Connect with us

Politics

Primaries Breakdown: Biden Sweeps, Mail-In Ballot Concerns, and How the Coronavirus Impacted Voter Turnout

Published

on

  • Joe Biden had another strong showing in Tuesday’s primaries, securing wins in Florida, Illinois, and Arizona.
  • The election represented the first contest since the coronavirus pandemic escalated significantly in the U.S. last week, prompting officials to encourage more stringent measures for social gathering.
  • While in-person voter turnout was low in all three primaries, turnout in general was higher in Florida and Arizona, driven by mail-in ballots and early voting.
  • As the spread of the coronavirus continues to grow in America, election officials are encouraging more people to vote by mail, despite the fact that many states have laws that make it difficult to do so.

Biden Sweeps, Yet Again

Former Vice President Joe Biden swept up more wins in a set of primary elections Tuesday, taking home major victories in all three of the states holding contests— Florida, Illinois, and Arizona.

With the number of states left to vote slowly dwindling, Biden continued to expand his delegate lead, winning each state by double digits. Biden won by the largest margin in Florida, receiving 61.9% of the vote, while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) won 22.8%.

In Illinois, Biden handily beat Sanders by more than 20%. The former vice president also currently leads by over 10% in Arizona, where 88% of precincts are reporting and the election has already been declared for him.

Although Biden was predicted to win all three states, Tuesday’s returns bring up more questions about Sanders’ future in this race. With Biden further solidifying his lead, it seems like it is only a matter of time for Sanders’ campaign.

In a statement Wednesday morning, a spokesperson for Sanders said that the senator was going to “assess” his campaign moving forward.

Coronavirus Impact 

Tuesday’s contents also marked the first primaries held since the coronavirus pandemic significantly escalated in the U.S. last week, prompting government officials to implement and recommend more stringent measures.

Despite calls from President Donald Trump to prevent gatherings of more than 10 people, the three states went ahead with their elections anyway.

Ohio, however, which was also supposed to have its primary Tuesday, postponed the election at the last minute after a confusing legal back-and-forth. 

The decisions to still hold primaries in the other three states, and specifically to have in-person voting, made many people upset.

Some called for the elections to be postponed and said it is unsafe to encourage people to gather. Others argued that holding elections during a pandemic amounted to voter suppression.

Meanwhile, election officials told voters that they will be taking extra precautions, disinfecting voting machines and other equipment in addition to providing hand sanitizer, wipes, and similar products to voters.

Officials also encouraged voters to cast their ballots by mail or vote early, and in some places, they moved polling precincts originally located high-risk areas, like assisted living facilities.

With the decision to go forward with the primaries, the big question was how the pandemic would affect voter turnout, and if that could be offset by people who vote early or by mail.

Final results from all three states now show that while in-person voter turnout was low across the board, in both Florida and Arizona overall turnout was actually higher than in 2016. That was mostly driven by early voting and mail-in ballots.

Very notably, in Arizona’s Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and about half of the state’s registered Democrats, in-person turnout was also higher than 2016, despite the fact that officials closed around 80 polling stations in the area.

Illinois, however, had a lower turn out on all fronts. In Cook County, which includes Chicago and composes about half of the ballots cast in Democratic primaries, turnout was down more than 200,000 votes from 2016.

That was not Illinois’ only problem. According to reports, there were a number of precincts that canceled with little or almost no notice. One Chicago election spokesperson said they had to relocate about 50 polling places at the last minute.

In some places, those who did cast their ballots in-person complained of waiting hours in long lines and cramped conditions where they could not social distance. Others also reported that some precincts did not have proper cleaning supplies or sanitizers. 

Mail-In Ballots

In Illinois, last-minute efforts to move voting centers out of nursing homes— where many residents vote— meant it was too late for those individuals to apply for mail-in ballots. At the same time, public-health protocols encouraging older people not to be in crowds made it hard for them to go vote in person.

This raised an important issue with mail-in ballots. While election officials all over the country are encouraging people to vote by mail amid the growing pandemic, it is problematized by the fact that many states have strict vote-by-mail laws.

Some states require people to apply ahead of time, like in Illinois. Others have narrow restrictions on who can vote by mail, like New York, which only lets people cast absentee ballots for six very specific reasons— none of which include a public health emergency.

As a result, there has been a renewed call to overhaul the vote-by-mail system— but there are a lot of hurdles. 

“Rolling something as complex as this out at large-scale introduces thousands of small problems — some of which are security problems, some of which are reliability problems, some of which are resource-management problems — that only become apparent when you do it,” said Matt Blaze, an election security expert and computer science professor at Georgetown Law School.

However, proponents argue that it may be the only solution for now. 

See what others are saying: (The Los Angeles Times) (NBC News) (Politico)

Politics

California to Ban the Sale of New Gas-Powered Cars by 2035

Published

on

  • California Governor Newsom (D) signed an executive order Wednesday aimed at banning sales of new gasoline vehicles by 2035.
  • The ban will not prevent anyone from owning or even selling a used gas-powered vehicle.
  • While many environmentalist groups praised Newsom for the order, they noted that California will need to be proactive to accomplish the goal in its current time frame. Some even criticized Newsom for not going a step further by also limiting oil and gas production. 
  • Despite this, Newsom announced a goal to end new fracking permits by 2024, which was later condemned by many energy companies.
  • Because California has such a massive influence, many believe other states could follow its lead, causing ripple effects in the car market.

Newsom Announces Gas-Powered Car Ban for 2035

As part of an “ambitious” new goal, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) issued an executive order on Wednesday meant to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035.

“I think it’s self-evident to anybody who’s been paying any attention about [the] state of California that we’ve been suffering and struggling through simultaneous crises,” Newsom when announcing the order.

“Of all the simultaneous crises that we face as a state, and I would argue as a nation — and for that matter, from a global perspective — none is more impactful, none is more forceful than the issue of the climate crisis. And that’s exactly what we’re advancing here today is a strategy to address that crisis head-on, to be as bold as the problem is big.” 

In part, Newsom’s order directs regulators to develop a plan that would require automakers to steadily sell more zero-emissions vehicles, with the state completely phasing out the sale of new gas-powered passenger vehicles in just 15 fifteen years. This order will not ban people from owning, driving, or even selling used cars that rely on gas. 

Among other measures, the order sets a goal to make all medium and heavy-duty vehicles on the road zero emissions by 2045, “where feasible.”

It also directs state transportation agencies to “identify near-term actions” that would build infrastructure such as “an integrated, statewide rail and transit network” or that would “[support] bicycle, pedestrian, and micro-mobility options, particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities in the State.”

Is This Goal Feasible?

One of the biggest challenges to this goal is its feasibility. 

As experts have pointed out, increasing the production and sale of emissions-free vehicles in the state over a relatively short period of time will be a massive hurdle.  

Last year, only about 8% of passenger vehicles in the state were either electric or hybrid. On top of that, California would need to increase financial incentives for electric vehicles since they tend to be pricier. It would also need to drastically expand its charging infrastructure. 

Still, Newsom stressed in his Wednesday announcement that over 40% of the state’s carbon emissions come directly from transportation. In fact, transportation even outpaces the industrial, agricultural, and residential sectors combined.

It’s not impossible to think that this goal could become a reality. As Don Anair, deputy director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The New York Times: “It’s feasible, but it’s going to take California pulling all the levers at its disposal.” 

California isn’t the first place to announce a phasing out of gas-powered vehicles. Fifteen other countries — including Britain, Denmark, and Norway — have all set similar goals; however, California is the first government in the United States to set such aggressive goals.

Environmentalists Express Concerns Over Oil and Gas

While many environmentalists praised the order, that also doesn’t mean they’re fully satisfied with it. Many have pointed out that California is one of the country’s largest oil and gas producers.

In recent years, energy companies in the state have used fracking to unlock new fossil-fuel reserves. Because of that, Kassie Siegel, the director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Times:  “Setting a timeline to eliminate petroleum vehicles is a big step, but Newsom’s announcement provided rhetoric rather than real action on the other critical half of the climate problem — California’s dirty oil production.”

“Newsom can’t claim climate leadership while handing out permits to oil companies to drill and frack,” she added.

In his order, Newsom set a goal to end new permits for fracking by 2024. He also said he would work to help the state’s energy industry move away from its reliance on oil and gas. 

Regarding why he did not issue an executive order banning fracking, he said he lacks the authority to do so on his own. Therefore, he called on the state legislature to enact such a ban. 

Online Criticism and Criticism from Energy Companies

Energy companies offered even sharper words following Newson’s announcement of his fracking goals.

“Let’s be clear: Today’s announcement to curb in-state production of energy will put thousands of workers in the Central Valley, Los Angeles basin, and Central Coast on the state’s overloaded unemployment program, drive up energy costs when consumers can least afford it, and hurt California’s fight to lower global greenhouse gas emissions,” Rock Zierman, chief executive of the California Independent Petroleum Association.

Many online also criticized Newsom’s goals, with one person saying, “You are going to ruin California’s economy and people will lose their jobs.”

California’s Move Could Send a Ripple Across Other States

California is the fifth-largest economy in the world, and it’s not unlikely to think that pressure on auto companies from the state could prompt other states to increase their electric vehicle usage as well.

“We’ve seen this show before, where California does something, and others jump on board,” veteran auto industry analyst Karl Brauer told The Washington Post.

“If you want to reduce asthma,” Newson said Wednesday, “if you want to mitigate the rise of sea level, if you want to mitigate a loss of ice sheets around the globe, then this is a policy for other states to follow.”

Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia already follow California’s fuel-efficiency standards; however, the Trump administration is currently challenging California’s long-standing authority to set those standards for itself.

Because of that, last year, California and nearly two dozen other states sued the Trump administration for the right to set their own standards.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

Politics

Social Media Companies Roll Out New Features to Prepare for a Contentious Election

Published

on

  • As the election draws closer, most of the major social media platforms have started announcing new policy changes to prepare for Nov. 3.
  • YouTube said Thursday that it was expanding its use of information panels to content regarding mail-in voting, as well as searches concerning federal candidates, voter registration, and other queries about how to vote.
  • Last week, Twitter rolled out its new election information hub which it said will provide resources on mail-in ballots, how to register for the election, and information about congressional and gubernatorial candidates.
  • Earlier this month, Facebook announced a series of updates, including adding labels to certain posts made by politicians who declare victory in an election before the final results are in. On Wednesday, it said it was expanding the policy to prevent politicians from running ads claiming victory before the results are finalized.

YouTube’s New Policies

Social media platforms are preparing for what is widely expected to be an inflammatory and highly contentious election cycle by announcing a series of new tools and policies.

On Thursday, YouTube rolled out several features it says are aimed at combatting election misinformation. In a blog post, the company announced that it is expanding the use of information panels under videos that address “well-established topics that are subject to misinformation, such as the moon landing or COVID-19”

Most significantly, YouTube will now start adding information panels under videos about voting by mail that will direct viewers to “authoritative information from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a bipartisan think tank.”

Additionally, the platform will also have panels pop up whenever users search for presidential or Congressional candidates, voter registration, or queries about how to vote.

Those who conduct searches regarding voter registration will see a panel that provides information on “deadlines, registration options, and an easy way to check the status of your registration.” 

Searches for “how to vote” will direct users to a panel that links out to Google’s “how to vote” feature, with information concerning “ID requirements, registration and voting deadlines, and guidance for different means of voting, like in person or mail.”

Twitter‘s Policies

In addition to YouTube, Twitter has also recently announced several new measures in preparation for the election.

Last week, the platform rolled out its new voting information hub. Much like YouTube’s plans with information panels, Twitter’s hub will include facts on mail-in ballots and how to register for the election

The centralized resource center will also provide users with as information about congressional and gubernatorial candidates and “localized news and resources” based on the state each lives in.

In a separate announcement last week, the company also said that it was working to better secure high-profile accounts in the wake of the election, including those of politicians, political organizations, large media outlets, and journalists.

Facebook‘s Policies

Facebook, for its part, is easily facing the most pressure to put safeguards in place ahead of Nov. 3, due to the platform’s oversized role in the spread of misinformation during the 2016 election.

Earlier this month, the company announced a series of new changes. Among other things, Facebook said it would not run new political ads the week before the election and that it would add labels to certain posts, including those made by politicians who declare victory in an election before the final results are in. 

On Wednesday, Facebook also said that it was expanding its policy preventing politicians from declaring an early victory in posts to also stop them from doing so in ads.

Regarding actions the platforms claims it will take after the election, during an interview with the Financial Times earlier this week, Facebook’s head of global affairs said the company will take serious steps to “restrict the circulation of content” on the platform the if presidential election descends into widespread chaos or violent unrest.

While some have applauded these changes, many have said that Facebook needs to do more leading up to the election, and not just implement its strongest policies after.

Throughout the election cycle, this broader criticism is one that has been made a lot with regards to Facebook. In addition to continually receiving backlash for not doing enough, the company has also been widely criticized by many people who believe the so-called “sweeping changes” Facebook says it has implemented are barely changes at all, or end up being widely ineffective.

Just this week, a number of recent reports have detailed major flaws and failures with systems the company has put into place. 

In an article published Wednesday, CNN outlined the findings from an analysis of Facebook’s ad transparency data by the activist group Avaaz.

“Facebook allowed political advertisers to target hundreds of misleading ads about Joe Biden and the US Postal Service to swing-state voters ranging from Florida to Wisconsin in recent weeks, in an apparent failure to enforce its own platform rules less than two months before Election Day,” the outlet wrote.

The report also noted that ads being run by both Pro-Donald Trump and Pro-Democrat PACs that appeared to violate Facebook’s guidelines were left up and attracted millions of views.

Also on Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that a watchdog group found serious issues with the content monitoring system Facebook has encouraged elections authorities to use to identify voting misinformation in their states.

Bloomberg went on to note that the tool “doesn’t effectively monitor most posts on the social media service, including those in private groups or from most individual users,” or Instagram accounts with less than 75,000 followers. 

See what others are saying: (The Verge) (CNN) (Bloomberg)

Continue Reading

Politics

Rep. Gaetz Calls for Investigation After Bloomberg Pays Florida Felons’ Debts To Clear Them for Voting

Published

on

  • Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg raised $16 million to pay outstanding fees for 32,000 felons in Florida, making them eligible to vote in November.
  • The move comes about a week after an appeals court upheld a law that requires felons to pay all outstanding fees before they can vote, effectively preventing hundreds of thousands of people from casting ballots in the crucial swing state. 
  • That court ruling follows years of legal battles over a ballot measure passed overwhelmingly by Florida voters in 2018 which allowed most felons to vote after they completed their parole and probation periods.
  • Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz claimed Bloomberg’s actions were illegal, saying they are considered providing “something of value to impact whether or not someone votes,” and called for the matter to be investigated.

Florida Voting Rights 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) claimed Tuesday that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg acted illegally when he helped raise $16 million to cover the court debts of felons in Florida so that they could be eligible to vote in the November election.

Bloomberg’s contribution comes after a years-long legal battle in Florida concerning the voting rights of felons.

Voters overwhelmingly approved a measure in 2018 to end the state’s lifetime ban on most felons voting. That measure, known as Amendment 4, effectively restored the voting rights of felons who had completed their parole and probation periods, with the exception of those who had been convicted of sex crimes or of murder. Around 1.5 million people —  nearly 10% of the state’s adult population — were given the ability to vote.

Despite the fact that ending the ban had bipartisan support among Florida voters, shortly after Amendment 4 took effect, the state’s Republican-controlled legislature passed legislation requiring felons to pay off all outstanding debts in order to be eligible to vote, and Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law in June 2019.

Under the law, roughly 775,000 felons still who owed fines related to their convictions would not be able to vote until they paid them off. That number included some of the estimated 85,000 who had already registered to vote since Amendment 4 went into effect in January 2019.

However, the state offered almost no assistance for felons to determine how much they owed, or even if they owed anything at all. Officials even explicitly said it would take around six years to make a database for felons to look up their debts.

The Republican’s law immediately faced a number of legal challenges, and in May of this year,  district court judge Robert Hinkle struck down the law, ruling that it was an unconstitutional “pay-to-vote system.”

In his decision, Hinkle argued that an “overwhelming majority” of the felons would not be able to pay their debts or even figure out how much they owed. He went so far as to say that the law amounted to a poll tax.

However, a federal appeals court blocked his order from going into effect while it considered the case, thus effectively allowing the law to stay in place. In July, the Supreme Court refused to overturn the federal appeals court’s decision to block felons from voting while they decided the case.

Then, just over a week ago, the appeals court delivered its final judgment, deciding in a 6-4 ruling that the Republican’s law was not unconstitutional, and that felons would be required to pay fees in order to vote.

Bloomberg’s Donations

The move prompted significant outrage, and civil rights groups representing the felons said they would keep fighting.

But with just weeks to go before the election — and even less time before Florida’s Oct. 5 voter registration deadline — it would be almost impossible for yet another full-scale legal battle to be resolved in their favor.

With little hope for any kind of sweeping legal change, many people instead began paying the fines felons owed so that they could vote. The effort, which has been spearheaded by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC), specifically focuses on Black and Hispanic voters who are already registered and who owe debts that are less than $1,500.

According to the FRRC, the list of people who have donated to their cause includes Michael Jordan, LeBron James, and John Legend. 

The largest donation so far, however, appears to be from Bloomberg and his team. The contribution, which the former mayor announced in a statement Tuesday, comes just after he pledged to give at least $100 million to elect Democratic nominee Joe Biden in Florida.

According to a memo accessed by The Washington Post, Bloomberg viewed the contribution as a more cost-effective way to get more Democratic votes in the state than persuading other voters.

“We have identified a significant vote share that requires a nominal investment. The data shows that in Florida, Black voters are a unique universe unlike any other voting bloc, where the Democratic support rate tends to be 90%-95%,” the memo allegedly read.

Although Bloomberg’s efforts are political, Desmond Meade, the president of the FRRC, emphasized in a statement to The Post that the group is nonpartisan and does not share Bloomberg’s goal of encouraging just one political party.

Gaetz Claims Bloomberg’s Donations are Illegal

While Meade said Bloomberg’s donation does not dictate how the FRRC is operating, others, including Gaetz, have raised legal questions regarding the move.

“[Under Florida law] it’s a third-degree felony for someone to either directly or indirectly provide something of value to impact whether or not someone votes. So the question is whether or not paying off someone’s fines and legal obligations counts as something of value, and it clearly does,” the representative explained when speaking with Fox New’s Sean Hannity Tuesday night.

“If Michael Bloomberg was offering to pay off people’s credit card debts, you would obviously see the value in that. When you improve someone’s net worth by eliminating their financial liabilities, that’s something of value.”

“I believe there may be a criminal investigation already underway of the Bloomberg-connected activities in Florida,” he added, noting that he had spoken with Florida’s Attorney General.

The existence of a criminal probe has not been confirmed by any law enforcement officials. Bloomberg, for his part, has not yet responded to the accusations.

In a matter as politically charged as felon voting rights, it is probable that both sides will pull out all the stops. Especially because, in a state as heavily contested as Florida, adding felons to the voter rolls could actually sway the election.

In 2016, President Donald Trump only won Florida in 2016 by 1.2 percentage points — less than 113,000 vote difference. Right now, polls from the state show Trump and Biden in a dead heat.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Politico) (The New York Post)

Continue Reading