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

Sen. Baldwin Estimates “13 or 14 Republicans” Will Vote for Respect for Marriage Act

Published

on

The senator told Rogue Rocket she believes the legislation will pass “with a broad bipartisan majority.”


Respect for Marriage Act

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wi.) told Rogue Rocket that she believes as many as “13 or 14” Republican senators will vote on a bill to codify protections for gay and interracial marriage.

The legislation, dubbed the Respect for Marriage Act, was proposed in response to concerns about the future of marriage equality in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Not only did Roe’s reversal undermine the right to privacy and thus the foundation of the precedents that protected essential rights, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called for the court to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that established same-sex marriage.

“The first thing [the bill] does is it repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, which sets up a federal definition of non-recognition of marriages between two people of the same sex, and so that would no longer be the law of the land,” Baldwin explained.

“And secondly, it says that the federal government, through a constitutional provision called ‘full faith and credit,’ will give full faith and credit to the acts of states,” she continued. “So if you’re legally married in a state that solemnized same-sex marriages, the federal government will recognize that marriage as well as other states being required to respect that marriage.” 

In July, the House passed legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support from 47 Republicans, which is nearly a quarter of the caucus. The proposal also appears to be broadly backed by the public. Recent polls show that 70% of Americans support gay marriage.

Ongoing Battle

Republican senators, however, have been hesitant to vote for the bill ahead of the midterm elections, as Democratic leadership had intended. As a result, the senators leading the charge — including Sen. Baldwin — asked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to push a vote until after the midterms, and he consented.

Sen. Baldwin said many GOP senators wanted a clarification that the bill would protect religious liberties and not create a new mandate requiring religious institutions to respect gay or interracial marriage.

She noted that there has been clarifying language put in the legislation to ensure that it just pertains to state recognition of marriage.

“I think the other issue that was being raised — that only time will help us settle — is an accusation that this was going to be a push before the midterm elections,” she added. “And so it was a political act rather than something that we’re doing because we’re very serious about passing this into law and very serious about protecting people’s rights.”

“So it seems pretty clear to me that we gained greater support after the midterms than we had prior to the midterms,”  Baldwin continued. “I do believe we’re going to pass it. I do believe that we’re going to pass it with a broad bipartisan majority.

Citing the clarifying language added to the bill, the senator said she thinks “there will be some additional momentum because of the time we’ve taken with this.”

 “I feel like we were told in pretty clear terms that we would have some people support only if the vote came after the midterms,” she added.

When asked how many Republicans she believes will ultimately vote in favor of the bill, Baldwin responded: “If I were if I were to give you my best-educated guess, I think we’ll have either 13 or 14 Republicans join us.” 

“I’m pushing to have this vote as close to the midterms after they pass as possible. So maybe in mid-November, […] plenty of time before the end of the year and before the membership actually changes,” she noted. “But also, we need to appeal to that compassionate side of some of my Republican colleagues who, you know, this is about a vote that you’re going to take that may well affect a niece and nephew, a cousin, a dear friend.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The Hill) (CNN)

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court Begins Contentious New Term as Approval Rating Hits Historic Low

Published

on

The most volatile cases the court will consider involve affirmative action, voting rights, elections, and civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community.


High Court to Hear Numerous Controversial Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday officially kicked off a new term that will be marked by a number of very contentious cases.

The justices, led by a conservative super-majority, will hear many matters that have enormous implications for the American people.

The first case the court will hear this term involves a major environmental dispute that will determine the scope of government authority under the Clean Water Act — a decision that could have a massive impact on U.S. water quality at a time when water crises’ have been heightened by climate change.

The case also comes amid increasing concerns about federal inaction regarding climate change, especially after the Supreme Court significantly limited the government’s power to act in this area at the end of its last term.

Cases Involving Race

Several of the most anticipated decisions also center around race, including a pair of cases that challenge affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

For over four decades, the high court has repeatedly upheld that race can be a factor in college admissions to ensure a more equitable student body. Despite the fact that multiple challenges have been struck down in the past, the court’s conservative super majority could very well undo 40 years of precedent and undermine essential protections.

The high court will decide a legal battle that could significantly damage key voting protections for minorities set forth under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case in question stems from a lower court opinion that invalidated Alabama’s congressional map for violating a provision in the VRA prohibiting voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race.

Alabama had drawn its map so only one of its seven congressional districts was majority Black, despite the fact that nearly one in every three voting-age residents in the state are Black. 

States’ Power Over Elections 

Also on the topic of gerrymandering and elections, the justices will hear a case that could have a profound impact on the very nature of American democracy. The matter centers around a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court to strike down the Republican-drawn congressional map on the grounds that it amounted to an illegal gerrymander that violated the state’s Constitution.

The North Carolina GOP appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause gives state legislatures almost total control over how federal elections are carried out in their state under a theory called the independent state legislature doctrine.

“That argument, in its most extreme form, would mean that [sic] no state court and no state agency could interfere with the state legislature’s version of election rules, regardless of the rules set down in the state constitution,” NPR explained.

In other words, if the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina Republicans, they would essentially be giving state legislatures unchecked power over how voting maps are designed and elections are administered.

LGBTQ+ Rights

Another notable decision the justices will make could have huge implications for the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights more broadly. That matter involved a web designer in Colorado named Lori Smith who refused to design websites for same-sex couples because she believed it violates her right to religious freedoms.

That belief, however, goes against a Colorado nondiscrimination law that bans businesses that serve the public from denying their services to customers based on sexual orientation or identity.

As a result, Smith argues that the Colorado law violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. If the high court rules in her favor, it would undermine protections for the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado and likely other states with similar laws.

Experts also say such a ruling could go far beyond that. As Georgetown University’s Kelsi Corkran told NPR, “if Smith is correct that there’s a free speech right to selectively choose her customers based on the messages she wants to endorse,” the Colorado law would also allow white supremacists to deny services to people of color because that “would be a message of endorsement.”

Record-Low Approval Rating

The court’s high-stakes docket also comes at a time when its reputation has been marred by questions of legitimacy.

A new Gallup poll published last week found that the Supreme Court’s approval rating has sunk to a record low. Specifically, less than half of Americans said they have at least a “fair amount” of trust in the judicial branch — a 20% drop from just two years ago.

Beyond that, a record number of people also now say that the court is too conservative. Experts argue that these numbers are massively consequential, especially as the U.S. heads into yet another highly-contentious court term.

“The Supreme Court is at an important moment,” Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs told The Hill

“Trust in the institutions has vastly diminished, certainly among Democrats, and many have a close eye on how they rule on other vital matters. If decisions seem to keep coming from a very pointed political direction, frustration and calls for reform will only mount.”

See what others are saying: (The Hill) (CNN) (The Wall Street Journal)

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event

Published

on

The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.


“Where’s Jackie?” 

Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.

The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.

The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.

“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.” 

The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.

“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.

“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”

The Age Maximum Question

Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.

Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.

While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.

These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.

There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.

Source: Business Insider

What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.

As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.

Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.

However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)

Continue Reading