Saturday, April 27, 2024

THE REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONERS ADOPT VOTER SUPPRESSION



In our tribal politics, issues affecting apresidential election can take on emotional, partisan overtones. Unfortunately, local Republican public officials can lose sight of their important role to remain even-handed in the administration of elections. They may wrongly overlook the fact that they were elected to serve all voters and to insure that all votes count.

In an effort to galvanize an election victory, they may choose a partisan plan that increases the odds for their preferred candidates even if the decision suppresses the vote. Moreover, there may be a political self-interest in “throwing a bone” to the vocal and extreme “election deniers” within their jurisdiction to gain their support.

Last week, the Washington Republican Commissioners, Nick Sherman and Electra Janis, took such a partisan action regarding a voter’s right to cure a defective mail-in ballot. The Commissioners removed this fair voting measure, reversing prior county election office procedures that permitted curing. This ensured that voters who, in error, submit defective mail-in ballots will not be notified of the mistake or permitted to correct their ballot.

The decision was made to minimize voter participation and without regard for the reasonable interpretation of current Pennsylvania election law. Notably, neighboring Republican counties and other counties across the Commonwealth have taken the opposite position. They continue to permit the curing of mail-in ballots to ensure that all votes count.

I recently reviewed the tangled web of election laws and legal opinions that have brought confusion to Pennsylvania elections. The current election law, Act 77 went into effect in April 2020. While Republicans initially supported the law, it has since been subject to constant litigation. Our Republican Commissioners have used the complexity of election law to camouflage their position that is designed solely to silence votes. There is no law or legal opinion that compels them to do so.

Once the complex web is untangled, the following points are revealed.

·      Past elections have confirmed that mail-in ballot fraud is exceptionally rare. There is no evidence that mail-in ballots, other than rejecting defective ballots with no right to cure, would materially affect the outcome of any Pennsylvania election.

·      The PA. Supreme Court ruled that ballots are accepted only if they are sent in an official return envelope and within an inner secrecy envelope.

·      Our Supreme Court also ruled that counties could not reject ballots because the voter’s signature on the outer envelope did not match one on file.

·      Voters can only return their own ballot to a drop box or to the local election office.

·      The most recent litigation involves the requirement of Act 77 that voters correctly sign and date the outer envelope for a mail-in ballot to be counted. In April, a three member panel of the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the provisions of Act 77 and ruled that ballots must be properly dated.

·      In the opinion, the majority admitted, “The date requirement is irrelevant to whether a vote is received timely.”  In other words, the date requirement in Act 77 serves no useful purpose.

·      The ACLU and NAACP, among others, have petitioned the full Third Circuit to reconsider the decision. A spokesperson has commented, “The thousands of voters affected here are eligible and registered. They completed their mail ballots, signed the return envelope and got their ballots in on time. Their votes should count.”

·      Our Republican Commissioners and their supporters in justifying their decision not to permit a voter to cure a defective mail-in ballot often cite this opinion upholding the useless date requirement. Importantly, there is no discussion or ruling in the opinion that prohibits a voter’s right to cure a defective ballot.

·      Ballot curing is a two-step process that requires notification by the election office of an error and correction by the voter. Act 77 does not address ballot curing. The Republican Commissioners argue that this omission means it should not be done. All Pennsylvania right to vote groups and most election law experts disagree.

·      Thirty states including Texas and Florida require election officials to notify voters of errors and permit corrections of mail-in ballots.

·      The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued an order permitting ballot curing to continue.

·      In each election cycle since 2020, when mail-in voting was implemented in Pennsylvania, there have been thousands of mail ballots not counted because of unintended technical errors voters made when completing their ballots. Counties, including Washington County until last week, corrected this problem by permitting ballot curing.

Spotlight PA, has concluded that errors on mail-in ballots impact specific communities of voters more than others, including older voters, low-income voters and voters in communities of color. According to Marian Schneider, senior voting rights policy counsel at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, these disparities have been known for years. Schneider has noted that “Whenever you have a strict reading of election rules, it’s going to disproportionately impact low income voters and … nonwhite voters,”

Our Republican Commissioners are well aware of these voting statistics. Following the bipartisan review of the 2020 election results, voter fraud could no longer be used by Republicans to debunk mail-in voting. It was time to find a new scheme to limit legitimate voting and provide the Republican Party with an unfair advantage in our important battleground state.

Supporters of fair elections must denouce the decision by Commissioners Sherman and Janis to disenfranchise Washington County voters by adopting officially mandated voter suppression.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monday, April 22, 2024

IMMIGRATION DESERVES SOME LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING


Recent polls have placed immigration on top of the “most important problem list.”  A record 55% of eligible voters say the large number of immigrants entering the United States represents a critical threat to American interests. Ninety percent of Republicans believe this to be true.

The national discourse on immigration has become so polarized that a consensus on the issue is impossible. The opinion pages of the Observer Reporter are no exception. The newspaper’s editorials, letters to the editor and op-ed pieces have taken strong positions on opposite sides of the debate.

For example, on January 11, 2024, a letter to the editor advised “Stop being so afraid of immigrants! Each wave brings people who come here not to steal, but to live and work and raise their families. Give the U.S. Border Patrol what they need to keep out the bad apples.”

On February 14, 2024, an op-ed written by David Ball concluded, “President Biden is guilty of dereliction of duty….the American people will pay with our treasure, our health, safety and security.”

On March 2, 2024, an O-R editorial was titled: “Immigrants are a boost to the economy, not a drain on it.” The editorial gave the opinion, “…history has shown that they actually brought great benefits to this country. The same holds true today.”

A letter responding to this editorial called it “dishonest and naïve.” The author went on to comment, “Draining Third World cesspools and providing them with transportation, living quarters, free education and healthcare, while giving us taxpayers the finger does absolutely nothing to enhance our national security.”

A second letter responded to the O-R editorial with the caption: “The U.S. has thrived thanks to immigration.”

There are actually three issues in play when analyzing the immigration dilemma. The first focuses on the causes of world migration and immigration patterns. This important topic is largely ignored by commentators.

Almost all Americans support the second issue, the need for legislation to address the border crisis. Unfortunately, former President Trump has placed the remedy out of reach.

The third involves the role that immigration plays in American economic development. It has been overshadowed by the border crisis. With the goal of bringing some love and understanding to immigration, each topic will be discussed below.

World migration and immigration patterns. Immigration is hardly a problem unique to the United States. In 2024, there are more borders in the world than at any time in human history. Borders are often drawn arbitrarily. They divide intact communities of like-minded ethnic or religious people.  Nonetheless, most individuals prefer to remain in their country of birth. Unfortunately, wars, political strife, climate catastrophes, and climate change are forcing large numbers to migrate in order to survive.

Forced migration often causes a negative domino effect. As an example, large numbers of young Bangladeshis sought refuge in Palermo, Italy after thousands of oppressed migrants from Myanmar entered Bangladesh, leaving nothing for the native population.

Americans enjoy mobility, choices on where to live and economic opportunities unavailable to most of the world’s population. It is difficult for our citizens to imagine the desperate plight of international refugees. If anything, America should be embarrassed that poorer countries host many more displaced people, with fewer resources, and less hysteria than we do.

According to the Economist, in spite of all the worlds’ trouble spots and migration of people, the numbers on the move are only a sixth of what they were after the Second World War. Moreover, as populations grow older, there will be less migration. In the interim, the problem is not only a domestic concern; it also requires cross-border and regional cooperation.

The border crisis. No one disagrees that security at the southern border must be tightened; or that the requirements for granting/denying asylum entry must be revised; or that the legal process on asylum requires streamlining; or that a realistic number of workers should be admitted based on market requirements; or that new immigrants must be permitted to work and to pay taxes.

Congress has known for decades that only a comprehensive immigration bill will change the law and permit all of the above revisions. Recently, a working group of bi-partisan senators drafted enabling legislation that President Biden agreed to sign. Former President Trump nixed the deal by demanding that House Republicans not support it. Trump wants the border impasse to remain an open sore to attack President Biden in the general election. Once again, Congress’ self-inflicted southern border crisis and humanitarian refugee catastrophe have become political pawns.

Why we need immigration. Lost in all the grim news and political posturing in Congress is the undisputed fact that managed immigration is essential to America’s economic progress. Immigrants fill labor shortages, contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and open about 25% of new small businesses in the United States.

According to the Cato institute, a conservative think-tank, “Immigrants increase the supply of labor, which increases the supply of goods and services that people need; their consumption, entrepreneurship, and investment also increases the demand for labor, creating better​paying jobs for Americans elsewhere in the economy. Fundamentally, immigrants are not competitors. They are collaborators. Unfortunately, America’s immigration system fails to recognize this fact, leading to catastrophic consequences.”

The United States has the ability to enrich its diversity and strengthen its economy. It is time to show immigration some love and understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

THE IMPORTANCE OF SKEPTICISM AND DOUBT


“Skepticism is the mark of the educated mind.” John Dewey

I have a well-read, retired friend who lives on the opposite end of the political and cultural spectrum. He is a conservative, Christian Republican. We have talked once a week for fifteen years, and no topic is off limits. In the middle of a discussion, his go-to observation is often, “no one really knows anything.”

My friend is a classic “skeptic.” He has taught me to approach life with the same willingness to doubt what feels like a safe conclusion. I have learned it is ok to have an opinion, but first be skeptical. I now take the time to make sure my point-of-view can withstand a stress test based on reasonable facts.

On the issues that are tearing apart the social fabric of America, there are many points of view and few definitive answers. Unfortunately, in today’s partisan environment, any two scholars, theologians, or politicians can argue on opposite sides of important subjects with dogmatic certainty.

In fact, the critical questions facing us often come with few absolute answers. Pro-choice or pro-life? Close the borders or expand legal immigration? Increase or cut taxes? Individual liberty or more equality? Diplomacy or war? A larger military or a larger welfare state? Should the Steelers pick a quarterback or an offensive lineman?

To add to the problem, modern life offers up numerous opportunities to be fooled by unscrupulous actors. Shadow causes backed by unfounded conspiracies are quick to provide untrue answers to puzzling events. Bald-faced lies and bizarre claims bombard us every day seeking our approval.

Our tribal culture demands that rigid, unconditional positions be taken with “no questions asked.” There is little room for skepticism or doubt when analyzing important social issues or even nonsensical conspiracy theories. Rational discussion and a national consensus to solve a problem have become nearly impossible.

Skepticism and doubt are not identical concepts. Skepticism implies an open mind. It requires proof and evidence before accepting something as true. It is a logical, analytical exercise. On the other hand, doubt is a more intuitive, emotional hesitancy to accept a proposition as factually correct. According to the Cambridge dictionary, doubt implies “a feeling of not being certain about something, especially about how good or true it is.”

The ancient school of thinkers known as the Skeptics took the concept to the extreme. These philosophers called into question the very possibility of knowledge. For Skeptics, nothing was knowable with certainty.  Plato gave them credence when he acknowledged in his work the Theaetetus “what is true for one person might be false for another, with no way of judging between them.”

Other philosophers pushed back against the Greek Skeptics. Aristotle argued that suspension of belief made it impossible to act. Those that followed came to understand that failing to take a position out of an abundance of caution does not provide for a meaningful life.

Modern writing on skepticism rarely denies the existence of knowledge. Instead, the focus is on how to survive in a world overflowing with misinformation, bias, deception, flawed conclusions, and a blatant disregard for the truth. In the helpful book The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (Grand Central Publishing, October 2, 2018) the neurologist Steven Novella and his co-authors discuss the mental weaknesses and human proclivities that lead people down fantasy rabbit holes. From the unreliable nature of memory and eyewitness testimony, confirmation bias, and the powerful enticement of coincidence and anecdotes to logical fallacies, the list is long and convincing. The authors conclude that critical thinking is the most important skill we can develop as we enter the new and dangerous information age, now including artificial intelligence.

One of my favorite theater productions, Doubt, a Parable, premiered on Broadway in 2004. The setting is a parochial school in the Bronx in 1964. The play won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for Drama and the Tony Award for Best Play. In 2008, the play was adapted as a feature film. It starred Meryl Streep as the school’s principal, Sister Aloysius, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Father Flynn, a well-liked progressive priest. The film was nominated for several Academy Awards. This year the play has returned to Broadway.

Doubt, a Parable has staying power because it is able to make audiences think about and challenge their preconceived opinions. Is the popular priest guilty of sexual misconduct based on circumstantial evidence? Alternatively, is the conservative school principal forming conclusions not supported by the facts? At the end, the principal forces the priest to leave the school, but she is filled with ambiguous doubt. Moreover, there is no solid proof of guilt or innocence, and the audience is left with its own doubt.

This important production became a parable for both the crisis of sexual misconduct in the Catholic Church and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence gathering. The powerful message is that facts matter. Leaping to conclusions usually ends in disaster.

When my friend pauses in the middle of a discussion to remind me “no one really knows anything,” I often think of this great play. At the time it was first performed twenty years ago, most Americans did not feel entitled to superficial tribal truths, unsupported by objective reality. Now more than ever, we need many good questions and a great deal of skepticism to get to some reliable answers.