Connect with us

Politics

Here’s What You Can Expect to See on Election Night as Early Results Roll In

Published

on

  • Election Day is here, and while some states will start reporting results as soon as the first polls close, the public may have to wait days or even weeks for the final results to trickle in from the historic amount of absentee ballots cast.
  • Mail-in votes take longer to count than in-person for a number of reasons, including more thorough verification processes.
  • While some states like Georgia have already started counting the absentee ballots, other key battlegrounds, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, did not start counting until today.

Election Day

For months, election officials and experts have warned that the United States was unlikely to see a clear winner declared on Nov. 3. Now that Election Day is finally here, Americans are wondering when they will know the outcome of this historic and contentious election cycle.

While the final results could take days if not weeks to roll in, experts have laid out predictions of what Americans might see tonight.

What Happens When the Polls Close?

The first polls close on the East Coast at 6 p.m ET, and the last will not shut down until after midnight.

While that means it will be a late night for those on the East Coast, it also means folks on the West Coast will start seeing results coming in as early as 4 p.m. when states start reporting partial returns as soon as polls close.

One important thing to keep in mind here is that these results will not come in all at once, so if you’re looking at those early returns, they will very likely be skewed. That is especially relevant in the context of mail-in ballots.

Absentee ballots simply take longer to count than in-person votes for a number of reasons. Each mail-in ballot has to be opened and its eligibility must be verified. That process takes even longer in states that require more strict verification processes, such as matching a voter’s signature with their records, contacting voters if there are mistakes.

Some states have already begun the process of counting those absentee ballots, but others are required by state law to wait. For example, while key battlegrounds like Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia allow counties to start tabulating their absentee ballots before the election, others like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin do not start counting until Election Day.

What Does That Mean for How Results Come In?

This variance of when absentee ballots are counted in each state has two major implications for election results.

First of all, it means that some swing states may report more complete results earlier on than others depending on when they both start and stop counting mail-in ballots.

Take Georgia, for example: a state that both starts counting absentee ballots as they arrive and stops accepting new ballots after polls close at 7 p.m. on Election Day. That means that when Georgia starts publishing its returns, they will include the absentee ballots that have already been counted days and even weeks ago. On top of that, because of their cutoff for new absentee ballots, there will be fewer new ones to tally.

By contrast, Pennsylvania will not start counting absentee ballots until today and will allow those ballots to arrive until Nov. 6  — at least for now, though a Supreme Court ruling could prevent ballots received after Election Day from being counted.

While Americans may expect to see expedited results and complete results in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania might take a while, which brings us to the second major implication: some swing states will likely be called earlier — and possibly much earlier — than others.

One common misconception to note here is that when someone says on election night (or even in the few days that follow) that a state has been “called,” that is not the official result. Instead, it is just a determination made by organizations like the Associated Press based on partial counts, and while those projections are oftentimes correct, they are considered unofficial by election officials.

In fact, the results are usually not made official until weeks after the election when they are certified by election authorities. While we might expect to see some states called today by the AP and others, as The New York Times explains, the big question this year is “whether enough states will have enough of their votes counted on election night for accurate projections. And depending on which states those are, we may not know immediately which candidate has actually reached the 270 votes in the Electoral College to have won the presidency.”

Even though states might be called tonight, it is all about reaching that 270 threshold, and unless a bunch of battlegrounds are called for one candidate very early on, we will be playing the waiting game for at least a few days, if not longer.

Other Obstacles

That process will likely be made even longer by the slew of court battles in battleground states Americans can expect to see in the coming days and weeks. 

President Donald Trump himself has said he will fight voting rules and results all the way to the Supreme Court, and on Sunday, he indicated that he would start that process immediately.

“We’re going to go in the night of, as soon as that election’s over, we’re going in with our lawyers,” the president told reporters, specifically implying he would go after Pennsylvania and other swing states  for counting ballots after Election Day.

Notably, Trump has also denied that he would prematurely declare victory, including as recently as today, when he said he would only declare victory “when there is victory, if there is victory.”

Meanwhile, Axios reported this morning that advisers for former Vice President Joe Biden told them that, “if news organizations declare Joe Biden the mathematical president-elect, he plans to address the nation as its new leader, even if President Trump continues to fight in court.”

“So if Biden is declared the winner, he’ll begin forming his government and looking presidential — and won’t yield to doubts Trump might try to sow,” the outlet continued.

Record Turnout

While much is still up in the air, one thing Americans are almost certain to see — and have already seen through early and mail-in voting — records voter turnout.

As of Monday, more than 98 million Americans had cast their ballots, which is roughly 70% of the total voter turnout in 2016. Texas, Hawaii, and Montana surpassed their entire 2016 turnout even before Election Day.

But regardless of these historic numbers, there are still plenty of other states that have seen lower mail-in and early voting relative to total 2016 turnout, which likely means those states will see higher in-person voting Tuesday.

That includes some of the most key battleground states like Pennsylvania, which as of Monday had reached only about 40% of its total 2016 tallies, as well as Ohio and Michigan, with both hit around 60%.

Early this morning, there were already reports of long lines forming before polling places started to open. 

According to AP, these long lines on Election Day are not unusual, and they are not necessarily a sign of voter suppression or technical issues, but rather likely a product of high voter turnout.

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

Politics

Sen. Smith Leads Effort to “Protect Access to Abortion Care Where it is Still Legal”

Published

on

The Senator also told Rogue Rocket she supports major reforms to the Supreme Court.


Protecting Access to Medication Abortion Act

As conservative states move to limit abortion following the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, Sen. Tina Smith (D-Mn.) is working to ensure access to the procedure is protected wherever it is still possible.

“What I’m working on right now is to try to protect access to abortion care where it is still legal in this country after the Supreme Court basically eviscerated this 50-year freedom,” Smith told Rogue Rocket while discussing a bill she recently introduced to safeguard access to medication abortion.

The legislation, dubbed the Protecting Access to Medication Abortion Act, would codify existing Food and Drug Administration guidelines on medication abortion pills to ensure people in states where abortion remains legal can always access them through telehealth and certified pharmacies, including mail-order pharmacies.

“What my bill would do is it would say in states where abortion is still legal, you should be able to get access to medication abortion — which is safe and is effective in the first ten weeks of pregnancy, it’s been around for over 20 years,” said Smith, who previously served as the Vice President for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota.

“You don’t need to go into the doctor to get access to it. You can do a telehealth visit and it can be mailed to your home,” she continued. “Or potentially, if you live in a place where abortion has been banned, you could go someplace — go to Minnesota, for example — where abortion is legal and get access to it there. This is a way of trying to add another layer of protection for women, people who are grappling with the loss of this fundamental freedom and control over their own body.”

“You have providers who have dedicated their lives to making sure that women have access to the health care that they need. You have states that are passing laws that criminalize doctors, criminalize women for accessing abortion care in their states. I think we have to be real, that we need to try to protect both providers and women.”

Smith Questions Legitimacy of Supreme Court

Smith also said the decision to overturn Roe undermines the Supreme Court’s legitimacy because the decision represents the views of “an extreme minority that is enforcing its will” on a majority of Americans who, as polls have consistently shown, broadly support abortion protections.

The reversal, she said, is the result of Republicans’ “concerted effort” to pack the Supreme Court with conservative justices.

“Republican senators and Republican presidents have put on the Supreme Court individuals that they knew that they could trust to overturn Roe,” the senator stated. “I think it calls into question the legitimacy of the court […] I think on a whole range of other issues where we see, you know, what looks to a lot of us like a Supreme Court that is putting its own opinions into court precedent rather than following precedent and the law.” 

Smith went on to say she supports expanding the Supreme Court and argued there are also many other ways to address the issue of legitimacy.

“Americans are seeing that the […] legitimacy of the court is deeply damaged. The question is, what do we do about it? How do we restore trust in the court?” Smith asserted. “Restoring balance to the court by adding justices is one important step, and I support that. There are other things that we could do.”

“The Supreme Court doesn’t abide by any clear responsibility to reveal who is paying for trips of Supreme Court justices or who’s behind the amicus briefs,” she added. “So there’s a level of financial transparency that doesn’t exist on the court like it does in other parts of government.”

The senator concluded by calling for action at the federal, state, and individual levels and urging Americans to take the issue to the polls this fall.

“I think that it is just important to understand that the Supreme Court has spoken, but the Supreme Court does not get the last word,” she said

“There is action that citizens can take, actions that I can take as a legislator, action that governors and attorney generals and state legislatures can take. And in a democracy — and we live in a democracy — we have to bring the power of people’s views on this forward in all the ways that we can, including at the ballot box.”

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

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court Rules High School Football Coach Can Pray on Field

Published

on

All of our rights are “hanging in the balance,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissenting opinion.


Court’s Conservatives Break With 60 Years of History

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a former high school football coach who lost his job after he refused to stop praying on the field at the end of games.

Joseph Kennedy, who was hired at Bremerton High School in Washington State in 2008, kneeled at the 50-yard line after games for years and prayed. He was often joined by some of his players, as well as others from the opposing team.

In 2015, the school asked him not to pray if it interfered with his duties or involved students.

Shortly after, Kennedy was placed on paid administrative leave, and after a school official recommended that his contract not be renewed for the 2016 season he did not reapply for the position.

Kennedy sued the school, eventually appealing the case to the Supreme Court.

The justices voted 6 to 3, with the liberal justices dissenting.

“Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse republic — whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance,” he added.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion.

“Today’s decision is particularly misguided because it elevates the religious rights of a school official, who voluntarily accepted public employment and the limits that public employment entails, over those of his students, who are required to attend school and who this court has long recognized are particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection,” she said.

“In doing so, the court sets us further down a perilous path in forcing states to entangle themselves with religion, with all of our rights hanging in the balance.”

The defense in the case argued that the public nature of Kennedy’s prayers put pressure on students to join him, and that he was acting in his capacity as a public employee, not a private citizen.

Kennedy’s lawyers contended that such an all-encompassing definition of his job duties denied him his right to self-expression on school grounds.

“This is just so awesome,” Kennedy said in a statement following the decision. “All I’ve ever wanted was to be back on the field with my guys … I thank God for answering our prayers and sustaining my family through this long battle.”

Religious Liberty or Separation of Church and State?

Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court decided that the government cannot organize or promote prayer in public schools, and it has since generally abided by that jurisprudence.

But the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts has been increasingly protective of religious expression, especially after the confirmation of three conservative Trump-appointed judges.

Reactions to the ruling were mostly split between liberals who saw the separation of church and state being dissolved and conservatives who hailed it as a victory for religious liberty.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the Bremerton school district, said in a statement that the ruling “gutted decades of established law that protected students’ religious freedom.”

“If Coach Kennedy were named Coach Akbar and he had brought a prayer blanket to the 50 yard line to pray after a game,” one Twitter user said, “I’ve got a 401(k) that says this illegitimate, Christofascist SCOTUS rules 6-3 against him.”

“The people defending former Coach Kennedy’s right to kneel on the field after the game to pray – are the ones condemning Colin Kaepernick’s right to kneel on the field to protest police brutality against Black Americans,” another user wrote.

Others, like Republican Congressmember Ronny Jackson and former Secretary of State for the Trump administration Mike Pompeo, celebrated the ruling for protecting religious freedom and upholding what they called the right to pray.

“I am excited to build on this victory and continue securing our inalienable right to religious freedom,” Pompeo wrote.

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

Continue Reading

Politics

Rep. Schiff Urges DOJ to Investigate Trump for Election Crimes: “There’s Enough Evidence”

Published

on

“When the Justice Department finds evidence of criminal potential criminal wrongdoing, they need to investigate,” the congressman said.


Schiff Says DOJ Should Launch Inquiry

Rep. Adam Schiff (R-Ca.) told Rogue Rocket that he believes there is “certainly […] enough evidence for the Justice Department to open an investigation” into possible election crimes committed by former President Donald Trump.

Schiff, who took the lead in questioning witnesses testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection on Tuesday, said that it will be up to the DOJ to determine whether “they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of criminal activity, but added that an investigation must first be launched.

“Donald Trump should be treated like any other citizen,” the congressman said, noting that a federal judge in California has already ruled that Trump and his allies “likely” engaged in multiple federal criminal acts. “When the Justice Department finds evidence of criminal potential criminal wrongdoing, they need to investigate.”

“One of the concerns I have is it’s a year and a half since these events. And while […] there’s an investigation going on in Fulton County by the district attorney, I don’t see a federal grand jury convened in Atlanta looking into this, and I think it’s fair to ask why,” Schiff continued, referencing the ongoing inquiry into Trump’s attempts to overturn the election in Georgia.

“Normally, the Justice Department doesn’t wait for Congress to go first. They pursue evidence and they have the subpoena power. They’re often much more agile than the Congress. And I think it’s important that it not just be the lower-level people who broke into the Capitol that day and committed those acts of violence who are under the microscope,” he continued. “I think anyone who engaged in criminal activity trying to overturn the election where there’s evidence that they may have engaged in criminal acts should be investigated.”

Schiff Takes Aim at DOJ’s Handling of Committee Subpoenas

Schiff also expressed frustration with how the DOJ has handled referrals the committee has made for former Trump officials who have refused to comply with subpoenas to testify before the panel.

“We have referred four people for criminal prosecution who have obstructed our investigation. The Justice Department has only moved forward with two of them,” he stated. “That’s not as powerful an incentive as we would like. The law requires the Justice Department to present these cases to the grand jury when we refer them, and by only referring half of them, it sends a very mixed message about whether congressional subpoenas need to be complied with.”

As far as why the congressman thought the DOJ has chosen to operate in this manner in regards to the Jan. 6 panel’s investigation, he said he believes “the leadership of the department is being very cautious.” 

“I think that they want to make sure that the department avoids controversy if possible, doesn’t do anything that could even be perceived as being political,” Schiff continued. “And while I appreciate that sentiment […] at the same time, the rule of law has to be applied equally to everyone. If you’re so averse, […] it means that you’re giving effectively a pass or immunity to people who may have broken the law. That, too, is a political decision, and I think it’s the wrong decision.”

On the Note of Democracy

Schiff emphasized the importance of the American people working together to protect democracy in the fallout of the insurrection.

“I really think it’s going to require a national movement of people to step up to preserve our democracy. This is not something that I think Congress can do alone. We’re going to try to protect those institutions, but Republicans are fighting this tooth and nail,” he asserted. “It’s difficult to get through a Senate where Mitch McConnell can filibuster things.”

“We don’t have the luxury of despair when it comes to what we’re seeing around us. We have the obligation to do what generations did before us, and that is defend our democracy,” the congressman continued. “We had to go to war in World War II to defend our democracy from the threat of fascism. You know, we’re not called upon to make those kinds of sacrifices. We see the bravery of people in Ukraine putting their lives on the line to defend their country, their sovereignty, their democracy. Thank God we’re not asked to do that.”

“So what we have to do is, by comparison, so much easier. But it does require us to step up, to be involved, to rally around local elections officials who are doing their jobs, who are facing death threats, and to protect them and to push back against efforts around the country to pass laws to make it easier for big liars to overturn future elections.” 

“We are not passengers in all of this, unable to affect the course of our country. We can, you know, grab the rudder and steer this country in the direction that we want.”

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

Continue Reading