More stories

  • in

    Trump's USPS attacks are already undermining confidence in vote by mail

    Some election officials are receiving a flood of questions from voters suddenly concerned about whether or not their mail-in vote will count, an alarming signal of how Donald Trump’s efforts to hamstring the United States Postal Service (USPS) are already causing considerable confusion and undermining confidence in the 2020 election.Trump admitted last week he opposed additional funding for the USPS because it would make it more difficult for the agency to support mail-in voting this fall. There have been reports of significant mail delays across the country in recent weeks, a problem postal workers and Democrats have attributed in part to operational changes imposed by Louis DeJoy, the postmaster general and a major Republican donor. Facing tremendous scrutiny over the changes, DeJoy announced Tuesday he was suspending the changes until after the election “to “avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail”. Despite that pause, it does not appear that DeJoy will replace mail-sorting machines, mailboxes and other equipment reportedly removed from postal facilities.But, regardless of DeJoy’s announcement, the damage to voters’ confidence may already have been done. Forty-five per cent of Americans believe the 2020 vote count will be accurate, a drop from the 59% who believed so in 2016, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Seventy-three per cent of Republicans believe that votes cast by mail will not be counted accurately, the poll found.In Douglas county, Kansas – a Democratic stronghold home to the University of Kansas – hundreds of voters called the office of Jamie Shew, the county clerk, with concerns last week about whether their mail-in ballot will be delayed in the mail and ultimately counted because of problems with the mail. The calls were so frequent, Shew said, that the office receptionist was picking up new calls as soon as the person on the phone hung up.Shew said his office had already received a record number of mail-in ballot requests for November’s election. But last week voters who requested mail in ballots as far back as May and June began asking whether they could cancel their requests and vote in person and had other questions about the process. In total, about 20 voters followed through and cancelled their requests.“It’s frustrating. We’ve been doing a lot of things to try and build trust,” said Shew, whose office recently enacted a program allowing voters to track their ballots. “Election administrators like myself have worked for years to build up this system and then within a few weeks, the distrust of the system occurs because of, you know, politics.”Shew said he was counting on a significant number of people to vote by mail because he faces a shortage of election workers necessary to hold in-person voting. He’s been reassuring voters that the county’s absentee ballot program is secure and that their mail in vote will count. He also ordered more secure drop boxes where voters can leave their ballots.Many election officials like Shew are eyeing official dropboxes as an alternative to the post office for voters to return their mail-in ballots without relying on USPS. But Trump opposes drop boxes too – his campaign is suing to block Pennsylvania from using them. More

  • in

    'They're afraid of the voter': Pelosi says Democrats will fight for USPS – video

    Play Video

    1:01

    The House speaker on Tuesday said Democrats would fight to protect the US Postal Service and postal voting after Donald Trump’s new postmaster general announced he was halting some operational changes to mail delivery that critics warned could disrupt the November election. Speaking to reporters in front of a US post office in the Bayview neighbourhood in San Francisco, Pelosi mocked the Trump administration’s stance on funding for the postal service
    US politics – live updates
    USPS crisis: postmaster general to suspend all changes until after election

    Topics

    Nancy Pelosi

    US Postal Service

    US politics More

  • in

    Pandemic Voting Needs America’s Full Attention

    There is an increasing din in America that this self-congratulatory cradle of democracy is not up to the primal task of planning and implementing a free and fair presidential election in a couple of months. So sullied are we by the institutional failure to hold Trump’s government accountable for anything that there is a growing suspicion that the Trump cabal just might be able to thwart the coming electoral storm by undermining the electoral process at every turn.

    The first checkpoint for the nation on the road to Election Day is to see if anyone has learned anything from the national pandemic response disaster. The same Trump playbook that has left more than 170,000 dead souls in its wake is being dusted off again. And this time, it is the presidential election that is going to take a massive hit if Americans do not collectively and forcefully demand something better.

    America’s Problem With Racism Has Become Clearer

    READ MORE

    Remember back in early April, less than five months ago? By then, it had become obvious to virtually every public health official and every identified Democrat in America that the coronavirus pandemic was a serious threat to the health and well-being of the nation. All but Trump and his minions demanded a national plan to limit the spread of the disease that included development of treatment protocols, adequate and timely availability of supplies, a uniform and aggressive national testing program with contact tracing, and the federal funding necessary to do all of this. The nation is still waiting for that plan.

    Fast forward to August, now less than three months before the scheduled November 3 presidential election. Even while death and disease ravage large parts of the nation and subvert economic and social well-being, there is an urgent national need to prepare for and ensure a free and fair election process. 

    This should be obvious, even to Republicans who show little interest in free and fair elections. It should be equally obvious that an efficient and uniform national plan for mail-in balloting, early voting and a reduced number of polling places is more critical in this election cycle than ever before, including national standards and the federal resources to ensure compliance. So, why isn’t it happening?

    Human Loss

    The reason is as simple as it has been with the pandemic response: A venal cabal led by an ignorant narcissist will not use the institutions of the federal government to confront urgent problems unless any proposed solutions are sure to work for them and can be defined in politically advantageous terms. Neither human cost nor institutional integrity is part of the calculus.

    As with the federal government’s pandemic response, there is readily at hand the time-honored way to deflect federal government responsibility in America. Make a speech about the urgent problem and then consign responsibility for solving the problem to state and local “laboratories.” This is always done with a pious nod to the US Constitution.

    Embed from Getty Images

    The result has been a patchwork and often conflicting response to gun violence, educational deficits, poverty, health-care reform and infrastructure inadequacies, to name a few. So, Florida, do your own pandemic response. So, South Dakota, bring on the motorcycle madness in the midst of a pandemic. And then just to top it off, make sure that the federal messaging gives each state the right to define “freedom” for its own denizens in a nation with no internal borders. Does this make any sense? Of course not.

    After an initial burst of Trump testosterone and the conjuring of miracles, someone told Trump that if he took charge of the nation’s pandemic response like a real president, he would also bear responsibility if it didn’t work out. And that playing golf while people were dying on your watch would be difficult for someone actually in charge. Back in April, that quickly ended any effort to design and implement a national pandemic response plan.

    So now, it is time to apply the same “logic” to the upcoming presidential election. Someone has told Trump that he is losing the election because he failed to implement a national response to the pandemic. From there, it was a short crossed wire to the message that you can’t lose if there is no election.

    Back to 50 States

    What will save the day for Trump and his minions? That same 50 “laboratories” strategy that has undermined the national pandemic response will now be unleashed to ensure that electoral freedom rings. All Trump has to do this time is the same thing he did in April: undermine any cohesive message, create institutional confusion, and provide neither standards nor resources to ensure a free and fair election. In short, pass the problem to the states and localities and do everything possible to ensure chaos.

    And then, for an insurance policy, appoint a political hack to run the US Postal Service into the ground just when it will be needed most. (Remember the once-proud Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now reduced to offering compromised pandemic “guidance” as soon as some unnamed Trump acolyte gives them the nod.)

    Even while running around the rest of the world telling other countries that voting and fair elections are singular components of democracy, America has never had a national plan that even begins to address its most fundamental democratic failure, pathetic voter turnout. Further, there are almost no national standards that control voting practices and procedures, even for national elections. In this ambiance of neglect, voting in each of the 50 states has been blighted to some degree by gerrymandering, voter suppression measures and dubious procedures that have thrived to undermine the equity of the US election process.

    The nation does not have the luxury of electoral neglect this time around. In the 2016 presidential election, only a little over 55% of the voting-age population actually bothered to vote. Think about that and how easily chaos thrives when so many don’t care enough to resist. Many will argue that there are lots of reasons for low voter turnout, from ignorance of process to impediments to voter registration and actual voting. Whatever the reason, we are back again to 50 states, 50 voting systems, 50 different sets of impediments to voting and a relatively mobile population.

    Thus, any attempt to undermine the voting process has a lot of entry points and almost no up-front vigilance. It seems that counting the votes of those who do vote is much more important than ensuring that most eligible voters can actually vote.

    The Playbook

    The Trump election playbook is clear: incite division and chaos, divert responsibility to the states and localities, undermine the credibility and capacity of the US Postal Service, repeatedly and falsely disparage the integrity of mail-in ballots, and most importantly, provide daily conflicting messages that will be gobbled up by the press. And this doesn’t even get to Trump’s open-door policy to foreign influence in the election process.

    If somehow Trump seems to have won the election, he will heroically claim victory after having vanquished all the impediments to such an unlikely event and quickly forget that he rigged the election. If Trump seems to have lost the election, he will angrily announce that he cannot honor the results of a rigged election and quickly forget that he was the one who tried to rig it in the first place. The surest path to avoiding either of these outcomes is a forceful institutional response, quickly setting forth a national plan for ensuring a free and fair election. That will have to come from Congress and be reinforced by the media.

    America cannot allow the 50-state “solution” to overwhelm what is left of the country’s democratic foundation. That is the same “solution” that now has over 170,000 corpses crying out for something better. 

    *[A version of this article was cross-posted on the author’s blog, Hard Left Turn.]

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More