do that, and my parents didn’t necessarily have time to pick me up from the train station so I could go vote before my polling location closed. That was definitely a hurdle. My priority at the time was my school and my work.
I think not all, but many school systems are failing to connect the importance of civic engagement with our daily lives. For a lot of young people who are getting ready to vote in this election or are just barely too young to vote now, they are starting to see how politics is involved in every single aspect of our lives. So many young people of color are starting to understand the impact that voting can have, especially with Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ rights, or any other movements going on. We have the power in voting who represents us in these spaces.
When it comes to young people voting, an added hurdle is worrying about having enough money to have a roof over your head. You are considered a young adult, you graduate college, and you just want to make sure you have everything to stay alive — like food, water, and shelter. The cost of living is so expensive. It’s so hard to find time to vote for a lot of people who fit into that demographic.


vox--2020-10-15--Amy Coney Barrett’s opposition to Obamacare, explained

As a presidential candidate , Donald Trump promised to appoint nominees who would “ do the right thing unlike Bush ’ s appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare.
” Chief Justice John Roberts famously voted to preserve most of the Affordable Care Act ( the ACA ) in NFIB v. Sebelius ( 2012 ) , and later rejected arguments in another partisan lawsuit , King v. Burwell ( 2015 ) , seeking to undercut the law .
Like Trump , Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is a critic of Roberts ’ s decisions upholding most of Obamacare .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , Barrett denounced Roberts ’ s opinions in both NFIB and King , claiming the chief justice “ pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute ” in the first decision .
If Obamacare is struck down , roughly 20 million Americans will lose health coverage — a likely conservative estimate , as it does not count many people who have lost their employer-provided health insurance during the Covid-19 pandemic .
Questions over Obamacare have taken a starring role in Barrett ’ s confirmation hearing .
Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s objections to the NFIB and King decisions and frequently referred to California v. Texas , a third case attacking Obamacare that the Supreme Court will hear in November .
Barrett didn ’ t deny criticizing the NFIB and King opinions , but suggested that perhaps she didn ’ t engage in particularly rigorous analysis when she attacked those two decisions .
After Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) asked Barrett about a 2015 NPR interview in which the future judge claimed the dissenting justices had the “ better of the legal argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was merely a law professor when she made that statement .
“ A professor professes and can opine , ” Barrett claimed , adding that she did not go through the “ judicial decision-making process ” when she determined that King was wrongly decided .
In any event , Barrett ’ s prior opposition to Obamacare raises two distinct questions .
One is how she would rule in Texas — the case currently before the Supreme Court .
As Barrett repeatedly noted throughout her testimony , the specific legal issues in Texas are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and she indicated she might favor a particular rationale on “ severability ” that could preserve Obamacare .
So it is entirely possible she would reject the ( extraordinarily weak ) arguments against the health care law raised in the Texas case .
The other question is whether Barrett would rule against Obamacare in a future case .
NFIB was a 5-4 decision ( at least on the question of whether to uphold most of the law ) , with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the majority .
And King @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Anthony Kennedy and Ginsburg in the majority .
So it is far from clear that the justices will arrive at the same result if similar cases reach a newly constituted Court in the future .
Barrett ’ s record , in other words , suggests she is a long-term threat to the viability of the ACA — even though the Court may very well still reject the unusually shaky legal arguments in Texas .
The plaintiffs ’ arguments in Texas would be laughable — if lives weren ’ t at stake NFIB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual mandate ” — a provision requiring most Americans to pay a penalty tax if they did not have health insurance — was a valid exercise of Congress ’ s power to levy taxes .
King held that a poorly drafted provision of Obamacare should not be read to effectively destroy many states ’ individual health insurance markets .
Texas , by contrast , asks the Supreme Court to strike down the entire ACA because of Congress ’ s decision to repeal the individual mandate in 2017 .
The plaintiffs ’ arguments go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signed in 2017 eliminated the individual mandate by reducing the amount of the tax owed by people who did not have insurance to zero dollars .
But the amended law still contains language providing that these individuals “ shall ” carry insurance — there ’ s just no consequence for individuals who don ’ t .
As NFIB held that the fully functional mandate is a valid exercise of Congress ’ s power to tax , the plaintiffs in Texas argue that a zeroed-out mandate is unconstitutional because a zero-dollar tax is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plausible legal argument , though not an entirely airtight one .
But it might be unclear why anyone should care : Does it matter if a provision of law that does nothing at all is constitutional or not ?
The answer can be summarized in one word : “ severability.
” When a court strikes down a provision of law that is part of a broader statute , it often must ask whether the rest of the statute can stand without the invalid provision .
Yet , as the Supreme Court held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , courts should preserve as much of the statute as possible .
“ In order for other ... provisions to fall , ” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court in Murphy , “ it must be ‘ evident that [ Congress ] would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power , independently of [ those ] which [ are ] not.
’ ” No reasonable judge could conclude that additional provisions of the ACA should fall , even if the zeroed-out mandate is unconstitutional .
In 2017 , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ACA in full , Congress decided to repeal just one provision — the individual mandate .
We know , in other words , that Congress would have preferred for the mandate to fall and the rest of the statute to stand because Congress voted to repeal the mandate and let the rest of the statute stand .
In any event , there is some evidence that even Barrett , who criticized the Court ’ s decisions in NFIB and King , may not be convinced by the Texas plaintiffs ’ weak legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination , Barrett served as a judge in a moot court case — a kind of exhibition game for lawyers wherein advocates present legal arguments before a panel of judges — involving the same arguments as the Texas case .
Though Barrett emphasized that her vote in a fake court hearing does not necessarily predict how she would rule if confirmed to the Supreme Court , she revealed during her confirmation hearing that she determined the zeroed-out mandate is “ unconstitutional but severable ” in that moot court exercise .
So , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court hearing , Barrett voted to preserve all the parts of Obamacare that actually do something .
Barrett is still a threat to Obamacare in a future case One thing that distinguishes Texas from NFIB and King : Even many conservative opponents of Obamacare view the plaintiffs ’ legal arguments in Texas as absurd .
Yuval Levin , a prominent conservative policy wonk , wrote in the National Review that the Texas lawsuit “ doesn ’ t even merit being called silly .
It ’ s ridiculous.
” Jonathan Adler , a conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plaintiffs ’ arguments in King , labeled many of the Texas plaintiffs ’ arguments “ implausible , ” “ hard to justify , ” and “ surprisingly weak.
” The Wall Street Journal ’ s editorial board labeled this lawsuit the “ Texas Obamacare Blunder.
” But when NFIB and King reached the Supreme Court , the plaintiffs ’ arguments in those cases were also widely viewed as weak — even as they were touted by many conservative legal elites and elected Republicans .
On the eve of Supreme Court arguments in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bar Association poll of Supreme Court experts found that 85 percent believed the Affordable Care Act would be upheld , and another 9 percent believed the Court would dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction .
And yet , five justices accepted most of the plaintiffs ’ legal arguments in NFIB , and four of them voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety .
As Yale Law School ’ s Jack Balkin has written , judges and justices are frequently influenced by political movements that are backed by the leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fringe legal arguments “ move from off the wall to on the wall because people and institutions are willing to put their reputations on the line and state that an argument formerly thought beyond the pale is not crazy at all , but is actually a pretty good legal argument , ” Balkin wrote in a 2012 article explaining why so many Republican judges and justices embraced arguments in NFIB that were previously viewed as meritless .
This process of moving fringe arguments “ from off the wall to on the wall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when a political party backs such an argument .
“ When establishment politicians — who , after all , have to stand for election and don ’ t want to be thought out-of-touch to their constituents — get behind a constitutional argument , ” Balkin writes , “ they often help move it forward quickly.
” Barrett ’ s record suggests that she is susceptible to this process .
However she votes in the Texas case , after all , her record shows that she agreed with the Republican Party ’ s position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many other conservative legal experts , Barrett may very well reject the Texas attack on Obamacare .
But Republicans have hardly given up their quest to kill the Affordable Care Act .
If Barrett is confirmed , Republicans will control six of the nine seats on the Supreme Court .
It is all but inevitable that Republican lawyers will bring another lawsuit attacking Obamacare .
And if the party ’ s leaders and intellectuals give that suit their full backing , Barrett may join them .
Will you help keep Vox free for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 our resource-intensive work .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump promised to appoint nominees who would “do the right thing unlike Bush’s appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare.” Chief Justice John Roberts famously voted to preserve most of the Affordable Care Act (the ACA) in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), and later rejected arguments in another partisan lawsuit, King v. Burwell (2015), seeking to undercut the law.
If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2015
Like Trump, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is a critic of Roberts’s decisions upholding most of Obamacare. In a book review published in 2017, for example, Barrett denounced Roberts’s opinions in both NFIB and King, claiming the chief justice “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute” in the first decision.
If Obamacare is struck down, roughly 20 million Americans will lose health coverage — a likely conservative estimate, as it does not count many people who have lost their employer-provided health insurance during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Questions over Obamacare have taken a starring role in Barrett’s confirmation hearing. Democratic senators have repeatedly brought up Barrett’s objections to the NFIB and King decisions and frequently referred to California v. Texas, a third case attacking Obamacare that the Supreme Court will hear in November.
Barrett didn’t deny criticizing the NFIB and King opinions, but suggested that perhaps she didn’t engage in particularly rigorous analysis when she attacked those two decisions.
After Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asked Barrett about a 2015 NPR interview in which the future judge claimed the dissenting justices had the “better of the legal argument” in King, Barrett said she was merely a law professor when she made that statement. “A professor professes and can opine,” Barrett claimed, adding that she did not go through the “judicial decision-making process” when she determined that King was wrongly decided.
In any event, Barrett’s prior opposition to Obamacare raises two distinct questions. One is how she would rule in Texas — the case currently before the Supreme Court. As Barrett repeatedly noted throughout her testimony, the specific legal issues in Texas are distinct from those in NFIB and King, and she indicated she might favor a particular rationale on “severability” that could preserve Obamacare. So it is entirely possible she would reject the (extraordinarily weak) arguments against the health care law raised in the Texas case.
The other question is whether Barrett would rule against Obamacare in a future case. NFIB was a 5-4 decision (at least on the question of whether to uphold most of the law), with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the majority. And King was a 6-3 decision, with retired Justice Anthony Kennedy and Ginsburg in the majority. So it is far from clear that the justices will arrive at the same result if similar cases reach a newly constituted Court in the future.
Barrett’s record, in other words, suggests she is a long-term threat to the viability of the ACA — even though the Court may very well still reject the unusually shaky legal arguments in Texas.
The plaintiffs’ arguments in Texas would be laughable — if lives weren’t at stake
NFIB held that the ACA’s “individual mandate” — a provision requiring most Americans to pay a penalty tax if they did not have health insurance — was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to levy taxes. King held that a poorly drafted provision of Obamacare should not be read to effectively destroy many states’ individual health insurance markets.
Texas, by contrast, asks the Supreme Court to strike down the entire ACA because of Congress’s decision to repeal the individual mandate in 2017.
The plaintiffs’ arguments go like this: The tax law Trump signed in 2017 eliminated the individual mandate by reducing the amount of the tax owed by people who did not have insurance to zero dollars. But the amended law still contains language providing that these individuals “shall” carry insurance — there’s just no consequence for individuals who don’t.
As NFIB held that the fully functional mandate is a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax, the plaintiffs in Texas argue that a zeroed-out mandate is unconstitutional because a zero-dollar tax is no tax at all. That’s a plausible legal argument, though not an entirely airtight one. But it might be unclear why anyone should care: Does it matter if a provision of law that does nothing at all is constitutional or not?
The answer can be summarized in one word: “severability.” When a court strikes down a provision of law that is part of a broader statute, it often must ask whether the rest of the statute can stand without the invalid provision. Yet, as the Supreme Court held in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), courts should preserve as much of the statute as possible.
“In order for other ... provisions to fall,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court in Murphy, “it must be ‘evident that [Congress] would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of [those] which [are] not.’”
No reasonable judge could conclude that additional provisions of the ACA should fall, even if the zeroed-out mandate is unconstitutional. In 2017, after a long debate over whether to repeal the ACA in full, Congress decided to repeal just one provision — the individual mandate. We know, in other words, that Congress would have preferred for the mandate to fall and the rest of the statute to stand because Congress voted to repeal the mandate and let the rest of the statute stand.
In any event, there is some evidence that even Barrett, who criticized the Court’s decisions in NFIB and King, may not be convinced by the Texas plaintiffs’ weak legal reasoning.
Shortly before her Supreme Court nomination, Barrett served as a judge in a moot court case — a kind of exhibition game for lawyers wherein advocates present legal arguments before a panel of judges — involving the same arguments as the Texas case.
Though Barrett emphasized that her vote in a fake court hearing does not necessarily predict how she would rule if confirmed to the Supreme Court, she revealed during her confirmation hearing that she determined the zeroed-out mandate is “unconstitutional but severable” in that moot court exercise.
So, at least in the context of a pretend court hearing, Barrett voted to preserve all the parts of Obamacare that actually do something.
Barrett is still a threat to Obamacare in a future case
One thing that distinguishes Texas from NFIB and King: Even many conservative opponents of Obamacare view the plaintiffs’ legal arguments in Texas as absurd.
Yuval Levin, a prominent conservative policy wonk, wrote in the National Review that the Texas lawsuit “doesn’t even merit being called silly. It’s ridiculous.” Jonathan Adler, a conservative law professor and a leading evangelist for the plaintiffs’ arguments in King, labeled many of the Texas plaintiffs’ arguments “implausible,” “hard to justify,” and “surprisingly weak.” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board labeled this lawsuit the “Texas Obamacare Blunder.”
But when NFIB and King reached the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs’ arguments in those cases were also widely viewed as weak — even as they were touted by many conservative legal elites and elected Republicans. On the eve of Supreme Court arguments in NFIB, for example, an American Bar Association poll of Supreme Court experts found that 85 percent believed the Affordable Care Act would be upheld, and another 9 percent believed the Court would dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
And yet, five justices accepted most of the plaintiffs’ legal arguments in NFIB, and four of them voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.
As Yale Law School’s Jack Balkin has written, judges and justices are frequently influenced by political movements that are backed by the leaders of those judges’ political party. Fringe legal arguments “move from off the wall to on the wall because people and institutions are willing to put their reputations on the line and state that an argument formerly thought beyond the pale is not crazy at all, but is actually a pretty good legal argument,” Balkin wrote in a 2012 article explaining why so many Republican judges and justices embraced arguments in NFIB that were previously viewed as meritless.
This process of moving fringe arguments “from off the wall to on the wall,” moreover, can move quite quickly when a political party backs such an argument. “When establishment politicians — who, after all, have to stand for election and don’t want to be thought out-of-touch to their constituents — get behind a constitutional argument,” Balkin writes, “they often help move it forward quickly.”
Barrett’s record suggests that she is susceptible to this process. However she votes in the Texas case, after all, her record shows that she agreed with the Republican Party’s position in both NFIB and King.
Like many other conservative legal experts, Barrett may very well reject the Texas attack on Obamacare. But Republicans have hardly given up their quest to kill the Affordable Care Act.
If Barrett is confirmed, Republicans will control six of the nine seats on the Supreme Court. It is all but inevitable that Republican lawyers will bring another lawsuit attacking Obamacare. And if the party’s leaders and intellectuals give that suit their full backing, Barrett may join them.
ntribute today from as little as $3.