States play major role in coronavirus crisis; emergency responsibilities could grow

Gordon L. Weil

In February, President Trump met with the National Governors Association. During a long and rambling session, including much praise for his policies, the president spent less than 20 seconds talking about the coronavirus. He found no need for any state action.

His full remarks: "Now, the virus that we're having to do – you know, a lot of people think that it goes away in April with the heat – as the heat comes in. Typically, that will go away in April. We're in great shape though. We have 12 cases – 11 cases and many of them are in good shape now."

A month earlier, clear warnings had been issued by qualified scientists and in the media about the outbreak in Wuhan, China, of a new viral illness. The world was familiar with earlier virus outbreaks that had been taken seriously.

The World Health Organization had announced that the coronavirus was a “public-health emergency of international concern.” Trump had already shut down entry for people from China, though American citizens were admitted.

As part of a clear change in his approach to the crisis, on Monday Trump had a conference call with the governors. He was nonpartisan in tone and recognized they would need to take strong action of their own,

While it was not pleasant to dwell on the possible effect of a new viral strain, Trump had missed an unusual opportunity to mobilize national action. In a country as vast as the U.S. and with a communicable virus, getting the states involved in reacting along with the federal government would have made sense.

It still does. On Monday, Trump had a conference call with the governors. It was non-partisan in tone. Some governors were reportedly surprised that they were expected to act rather than waiting for the federal government to direct and support them.

The NGA had failed to use the opportunity to consider the threat from the virus and even to organize a regular interstate contact network. The states are frequently pushed out of the picture by the federal government, but this time was different. States may have grown accustomed to a subordinate role.

To contradict the president's original, optimistic report would have risked making the issue a part of the political campaign. The NGA tries to remain as non-partisan as possible. Still, the organization might have provided governors a briefing by a scientist.

At least, then, states might have reacted earlier. Upon returning home, governors could have checked on state preparedness for a virus and if there was anything else they should be doing. Instead, many accepted the president's reassurance that the virus was no big deal.

Did local journalists question state government officials about planning for the virus? They, too, needed to get more actively involved. Regular, complete and accurate reporting on a spreading virus is essential. Local news could focus best on matters close to affected people.

Governors are close to the concerns of people in their states. They can choose on their own to cooperate across state lines. State powers to deal with threats to public health and safety are legally greater than the powers of the federal government.

Gov. Mills declared a state of emergency, giving her almost dictatorial powers. Her major announcement received routine news coverage on local stations. Interrupting regular broadcasts for her full statement would have been justified.

The priorities of the federal government may differ from various state interests. Governors need to act to meet their own needs and not lean too much on the federal government. Trump now says they may be better at purchasing supplies than the federal government. They may be able to cooperate with one another, reducing costs and sharing experiences.

The Maine statute covering a declaration of emergency contains a major section on energy emergencies. The original version of that section was swiftly adopted by the Legislature when President Reagan abruptly ended almost the entire federal role.

The law grew out of actions previously considered by the NGA. At the time, Maine chaired the NGA energy committee (disclosure: I represented the State.) and focused its attention on energy emergency planning. The NGA could learn from that experience to promote state health emergency planning.

The American political system is deeply divided. No matter what happens in November, bitter conflict is likely to survive, undercutting federal action. Most people recognize that the post-coronavirus world will be different. Part of the change may be an increased state role.

The coronavirus reaction, with a large part of the responsibility finally coming back to the states, is a message that individual states, with the NGA as their forum, need to adjust. They should expect to meet public needs and priorities increasingly on their own.

State referendums increase direct democracy, making National Popular Vote more likely

Gordon L. Weil

Last week, Maine held a referendum on vaccinations and is likely to have another statewide, popular vote this year.

The National Popular Vote is gaining momentum and could lead to a majority of all American voters having a direct role in picking the president in 2024.

Democracy comes in two styles: direct and representative.

The U.S. has been a representative democracy from the outset. That's what the concept of a "republic" meant to the drafters of the Constitution. They worried that the citizens might be enflamed by momentary passions and make unwise decisions, while their representatives would be more careful.

But states could go their own way. Some already had direct democracy in the form of the Town Meeting in which the voters of a New England town act as its legislature. It has survived and, in Maine, the Town Meeting season is just getting under way.

Gradually, the U.S has been moving toward greater direct democracy. Almost all states use referendums proposed by legislatures to allow the people to make decisions. Many states also allow initiatives in which people can propose laws or try to veto laws passed by their legislatures. In Maine, initiatives greatly exceed pure referendums.

Referendum and initiative reflect the growth of popular democracy. The rules adopted by the founders have been changed. The Constitution now requires direct election of U.S. senators rather than their selection by state legislatures. The right to vote was expanded to include members of all races, women, and young Americans.

For the first time, the entire country might find itself able to act through direct democracy. Electing the president by a majority vote of the entire country could replace the current state-by-state voting for president. Its adoption depends on favorable action by as few as seven more states, including Maine, where it nearly passed.

Meanwhile, state referendums are increasing. In Maine, six petitions are now authorized for circulation and possible placement on the ballot in addition to the disputed CMP Corridor veto, which has been found to have sufficient signatures.

There's some opposition to more popular democracy. Critics believe the issues are too complicated for a simple up-or-down vote by average citizens. That means the Legislature may second-guess a popular decision. That could sound like continued distrust of average people.

But it is likely that many legislators don't know the details of the laws they pass. Do members of Congress understand the terms of a 1,000 page tax law? Do Maine legislators know all the line items of the state budget? Lawmaking is left to a few legislators and staffers, distant from even representative democracy.

Occasionally, a referendum becomes necessary when the Legislature cannot decide on an issue, so it passes the buck. It has sent matters, ranging from a Lewiston casino proposal (disapproved) to increasing the minimum wage (approved), out to the voters.

The only country where popular democracy is the normal way of doing much government business is Switzerland. People there vote several times a year on specific proposals. Recently they have considered federal taxing powers and allowing insurance companies to use private detectives. Both passed.

But there is a caution. The recent UK referendum on Brexit, held in a country with no tradition of direct democracy, left the country unable to reconsider its decision as more facts became known.

The system should permit a change in popular thinking, based on new facts. The people should have the possibility of a new vote, either through elections or a new referendum.

Some critics say that it is too easy to get an initiative on the ballot. In Maine, the number of petition signers depends on the number of people who voted for governor. The state has high turnouts, so the number seems reasonable, though it could be tied to presidential elections.

Another aspect of the issue is geographical distribution. Should a certain percentage of the voters in each congressional district be required to launch an initiative or pass it? No such a requirement exists for votes of the Legislature, so why should it apply to the voters, the ultimate legislature?

States with the Town Meeting form of government should be comfortable with popular legislating. Where jurisdictions are small, like Switzerland or Maine, popular democracy can work.

Popular democracy results from a better informed electorate, thanks to wider access to the media. And it ensures the principle of one-person, one-vote. Increased use by states is likely to continue.

With a national forum having been created by the media and statewide direct elections now widely accepted and used, a national presidential popular election may also make sense. Its time seems to be coming.

GOP pushes Ukraine issue against Biden, seeking to shield Trump

Gordon L. Weil

With former Vice President Joe Biden as the likely Democratic opponent of President Trump in November, Trump and the Republicans will renew efforts to discredit him over the Burisma-Ukraine-Biden issue.

They will insist that Biden had a Ukraine prosecutor removed to protect Burisma, an energy company being investigated for corruption. He supposedly wanted to shield his son Hunter, a man with no apparently relevant qualifications, who was on Burisma's board.

Trump hopes to undermine confidence in Joe Biden among American voters. Even if the charge can't be proved but can be kept alive until November, Republicans believe it will weaken Biden. Trump previously thought the mere Ukraine announcement of a Burisma-Biden investigation could undermine Biden.

During the impeachment proceedings, there was some bipartisan agreement that Trump had tried improperly to force Ukraine to make such an announcement. But some Senate Republicans concluded that his actions, even if objectionable, were not harmful enough to merit his removal from office.

Voters will need to make their own decision, if the GOP keeps the issue alive.

Ukraine is famous for its corruption. In the Burisma case, it appeared that a government official who also owned the company directed major contracts to it. He ultimately fled the country.

The Burisma deals were investigated in Ukraine and reviewed in the U.K. Lacking good evidence, no charges were brought.

After the questionable deals had been completed, Burisma appointed Hunter Biden to its board at a substantial pay level. It seemed obvious that the company wanted to improve its image with the U.S. by having the Vice President's son on the board.

The apparent lack of solid evidence against it, its role in the energy trade and the Biden name helped it achieve its objective. It was able to establish at least one important business relationship in the U.S.

All of this was taking place against a backdrop of efforts, sometimes half-hearted, to reduce corruption in Ukraine. Such efforts were vital to convince the U.S. and others providing financial help to the country that their aid would not drained by corrupt officials.

The chief Ukraine prosecutor was Victor Shokin. He did not pursue an investigation of the Burisma deals. He was also notoriously corrupt, leading his chief deputy to condemn him and quit. Eventually he was forced to resign after strong public protests.

As Vice President, Joe Biden had warned the Ukraine president that the U.S. would not provide a promised $1 billion in aid unless Shokin were fired. It is this action that Trump claims was motivated by Biden's desire to protect his son from investigation.

If true, the Vice President had used his position and American public funds to cause the ouster of a man investigating his son, which would be severely damaging to the Democratic candidate.

Did Biden cause Shokin to be fired to protect his son?

Shokin was not investigating Burisma. Shokin was not investigating Hunter Biden, especially because the alleged corruption took place before he joined the board. Joe Biden acted publicly to oust Shokin (that's how Trump knew), followed announced American policy and cooperated with other countries and international organizations.

While no father can control the actions of an adult child, Joe Biden erred in ignoring Hunter's joining the Burisma board. It is impossible to believe that Hunter's job was unrelated to his father's position.

Instead of keeping hands off, the Vice President should have asked his son to resign, because his job at least appeared improper. If Hunter had refused, the Vice President should have prepared an affidavit stating that he had tried to have Hunter resign and filed it with a third party.

The Republicans will not let go of this issue, which they created, so long as it can produce a political effect. It draws attention away from Trump's attempt to pressure Ukraine. It could continue for the length of the campaign.

Joe Biden alone can do something about the issue, if the GOP won't drop it.

If there is a Senate investigation, he should cooperate with it. He needs to document the events that refute Trump's claims and admit he erred in not trying to induce Hunter to resign. He can rightfully concede that he let his affection for his son take precedence.

He cannot look either defensive or like he is covering up. This is all the more important, because Burisma and Joe Biden himself are now being formally reviewed in Ukraine.

Only if Biden gets off the defensive, keeps after Trump's own Ukraine gambit and takes charge of the conversation can Ukraine be kept from becoming a persistent election issue.

No federal terms limits; Collins runs for record fifth term

Gordon L. Weil

Term limits don't work.

The alternative, defeat by the voters, doesn't work that well either.

In either case, elected officials hold their offices for long terms. They have better name recognition than their challengers, can usually raise more money and know how to use incumbency to their benefit.

Familiarity with office holders can give voters confidence they know what their votes will produce. Challengers must embody some risk, because how they will reform remains to be seen.

In Maine, term limits apply to state offices – governor, legislators and constitutional officials like the attorney general or secretary of state. The general rule is eight years and out.

But the reverse also seems to be true – an eight-year ticket to office – if the incumbent wants to keep the seat.

Since the advent of the four-year term of governor, no incumbent who sought reelection has been denied a second term. One governor (James Longley) did not seek reelection and another (Clinton Clawson) died in office.

The original purpose of legislative term limits was to end the almost endless tenure of some members. The prime target for some legislators was John Martin, the Aroostook Democrat who is the longest-serving legislator in state history.

The problem with Maine term limits is that they only ban consecutive terms in a single office. Take Martin. He has served three separate periods in the House plus breaking the string with eight years in the Senate. Other legislators skip a term and start a new eight-year run.

The same system appears to attract former Gov. Paul LePage. He served two four-year terms and left office. He now talks about running again in 2024.

The state term-limit system is weak, but there is no federal system. States themselves cannot impose term limits on federal offices. That would require federal action, possibly a constitutional amendment.

In 1994 Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington successfully defeated in court his state's attempt to term limit federal officials. Republican George Nethercutt, who supported term limits, promised to serve only three terms and upset Foley.

Holding office had proved seductive for Nethercutt. He served five terms. But when he left the House to run for the Senate, his broken promise helped defeat him.

Since Margaret Chase Smith was a Maine senator, the state has sent eight people to the U.S. Senate. Smith was defeated by Democrat Bill Hathaway when she tried for her fifth term and Hathaway then lost after a single term. Four Senators retired. Two, Republican Susan Collins and independent Angus King, now serve.

In 1996, when Collins first ran for the Senate, she said that she wanted to serve two terms. She is now running for her fifth term as did Smith, her role model who failed in the attempt.

Traditionally, Republicans have favored term limits and Democrats have opposed them. Once in power, Democrats have held onto legislative control at the federal level and in many states longer than the GOP. That could explain the partisan split on term limits, though the difference in tenure seems to be fading.

Democrats maintain that the voters should decide on terms. Republicans counter that, in practice, incumbents win. In the end, as Smith discovered, there may be another rule. As voters become familiar with their public officials, they may become more critical.

Obviously, Collins does not share her party's traditional attitude. By staying on office, she gains seniority and more influential committee appointments. Also, she uses her reputation as a moderate to gain leverage. She has been reported as saying, “I have a lot of power — I like that.”

One reason for term limits is to keep public officials closer to the public. Politicians are less likely to keep apart from their constituents when they know they must have a career outside of public office. This realization may keep them better attuned to popular sentiment.

One criticism of Collins is that she does not have much unstructured contact with Maine people. That may be a result of a long public life and relatively little of the life most of her constituents lead.

On the other side of the issue, long-term incumbents argue they can use their seniority to bring federal money home. And they gain independent expertise to develop their positions without overly relying on professional staff. Still, continually running for reelection means spending time on fundraising, not governing.

The question of term limits should be seen in a broad political context. If public sentiment determines it's time for a change, that view can sweep all other considerations aside, including term limits or the lack of them.

Trump reinvents spoils system, undermining coronavirus action

Gordon L. Weil

The coronavirus not only has its victims, but it is also a victim.

It suffers from an illness once thought to have been stamped out, but now afflicting the government again. It was called the "spoils system."

When Andrew Jackson became president in 1829, he promptly replaced federal government officials with people who were loyal to him. He followed the rule that he could reshape government because he had won the election: "To the victor belongs the spoils."

The system produced the desired results for each succeeding president. It was taken so seriously that one president was assassinated by a man who thought he deserved a federal job.

Finally, the federal government adopted a law that would replace spoils with merit and independence. Government employees would be selected on the basis of their ability, leaving only a few top jobs to the president's choice. Most employees became members of the civil service.

Many government jobs and agencies are not political, but technical, scientific or administrative. Qualified personnel should work free from political interference, and they cannot be politically active. Specialized work carried out by professionals benefits the country.

Many politicians understand they benefit from government working competently. There's little or no politics in disease prevention or fighting crime. As a result, a robust civil service and independent agencies have developed.

But just doing a scientific job can become a problem. Experts are expelled and agencies stripped. Take climate change and now coronavirus.

It is beyond question that the earth is growing warmer, which has major implications for human activity. There's no doubt human beings contribute to the increase in temperature. To reduce the rate of increase, production must change, and that may increase operating costs.

If a politician's focus is solely on promoting short-term profits, they may be unhappy with science that suggests higher costs of production. The professional government scientist must halt research on climate change, because it conflicts with the politics of the day.

Even worse, scientists may lose their jobs, despite civil service protection. Scientific experts have been pushed out of EPA and not replaced, increasing the ratio of political appointees to professionals as the agency shrinks. The spoils system returns.

The critics of such science believe that the research follows the scientist's agenda, not the policy of the elected leader. Climate change personnel may be dismissed, because recognizing it as a major problem is not consistent with the president's priorities.

If government employees are seen as pursuing their own beliefs and priorities rather than following the policy of the top elected official, they are charged with being part of the "deep state." The independent civil service supposedly becomes a government within a government.

The civil service is transformed into a conspiracy. "Deep" implies the conspiracy is hidden, when in reality the federal employees conduct their work in the open. The idea of "state" is that civil servants collectively conspire against the elected government, though there is no evidence of that.

In the effort to deep six the deep state, fighting the coronavirus has suffered. Trump had the members of the so-called “pandemic response team” fired as well as the top White House expert advocating a comprehensive pandemic policy. Long-term expertise was lost.

Trump also cut funding for the CDC’s global disease outbreak prevention efforts, including its operations in China. This program aims at dealing with outbreaks long before they get to the U.S.

The problem was that the expert staff might make the possibility of serious illness seem more likely, when the administration would want to make it appear remote. Also, it costs money to be prepared, while the administration cuts the health budget in favor of military spending.

Before Trump's action, policy had been to develop an agency ready to respond immediately with adequate testing and protective supplies that could control a problem before its spread became impossible to limit. He preferred to cut their funding and personnel.

Trump chose to wait until the problem appeared and then hoped to recruit emergency responders at universities and corporations. But he could not be sure they would be willing or able to interrupt their lives or that they would have enough time or resources to respond.

Meanwhile, he minimizes the coronavirus threat, because he dislikes its effect on the stock market.

When it comes to climate change or fighting coronavirus, surviving agencies are headed by "acting" chiefs or political pals opposed to the laws they are supposed to apply, with Trump ready to fire them if they are insufficiently loyal.

The spoils system is back. Loyalty matters most.

Voters continue to be misled by social media manipulation

Gordon L. Weil

The national voting season now begins in full force.

Maine will hold primaries on March 3, "Super Tuesday," along with states all the way to California. That will be the single biggest day for the selection of national convention delegates who pick their party's nominee for president.

The foundation of the American Republic's system is that the people vote, choosing those who will govern on their behalf. The system is under attack.

In some states, the legislature engages in "voter suppression" to deny access to the polls of voters likely to oppose the party making the rules. Or it may draw congressional districts to segregate members of the opposing party in as few districts as possible.

Fortunately, Maine does not engage in voter suppression. It is possible that the boundary between its two congressional districts could be drawn to favor one of the parties, undoubtedly a focus in next year's redistricting.

Despite the state's efforts, Maine voters can be affected by attempts to undermine a fair choice. Russia and extreme groups use social media to confuse voters and destroy confidence in the political. Evidence of Russian efforts is beyond doubt.

In addition, the law now allows campaigning by groups supposedly independent of the cause or candidate they support. They present themselves as promoters of good government, instead of the partisans they really are.

There have always been partisan campaign ads, which may misstate an opponent's position or actions while inaccurately boosting a candidate. Traditional campaigning is now giving way to the social media. False information about candidates is spread as if it were news.

These social media posts go well beyond efforts to promote or oppose candidates. Some content is meant to disrupt democracy by promoting candidates who do not represent the majority. If that turns off voters, the resulting disaffection from the American political system weakens this country.

Social media may be used to promote candidates, who are favorable to Russia or whose election will lead to policies favorable to foreign interests. It is impossible to measure how well they succeed in determining election outcomes, but there's proof they are trying.

The only effective remedies are either to ban political campaigning from social media, which may run afoul of free speech rights or ignore it. Twitter has banned political ads, though Facebook refuses to do so. It's up to individuals to ignore false news on social media.

Even worse, Russia tries to tamper with the computers that operate elections. The solution is paper ballot back-up. Used in Maine, it is blocked nationally by GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The established news organizations could help with the social media issue. The Washington Post fact checker has become the national standard for revealing untrue statements made by national politicians. Unfortunately, it has had to focus most of its attention on President Trump.

An online political analyst – the "Five ThirtyEight" website – uses polls to produce its political ratings and rates the accuracy of many polls, which are increasing in number and variety. Given the questionable quality and partisan leanings of many polls, its ratings are useful.

What is needed is a similar watch on social media. While it may be impossible to catch all false news on major outlets, systematic reporting on major efforts to mislead voters on social media would increase voter awareness of the efforts of the Russians and extremist groups to fool voters.

The media could rate the reliability of political information on social media outlets by fact checking. A regularly updated rating, based on this fact checking, would raise public awareness of the dubious value of the unedited "news" on social media. Items for review could be suggested by readers, similar to what the Washington Post does.

The operators of the social media – Facebook and the like – could provide such a service, though such responsible action is unlikely. Cable television, whatever its bias, is a precedent; it supports nonpartisan C-SPAN.

The Institute for Nonprofit News, an organization of hundreds of non-partisan news outlets, including Maine's Pine Tree Watch, might organize such an effort.

The foundation of the American political system is voting. The first task remains, as always, encouraging people to vote. Maine has an excellent record.

Saving the system from being undermined by foreign manipulation or short-term partisanship goes beyond that.

It depends on individuals doing more than simply casting a ballot. Given the complexity of issues and efforts to undermine the system, voters need more than ever to make sure they are fairly informed, before they vote.