Elections have consequences: four hidden effects this year

 

When people vote, they pick candidates. That's what elections are all about.

Not really. This year, there are least four hidden elections taking place.

The push to put a new conservative on the Supreme Court before Election Day makes the presidential vote a referendum on that effort, perhaps after the fact. If Joe Biden and a Democratic Senate emerge as winners, they could consider their victory as a mandate to quickly rebalance the Court.

President Trump has pushed his authority to overturn actions by regulatory agencies that are supposed to be independent, making them just another part of his administration. The presidential election could lead to their recovering their lawful, independent powers.

That would mean environmental, banking and many other rules could be recovered. Plus, federal inspectors general could be restored to their independent authority. That is what's just behind the presidential ballot.

Then, there's the Senate. If the Republicans hold on, expect continued roadblocks for the Democrats. If the Democrats gain control, they might use GOP methods. Their judicial appointments could sail through. But more than the courts are in play. All top federal officials are subject to confirmation. 

The big question is whether the Democrats would halt the GOP's ability to kill their bills by ending the filibuster, which now means many bills need 60 votes. If so, they could take advantage of their potential control of government and make major policy changes.

The Senate balance is now in question. Analysts give the Democrats a good chance of holding 51 or even 52 seats out of 100. That would include a Democratic gain in Maine.

Though campaigns focus on issues from health care to taxes, the big issue is which party controls the Senate. On that vote, all senators remain loyal to their party. So, in voting for senator, Mainers and others are really making a broad policy decision on government, more than on candidates' promises on specific issues.

The House of Representatives is a little more complicated. It now has a large Democratic majority, which is likely to be preserved.

If election challenges or inconclusive ballot counting prevent either presidential candidate from receiving the required 270 electoral votes by January 3, the new House could elect the president.

Members vote by state and the single vote for each state is determined by its House delegation. The two Maine House members would have the same weight as California's huge delegation. Today, with two Democrats, Maine would vote for Biden, but the new House would decide.

Right now, despite the Democratic majority, Republicans control most of the state delegations in the House. That gives congressional races in small states, including Maine, particular importance in determining the state majority.

The fourth hidden vote will be for state legislatures. Under the Constitution, state legislatures elected this year will be responsible for redrawing the congressional district lines resulting from the census. In each state, the districts must have the same population.

Some states have moved toward leaving the task to independent, nonpartisan commissions, but many congressional districts are drawn subject to statehouse politics. In states like Texas, political gerrymandering has created incredibly shaped districts, designed to limit the seats held by Democrats or minorities.

Few voters may be aware that their legislative ballots will influence the state's congressional representation. In some states, reapportionment could produce major shifts in the composition of House delegations for the next ten years.  

In Maine, the two congressional districts are far from as compact as possible. They appear to represent a political compromise that gives the Republicans the chance to win a seat. That situation could change as population grows in the southern part of the state. It might take two-thirds of the Legislature to redraw the lines.

Beyond these four hidden votes, another issue surrounds this year's elections – the elections themselves.

Since becoming president, Trump has attacked the security of the electoral system, though he provided no provable evidence that it is vulnerable. Cheating is possible in any human activity. Trump has turned that obvious truth into a claim that, if cheating could happen, it does happen.

With elections stretching back over two centuries, no evidence exists that cheating has been much of a problem. To support Trump's claim, more than mere assertion is required. Otherwise, the intent of the claim is suspect.

If Trump-Pence loses the election, their campaign seems ready to rely on the suspicion the president has created to try to nullify the results.

States should keep good records on the safety of polling places and all types of remote voting and vote counting. The data must be strong enough to quickly persuade a court.

The rest is up to voters. Vote.

 

Supreme Court debate ignores history

 

History seems to go back no further than the memory of the person reciting it.

Bad recall dominates the debate whether President Trump should have left the choice of the next Supreme Court justice to the next presidential term – his or Biden's.

Democrats say that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell broke tradition by blocking the Senate from considering President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland because it was an election year so the choice should have been left to the next president. He didn't.

Republicans say that the Senate controlled by the party opposing the president's has traditionally disapproved his election year nominations. They're wrong.

A close look at history reveals that there is no set pattern to guide the current situation.

A definition: An election year includes the 11 months before a November election and the time between the election and the presidential inauguration early the following year, originally in March but now in January.

A president can nominate a justice at any time in their four-year term. Andrew Jackson nominated two justices on the day before he left office. He was sure his successor would push through his nominees.

According to U.S. Senate data, there have been 39 nominees to the Court in an election year. Of them 21 were confirmed by the Senate, 16 were rejected and three were withdrawn for other reasons.

Among the 16, only two were made by presidents selected by the voters on Election Day. John Tyler became the "accidental president" when the chief executive died one month into his term. Tyler had no support from either party. He made nine election year nominations and eight, half of the total rejected, were killed.

Similarly, Milliard Fillmore, who succeeded a deceased president, named three and failed on all, as did two other similar presidents. Only two full-term presidents, James Buchanan, until now rated as the worst president, and Obama saw their election year nominees fail.

Some Republicans say it was normal for Obama to fail, because the Senate was controlled by the GOP in an election year. Still, in 1888, a GOP Senate confirmed Democratic President Grover Cleveland's pick of Bowdoin graduate Melville Fuller as chief justice, and then Cleveland lost the election.

Democrats complain that Garland did not get a Senate hearing, even if he were going to be rejected. That had happened six times previously for Tyler-type presidents. Perhaps the GOP, like Trump, thought Obama was a usurper who deserved no better treatment.

The Supreme Court has become heavily partisan since 1994 and the GOP's conservative manifesto, "Contract with America." Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the last nominee overwhelmingly approved. Since then, confirmation has been fought along party lines.

Still, it is unwise to assume the long-term effect of a judicial appointment. Justices, laws and popular values change over time and, insulated from short-term political pressure, justices may develop opinions different from when they were appointed.

A Kennedy appointee turned out far more conservative than foreseen. One of G.H.W. Bush's picks was surprisingly liberal.

One Wall Street Journal early report about Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett said: "Here's what her confirmation would mean for the future of American law." Not so. Nobody knows for sure what American law will be in coming decades.

Some Democrats are lashing out against the prospect of a Court with a conservative majority made possible by McConnell's tactics. 

One proposal would impose term limits on federal judges. That's prevented by the Constitution. 

If the Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate, they might enlarge the Court to tip the balance. There's a precedent for changing the size of the Court for partisan purposes. 

When Republicans blocked Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, from making any Court appointments in the 1860s, they cut the Court to seven justices. Without vacancies left for him to fill, nothing happened, and the Court returned to nine.

Without permanently adding justices, Democrats could authorize temporary slots, as previously described in this column. That could restore some balance, while not changing the number of justices. It's long been done for other federal courts.

Congress can also define the Court's jurisdiction, taking certain matters away from its control. And it can legislate better, especially on health care, leaving less room for Court interpretation.

If the GOP succeeds, a majority of American voters may be disappointed, having preferred the Court pick to be left to the next president. But voters usually pay little attention to Court appointments in presidential and Senate elections.

To counter or reverse Trump-McConnell judicial moves and also to reduce the chances of post-election challenges, the Court issue could help bring out a bigger Democratic vote and a strong Biden-Senate victory.

 

Maine could become “remote work state” in new economy

Gordon L. Weil

In a remote work-from-home economy, nobody is more remote than others.

Maybe that's good news for Maine, which has been penalized by its relatively remote location. If remote work takes off, as seems highly possible, Maine might see its competitive disadvantage greatly reduced.

It is too soon to know how the remote economy will develop, but the crisis provides an opportunity to promote it. The so-called New Economy might not equal the Industrial Revolution, but it could mark a historic change in economic life.

Two seemingly conflicting interests exist. Widespread concern about public health and personal risk has led to governments and individuals to reduce normal economic activity. At the same time, many people are anxious to return rapidly to their former life as soon as possible. The need to generate income through economic activity is undeniable.

Many states, including Maine, imposed tough protective measures, and now all states have begun loosening them. Governors have two goals: acquiescing in demands from some residents and allowing as much economic activity as seems prudent.

Some leaders, apparently including President Trump, motivated by unrealistic optimism and possible political advantage, advocate virtually complete relaxation of protective measures – opening the economy.

In states where relaxing protection has meant significant reopening, the number of cases has increased. The increase in Maine cases may be driven by better case reporting or outbreaks in group homes, but the effect of opening probably counts as well. The message is clearly that to reopen requires a new approach.

Businesses themselves have begun to move to the new economy. Companies like Facebook, Twitter and Shopify have announced that, after the crisis, they will continue to have many employees work from home.

The Wall Street Journal notes that many workers want to get back to the office, “but there will certainly be a growing class of workers who will never set foot in an office again, a profound change with unknown implications.”

Much work, even in an office, is carried out independently, but not all. Nobody will manufacture cars without people working together in a factory. Also, creativity can be stimulated by occasional face-to-face meetings.

The issue of social contact in not fully understood. Some observers claim that people need social contact, while other claim that the famous water cooler conversations are a waste of time. Zoom seems to be proving that electronics can go a long way as a face-to-face social substitute.

In the end, if many people worry about the health risks of viruses, their reluctance to return to crowded work spaces may be the key element in promoting remote work. More people will both work and shop from home.

The move away from the central workplace is certain to improve air quality and reduce wasteful commuting. Businesses' costs of operation can be reduced.

Facing these obvious advantages is the natural unwillingness to change. Excuses will be found to resist it. Remember that people threw their wooden shoes, called sabots, into the machine gears to try to undermine the Industrial Revolution. The result: sabotage, but not success.

Federal and state governments can promote remote work to stimulate change as the economy emerges from the economic doldrums caused by the coronavirus.

Instead of merely sending survival money to unemployed Americans, Congress could adopt a modified version of the European approach. Many governments there subsidize companies to retain employees on the payroll, keeping down unemployment payments. The twist would be that this kind of aid would go only to companies creating remote work opportunities. This would transform public assistance into economic development.

With the economy essentially restarting using a significantly new design, Maine economic development could suffer less from the state's remote location.

The state could seize what is called “first mover advantage” and, ahead of others, promote itself as the prime “remote work state.” The quality of life is well known and could be promoted as the ideal place for working from home. More young people could stay in the state or move to Maine.

Of course, the state would have come to terms with upgrading its electronic network to high-speed communication. It could also offer incentives to businesses that could assist remote work across the country, including by setting up training programs at the community colleges. Education could add a focus on remote work management.

Major national operations would no longer have to bypass Maine because of its location. Some will be looking to move operations from abroad back to the US. With lower costs than many other parts of the country, Maine could be attractive, especially if it gave itself a distinct economic identity, linked to the new economy.

Remote work is an inevitable part of the American economic future. It's a part where Maine can be a key player.

Covid-19 messages: scientists warn, but Trump still seeks 'miracle'

Gordon L. Weil

On Covid-19, Americans have been misled, lied to and confused.

In a crisis, people need clear, concise and authoritative messages from leadership. This crisis has lacked that.

At one extreme are politicians who put their careers ahead of the public good. At the other end are scientists, who must try to explain their complex work. In the middle are governors who seek to protect both public health and diverse state economies.

At the outset, President Trump dismissed the Covid-19 threat, because it threatened the booming economy on which his reelection depended. His ignorant assurances allowed the virus to spread unopposed. At this point, he may been engaging less in outright lying than in wishful thinking.

When it became obvious that Trump's “miracle” would not occur and the disease would keep spreading, Trump's new hope was that a ready cure would quickly stop it. Without evidence, he began to tout one medication after another.

The problem was that some proposed cures could be worse than the virus and might even cost lives. Though hydroxycholoquine carried warnings, Trump doubled down on advocating the drug and began taking it. “What harm can it do?” he asked. It could cause fatal irregular heartbeats.

Serious scientists were more truthful. Their warnings about the onset of the virus were ignored by the White House. Their efforts have focused on the need to stop the spread by protective measures and the time-consuming and detailed effort to find a drug to treat the virus and develop a vaccine.

Science has rules, because it produces facts. The rules require great care in order to provide great certainty. “Do no harm” is the first rule of medicine, so scientists must avoid rushing to conclusions that could mislead or, even worse, cause harm.

Politicians have fewer rules and produce fewer facts. That makes them impatient with scientists. In a crisis as big as Covid-19, the conflict breaks into the open. Unscrupulous politicians accuse scientists of having political motives, perhaps because they think everybody does.

Scientists do not usually lie or intentionally mislead. That puts them at a disadvantage in a political world. They must do their best not to alienate political leaders while defending their findings.

Trump's followers soon began to distrust them, because they did not follow the president's lead. They were politicized by their critics, some of whom argued that they lied to support the Democrats. Eventually, they faced a wave of politically inspired phony science.

Congress tried to save the situation. It appeared to believe that pouring out trillions of dollars would fund necessary research and reduce economic dislocation. But it put funds into the hands of Covid deniers or favored firms who could dip their hands into the cash flow as it passed to its supposed recipients.

Many Americans believed the fine promises and thought that massive federal spending would help them. Many are still waiting. They learned that even members of Congress who wanted to help them were misleading them and perhaps themselves.

Between the vast flood of federal misinformation and scientists who provide unwelcome forecasts are governors who are left with trying to protect their populations. But they also have to find ways to avoid protective measures destroying their economies.

While they struggle to find the right policy balance, they may send confusing messages. Increasingly, they have lined up by political party. Most Republican governors are more aggressive about reducing protection, repackaged as “opening” the economy, than are Democrats. Perhaps they reflect the political will of the more conservative states they serve.

One political rule is “when in doubt, don't do it.” A majority of people, confused and probably fearful, are not “opening” as fast as Trump and his supporters would like.

In the absence of clear and consistent presidential leadership, governors are left to develop policies for

both vulnerable people and local business. Most of them are probably sincere in their efforts and try to suit their constituency.

But the careful efforts of almost all governors of both parties have returned the crisis, in one view, back to the point where it began – from “miracle” to “magic.”

"And they [Democratic governors] think they're taking away Donald Trump's greatest tool, which is being able to go into an arena and fill it with 50,000 people every single time, right?” said Eric Trump, the president's son.

"So they will and you watch. They'll milk it every single day between now and November 3, and guess what? After November 3, coronavirus will magically all of a sudden go away and disappear and everybody will be able to reopen."

At last do we have a clear, concise and even hopeful statement on Covid-19?

Covid-19: More questions than answers

Maine struggles to resolve doubts as policies evolve

Gordon L. Weil

We don't know a lot about Covid-19.

Our lack of knowledge results from the at least three facts: this is a new virus; scientific studies are difficult to understand; and people with political rather than technical credentials try to minimize the crisis or even find a miraculous cure through sheer will power.

We do know that the world faces a deadly virus that spreads easily, even from people who are unaware they have Covid-19. We also know we must rely on science to come up with solutions.

Some people, whose hopes and expectations are disappointed by scientific advice, simply reject it. Their views don't make science less true, but the delays and distractions they cause may impose an added human cost.

In Maine, only last week did the CDC to provide a running count of the new cases added each day. While it had provided cumulative data, it had not shown if the famous “curve” was flattening. It turned out that it wasn't.

It continues to provide gross numbers of cases by country and by age group, but does not show if the impact is disproportionate in any of them. As reported here last week, Cumberland County and people over 70 are suffering more from the virus than their percentage of the population would indicate

For obscure reasons, the Maine CDC refuses to provide data for each municipality. This makes Maine a national outlier. Maine counties are generally larger than those in many other states, so differences within a county could be great. Aroostook County, with only a handful of cases, is larger than the entire state of Connecticut, which publishes town data.

With better information, people would know more about any local need for protective action. Town governments could take steps appropriate to any enhanced needs.

Guidelines describe the conditions necessary to ease protective measures. But the Portland Press-Herald has revealed that opening in Maine has taken place without “key benchmarks,” set by the federal government and public health doctors, being met. Why? The economy over science? Politics over both?

Many people do not like government imposing restrictions on their daily life. They may fail to recognize that their actions in ignoring the threat may unknowingly increase the spread of the virus to vulnerable people.

The Maine CDC presents dry daily updates to a limited viewing audience, allowing journalists little follow-up questioning and leaving them to fill in the same blanks every day in their news reports. Depth and analysis are often lacking. Numbers can be numbing.

Do people need face coverings, which reduce the chance of passing the virus to others, provided they keep their social distance? The answer is unclear. Yet we know that, if everybody wore a face covering, the number of people infected by the virus would fall, probably to the point it would become manageable.

What about face masks, which differ from coverings by protecting users from the virus? When will they be available to more people and what efforts are being made to speed up the process?

Testing is touted as the solution. If everybody receives a test, we are told the virus should abate. Do tests really work? There are stories of false results. Will people submit to testing? The Washington Post reports than many won't. With the need for retesting, how many will we need?

Maine is tripling the number of tests, thanks to Idexx, a Maine-based company. The news could easily have given people the impression that anybody could be tested. But it takes a doctor's recommendation and probably having some signs of the illness.

A count of ventilators continues, and Maine seems to have more than enough. Why does keeping up the daily count matter, possibly providing a false sense of security? Doctors have been finding that ventilators may cause more problems than they are worth and many sufferers do not survive their prolonged use.

Both parties in the Legislature gave Gov. Mills extensive powers to deal with Covid-19, and she has acted to protect the state. At the same time, she has grappled with restoring economic activity for the summer in an economy that depends on tourism. Finding the balance raises issues that merit bipartisan debate.

So, why are former Gov. LePage and Republican leaders attacking her policies? Is LePage using Covid-19 to launch a new run for the Blaine House, as he has threatened?

Republican leaders often bring up Sen. Susan Collins in their criticism of Mills, though Collins has no state responsibilities. Has the GOP decided that opposing Mills' handling of the virus helps Collins' campaign?

Questions about the Covid crisis abound. People want answers. Waiting patiently for them may be the one of the toughest challenges posed by Covid-19.

Say 'goodbye' to handshake; post-Covid-19 'next economy' won't be the same

Gordon L. Weil

Everybody looks forward to life after Covid-19.

The combination of strong protective measures and slowed economic activity cannot go on indefinitely. Even with Covid-19 as a threat, the economy cannot be suspended for many months.

Scientists warn about the threat of more Covid-19 outbreaks if “opening” moves too fast. Some supporters of President Trump say the scientists are lying, even about the current death rate. Economists wonder if the country can afford to wait indefinitely.

Some aspects of what is already called “the next economy” become increasingly clear. Here is what is likely:

New health restrictions will become a part of daily life.

More people will work from home.

Travel, from commuting to visiting clients, will be reduced.

The U.S. will depend less on imports for essential products.

Say “good-bye” to the handshake.

Without a “cure,” a two-tier society will be created.

Even before this crisis, remote work was known to yield greater productivity, less employer cost, more free time for employees and significant environmental improvement. Covid-19 has given more people the chance to learn about these advantages.

Some question whether the exchange of ideas would suffer from the lack of face-to-face contact. Others argue, however, that a lot of productive time was wasted in such contact.

Just as Amazon has reshaped shopping and Facebook has affected contact among people, Zoom or something like it may transform the remote work experience. When people can organize visual contact from a home computer, remote work may become far more routine.

Similarly, business travel will be reduced. Formerly, personal contact was seen as essential to making sales or closing deals. But managers have been learning that, forced to use remote contact, customers and clients accept it. The experience may now be extended even without the crisis.

One result should be fewer cars on the road. That automotive American revolution could improve both air quality and personal finances. Major insurers are now rebating some premiums as the number of accidents has decreased. Gasoline prices have tumbled with drivers purchasing less.

Though the future of air travel is less clear, it, too, will be transformed. Less business travel is likely. Perhaps airlines will be required to provide more space between passengers, boosting fares.

The U.S. will probably become less dependent on imports to meet essential needs. Vital medical supplies and other goods like computers cannot come primarily from countries who are America's adversaries or competitors. The relationship with China will change.

People have learned about the “supply chain” in which a product passes through several manufacturers, some of them abroad. The need to improve security will require shortening the chain, though it may mean forgoing some low-wage countries. Still, this is a form of national defense, which people generally support.

Domestic production should grow, though prices may rise somewhat. Security of supply has a cost. But achieving it may do more for the negative trade balance than today's tariff wars with the rest of the world. Slightly higher prices paid for local goods may end up costing customers less than increased tariffs.

The economy will almost certainly reflect a greater use of personal protection and more social distancing as a regular part of life. In Tokyo and elsewhere in Asia, people wear face masks for reasons of health, hygiene and social preference. That may become the way of the world.

Unless a successful vaccine is found, the virus will have emphasized that some people need special protection and cannot engage fully in life. Millions of older people and those with existing illnesses will need to accept less direct, personal contact and an almost certain dependence on face masks.

Governments may have to impose directives that meet their special needs. Separate hours for seniors at supermarkets and in other public places may become a legal requirement. People serving them may be required to wear face coverings. This could become a permanent part of life.

From these changes may arise a two-tier economy. With safeguards, most people may be able to take part fully in the new economic life of the country, even if that entails some degree of risk. As their involvement increases, the economy will revive. Such change will not take place at the same time all across the country but will reflect local factors and personal acceptance of risk.

The second group will be those who need or want a higher level of protection from Covid-19. For them, protective measures may be imposed on businesses and public services.

Of course, the elimination of the coronavirus as a massive health threat by a vaccine could restore full social contact. That could take years. Whatever the scientific outcome, the legacy of Covid-19 will survive and, life will never be the same.