- A US District Judge said New York must hold the Democratic Presidential Primary on June 23 as previously scheduled.
- The state’s Board of Elections had canceled the event citing coronavirus concerns; however, the primaries would still go forward in the counties with other issues on the ballot.
- Former candidate Andrew Yang filed a lawsuit against the Board, saying that it suppressed voters’ rights and violated the rights of candidates who qualified to be on the ballot.
- The judge sided with Yang, saying voters should have the right to vote for candidates who share their viewpoints, and that candidates should not be deprived of their ability to get delegates heading into the convention.
- Governor Andrew Cuomo has signed an executive order to mail absentee ballots to every voter in the state so they can participate in the election via mail. In-person polls will still remain open.
Presidential Primary Reinstated
A United States District Judge ruled that New York’s presidential primary election is to go forward on June 23 as scheduled.
At the end of April, New York’s State Board of Elections canceled the primary citing concerns over the coronavirus. The board voted to remove all candidates who had suspended their campaigns from the ballot, leaving only the presumptive nominee Joe Biden, and eliminating the need for a Democratic presidential primary. Not all primaries were canceled, though. Counties with other elections on their ballots were still to cast their votes.
This decision was met with criticism from many in the Bernie Sanders campaign and others involved in the primaries. Former candidate Andrew Yang ended up hitting the election board with a lawsuit, claiming that this choice suppressed voters in the state and violated his right as a qualified candidate to appear on the ballot.
U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres agreed with Yang. Torres wrote that by “removing Yang, Sanders, and eight other Democratic presidential candidates from the ballot deprived them of associational rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”
She also claimed that Yang was able to prove that he and his delegates had “suffered an ‘injury’” as a result of the election board’s decision. Yang, and the other former candidates, chose to suspend their campaigns rather than terminate them so they could continue to appear on ballots and collect delegates in the remaining states. Torres said that not only did the decision to cancel the election deprive candidates of their shot at the bid for presidency, but it also “deprived their pledged delegates of the opportunity to run for a position where they could influence the party platform” at the August convention.
Torres also added that it took voter’s chance to elect delegates that represent their points of view away from them. As a result, Yang and Sanders, as well as Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bennet, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Deval Patrick and Tom Steyer will appear on the presidential primary ballot alongside Biden.
Yang released a statement on Twitter celebrating the decision. He said he was “glad that a federal judge agreed that depriving millions of New Yorkers of the right to vote was wrong.
Faiz Shakir, Sanders’ campaign manager, also gave a statement applauding the order.
“We’re glad Judge Torres has restored basic democracy in New York,” Shakir said. “People in every state should have the right to express their preference in the 2020 Democratic primary.”
Others online were also happy with the news, prompting #YangSavesDemocracy to trend on Twitter for a moment.
The race may not be over, though. Douglas A. Kellner, a co-chair of the New York Board of Elections, told the New York Times that the board is “reviewing the decision and preparing an appeal.” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also said that while the elections are set to go ahead in June per the court’s order, an appeal is possible.
What Comes Next?
Many, however, are concerned about how the state will vote during the COVID-19 pandemic. In his initial reasoning for canceling the elections, Kellner said that holding this presidential primary right now would “essentially a beauty contest that, given the situation with the public health emergency, seems to be unnecessary and, indeed, frivolous,”
New York City has become the epicenter of the outbreak in the United States, and has one of the worst outbreaks globally. The state has over 300,000 cases and almost 20,000 deaths. New York City makes up roughly half of the state’s case totals.
While states like Wisconsin have held their primary elections during this, that choice sparked a lot of outrage among voters and others throughout the country. Several reports indicate that some Wisconsin voters have tested positive for the coronavirus.
Because of this, mail-in voting will be prioritized. In April, Governor Cuomo signed an executive order directing the Board of Elections to mail all New York voters absentee ballot applications. This will allow any and all voters who want to vote by mail to do so, potentially limiting long lines and close contact at polling stations.
Polls will still remain open for those who fail to apply for an absentee ballot and for those who need assistance requiring in-person voting.
See what others are saying: (New York Times) (Gothamist) (Bloomgberg)
Contradicting Studies Leave Biden’s COVID-19 Booster Plan Up in the Air
While some studies show that the effectiveness of Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID vaccines decrease over time, other publications argue the decline is not substantial and a full-flung booster campaign is premature.
Booster Rollout in Flux
President Joe Biden’s plan to offer COVID-19 booster shots is facing serious hurdles just a week before it is set to roll out. Issues with the plan stem from growing divisions among the scientific community over the necessity of a third jab.
The timing of booster shots administration has been a point of contention for months, but the debate intensified in August when Biden announced that, pending regulatory approval, the government would start offering boosters on Sept. 20 to adults eight months after they received their second dose of Pfizer or Moderna.
The announcement was backed by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci, among others.
However, many scientists and other health experts both inside and outside of the government have continually criticized the plan. They have claimed the data supporting boosters was not compelling and argued that, while the FDA approved third doses for immunocompromised Americans, the push to give them to the general public was premature.
The plan also drew international backlash from those who argued the U.S. should not launch a booster campaign when billions of people around the world have not gotten their first dose yet. Earlier this month, the World Health Organization (WHO) extended its request that wealthy countries hold off on giving boosters until at least the end of the year.
Those arguments appeared to be bolstered when federal health regulators said earlier this month that they needed more time to review Moderna’s application for booster shots, forcing the Biden Administration to delay offering third shots to those who received that vaccine.
Now, Pfizer recipients will be the only people who may be eligible for boosters by the initial deadline, though that depends on a forthcoming decision from an FDA expert advisory committee that is set to vote Friday on whether or not to recommend approval.
Debate Continues in Crucial Week
More contradictory information has been coming out in the days leading up to the highly anticipated decision.
On Monday, an international group of 18 scientists, including some at the FDA and the WHO, published a review in The Lancet arguing that there is no credible data to show the vaccines’ ability to prevent severe disease declined substantially over time, so boosters are not yet needed for the general, non-immunocompromised public.
The experts claimed that any advantage boosters may provide does not outweigh the benefit of giving the extra doses to all those who are unvaccinated worldwide.
On the other side, a study released Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine found that people who received a third shot of Pfizer in Israel were much less likely to develop severe COVID than those who just had the first two jabs.
The same day, both Pfizer and Moderna published data backing that up as well. Pfizer released an analysis that said data on boosters and the Delta variant from both Israel and the U.S. suggested “that vaccine protection against COVID-19 infection wanes approximately 6 to 8 months following the second dose.”
Moderna also published data, that has not yet been peer-reviewed, which also found its jab provided less immunity and protection against severe disease as time went on.
Further complicating matters was the fact that the FDA additionally released its report on Pfizer’s analysis of the need for a booster shortly after Pfizer’s publication. Normally, those findings would shine a light on the agency’s stance on the issue, but the regulator did not take a clear stand.
“Some observational studies have suggested declining efficacy of [Pfizer] over time […] while others have not,” the agency wrote. “Overall, data indicate that currently US-licensed or authorized COVID-19 vaccines still afford protection against severe COVID-19 disease and death.”
It remains unclear what the FDA panel will determine when they meet Friday, or what a similar CDC expert panel that is expected to meet next week will decide regarding vaccination policies.
Notably, officials at the two agencies are not required to follow the recommendations of their expert panels, though they usually do.
Even if the FDA approves Pfizer’s application as it stands to give boosters to those 16 and older, people familiar with the matter said the CDC might recommend the third jabs only for people 65 and older or those who are especially at risk.
Regardless of what is decided, experts have said that it is absolutely essential for the agency to stand firm in its decision and clearly explain its reasoning to the public in order to combat further confusion and misinformation.
“F.D.A. does the best in situations when there are strongly held but conflicting views, when they’re forthcoming with the data and really explain decisions,” Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health told The New York Times. “It’s important for the F.D.A. not to say, ‘Here’s our decision, mic drop. It’s much better for them to say, ‘Here’s how we looked at the data, here are the conclusions we made from the data, and here’s why we’re making the conclusions.’”
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (CNBC) (The Guardian)
Kansas Lawmaker Accused of Kicking Teen in Groin Receives Suspended Sentence
Before allegedly assaulting the teenager in class, the lawmaker and former substitute teacher ranted to students about God, the Bible, Masturbation, and more.
Samsel Displays Inappropriate Behavior
Kansas Rep. Mark Samsel (R) was given a 90-day suspended jail sentence and one year of probation Monday after pleading guilty to three misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct.
Samsel, a former high school substitute teacher in Wellsville, initially caused outrage in April after displaying bizarre classroom behavior. Footage recorded by students and published by the Kansas City Star showed Samsel ranting about the wrath of God, the Bible, masturbation, suicide, and other topics. At one point, he allegedly even pushed a student against a wall and kicked him in the groin.
While that specific altercation doesn’t appear to have been caught on video, student footage shows what seems to be the aftermath of the alleged assault.
“I’m simply built different, Mark. I don’t feel pain,” the student jokingly tells Samsel after picking himself up off the ground. Samsel responds by asking if the student is about to cry.
“You want to go to the nurse? She can check it for you?” Samsel adds.
“Make babies! Who likes making babies? That feels good, doesn’t it? Procreate,” Samsel said at another point in the video. “You haven’t masturbated? Don’t answer that question.”
Other notable quotes include, “Would you like me to introduce [you] to a sophomore who’s tried killing himself three times because he has two parents and they’re both females?,” and, “I could put the wrath of God on your right now because that is what he is trying to do. You should run and scream cause the devil’s getting the hell out of my classroom.”
After students reported his behavior, Samsel told local news outlets that he didn’t do anything wrong and that the situation was actually “planned.”
“The kids and I planned ALL this to SEND A MESSAGE about art, mental health, teenage suicide, how we treat our educators and one another. To who? Parents. And grandparents. And all of Wellsville,” he also wrote on Snapchat, according to The Star.
However, he later told investigators that he what at his “wit’s end” with “misbehaving students.” Then last month, he announced via Facebook that he had sought mental health treatment and was giving up his substitute teaching license, describing the situation as an “isolated episode of mania with psychotic features’‘ prompted by “extreme stress, pressure and agitation.”
Samsel faced additional consequences in conjunction with his suspended sentence and year of probation. He was also banned from using social media, unless for political purposes. He cannot have contact with the students who reported him and must write apology letters to those involved. He must also follow mental health treatment recommendations and take any prescribed medications
Samsel, for his part, apologized in his court appearance via Zoom, saying he never “intended for anyone to get hurt.”
Some parents seem happy with the sentence, like Joshua Zeck, who told the Star, “From the beginning, all I wanted was for Mark to get some help.”
“I don’t want to see anybody go to jail. So if this does him so good and he’s doing better, I’m happy to hear that,” Zeck continued.
Others in the community told the paper that his sentencing was too lenient, including Mary Woods, whose niece had class with Samsel the day of the incident.
“I don’t think that’s enough. He laid his hands on a kid. … He traumatized a lot of these kids. I think it’s bullsh*t, to say so myself.”
As far as whether Samsel will keep his job in the state legislature, Kansas House Speaker Ron Ryckman said that’s up to voters to decide.
See what others are saying: (The Kansas City Star)(Insider)(NBC News)
Alabama Man Dies After Being Turned Away From 43 Hospitals Overwhelmed by COVID Patients, Family Says
Alabama currently has the second-highest COVID hospitalization average and fourth-lowest vaccination rate in the country.
Full ICUs Allegedly Delay Care for Emergent Cardiac Patient
The family of an Alabama man who died of heart issues is calling on people to get vaccinated after he was turned away by 43 hospitals in three states while having a cardiac emergency because all of their Intensive Care Units were at maximum capacity with COVID patients.
The man, 73-year-old Ray DeMonia, was taken to Cullman Regional hospital in Alabama on Aug. 23. The next morning — around 12 hours after he was admitted — his daughter said her mother got a call saying that hospital workers were unable to find him a specialized cardiac ICU bed in the area.
He was eventually transferred to a hospital in Mississippi about 200 miles away and died on Sept. 1, just three days before his birthday.
In DeMonia’s obituary, his family pleaded with people to get the vaccine.
“In honor of Ray, please get vaccinated if you have not, in an effort to free up resources for non COVID related emergencies,” they wrote. “He would not want any other family to go through what his did.”
Officials and healthcare providers in Alabama have said DeMonia’s case is not a one-off incident.
Jennifer Malone, a spokesperson for Cullman Regional, told The Washington Post that situations like this have been an “ongoing problem” reported by doctors at the hospital and others throughout the state.
“When patients are transported to other facilities to receive care that they need, that’s becoming increasingly more difficult because all hospitals are experiencing an increased lack of bed space,” she said.
On Friday, Scott Harris, the head of the Alabama Department of Public Health, said that the state’s spike in ICU patients has stabilized some. Still, he added there are not enough ICU beds for the number of patients that need intensive care, many of whom are unvaccinated.
Even with the spikes “stabilizing,” Alabama still has the second-highest COVID hospitalizations in the U.S., according to The Post tracker.
The calls from DeMonia’s family for people to get vaccinated also come as Alabama struggles with the country’s fourth-lowest vaccination rate. Despite those figures, top officials in the state are doing little to address the issue.
Last week, after President Joe Biden rolled out a sweeping vaccine mandate for 100 million people and promised he would use his power to circumvent Republican leaders “undermining” relief efforts, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) told the president to “bring it on.”
Ivey then doubled down on her refusal to mandate vaccines in her state, where people are being refused emergency hospital care because so many unvaccinated people are in ICU beds.
“You bet I’m standing in the way. And if he thinks he’s going to move me out of the way, he’s got another thing coming,” she said, referring to the mandates as “outrageous” and “overreaching” policies that will “no doubt be challenged in the courts.”