Taking too long? Close loading screen.
Connect with us

World

Michigan reports its highest number of new coronavirus cases in a single day

Published

on

A medical worker takes a nasal swab sample from a student to test for Covid-19 at a pop up testing site in New York on October 8.
A medical worker takes a nasal swab sample from a student to test for Covid-19 at a pop up testing site in New York on October 8. Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images

New York state will employ a “micro-cluster” strategy to combat Covid-19 during the fall months, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced at a press conference Saturday.

Cuomo acknowledged that the state will likely see an increase in the transmission rate in the coming months due to schools reopening and cooler weather driving people indoors. Additionally, increased rates throughout the country will continue to affect New York, because many people have continued to travel to New York, Cuomo said. 

The “micro-cluster” strategy will use enhanced data that the state has been able to collect through increased testing and will enable state authorities to fight Covid-19 on a “block by block” level, rather than on a larger state, region, or county level. 

Cuomo said the state has now been able to collect testing data that is so specific that they are not permitted to show it because it would violate privacy laws. However, the data will allow the state to target Covid-19 clusters to the block(s) where it is originating, and therefore allow for targeted mitigation and enforcement efforts, he said. 

By fighting “micro-clusters” at the block level, rather than at a larger state or county level, mitigation efforts will cause less disruption to other areas with low transmission rates, Cuomo said.

When a “micro-cluster” is identified, the state will ramp up testing, mitigation, and social distancing enforcement in those specific areas, Cuomo said, adding that this approach would continue even after a vaccine becomes available.

Source

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

World

The radical implications of the Supreme Court’s new ruling on Wisconsin mail-in ballots

Published

on

The Supreme Court just handed down an order in Democratic National Committee v. Wisconsin State Legislature determining that a lower federal court should not have extended the deadline for Wisconsin voters to cast ballots by mail.

The ruling, which was decided by a 5-3 vote along party lines, is not especially surprising. The lower court determined that an extension was necessary to ensure that voters could cast their ballot during a pandemic, but the Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts should defer to state officials’ decisions about how to adapt to the pandemic. Monday night’s order in Democratic National Committee is consistent with those prior decisions urging deference.

What is surprising, however, is two concurring opinions by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, each of which takes aim at one of the most foundational principles of American constitutional law: the rule that the Supreme Court of the United States has the final word on questions of federal law but the highest court in each state has the final word on questions of state law.

This division of power is implicit in our very system of government. As the Supreme Court has explained, the states and the federal government coexist in a system of “dual sovereignty.” Both the federal government and the states have an independent power to make their own law, to enforce it, and to decide how their own law shall apply to individual cases.

If the Supreme Court of the United States had the power to overrule a state supreme court on a question of state law, this entire system of dual sovereignty would break down. It would mean that all state law would ultimately be subservient to the will of nine federal judges.

Nevertheless, in Democratic National Committee, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lash out at this very basic rule, that state supreme courts have the final say in how to interpret their state’s law, suggesting that this rule does not apply to most elections.

They also sent a loud signal, just eight days before a presidential election, that long-settled rules governing elections may now be unsettled. Republican election lawyers are undoubtedly salivating, and thinking of new attacks on voting rights that they can launch in the next week.

A potentially seismic reinterpretation of American election law

As Gorsuch notes in his concurring opinion, which is joined by Kavanaugh, the Constitution provides that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” A separate constitutional provision provides that “each State shall appoint” members of the Electoral College “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,”

According to Gorsuch, the key word in these constitutional provisions is “Legislature.” He claims that the word “Legislature” must be read in a hyper-literal way. “The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules,” he writes.

The implications of this view are breathtaking. Just last week, the Supreme Court split 4-4 on whether to overturn a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that also would have allowed some mailed-in ballots that arrive after Election Day to be counted. Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were among the dissenters, though because there were no written opinions, neither explained why they would have thrown out the state supreme court’s decision.

We now know why. Based on Gorsuch’s reasoning in Democratic National Committee, it’s clear that both he and Kavanaugh believe the Supreme Court of the United States may overrule a state supreme court, at least when the federal justices disagree with the state supreme court’s approach to election law.

That is, simply put, not how the balance of power between federal and state courts works. It’s not how it has ever worked.

Nor is it correct that the word “legislature” should be read in the hyper-literal way Gorsuch suggests. For more than a century, the Supreme Court has understood the word “legislature,” as it is used in the relevant constitutional provisions, to refer to whatever the valid lawmaking process is within that state. As the Court held most recently in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), the word “legislature” should be read “in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the Governor’s veto.”

But Gorsuch’s opinion suggests that this longstanding rule may soon be gone (again, as he put it, “state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules”). State supreme courts may lose their power to enforce state constitutions that protect voting rights. State governors may lose their power to veto election laws, which would be a truly astonishing development when you consider that every state needs to draw new legislative maps in 2021, and many states have Republican legislatures and Democratic governors.

The return of Bush v. Gore

Kavanaugh, for what it’s worth, takes a slightly more moderate approach in his concurring opinion. The Supreme Court of the United States, he writes in a footnote to that opinion, may overrule a state supreme court when the state court defies “the clearly expressed intent of the legislature” in a case involving state election law.

Just how “clear” must a state court’s alleged mistake be? The answer to that is unclear. But it is clear that Kavanaugh rejects the longstanding rule that he and his fellow federal justices must always defer to state supreme courts on questions of state law.

That position could also have profound implications. In 2018, for example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down gerrymandered maps drawn by the GOP-controlled state legislature. Kavanaugh’s position would allow the Republican-controlled Supreme Court of the United States to overrule such a decision.

Kavanaugh also lifts much of his reasoning from a disreputable source. Before today, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore (2000), which effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush, had only been cited once in a Supreme Court opinion — and that one citation appeared in a footnote to a dissenting opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, which was joined by no other justice.

But Kavanaugh quotes heavily from Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s concurring opinion in Bush, which also embraced an excessively literal approach to the word “legislature.” It appears that Bush v. Gore, arguably the most partisan decision in the Court’s history — and one that Kavanaugh helped litigate — is back in favor with key members of the Court.

It’s worth noting that the decision in Democratic National Committee was handed down literally as the Senate was voting to confirm incoming Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a staunch conservative who during her confirmation hearings would not commit to recusing herself from cases involving the 2020 election.

That means that last week’s decision allowing a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to stand could be very short-lived. That decision, after all, was 4-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts voting with the Court’s three liberals. With Barrett, the Court’s right flank may well be getting a fifth vote to toss out the state supreme court’s decision — and to order an unknown number of ballots tossed out in the process.

It’s unclear what immediate impact the decision in Democratic National Committee will have on the upcoming election. Last April, about 79,000 ballots arrived late during Wisconsin’s primary election but were counted anyway due to a lower court decision. The Supreme Court’s decision in Democratic National Committee will prevent similarly late ballots from being counted during the 2020 general election. The deadline for Wisconsin mail-in ballots to arrive is 8 pm on Election Day.

Though 79,000 ballots could easily swing an election, that’s only if it is close (in 2016, Trump won the state by a razor-thin margin of some 22,000 votes). A large enough margin could minimize the impact of the Court’s decision, and voters can ensure that their vote is counted by voting early enough.

But while this decision may not change the result of the 2020 election, its impact is still likely to be felt for years or even decades — assuming that Republicans retain their 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court. American election law has entered a chaotic new world, one where even the most basic rules are seemingly up for grabs. And the Supreme Court just sent a fairly clear signal that it may be about to light one of the most well-established rules on fire.


Will you help keep Vox free for all?

The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes. It’s essential that all Americans are able to access clear, concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives, and the lives of their families and communities. That is our mission at Vox. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election: Contribute today from as little as $3.

Source

Continue Reading

World

Trump to Barrett: ‘The American people put their trust in you’

Published

on

President Donald Trump delivers remarks at a rally during the last full week of campaigning before the presidential election on October 26, in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
President Donald Trump delivers remarks at a rally during the last full week of campaigning before the presidential election on October 26, in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Even as President Trump seeks to use Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court as a political win, the issue hasn’t been as prominent during his rallies as some of his advisers had hoped.

On Monday, it took Trump 51 minutes to mention Barrett during his rally in Allentown, Pennsylvania. It was a similar story in Lititz, where Trump didn’t mention his third Supreme Court nomination until 54 minutes into his speech.

Trump raised the issue earlier on in his speech in Martinsburg. But generally the Supreme Court nomination has taken a backseat in his campaign speech and his political messaging.

Trump raised the nomination more often when it was in the news, including in September when crowds chanted “fill that seat” at Trump’s rallies. 

But since then it’s been replaced by issues like Trump’s gripes with the media, his attacks on Joe Biden and the litany of grievances against his opponents.

Some of the President’s political allies wish he would use the nomination more to galvanize supporters. They see the issue as overwhelmingly positive for Trump and question why it’s not being used more on the campaign trail.

When she was nominated, some even suggested Barrett would act in appearances as another running mate for the President.

But on the campaign trail, Trump has made his rallies mostly about himself — leaving little room in the spotlight for anyone else. 

Source

Continue Reading

World

Harris says she shares ‘the American people’s outrage’ over confirmation process

Published

on

President Donald Trump delivers remarks at a rally during the last full week of campaigning before the presidential election on October 26, in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
President Donald Trump delivers remarks at a rally during the last full week of campaigning before the presidential election on October 26, in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Even as President Trump seeks to use Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court as a political win, the issue hasn’t been as prominent during his rallies as some of his advisers had hoped.

On Monday, it took Trump 51 minutes to mention Barrett during his rally in Allentown, Pennsylvania. It was a similar story in Lititz, where Trump didn’t mention his third Supreme Court nomination until 54 minutes into his speech.

Trump raised the issue earlier on in his speech in Martinsburg. But generally the Supreme Court nomination has taken a backseat in his campaign speech and his political messaging.

Trump raised the nomination more often when it was in the news, including in September when crowds chanted “fill that seat” at Trump’s rallies. 

But since then it’s been replaced by issues like Trump’s gripes with the media, his attacks on Joe Biden and the litany of grievances against his opponents.

Some of the President’s political allies wish he would use the nomination more to galvanize supporters. They see the issue as overwhelmingly positive for Trump and question why it’s not being used more on the campaign trail.

When she was nominated, some even suggested Barrett would act in appearances as another running mate for the President.

But on the campaign trail, Trump has made his rallies mostly about himself — leaving little room in the spotlight for anyone else. 

Source

Continue Reading

Trending