vox--2020-06-26--Colleges say campuses can reopen safely. Students and faculty aren’t convinced.

As colleges across the United States slowly unveil campus reopening plans , I keep thinking of something Scott Galloway , a professor of marketing at New York University and co-host of the Pivot podcast , told New York magazine in May : “ At universities , we ’ re having constant meetings , and we ’ ve all adopted this narrative of ‘ This is unprecedented , and we ’ re in this together , ’ which is Latin for ‘ We ’ re not lowering our prices , bitches.
’ ” Galloway ’ s statement might come off as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model of most American colleges .
But there ’ s a stark element of truth to it : Many institutions , particularly smaller schools that are dependent on tuition to survive , are wary of the possibility of low enrollment numbers and declining revenue if online classes continue into the fall .
While some undergraduates have expressed reservations about paying full tuition for remote learning , many students ( both undergraduate and graduate alike ) , staff , and faculty are unconvinced that reopening for the fall will be the best course of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being asked to weigh the public health of their community against their bottom line ; yet , many administrators appear to be hoping — or in some cases , actively planning — for a return to a new normalcy .
In late May , the president of Notre Dame University published an opinion piece in the New York Times with the headline , “ We ’ re reopening Notre Dame .
It ’ s worth the risk.
” To be clear , Rev .
John Jenkins is not calling for a reopening without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already , people regularly take on and impose risks “ for the good of society.
” With careful planning backed by scientific research , Jenkins believes that “ the good of educating students and continuing vital research is very much worth the remaining risk.
” As of June 24 , the Chronicle of Higher Education , which is tracking more than 1,000 campus reopening plans , reported that 63 percent of colleges will offer an in-person semester , 17 percent will operate under a hybrid model , and only 8 percent will commit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent are considering a “ range of scenarios , ” while the other 5 percent are still waiting to decide . )
Colleges preparing to welcome students to campus have outlined preventative measures like socially distanced classrooms , increased cleaning , mandated face masks , fever checkpoints , and dormitory-turned-quarantine facilities in case of an outbreak .
Most campuses are emphasizing coronavirus testing and contact tracing , and some have revised the academic calendar to have fewer breaks and end the semester by Thanksgiving .
These campus preparations are slated to cost millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which are struggling with reduced budgets , the Wall Street Journal reported .
And as the pandemic continues to run its course , students and faculty are pushing for transparency in administrative decisions and voicing concerns about health care , fair pay , and policy enforcement as schools refine their fall plans .
“ What we ’ re seeing is a chaotic , state-by-state patchwork of various options , ” Jelena Subotic , a professor of political science at Georgia State University , told me .
“ Universities are really in a bind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in-person experience , but by pushing that side of the argument , it ’ ll be hard to maintain a lot of the safety precautions because , as a country , we ’ ve kind of abandoned the pursuit of mitigation.
” States like Arizona , California , Florida , and Texas are currently seeing a surge in cases — months after places like New York , New Jersey , and Illinois have peaked and witnessed a decline .
Universities have to weigh those uncertainties , but statewide decisions can also be driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is part of the state ’ s system of public universities , is following policies issued by the state of Georgia .
Because Georgia only recommends — and not requires — masks in public , there ’ s no strict mandate to wear a face covering or mask in the classroom , Subotic said .
Hundreds of people have signed an online petition asking the University System of Georgia to revise its policies , but public universities may have far less flexibility , compared to their private counterparts , when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelchen , a professor of higher education , predicted in the Chronicle that a “ similar game of follow-the-leader ” — akin to the wave of sudden campus closures in March — will occur as the fall semester nears at both public and private schools , driven by the decisions from prestigious colleges who ’ ve opted to revert course and stay online due to public health concerns .
But already , health experts worry that a second round of lockdowns might not be as effective .
“ I know that if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will obey social distancing , ” said Olivia , an incoming senior at Washington and Lee University in Lexington , Virginia , who asked to be referred to by her first name out of privacy concerns .
“ The student body is overwhelmingly conservative and the faculty seem to be more conservative than most universities.
” This leads her to believe that many of her peers might refuse to wear a mask or comply with social distancing — a worrisome reality since she has pre-existing health conditions that make her more vulnerable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we are back on campus , no one will obey social distancing ” It ’ s likely that students , regardless of their political beliefs , aren ’ t going to play it safe when campuses reopen , despite colleges ’ best efforts to squelch social activities .
Young people in their early 20s are more likely to engage in risk-seeking behavior , and the close-knit reality of residential life encourages that .
“ I know that parties would still happen , regardless of whatever measures the school takes to try and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While she wanted to spend a part of her senior year on campus , she said she ’ d prefer an online option if it meant reducing the virus ’ s spread , especially to the Lexington community that has a high population of elderly residents .
Universities operate like small individual towns , and often have centralized health care systems for students and faculty .
“ If there is a sizable outbreak , I don ’ t trust the existing health systems to adequately handle it , ” Olivia said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical treatment of my life by far in Lexington , mainly from our health center on campus.
” Campus reopenings will likely exacerbate existing issues within a school ’ s infrastructure .
Colleges have struggled for years to meet students ’ counseling needs , and health center staff will likely be stretched thin , with increased testing and an influx of sick people if an outbreak occurs .
To reduce density and limit the number of people on campus , some universities are pursuing a hybrid model comprising in-person and online courses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the expense of instructors and staff .
Graduate students , adjuncts , and professors could still be expected to teach in-person , while increasing their workload by juggling on-campus and online courses .
Campus janitors might have to clean more frequently and intensely , and food service workers could be tasked with modifying how they prepare meals .
“ All this added labor doesn ’ t seem to have an added value or a better salary , when considering hazard pay , ” said Guillermo Caballero , a doctoral candidate in political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the graduate student advocacy group GROW .
“ If you ’ re asking us to increase workload , to do both in-person and online , it isn ’ t easy.
” Instructors ’ top-of-mind concerns are related to in-person teaching : Many worry about the potential of contracting a serious case of Covid-19 , and there ’ s a lack of clarity around who gets to be exempted .
Not only that , the onus to enforce public health policies , like mask-wearing or social distancing , usually falls on the instructor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to attend , but faculty and graduate students are required to teach , ” Subotic said , adding that budget cuts have significantly reduced Georgia State ’ s adjunct workforce .
“ For us to be exempt , we have to show our human resources department that we ’ re high risk .
But even if I live with somebody at home who is high risk , that doesn ’ t constitute an exemption.
” Some colleges appear to be pushing instructors to take a leave of absence if they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ability to teach remotely varies by institution .
Jason Helms , an associate professor of English at Texas Christian University , recently went viral on Twitter after posting about how his request to teach remotely was denied .
Helms , a tenured professor , has a young daughter with a heart condition at home , and thought he would be able to work remotely under the American with Disabilities Act .
( The school suggested he take a leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act . )
After significant pushback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced on June 25 that all instructors , including contingent faculty and graduate students , will have the option to teach online .
A university ’ s workforce doesn ’ t solely consist of tenured professors , whose jobs are more secure .
Adjuncts and graduate students tend to be more financially vulnerable , and work with significantly less labor protections .
Boston University recently sent out an email to doctoral students ( who have teaching responsibilities ) informing them that , while on leave of absence , the university won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if they can take classes remotely .
Caroline Bayne , a doctoral candidate at the University of Minnesota in Twin Cities , said the in-person teaching precautions appeared to be “ designed by people who haven ’ t spent much time in a classroom.
” The university is requiring students to physically distance , increase cleaning , mandate mask wearing , and possibly extending hours of class operations into the weekend to decrease capacity .
Bayne , who teaches in the department of communication studies , told me that young , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority and space in the class , on top of teaching about subjects like race , gender , and sexuality that can open them to critique from students .
Plus , some classrooms are small and difficult to move around in .
“ We aren ’ t trained in dealing with crises in the classroom , ” she said .
“ It seems incredibly unrealistic to suggest these Covid-19-related precautions are feasible solutions when our classrooms are already deficient in so many ways irrespective of the virus.
” At Purdue University , graduate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that while the college ’ s “ soft opening ” is slated to start in July , they feel unprepared and unconfident in the plans set forth .
According to a survey by Purdue ’ s faculty-led University Senate , more than half of faculty , staff , and graduate students said they feel unsafe returning to campus by August for the fall .
“ We don ’ t have a clear picture of what it will look like , or even how unique courses , like labs or fieldwork , will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said David Savage , a doctoral student in the department of forestry and natural resources .
“ The university is saying a lot of words , but not conveying a lot of information.
” “ The university is saying a lot of words , but not conveying a lot of information ” Universities are also not insulated from the local communities they ’ re a part of .
Depending on the size of the school , a campus can occupy a significant part of the landscape , and residents and businesses of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wave of students that come and go every year .
This fall , however , their arrival carries new risk , with the possibility of an overburdened health care system in case of an outbreak .
In Cornell University ’ s detailed 97-page reopening report , the school acknowledged that it is “ inevitable ” returning students , faculty , or staff will be carrying the virus .
“ Our overall goal is to implement approaches to campus re-activation that will mitigate the burden of infection and severity of disease , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the greatest extent possible , ” the report concluded .
Many campuses like Cornell are counting on these mitigation strategies to reduce harm .
Harm , then , appears to be a trade-off in the pursuit of reopening .
The coronavirus has already shown that it disproportionately takes the lives of Black Americans and impacts low-income neighborhoods .
It ’ s not exactly clear whether the sentiment of “ We ’ re all in this together , ” as Galloway mentioned in his New York magazine interview , applies — to surrounding communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially if most plans fail to address worst-case scenarios .
“ It ’ s concerning , ” said Savage , the Purdue doctoral student .
“ There ’ s no consideration of what a failure state would look like in the fall.
” Update , June 26 : The story is updated to reflect Texas Christian University ’ s teaching policy , which allows all instructors , including contingent faculty and graduate students , to choose whether they can teach online .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As colleges across the United States slowly unveil campus reopening plans, I keep thinking of something Scott Galloway, a professor of marketing at New York University and co-host of the Pivot podcast, told New York magazine in May: “At universities, we’re having constant meetings, and we’ve all adopted this narrative of ‘This is unprecedented, and we’re in this together,’ which is Latin for ‘We’re not lowering our prices, bitches.’”
Galloway’s statement might come off as crass to those unfamiliar with the financial model of most American colleges. But there’s a stark element of truth to it: Many institutions, particularly smaller schools that are dependent on tuition to survive, are wary of the possibility of low enrollment numbers and declining revenue if online classes continue into the fall.
While some undergraduates have expressed reservations about paying full tuition for remote learning, many students (both undergraduate and graduate alike), staff, and faculty are unconvinced that reopening for the fall will be the best course of action. Universities across the country are being asked to weigh the public health of their community against their bottom line; yet, many administrators appear to be hoping — or in some cases, actively planning — for a return to a new normalcy.
In late May, the president of the University of Notre Dame published an opinion piece in the New York Times with the headline, “We’re reopening Notre Dame. It’s worth the risk.” To be clear, Rev. John Jenkins is not calling for a reopening without any safety measures; he argues that already, people regularly take on and impose risks “for the good of society.” With careful planning backed by scientific research, Jenkins believes that “the good of educating students and continuing vital research is very much worth the remaining risk.”
As of June 24, the Chronicle of Higher Education, which is tracking more than 1,000 campus reopening plans, reported that 63 percent of colleges will offer an in-person semester, 17 percent will operate under a hybrid model, and only 8 percent will commit to remote learning. (About 7 percent are considering a “range of scenarios,” while the other 5 percent are still waiting to decide.)
Colleges preparing to welcome students to campus have outlined preventive measures like socially distanced classrooms, increased cleaning, mandated face masks, fever checkpoints, and dormitory-turned-quarantine facilities in case of an outbreak. Most campuses are emphasizing coronavirus testing and contact tracing, and some have revised the academic calendar to have fewer breaks and end the semester by Thanksgiving.
what will college classrooms look like this fall? here's what American University is planning: https://t.co/ed5Oxv8ikk pic.twitter.com/AqzL8wb4On — Andrew Giambrone (@AndrewGiambrone) June 16, 2020
These campus preparations are slated to cost millions of dollars for schools, most of which are struggling with reduced budgets, the Wall Street Journal reported. And as the pandemic continues to run its course, students and faculty are pushing for transparency in administrative decisions and voicing concerns about health care, fair pay, and policy enforcement as schools refine their fall plans.
“What we’re seeing is a chaotic, state-by-state patchwork of various options,” Jelena Subotic, a professor of political science at Georgia State University, told me. “Universities are really in a bind. They know that students prefer the in-person experience, but by pushing that side of the argument, it’ll be hard to maintain a lot of the safety precautions because, as a country, we’ve kind of abandoned the pursuit of mitigation.”
States like Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas are currently seeing a surge in cases — months after places like New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have peaked and witnessed a decline. Universities have to weigh those uncertainties, but statewide decisions can also be driven by political pressure.
Georgia State, which is part of the state’s system of public universities, is following policies issued by the state of Georgia. Because Georgia only recommends — and not requires — masks in public, there’s no strict mandate to wear a face covering or mask in the classroom, Subotic said. Hundreds of people have signed an online petition asking the University System of Georgia to revise its policies, but public universities may have far less flexibility, compared to their private counterparts, when it comes to complying with state policy.
Robert Kelchen, a professor of higher education, predicted in the Chronicle that a “similar game of follow-the-leader” — akin to the wave of sudden campus closures in March — will occur as the fall semester nears at both public and private schools, driven by the decisions from prestigious colleges who’ve opted to revert course and stay online due to public health concerns. But already, health experts worry that a second round of lockdowns might not be as effective.
“I know that if we are back on campus, no one will obey social distancing,” said Olivia, an incoming senior at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, who asked to be referred to by her first name out of privacy concerns. “The student body is overwhelmingly conservative and the faculty seem to be more conservative than most universities.” This leads her to believe that many of her peers might refuse to wear a mask or comply with social distancing — a worrisome reality since she has pre-existing health conditions that make her more vulnerable to the virus.
“I know that if we are back on campus, no one will obey social distancing”
It’s likely that students, regardless of their political beliefs, aren’t going to play it safe when campuses reopen, despite colleges’ best efforts to squelch social activities. Young people in their early 20s are more likely to engage in risk-seeking behavior, and the close-knit reality of residential life encourages that.
“I know that parties would still happen, regardless of whatever measures the school takes to try and discourage them,” Olivia told me. While she wanted to spend a part of her senior year on campus, she said she’d prefer an online option if it meant reducing the virus’s spread, especially to the Lexington community that has a high population of elderly residents. Universities operate like small individual towns, and often have centralized health care systems for students and faculty.
“If there is a sizable outbreak, I don’t trust the existing health systems to adequately handle it,” Olivia said. “I’ve had the worst medical treatment of my life by far in Lexington, mainly from our health center on campus.”
Campus reopenings will likely exacerbate existing issues within a school’s infrastructure. Colleges have struggled for years to meet students’ counseling needs, and health center staff will likely be stretched thin, with increased testing and an influx of sick people if an outbreak occurs.
To reduce density and limit the number of people on campus, some universities are pursuing a hybrid model comprising in-person and online courses. Still, this balancing act could come at the expense of instructors and staff. Graduate students, adjuncts, and professors could still be expected to teach in person, while increasing their workload by juggling on-campus and online courses. Campus janitors might have to clean more frequently and intensely, and food service workers could be tasked with modifying how they prepare meals.
“All this added labor doesn’t seem to have an added value or a better salary, when considering hazard pay,” said Guillermo Caballero, a doctoral candidate in political science at Purdue University and member of the graduate student advocacy group GROW. “If you’re asking us to increase workload, to do both in-person and online, it isn’t easy.”
Instructors’ top-of-mind concerns are related to in-person teaching: Many worry about the potential of contracting a serious case of Covid-19, and there’s a lack of clarity around who gets to be exempted. Not only that, the onus to enforce public health policies, like mask-wearing or social distancing, usually falls on the instructor.
“Right now, students can choose not to attend, but faculty and graduate students are required to teach,” Subotic said, adding that budget cuts have significantly reduced Georgia State’s adjunct workforce. “For us to be exempt, we have to show our human resources department that we’re high risk. But even if I live with somebody at home who is high risk, that doesn’t constitute an exemption.”
Some colleges appear to be pushing instructors to take a leave of absence if they’re uncomfortable with returning to campus, and the ability to teach remotely varies by institution. Jason Helms, an associate professor of English at Texas Christian University, recently went viral on Twitter after posting about how his request to teach remotely was denied. Helms, a tenured professor, has a young daughter with a heart condition at home, and thought he would be able to work remotely under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (The school suggested he take a leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act.) After significant pushback from faculty, however, the university announced on June 25 that all instructors, including contingent faculty and graduate students, will have the option to teach online.
A university’s workforce doesn’t solely consist of tenured professors, whose jobs are more secure. Adjuncts and graduate students tend to be more financially vulnerable, and work with significantly less labor protections. Boston University sent out an email on mid-June to doctoral students (who have teaching responsibilities) informing them that, while on leave of absence, the university will not cover medical insurance or provide stipend support.
The university recently updated its policy, which will cover tuition and health insurance for doctoral students who enroll in the school’s remote learning program, but excludes teaching stipends. “Generally speaking, we expect PhD students to be on campus to receive stipends,” a university spokesperson told me via email. “For a PhD student who cannot return to campus in the fall and who believes they can effectively do service work off campus, they may contact their program director of director of graduate studies to discuss what options are available.”
BREAKING: #BostonUniversity sent a memo saying PhD students can continue to receive their health insurance if they take classes remotely. (But still no stipend)
Previously, any PhD student who did not return to campus risked losing their stipend & health insurance. pic.twitter.com/72j9GOl0Im — Grace Ferguson (@fergusonreports) June 30, 2020
Caroline Bayne, a doctoral candidate at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, said the in-person teaching precautions appeared to be “designed by people who haven’t spent much time in a classroom.” The university is requiring students to physically distance, increasing cleaning, mandating mask wearing, and possibly extending hours of class operations into the weekend to decrease capacity.
Bayne, who teaches in the department of communication studies, told me that young, non-tenured instructors already work hard to maintain authority and space in class, on top of teaching about subjects like race, gender, and sexuality that can open them to critique from students. Plus, some classrooms are small and difficult to move around in.
“We aren’t trained in dealing with crises in the classroom,” she said. “It seems incredibly unrealistic to suggest these Covid-19-related precautions are feasible solutions when our classrooms are already deficient in so many ways irrespective of the virus.”
At Purdue University, graduate students in the advocacy group GROW say that while the college’s “soft opening” is slated to start in July, they feel unprepared and unconfident in the plans set forth. According to a survey by Purdue’s faculty-led University Senate, more than half of faculty, staff, and graduate students said they feel unsafe returning to campus by August for the fall.
“We don’t have a clear picture of what it will look like, or even how unique courses, like labs or fieldwork, will be like in terms of safety measures,” said David Savage, a doctoral student in the department of forestry and natural resources. “The university is saying a lot of words, but not conveying a lot of information.”
“The university is saying a lot of words, but not conveying a lot of information”
Universities are also not insulated from the local communities they’re a part of. Depending on the size of the school, a campus can occupy a significant part of the landscape, and residents and businesses of these towns and cities are accustomed to the wave of students that come and go every year. This fall, however, their arrival carries new risk, with the possibility of an overburdened health care system in case of an outbreak.
In Cornell University’s detailed 97-page reopening report, the school acknowledged that it is “inevitable” returning students, faculty, or staff will be carrying the virus. “Our overall goal is to implement approaches to campus re-activation that will mitigate the burden of infection and severity of disease, while minimizing disruption to normal campus life to the greatest extent possible,” the report concluded.
Many campuses like Cornell are counting on these mitigation strategies to reduce harm. Harm, then, appears to be a trade-off in the pursuit of reopening. The coronavirus has already shown that it disproportionately takes the lives of Black Americans and impacts low-income neighborhoods. It’s not exactly clear whether the sentiment of “We’re all in this together,” as Galloway mentioned in his New York magazine interview, applies — to surrounding communities, instructors, or even students, especially if most plans fail to address worst-case scenarios.
“It’s concerning,” said Savage, the Purdue doctoral student. “There’s no consideration of what a failure state would look like in the fall.”
Updates, July 1: The story is updated to reflect Boston University’s updated remote learning policy for PhD students, and Texas Christian University’s teaching policy, which allows all instructors, including contingent faculty and graduate students, to choose whether they can teach online.


vox--2020-06-26--DC is closer to becoming a state now than it has ever been

If the House of Representatives passes a bill granting statehood to the District of Columbia on Friday , as is expected , it will be the first time in the nation ’ s history that either house of Congress approved legislation granting full statehood and congressional representation to DC ’ s more than 700,000 residents .
For at least the next several months , the bill is highly unlikely to travel far beyond the House .
There ’ s little chance that the Republican-controlled Senate will agree to give two senators to an overwhelmingly Democratic city .
And even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate , President Donald Trump has said that Republicans would be “ very , very stupid ” to allow DC statehood .
He ’ s all but certain to veto the bill .
But statehood for the District of Columbia , whose residents pay federal taxes but have no vote in Congress , is arguably closer than it ’ s ever been .
Trump trails Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , who endorsed DC statehood in 2015 , by more than 8 points , according to the RealClearPolitics polling average .
Polls now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to regain the Senate as well , despite malapportionment that gives Republicans an unfair advantage in the fight for control of Congress ’ upper house .
Not that long ago , DC statehood found little support within the halls of Congress .
The last time the House voted on statehood , in 1993 , the bill failed 153-277 .
Democrats , in what now looks like an extraordinary act of political malpractice , did not push statehood when they last controlled both houses of Congress and the White House in 2009-2010 .
President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until 2014 .
But Democratic support for statehood swelled as the party was forced to confront the impact of a malapportioned Senate that overrepresents white and rural states , effectively giving extra seats to Republicans .
Among other things , that malapportionment cost Democrats control of the Supreme Court .
If the Senate were fairly apportioned , Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland would be a justice right now .
The recent protests against police violence , and Trump ’ s decision to deploy federal law enforcement and national guard personnel to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case for statehood — because DC has less autonomy than a state , it is more subject to the whims of federal leaders .
As DC Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote in the Washington Post , “ this blatant degradation of our home right before my own eyes offered another reminder — a particularly powerful one — of why we need statehood for the District.
” Indeed , many statehood advocates view their cause as part of the broader struggle that animates the protesters .
“ The protests across America isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” according to Stasha Rhodes , campaign director for 51 for 51 , an organization pushing for DC statehood .
The protests are “ also a call to challenge the very institutions that allow white supremacy and racism .
The fact that over 700,000 mostly black and brown people do not have a vote in Congress is racism.
” But even if Democrats dominate November ’ s election and win majorities in both houses , DC statehood still faces two significant obstacles .
One is the filibuster , which could potentially allow Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 100-member Senate .
If the filibuster is overcome , moreover , it is likely that Republicans will file a lawsuit seeking to strip DC of its statehood .
With Republicans controlling the judiciary , that lawsuit has a shot at prevailing , even if it rests on weak legal arguments .
The filibuster may be the biggest obstacle to DC statehood The filibuster , a practice that allows a minority of the Senate to block legislation , is one of the most consequential accidents in American history .
In 1805 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a duel , Vice President Aaron Burr returned to the Senate to deliver a farewell speech .
In that speech , Burr suggested that the Senate make changes to its rules , including eliminating something called the “ previous question motion , ” a process that was rarely used prior to Burr ’ s speech .
The Senate followed Burr ’ s advice in 1806 .
But eliminating the previous question motion turned out to be a horrible mistake , because this motion was the only process allowing the Senate to cut off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognized Burr ’ s error for 35 years , until 1841 , when the first filibuster occurred .
Without a way to end debate , rogue senators could delay Senate action indefinitely by insisting on “ debating ” a proposal forever .
Since this first filibuster , the Senate has changed its rules several times to make it harder to sustain a filibuster .
Current rules permit a bloc of 60 senators to end a filibuster using a process known as “ cloture , ” and invoking cloture to confirm a presidential nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority .
A process known as “ reconciliation ” also allows some legislation to pass with only 51 votes , but reconciliation is typically limited to fiscal legislation and is subject to a complicated set of rules .
Absent a very creative interpretation of the rules governing reconciliation , in other words , the DC statehood bill would likely require 60 votes to pass the Senate .
So unless Democrats utterly crush Republicans in November , picking up at least 13 seats , Republicans will almost certainly have enough Senate seats to filibuster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including some powerful left-of-center organizations , have made overcoming the filibuster their mission .
More than two dozen have united under the banner of 51 for 51 , a coalition that includes old guard unions like American Federation of Teachers , and rising young organizations such as Indivisible and the judicial reform group Demand Justice .
Their goal is to “ make DC the 51st state with 51 votes in the Senate.
” “ It is no longer enough to just voice your support for DC statehood , ” Rhodes , 51 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
“ You have to have the courage to change the rules , and stand up for the people of Washington.
” Eliminating the filibuster entirely will be difficult .
In 2017 , 61 senators signed a letter asking Senate leadership to oppose “ any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of Senators to engage in full , robust , and extended debate as we consider legislation before this body in the future.
” The effort was led by Sens .
Susan Collins ( R-ME ) and Chris Coons ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than two dozen Democrats .
Biden ’ s views on the filibuster are somewhat complicated .
51 for 51 claims him as a supporter , pointing to a video where he agrees with a tracker who asks him if he supports making DC a state “ with 51 votes in the Senate.
” But Biden also told the New York Times editorial board that he does not support “ abolishing the legislative filibuster.
” These two statements , however , are not necessarily in tension .
There is a middle path between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to filibuster DC statehood — treat statehood bills like confirmation votes .
The ostensible purpose of the filibuster is to allow senators to continue debating a legislative proposal , and potentially to make changes to that proposal .
This is one reason it makes sense to exempt confirmation votes from the filibuster ’ s supermajority requirement .
Legislation can be debated and amended by senators , but it ’ s not like senators can amend a nominee .
There is much less for senators to debate when their only choice is to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a particular individual nominated for a high-level job .
A similar logic could be applied to statehood bills .
Such bills aren ’ t entirely beyond debate — senators might quibble about what to name a state , or its precise borders — but the primary question before the Senate in the DC statehood bill is whether DC should be a state .
Statehood is not a subject like , say , health reform , where lawmakers will have strong feelings about details such as whether health plans should cover contraceptive care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on training nurse practitioners .
So the Senate could amend its rules to allow new states to be admitted with a simple majority vote , while leaving in place the filibuster for ordinary legislation .
Without some tweaks to the Senate rules to prevent Republicans from filibustering statehood , however , it is likely that DC statehood is doomed .
Republicans will probably ask the Supreme Court to strike down DC statehood The primary advantage of statehood is that it grants federal representation to the residents of the state .
Statehood makes it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents will be ignored by Congress .
But DC is not entirely bereft of power in federal elections .
The 23rd Amendment effectively grants three Electoral College votes to “ the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States.
” Under this amendment , which was ratified in 1961 , DC has as much say in presidential elections as the “ least populous State.
” Should DC become a state , however , it is likely that Republicans will seize on this nearly 60-year-old effort to enfranchise DC residents as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , with the Supreme Court controlled by a Republican majority that is often very hostile to voting rights , it is possible that five justices will cite the 23rd Amendment as a reason to deny statehood to DC .
In 1993 , the conservative Heritage Foundation published a paper by lawyer R. Hewitt Pate , arguing that DC could not be admitted as a state without a new constitutional amendment .
The 23rd Amendment , Pate argued , presents “ perhaps the most difficult constitutional problem ” facing DC statehood advocates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reference to “ the District constituting the seat of Government ” establishes the current District of Columbia as a “ permanent constitutional entity.
” He also suggested that the 23rd Amendment ’ s language limiting DC ’ s electoral votes to the number controlled by the “ least populous State ” permanently prevents DC from holding more than three electoral votes .
But Pate ’ s argument makes a hash out of the 23rd Amendment ’ s text .
Though the amendment states that “ the District constituting the seat of Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such manner as Congress may direct .
.
.
a number of electors ” ( federal and DC law establish that these electors are chosen in a popular election ) , the amendment never states that the boundaries of this district can not be expanded or contracted by statehood legislation .
Indeed , the DC statehood bill does not eliminate the “ District constituting the seat of Government , ” it merely shrinks it to a much smaller area that includes many of the buildings where the federal government conducts official business .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anomaly .
If the DC statehood bill passes , the new state would be entitled to representation in the Electoral College just like any other state .
Meanwhile , the rump federal district would also be entitled to three electoral votes under the 23rd Amendment .
But there ’ s an easy fix for this problem .
Because the 23rd Amendment provides that the federal district ’ s electors shall be appointed “ in such manner as Congress may direct , ” Congress could simply pass a law providing that these three electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would otherwise win the Electoral College — or , even better , Congress could award these three votes to the national popular vote winner , thus reducing the likelihood that the loser of the popular vote will become president .
There is , in other words , no good constitutional argument against DC statehood .
As Viet Dinh , who served as an assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush , told a Senate hearing in 2014 , “ nothing in the Twenty-Third Amendment prohibits the admission of [ DC as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statehood bill ] will preserve a federal ‘ District constituting the seat of Government of the United States.
’ ” Nevertheless , the Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans — and the Court ’ s Republican majority is often hostile to voting rights legislation .
So there is at least some risk that the Court ’ s current majority might strike down DC statehood .
Admitting DC would make the United States more democratic The strongest argument against admitting DC as a state is that DC statehood would , at least on paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If DC does become a state , it would be the third-least-populous state in the nation .
Only Wyoming and Vermont have fewer residents .
As a practical matter , however , admitting the bright blue District of Columbia as a state would help counterbalance the advantage malapportionment gives to Senate Republicans .
And it would ensure that hundreds of thousands of Americans are not denied their right to vote .
“ From our perspective , the Senate is broken and undemocratic , ” Rhodes told me .
“ There are many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blatant example is that 700,000 residents of Washington , DC , are not allowed to participate in the democracy that surrounds them.
” In the current Senate , Democrats actually control a majority ( 26-24 ) of seats from the most populous half of the states .
Republicans owe their Senate majority to their crushing 29-21 lead in the least populous half of the states .
The GOP ’ s advantage , moreover , is only likely to grow with time .
Right now , more than half the country lives in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to a University of Virginia analysis , half the country is expected to live in just eight states .
About 70 percent of the country will live in 16 states — meaning that 30 percent of the population will control 68 percent of the Senate .
Meanwhile , one of the best predictors of partisan voting patterns is population density .
Dense regions tend to prefer Democrats , while sparsely populated regions prefer Republicans .
As Stanford political scientist Jonathan Rodden describes this phenomenon , “ as you go from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and into rural areas , you traverse in a linear fashion from Democratic to Republican places.
” Barring a political realignment , in other words , the United States may be barreling toward a future where Republicans enjoy a permanent majority in the Senate — regardless of whom a majority of the country wishes to lead them .
Admitting a single urban state probably won ’ t be enough to level the playing field between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate , but it will mitigate the problem .
Nor is it especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to admit states for political reasons .
In 1864 , Republican President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation admitting Nevada , then a barely populated desert with a few thousand residents , into the union as a state .
Nevada didn ’ t have many people , but the few people who did live there were overwhelmingly Republican .
A dozen years later , President Ulysses Grant , also a Republican , signed legislation admitting the state of Colorado .
According to the most recent census , Colorado had fewer than 40,00 residents when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominated by Republicans at the time .
After Republicans defeated Democratic President Grover Cleveland in the 1888 election , they celebrated by splitting the GOP-dominated Dakota into two territories and admitting both of them as states .
Today , there are still two Dakotas because Gilded Age Republicans wanted four senators instead of just two .
Meanwhile , Republicans successfully blocked New Mexico from becoming a state until 1912 .
Cleveland ’ s Democrats had hoped to admit New Mexico , which favored Cleveland ’ s party .
These sorts of tactics are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties have freely embraced in a nation that , nonsensically , gives two senators to every state regardless of population .
It would be best if the Senate were abolished , or at least apportioned by population .
But , until that day comes , admitting DC as a state would make the United States more small-d democratic .
It would mean that over 700,000 DC residents were no longer disenfranchised .
And it would provide a counterbalance to the arbitrary and anti-democratic advantage that Senate Republicans currently enjoy .
Every day at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The House of Representatives voted 232-180 to grant statehood to the District of Columbia on Friday. That marks the first time in the nation’s history that either house of Congress approved legislation granting full statehood and congressional representation to DC’s more than 700,000 residents.
For at least the next several months, the bill is highly unlikely to travel far beyond the House. There’s little chance that the Republican-controlled Senate will agree to give two senators to an overwhelmingly Democratic city. And even if the bill somehow managed to pass the Senate, President Donald Trump has said that Republicans would be “very, very stupid” to allow DC statehood. He’s all but certain to veto the bill.
But statehood for the District of Columbia, whose residents pay federal taxes but have no vote in Congress, is arguably closer than it’s ever been. Trump trails Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who endorsed DC statehood in 2015, by more than 8 points, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. Polls now indicate that Democrats have a good chance to regain the Senate as well, despite malapportionment that gives Republicans an unfair advantage in the fight for control of Congress’ upper house.
Not that long ago, DC statehood found little support within the halls of Congress. The last time the House voted on statehood, in 1993, the bill failed 153-277. Democrats, in what now looks like an extraordinary act of political malpractice, did not push statehood when they last controlled both houses of Congress and the White House in 2009-2010. President Barack Obama did not endorse DC statehood until 2014.
But Democratic support for statehood swelled as the party was forced to confront the impact of a malapportioned Senate that overrepresents white and rural states, effectively giving extra seats to Republicans. Among other things, that malapportionment cost Democrats control of the Supreme Court. If the Senate were fairly apportioned, Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland would be a justice right now.
The recent protests against police violence, and Trump’s decision to deploy federal law enforcement and national guard personnel to the nation’s capital, also bolstered the case for statehood — because DC has less autonomy than a state, it is more subject to the whims of federal leaders. As DC Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote in the Washington Post, “this blatant degradation of our home right before my own eyes offered another reminder — a particularly powerful one — of why we need statehood for the District.”
Indeed, many statehood advocates view their cause as part of the broader struggle that animates the protesters. “The protests across America isn’t just a call for policing reform,” according to Stasha Rhodes, campaign director for 51 for 51, an organization pushing for DC statehood. The protests are “also a call to challenge the very institutions that allow white supremacy and racism. The fact that over 700,000 mostly black and brown people do not have a vote in Congress is racism.”
But even if Democrats dominate November’s election and win majorities in both houses, DC statehood still faces two significant obstacles. One is the filibuster, which could potentially allow Republicans to block statehood with just 41 votes in the 100-member Senate.
If the filibuster is overcome, moreover, it is likely that Republicans will file a lawsuit seeking to strip DC of its statehood. With Republicans controlling the judiciary, that lawsuit has a shot at prevailing, even if it rests on weak legal arguments.
The filibuster may be the biggest obstacle to DC statehood
The filibuster, a practice that allows a minority of the Senate to block legislation, is one of the most consequential accidents in American history. In 1805, shortly after he killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, Vice President Aaron Burr returned to the Senate to deliver a farewell speech. In that speech, Burr suggested that the Senate make changes to its rules, including eliminating something called the “previous question motion,” a process that was rarely used prior to Burr’s speech. The Senate followed Burr’s advice in 1806.
But eliminating the previous question motion turned out to be a horrible mistake, because this motion was the only process allowing the Senate to cut off debate among its members. No one recognized Burr’s error for 35 years, until 1841, when the first filibuster occurred. Without a way to end debate, rogue senators could delay Senate action indefinitely by insisting on “debating” a proposal forever.
Since this first filibuster, the Senate has changed its rules several times to make it harder to sustain a filibuster. Current rules permit a bloc of 60 senators to end a filibuster using a process known as “cloture,” and invoking cloture to confirm a presidential nominee only requires 51 votes — a simple majority. A process known as “reconciliation” also allows some legislation to pass with only 51 votes, but reconciliation is typically limited to fiscal legislation and is subject to a complicated set of rules.
Absent a very creative interpretation of the rules governing reconciliation, in other words, the DC statehood bill would likely require 60 votes to pass the Senate. So unless Democrats utterly crush Republicans in November, picking up at least 13 seats, Republicans will almost certainly have enough Senate seats to filibuster DC statehood.
Many statehood activists, including some powerful left-of-center organizations, have made overcoming the filibuster their mission. More than two dozen have united under the banner of 51 for 51, a coalition that includes old guard unions like American Federation of Teachers, and rising young organizations such as Indivisible and the judicial reform group Demand Justice. Their goal is to “make DC the 51st state with 51 votes in the Senate.”
“It is no longer enough to just voice your support for DC statehood,” Rhodes, 51 for 51’s campaign director, told me. “You have to have the courage to change the rules, and stand up for the people of Washington.”
Eliminating the filibuster entirely will be difficult. In 2017, 61 senators signed a letter asking Senate leadership to oppose “any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of Senators to engage in full, robust, and extended debate as we consider legislation before this body in the future.” The effort was led by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Chris Coons (D-DE), and was joined by more than two dozen Democrats.
Biden’s views on the filibuster are somewhat complicated. 51 for 51 claims him as a supporter, pointing to a video where he agrees with a tracker who asks him if he supports making DC a state “with 51 votes in the Senate.”
BREAKING: @JoeBiden endorsed D.C. becoming the 51st state by bypassing the filibuster to give over 700,000 D.C. residents full voting rights and representation in Congress.
Thank you! We're grateful for your support! #DCStatehood #51for51 pic.twitter.com/ww1wkzFwRT — 51 for 51 (@51for51) February 25, 2020
But Biden also told the New York Times editorial board that he does not support “abolishing the legislative filibuster.”
These two statements, however, are not necessarily in tension. There is a middle path between eliminating the filibuster entirely and permitting Republicans to filibuster DC statehood — treat statehood bills like confirmation votes.
The ostensible purpose of the filibuster is to allow senators to continue debating a legislative proposal, and potentially to make changes to that proposal. This is one reason it makes sense to exempt confirmation votes from the filibuster’s supermajority requirement. Legislation can be debated and amended by senators, but it’s not like senators can amend a nominee. There is much less for senators to debate when their only choice is to vote “yes” or “no” on a particular individual nominated for a high-level job.
A similar logic could be applied to statehood bills. Such bills aren’t entirely beyond debate — senators might quibble about what to name a state, or its precise borders — but the primary question before the Senate in the DC statehood bill is whether DC should be a state. Statehood is not a subject like, say, health reform, where lawmakers will have strong feelings about details such as whether health plans should cover contraceptive care, or the right amount to spend on training nurse practitioners.
So the Senate could amend its rules to allow new states to be admitted with a simple majority vote, while leaving in place the filibuster for ordinary legislation.
Without some tweaks to the Senate rules to prevent Republicans from filibustering statehood, however, it is likely that DC statehood is doomed.
Republicans will probably ask the Supreme Court to strike down DC statehood
The primary advantage of statehood is that it grants federal representation to the residents of the state. Statehood makes it less likely that the voices of DC residents will be ignored by Congress.
But DC is not entirely bereft of power in federal elections. The 23rd Amendment effectively grants three Electoral College votes to “the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States.” Under this amendment, which was ratified in 1961, DC has as much say in presidential elections as the “least populous State.”
Should DC become a state, however, it is likely that Republicans will seize on this nearly 60-year-old effort to enfranchise DC residents as a reason to disenfranchise those same votes. And, with the Supreme Court controlled by a Republican majority that is often very hostile to voting rights, it is possible that five justices will cite the 23rd Amendment as a reason to deny statehood to DC.
In 1993, the conservative Heritage Foundation published a paper by lawyer R. Hewitt Pate, arguing that DC could not be admitted as a state without a new constitutional amendment. The 23rd Amendment, Pate argued, presents “perhaps the most difficult constitutional problem” facing DC statehood advocates.
Pate claimed that the 23rd Amendment’s reference to “the District constituting the seat of Government” establishes the current District of Columbia as a “permanent constitutional entity.” He also suggested that the 23rd Amendment’s language limiting DC’s electoral votes to the number controlled by the “least populous State” permanently prevents DC from holding more than three electoral votes.
But Pate’s argument makes a hash out of the 23rd Amendment’s text. Though the amendment states that “the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct . . . a number of electors” (federal and DC law establish that these electors are chosen in a popular election), the amendment never states that the boundaries of this district cannot be expanded or contracted by statehood legislation.
Indeed, the DC statehood bill does not eliminate the “District constituting the seat of Government,” it merely shrinks it to a much smaller area that includes many of the buildings where the federal government conducts official business.
The 23rd Amendment does create one potential anomaly. If the DC statehood bill passes, the new state would be entitled to representation in the Electoral College just like any other state. Meanwhile, the rump federal district would also be entitled to three electoral votes under the 23rd Amendment.
But there’s an easy fix for this problem. Because the 23rd Amendment provides that the federal district’s electors shall be appointed “in such manner as Congress may direct,” Congress could simply pass a law providing that these three electoral votes will go to whichever presidential candidate would otherwise win the Electoral College — or, even better, Congress could award these three votes to the national popular vote winner, thus reducing the likelihood that the loser of the popular vote will become president.
There is, in other words, no good constitutional argument against DC statehood. As Viet Dinh, who served as an assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush, told a Senate hearing in 2014, “nothing in the Twenty-Third Amendment prohibits the admission of [DC as a state]. Because the [DC statehood bill] will preserve a federal ‘District constituting the seat of Government of the United States.’”
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans — and the Court’s Republican majority is often hostile to voting rights legislation. So there is at least some risk that the Court’s current majority might strike down DC statehood.
Admitting DC would make the United States more democratic
The strongest argument against admitting DC as a state is that DC statehood would, at least on paper, exacerbate the problem of Senate malapportionment. If DC does become a state, it would be the third-least-populous state in the nation. Only Wyoming and Vermont have fewer residents.
As a practical matter, however, admitting the bright blue District of Columbia as a state would help counterbalance the advantage malapportionment gives to Senate Republicans. And it would ensure that hundreds of thousands of Americans are not denied their right to vote.
“From our perspective, the Senate is broken and undemocratic,” Rhodes told me. “There are many examples of this, but the most blatant example is that 700,000 residents of Washington, DC, are not allowed to participate in the democracy that surrounds them.”
In the current Senate, Democrats actually control a majority (26-24) of seats from the most populous half of the states. Republicans owe their Senate majority to their crushing 29-21 lead in the least populous half of the states.
The GOP’s advantage, moreover, is only likely to grow with time. Right now, more than half the country lives in the nine most populous states. By 2040, according to a University of Virginia analysis, half the country is expected to live in just eight states. About 70 percent of the country will live in 16 states — meaning that 30 percent of the population will control 68 percent of the Senate.
Meanwhile, one of the best predictors of partisan voting patterns is population density. Dense regions tend to prefer Democrats, while sparsely populated regions prefer Republicans. As Stanford political scientist Jonathan Rodden describes this phenomenon, “as you go from the center of cities out through the suburbs and into rural areas, you traverse in a linear fashion from Democratic to Republican places.”
Barring a political realignment, in other words, the United States may be barreling toward a future where Republicans enjoy a permanent majority in the Senate — regardless of whom a majority of the country wishes to lead them. Admitting a single urban state probably won’t be enough to level the playing field between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, but it will mitigate the problem.
Nor is it especially unusual for the party that controls Congress to admit states for political reasons. In 1864, Republican President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation admitting Nevada, then a barely populated desert with a few thousand residents, into the union as a state. Nevada didn’t have many people, but the few people who did live there were overwhelmingly Republican.
A dozen years later, President Ulysses Grant, also a Republican, signed legislation admitting the state of Colorado. According to the most recent census, Colorado had fewer than 40,00 residents when it became a state. Colorado was also dominated by Republicans at the time.
After Republicans defeated Democratic President Grover Cleveland in the 1888 election, they celebrated by splitting the GOP-dominated Dakota into two territories and admitting both of them as states. Today, there are still two Dakotas because Gilded Age Republicans wanted four senators instead of just two.
Meanwhile, Republicans successfully blocked New Mexico from becoming a state until 1912. Cleveland’s Democrats had hoped to admit New Mexico, which favored Cleveland’s party.
These sorts of tactics are the kind of constitutional hardball that political parties have freely embraced in a nation that, nonsensically, gives two senators to every state regardless of population. It would be best if the Senate were abolished, or at least apportioned by population.
But, until that day comes, admitting DC as a state would make the United States more small-d democratic. It would mean that over 700,000 DC residents were no longer disenfranchised. And it would provide a counterbalance to the arbitrary and anti-democratic advantage that Senate Republicans currently enjoy.


vox--2020-06-26--Democrats’ infrastructure bill has a special delivery: Electric mail trucks

For months , Democrats in Congress have focused on immediate recovery from the coronavirus , saying they would turn to long-term stimulus when the time is right .
The time is apparently right .
This week , House Democrats unveiled their Moving Forward Act , a $ 1.5 trillion infrastructure bill .
It is capacious : $ 300 billion for repair of existing infrastructure , $ 100 billion for public transit , $ 100 billion for affordable housing infrastructure , $ 100 billion for broadband , $ 100 billion for high-poverty schools , $ 70 billion for upgrades to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller items .
The bill contains multitudes , but it is just an opening bid .
It will eventually make its way to the Senate , where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is certain to bargain it down and try to strip out anything he sees as “ green , ” if he brings it to a vote at all .
If it does come to a vote , there will be more to discuss .
For now , I just want to focus on one tiny gem in the bill that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? )
of other people obsessed with this issue — very happy .
To wit : The Moving Forward Act contains money to electrify mail trucks !
Making the US Postal Service a vanguard for electric vehicles Back in April , I wrote an in-depth post on why replacing the US Postal Service ’ s fleet of delivery trucks with electric vehicles is a good idea , why now is the perfect time to do it , and where the process stands within the USPS .
To summarize : USPS trucks are old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mileage , have no air conditioning , regularly burst into flames , and are imposing huge and rising fuel and maintenance costs on the already-struggling agency .
Replacing them with electric delivery trucks would radically reduce those costs , improve driver health and performance , and reduce air and noise pollution in districts across the US .
The USPS says it needs about $ 6 billion to replace its vehicles and about $ 25 billion overall to save itself from financial ruin .
Well , if you scroll way , way down in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sec .
50001 , you find this : Then Sec .
50002 gets more specific about how the $ 6 billion for vehicles must be used : A minimum of 75 percent electric vehicles : that ’ s awesome .
Beyond the immediate health benefits and the long-term savings for the USPS , this would be an incredible marketing coup for electric vehicles generally .
The Postal Service is the US public ’ s favorite government agency .
It is a friendly , reliable presence in every community in the nation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were replaced with electric trucks , every American who interacts with a postal carrier — which is nearly every American — would have a chance to see an electric vehicle with their own eyes , in a workaday , non-political context .
It would do more to raise awareness of electric vehicles than any conceivable amount of marketing .
And there ’ s evidence that electric vehicles , much like solar panels , are “ contagious , ” meaning that people who see them in their own community are more likely to buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread EVs like a contagion across the country ( a good contagion for once ) .
Speaking of acting as a vanguard , there is one other intriguing provision in Sec .
50002 : “ The section would require the Postal Service to provide at least one charging station at each publicly accessible facility it owns or leases by 2026 and ensure that it has adequate charging facilities to keep its fleet operating.
” Every analyst agrees that one of the major challenges facing electric vehicles is the lack of charging infrastructure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the infrastructure doesn ’ t make sense without the cars ; the cars don ’ t make sense without the infrastructure .
The research consultancy Brattle Group put out a report this week projecting that EVs in the US will grow from today ’ s 1.5 million to between 10 and 35 million by 2030 .
Part of what will enable ( or constrain ) that growth is charging infrastructure .
Out of the $ 75 to $ 125 billion in investments in the electricity system Brattle estimates will be needed to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 50 billion need to go to charging infrastructure .
Nothing would do more to increase consumer confidence in EV charging infrastructure than having an EV charger publicly available at every post office .
It could finally break the chicken-and-egg stalemate : It would make EV chargers a familiar part of public infrastructure , prompting more consumers to choose EVs , prompting more investment in chargers .
Given the amount of federal spending needed to pull the US economy out of a nosedive , $ 25 billion for the USPS isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electric postal trucks is peanuts .
But it ’ s a smart investment that would return itself many times over in health , economic , and social benefits .
“ This provision is a win all the way around , ” California Rep. Jared Huffman told me .
“ We can slash emissions from one of the largest vehicle fleets in the world , boost clean vehicle manufacturing in this country , build out EV charging infrastructure , and help the USPS save money on wasted fuel and maintenance costs for an aging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huffman ’ s Federal Leadership in Energy Efficient Transportation ( FLEET ) Act , for which he has been fighting a lonely battle since 2014 .
He is cautiously optimistic about its chances .
“ Good legislation has a tendency to die at Mitch McConnell ’ s hand , ” he says , “ but I hope he ’ s smart enough to see how much this will benefit the country and doesn ’ t leave it on the cutting room floor.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

For months, Democrats in Congress have focused on immediate recovery from the coronavirus, saying they would turn to long-term stimulus when the time is right.
The time is apparently right. This week, House Democrats unveiled their Moving Forward Act, a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill. It is capacious: $300 billion for repair of existing infrastructure, $100 billion for public transit, $100 billion for affordable housing infrastructure, $100 billion for broadband, $100 billion for high-poverty schools, $70 billion for upgrades to the electricity grid, and many, many smaller items.
The bill contains multitudes, but it is just an opening bid. It will eventually make its way to the Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is certain to bargain it down and try to strip out anything he sees as “green,” if he brings it to a vote at all.
If it does come to a vote, there will be more to discuss. For now, I just want to focus on one tiny gem in the bill that has made me — and the dozens (?) of other people obsessed with this issue — very happy.
To wit: The Moving Forward Act contains money to electrify mail trucks!
Making the US Postal Service a vanguard for electric vehicles
Back in April, I wrote an in-depth post on why replacing the US Postal Service’s fleet of delivery trucks with electric vehicles is a good idea, why now is the perfect time to do it, and where the process stands within the USPS.
To summarize: USPS trucks are old and janky. They get poor gas mileage, have no air conditioning, regularly burst into flames, and are imposing huge and rising fuel and maintenance costs on the already-struggling agency. Replacing them with electric delivery trucks would radically reduce those costs, improve driver health and performance, and reduce air and noise pollution in districts across the US.
The USPS says it needs about $6 billion to replace its vehicles and about $25 billion overall to save itself from financial ruin. Well, if you scroll way, way down in the Moving Forward Act to Division I, Sec. 50001, you find this:
Authorizes $25 billion in funding for the Postal Service for the modernization of postal infrastructure and operations, including through capital expenditures to purchase delivery vehicles, processing equipment, and other goods. The section reserves $6 billion for the purchase of new vehicles.
Then Sec. 50002 gets more specific about how the $6 billion for vehicles must be used:
Requires the Postal Service to use any of the authorized funds to purchase electric or zero-emission vehicles to replace its current right-hand-drive vehicles to the maximum extent practicable. However, at least 75 percent of the new fleet must be such vehicles. The section would also require that the fleet of medium and heavy-duty trucks consist of at least 30 percent of electric vehicles by 2030 and that any vehicle purchased after 2040 be electric or zero-emission.
A minimum of 75 percent electric vehicles: that’s awesome. Beyond the immediate health benefits and the long-term savings for the USPS, this would be an incredible marketing coup for electric vehicles generally.
The Postal Service is the US public’s favorite government agency. It is a friendly, reliable presence in every community in the nation. If the familiar, boxy mail trucks were replaced with electric trucks, every American who interacts with a postal carrier — which is nearly every American — would have a chance to see an electric vehicle with their own eyes, in a workaday, non-political context.
It would do more to raise awareness of electric vehicles than any conceivable amount of marketing. And there’s evidence that electric vehicles, much like solar panels, are “contagious,” meaning that people who see them in their own community are more likely to buy them. The Moving Forward Act would spread EVs like a contagion across the country (a good contagion for once).
Using post offices to kickstart electric vehicle charging infrastructure
Speaking of acting as a vanguard, there is one other intriguing provision in Sec. 50002: “The section would require the Postal Service to provide at least one charging station at each publicly accessible facility it owns or leases by 2026 and ensure that it has adequate charging facilities to keep its fleet operating.”
Every analyst agrees that one of the major challenges facing electric vehicles is the lack of charging infrastructure. It creates a perpetual chicken-and-egg problem: the infrastructure doesn’t make sense without the cars; the cars don’t make sense without the infrastructure.
The research consultancy Brattle Group put out a report this week projecting that EVs in the US will grow from today’s 1.5 million to between 10 and 35 million by 2030. Part of what will enable (or constrain) that growth is charging infrastructure. Out of the $75 to $125 billion in investments in the electricity system Brattle estimates will be needed to support EV growth, about $30 to $50 billion need to go to charging infrastructure.
Nothing would do more to increase consumer confidence in EV charging infrastructure than having an EV charger publicly available at every post office. It could finally break the chicken-and-egg stalemate: It would make EV chargers a familiar part of public infrastructure, prompting more consumers to choose EVs, prompting more investment in chargers.
Given the amount of federal spending needed to pull the US economy out of a nosedive, $25 billion for the USPS isn’t much, and $6 billion for electric postal trucks is peanuts. But it’s a smart investment that would return itself many times over in health, economic, and social benefits.
“This provision is a win all the way around,” California Rep. Jared Huffman told me. “We can slash emissions from one of the largest vehicle fleets in the world, boost clean vehicle manufacturing in this country, build out EV charging infrastructure, and help the USPS save money on wasted fuel and maintenance costs for an aging fleet.”
The provision was drawn from Huffman’s Federal Leadership in Energy Efficient Transportation (FLEET) Act, for which he has been fighting a lonely battle since 2014. He is cautiously optimistic about its chances.
“Good legislation has a tendency to die at Mitch McConnell’s hand,” he says, “but I hope he’s smart enough to see how much this will benefit the country and doesn’t leave it on the cutting room floor.”