Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Feds to Colorado River states: reduce water usage, or we will do it for you

This story is part of the Grist series Parched, an in-depth look at how climate change-fueled drought is reshaping communities, economies, and ecosystems.

In theory, the federal government can unilaterally cut water deliveries from the Colorado River’s two main reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, which release more than 2 trillion gallons of water to farms and cities across the Southwest each year. In reality, this has never happened: Previous cuts have always been negotiated between the federal government and the seven states that use the river. 

Late last week, however, the federal government sent its strongest signal yet that it is willing to single-handedly impose water cuts on the Colorado for the first time in history, as the U.S. West stares down the consequences of a climate-change-fueled megadrought that has parched the river.

The Department of the Interior, the federal agency that manages water in the Colorado River basin, announced on Friday that it would look into changing the rules for how it operates Lake Powell and Lake Mead, which are located in southern Utah and southern Nevada, respectively. This would pave the way for the department to impose sharp cuts on major water users in Arizona, Nevada, California, and Mexico, which receives water pursuant to a 1944 treaty.

In effect, the letter is a formal warning to the river states, telling them that if they fail to make the major cuts necessary to prevent the reservoirs from bottoming out, the feds won’t hesitate to unilaterally cut their water deliveries to do so.

The Interior Department said in its Friday letter that it would conduct an environmental review before changing the rules to impose new cuts on the states. This will give states one more chance to come up with their own voluntary reductions before the government enacts its own. According to John Fleck, a professor of water policy at the University of New Mexico, the upshot of all this is that unprecedented water reductions are all but guaranteed next year.

“Whether those cuts are imposed by a government action, or voluntary action by the states, or the fact that the reservoirs are fucking empty, they will happen,” he told Grist.

The new review comes after months of tense negotiations between the federal government and the seven basin states: California, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona. Earlier this year, as water levels in Lakes Powell and Mead fell to historic lows, officials at the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation ordered states to reduce their water consumption. The Bureau wanted a total reduction of between 2 and 4 million acre-feet — roughly a third of all water usage on the river.

The states have not even come close to meeting that goal. Major water users in California, which is the thirstiest of the seven states by far, agreed last month to cut water withdrawals by about 400,000 acre-feet, a decision that will have major implications for the agriculture-heavy Imperial Valley as well as the Los Angeles metro area. Arizona has reduced its Colorado usage over the past two years in compliance with pre-existing drought restrictions from the feds. The four states that comprise the river’s “upper basin” — Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming — have not announced any concrete steps to cut their water usage. 

Meanwhile, the outlook for the river’s two main reservoirs has continued to worsen. As runoff from melting snow in the northern Rocky Mountains works its way down through the Colorado River’s tributaries and into the river’s mainstem, the Bureau of Reclamation stores this water in Lake Powell, which sits on the border of Utah and Arizona. The Bureau then releases some of this water further down the river to Lake Mead in Nevada, and then further on to water users in the Southwest. 

The ongoing, two-decade drought has reduced overall precipitation and evaporated more Rockies snowmelt before it can reach the river, which has reduced inflow into both reservoirs. They now sit three-quarters empty, and the most recent federal projections show that they could each decline below a critical threshold in the next two years. In the worst scenarios, it’s possible that the reservoir dams might cease to generate hydropower, or that the water level in the reservoirs would fall lower than the pipes that release it from the dams. This would make it impossible for the Bureau to move water through the river system.

The Interior Department’s Friday announcement brought home the gravity of the situation, albeit in somewhat bureaucratic language.

“The Department currently lacks analyzed alternatives and measures that may be necessary to address such projected conditions,” wrote Tommy Beaudreau, the department’s deputy secretary. He added that the conditions “pose unacceptable risks” to the river system, and that a solution needs to be “expeditiously developed.”

The federal government technically has the authority to make changes to the amount of water it releases from the reservoirs without consulting the states, but it has never had to test that authority: the current shortage guidelines were the product of a yearslong negotiation process between the Interior Department and the states. The feds are now threatening to alter that agreement on their own, and the Interior Department’s announcement helps lay the groundwork for such an intervention. If the government does modify its guidelines, it could set a new threshold for when to stop releasing water from Lakes Powell and Mead, imposing deeper and earlier cuts than states have endured so far. The review process puts the feds on firmer legal footing in case a state water user sues over the new reductions.

The losers in such a scenario would be the lower basin states — California, Nevada, and Arizona — which rely on water that the government releases from Lake Mead, as well as Mexico, where decades of overuse caused the river delta to disappear during the twentieth century. The states use the bulk of this water for agriculture, but a significant share also flows to major cities. The upper basin states draw water from the river before it reaches the reservoir, so they would be insulated from changes to the reservoir rules.

The government’s review won’t conclude until next summer, but new rules could take effect immediately, which means painful new cuts may arrive in the Southwest as the region’s farmers are preparing for peak growing season.

Ignore the polls, and remember to breathe: Nothing about the midterms is carved in stone

If you had told me a year ago that polls would showing Democrats and Republicans within the margin of error a few days before this midterm election, I would have said you were nuts. After a couple of off-year wins for Republicans that had the Beltway press corps giddy with excitement, conventional wisdom held that a “red wave” was building, and likely to become a “red tsunami.” Even sober-minded analysts saw the political environment offering at least a comfortable win for Republicans in 2022.

All the fundamentals pointed toward a rout for the Democrats. The president was tremendously unpopular, gas prices were soaring and the relentless coverage of various failed Senate votes, thanks to a couple of Democratic Senate divas, had the administration’s policy agenda circling the drain. Some prognosticators said the Republicans were on track to gain 35 seats or more in the House and very likely a solid majority in the Senate.

Then the Supreme Court dropped a stink bomb in the middle of the party, overturning Roe v. Wade and electrifying the sullen Democrats. Over the course of the summer the polls tightened and it looked as though the red wave might not materialize after all. Maybe the Democrats could defy all predictions and somehow hold onto their majority.

That’s occurred on rare occasions in midterm elections over the past half-century or more, most recently in 2002 when the GOP won a slim majority even though a Republican president, George W. Bush, held the White House. Of course that election came shortly after the cataclysmic 9/11 terrorist attack, with the country in the grip of war fever and Bush’s approval rating at its highest point. But for the most part, it’s undeniably true that the party out of power wins midterm elections. It’s just a matter of degree.

Facing an unpopular president plagued with investigations, Newt Gingrich predicted a gain of 30 to 40 seats in the 1998 midterms. Instead, they were his downfall. Could history repeat itself?

But the out-party can also sometimes overplay its hand. Consider the salient example of 1998, for instance. The Republicans decided to impeach Bill Clinton for lying under oath about a sexual affair and they thought it was a slam dunk they’d roll up huge wins in the midterm elections, which came right in the middle of the big, salacious House investigation. Speaker Newt Gingrich was so confident about gaining a huge number of seats that he released special prosecutor Ken Starr’s bodice-ripping report on the internet, which even its drafters thought was a mistake. He predicted a gain of 30 to 40 seats, believing that the report would depress Democrats and galvanize the Christian right. It didn’t turn out that way at all, and Democrats gained five seats instead. 

Filmmaker Michael Pack was following Gingrich at the time and caught the denouement for what became his documentary “The Fall of Newt Gingrich.” An AP report on the film’s release in 2000 described the key events this way:

Even that night, Gingrich’s senior political director, Joe Gaylord, expresses confidence — which ultimately will be exposed as overconfidence — that “we would gain seats, it was only a matter of how many we gain.” As the night progresses, smiles disappear from Gingrich’s “war room,” and multiple shots capture the speaker, mouth widened in disbelief. Later, he tells Pack he was “genuinely confused.”

It’s true that Republicans kept control of the House but Gingrich’s career was over and he was forced to resign shortly thereafter. Hubris had cost them dearly.

The question in 2022 is whether they’re doing it again. In several major races, Republicans are clearly suffering because they’ve nominated a group of batshit-crazy Trumpers and are trying to turn back the clock to the 1600s on women’s rights. That might not have have the frisson of the Starr Report but it’s a potent motivation for Democrats — and also seems to be a potent motivation for Republicans.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Polls show that the generic ballot (that is, whether people favor Democrats or Republicans overall) within the margin of error, while pollsters and strategists proclaim that Republican votes are being undercounted again, as they were in 2016 and 2020 (for reasons that remain unclear). But as FiveThirtyEight noted this week, you can’t predict the direction of polling errors in advance:

Historically, polls have been equally likely to underestimate Republicans or Democrats. So it’s also possible that pollsters have fixed the problems that plagued them in 2016 and 2020 — maybe even overcorrected for them — and that the current polls are too good for the GOP. In other words, a wide range of scenarios is possible in this election: everything from a Republican landslide to a world where Democrats hold the House and gain seats in the Senate.

This doesn’t feel like a normal midterm election and there’s plenty of evidence that it isn’t. Early voting so far shows a massive turnout so far. Traditionally, that’s an advantage for Democrats ,and Republican officials and candidates have been following Donald Trump’s lead and telling their voters to wait until Election Day to vote. We have no way of knowing whether this big early vote means that many GOP voters defying those instructions or whether Election Day will witness long lines of angry white Republicans. We’ll simply have to wait and see.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media has decided to frame the horse race as if Republicans already have it in the bag. They take the supposed under-polling of Republicans as written in stone and view races that are too close to call as a sign that the entire election is the GOP’s to lose. And who knows — there’s a decent chance they’re right. But there’s also a pretty fair chance they are wrong and their slanted coverage is setting up a monumental right-wing freakout if Democrats happen to pull off a win (or at least do better than expected).

We already know that Republicans are planning to contest any races they lose and are telling their voters that the only way Democrats can win is if they cheat. This is now an article of faith on the right. Current coverage has any number of GOP candidates measuring the drapes for their new offices, and it’s pretty clear they won’t accept defeat graciously. Even if Republicans lose, they win. The way it works now, elections is never over.

Honestly, the media should have learned its lessons, and should be much more careful about relying on wonky polling in a close race. After all, it was just six years ago that the “media elite” felt so sure that Hillary Clinton had the election wrapped up that they put her on notice that they were going to pursue her relentlessly before the election even happened. We all know how that turned out.

It’s uncomfortable and frightening to think about what will happen if the Republicans win. But as I said, if anyone had claimed we’d be in this position a year ago I would have said they were crazy. By all relevant historical standards, Democrats were supposed to be buried right now, and they’re not. For the next few days we’ll all have to do something we just hate to do: Live in uncertainty. 

Legal experts: Judge ordered special monitor to “babysit” Trump after “Trump Organization II” scheme

A New York judge on Thursday agreed to appoint an independent monitor to oversee the Trump Organization after prosecutors warned that the company may be trying to skirt accountability by transferring financial assets out of the state.

New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who has repeatedly been accused of being “unfair” by former President Donald Trump for ruling against him and finding him in contempt of court, said he would appoint a special monitor in response to a request from New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“This court finds that the appointment of an independent monitor is the most prudent and narrowly tailored mechanism to ensure there is no further fraud or illegality … pending the final disposition of this action,” Engoron wrote, adding that the defendants will have to pay for the cost of the independent monitor. “If the monitor reasonably determines that defendants have violated this order, the monitor shall immediately report that matter to [Office of the Attorney General], defendants, and this Court,” the judge warned.

Engoron also banned the Trump Organization from transferring any non-cash assets without providing two weeks’ notice to the court and James’ office.

Trump’s decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment right during his court-ordered deposition earlier this year appeared to come back to bite him in Thursday’s ruling.

“Although not dispositive on any single issue, this Court is permitted, and is here persuaded, to draw a negative inference from Mr. Trump’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right … more than 400 times in response to questions posed to him during his deposition,” Engoron wrote.

The independent monitor will “essentially babysit” the Trump Organization while the legal battle continues, wrote MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin.

“That figures to drive Trump and his kids berserk,” tweeted former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman. “Wonder who wants the job?”

Richard Signorelli, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, predicted that the monitor is “going to be blown away by what he sees going on at the company.”

The order came after James’ office learned that the Trump Organization formed a new entity called “Trump Organization II LLC” on the same day that she filed a $250 million fraud lawsuit against him and his three eldest children. James also alleged that the company has “continued using practices they knew to be improper or fraudulent.”

“Beyond just the continuation of its prior fraud, the Trump Organization now appears to be taking steps to restructure its business to avoid existing responsibilities under New York law,” prosecutors told the court in a filing last month, asking for a special monitor to be appointed. The lawsuit, which alleges more than 200 acts of fraud over a decade, seeks to bar Trump and his three eldest children from running any company in the state and other penalties.

“Time and time again, the courts have ruled that Donald Trump cannot evade the law for personal gain,” James said in a statement on Thursday. “Today’s decision will ensure that Donald Trump and his companies cannot continue the extensive fraud that we uncovered and will require the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee compliance at the Trump Organization.”

Trump lashed out over the ruling in a statement published on Truth Social.

“A puppet judge of the New York Attorney General and other sworn enemies of President Trump and the Republican Party has just issued a ruling never before seen anywhere in America. It is Communism come to our shores,” the former president said.

“Businesses will be fleeing New York, which they already are, for other states and countries,” he continued. “Today’s ridiculous ruling by a politically-motivated, hand-picked judge makes it even more vital for courts in both New York and Florida to do the right thing and stop this inquisition.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Trump earlier this week filed a bizarre lawsuit against James in Florida, accusing her of trespassing on his right to privacy in Florida and seeking to halt her civil case against him and his company. Numerous Trump lawyers warned him that the suit is “frivolous and would fail” but he went ahead with it anyway, according to The New York Times, even as the Trump Organization’s counsel worried that the lawyers filing the claim “might be committing malpractice.”

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance dismissed Trump’s complaint that the ruling would drive businesses out of the state.

“Actually, the judge’s ruling makes the business environment in NY safer and more secure for businesses, by rooting out wrongdoers who benefit from fraudulent behavior and skew the markets for insurance, among other things,” she wrote on Twitter.

Rubin also disputed Trump’s claim about “Communism,” noting that the ruling “doesn’t hand over anything Trump owns to the government.”

“None of this would be possible but for the AG’s having demonstrated a pattern of persistent, ongoing financial fraud that was anomalistic even in the bizarro, magic mirror world of commercial real estate. Some of [the] valuations here were so outlandish as to be farcical,” Rubin wrote.

In the end, what Trump calls “communism looks to others of us like justice,” she added. “The AG is not redistributing his wealth; she’s preventing Trump from faking it–and now from transferring it–without accountability.”

US unveils $1 billion effort to electrify school buses

Less than 1 percent of the nation’s roughly 500,000 school buses are electric or run on low-emission fuels. That’s about to change. 

Nearly 400 school districts across the United States, including in several Indigenous tribal lands, as well as in Puerto Rico and American Samoa, will receive around $1 billion to purchase new, mostly electric school buses as part of a Biden Administration grant program.

The program aims to reduce children’s exposure to harmful exhaust from diesel buses that serve their schools and communities. It is also part of a broader effort by the Biden Administration to address climate change and environmental justice by making it easier for vulnerable communities to have access to zero-emission vehicles.  

The grant program’s funds come from $5 billion that the EPA received as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. With the grant money, recipient school districts will be able to purchase nearly 2,300 electric buses, quadrupling the nation’s current number. While these lower-polluting buses would make up a small portion of school bus fleets, environmental and public health advocates argue that the positive impacts on children’s health would be profound.

In a press release, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, a Harlem-based organization, praised Wednesday’s announcement and the program’s reach, saying that it would improve air quality and “reduce children’s exposure to asthma-causing pollutants while also protecting the health of drivers and the communities these buses drive through.”

The Biden Administration expects many of the new electric buses to be available to the winning school districts by the start of the next school year, with the remainder available by the end of 2023.  

Air pollution remains a major contributor to poor respiratory and cardiovascular health, with vehicles a main culprit. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation make up the highest portion of total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., at 27 percent. The World Health Organization estimates that 93 percent of the world’s population breathes air that exceeds its public health guidelines. 

Children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of poor air quality. A 2021 study found that even brief exposure to air pollution, including wildfire smoke and car exhaust, can alter a child’s DNA and increase their risk of heart and lung problems as adults. 

Seventy percent of students from low-income families take a bus to school, increasing their exposure to diesel exhaust. Children of color, in particular, are more likely to live near heavy transit routes, industrial facilities, and other sources of vehicular and industrial pollution. This is in large part due to historic housing, zoning, and transit policies that left Black and Brown communities with few other options. As a result, children of color have higher rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses than white children. 

Air pollution also poses other unexpected health risks to children of color. A 2017 study on Latino children in low-income neighborhoods in Los Angeles found that exposure to air pollution during childhood may cause damage to the pancreas — the organ that produces insulin, increasing their likelihood of becoming obese and developing Type 2 diabetes.

A horrifying amount of microplastic discharges from nonstick pans and goes into our food, study says

Everyone knows the name Teflon, the patented nonstick coating chemical discovered by DuPont in 1938 — which is convenient because the full name for the type of synthetic polymer that includes Teflon, “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances” (PFAS), is quite the tongue-twister. Although such cookware is beloved by cooks for making cleaning easier, Teflon and other so-called “forever chemicals” in non-stick pans have been turning up in human bodies, and are linked to ailments ranging from high blood pressure and low sperm count to liver disease. It stands to reason that consumers would like PFAS such as Teflon to stay on their cookware and off their food, even though anyone who has prepared a meal knows that does not always happen.

“We must be careful about selecting and using cooking utensils to avoid food contamination.”

Now, a new study in the journal Science of the Total Environment reveals that a single surface crack in the Teflon coating of a frying pan can eject as many as 9,100 plastic particles, more than enough to enter the human body.

Like the chemicals they studied, the scientists behind this breakthrough hail from an organization whose name is a mouthful. Researchers from the Global Centre for Environmental Remediation and Flinders Institute of NanoScale Science and Engineering used Raman imaging and an algorithm model to visualize microplastics and nanoplastics alike on a microscopic scale. Using this data, they identified that 2.3 million microplastics and nanoplastics were released when a frying pan’s Teflon coating is broken.

“The non-stick coating material Teflon is generally a family member of PFAS,” University of Newcastle researcher Dr Cheng Fang, who was involved in the study, said in a press statement. “Given the fact PFAS is a big concern, these Teflon microparticles in our food might be a health concern [and] needs investigating, because we don’t know much about these emerging contaminants.”

Flinders University researcher Professor Youhong Tang added in the statement that the study is a warning about the danger of not cooking in a safe way. Notably, most nonstick pans have instructions that say not to heat them above medium, though the great variation in home stoves means that even rule-following home cooks might not always succeed at keeping such pans from emitting odorless fumes that have been known to kill birds in poorly ventilated rooms


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


“It gives us a strong warning that we must be careful about selecting and using cooking utensils to avoid food contamination,” Tang said in the statement. “More research is recommended to address the risk assessment of the Teflon microplastics and nanoplastics, given that Teflon is a family member of PFAS.”

“It’s very difficult for individuals to control their PFAS exposure – PFAS are in so many products (and water, or food) and often we don’t even know we are exposed.”

In addition to appearing on cooking pans, PFAS can be found in fast food wrappers, popcorn bags and countless other types of commonly-used kitchenware. They are literally inescapable, and that is why the American Heart Association journal Hypertension was so alarmed in June when it studied 1,000 middle-aged women and discovered that “women with higher concentrations of specific PFAS were more likely to develop high blood pressure.” More specifically, “women in the highest one-third concentrations of all seven PFAS examined had a 71% increased risk of developing high blood pressure,” the study found. High blood pressure can lead to heart attacks and strokes if left untreated.

In another study that isolated seven common PFAS, a report last month in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that when pregnant mothers in their first trimester were exposed to a mixture of those PFAS, their biologically male children wound up having “lower sperm concentration, lower total sperm count, and higher proportions of nonprogressive and immotile sperm in young adulthood.” Meanwhile a systematic review of scientific literature published in May by the journal Environmental Health Perspectives revealed that there is “a relationship between higher exposure to certain PFAS chemicals and higher blood levels of ALT,” or the liver enzyme Alanine Aminotransferease. Study author Liz Costello told Salon at the time that the enzyme is “a good indicator of liver injury.” Costello also commented on the ubiquity of PFAS.

“It’s very difficult for individuals to control their PFAS exposure – PFAS are in so many products (and water, or food) and often we don’t even know we are exposed,” Costello explained. “Even when older PFAS are phased out and no longer used, newer PFAS chemicals replace them. You won’t usually see these listed on a product label.”

Oregon tried to inform residents about wildfire risk. The backlash was explosive

Last summer, after a series of devastating wildfires, the Oregon state legislature passed a sweeping bipartisan bill to protect against future blazes. The law unlocked money to develop new building codes in vulnerable areas and help residents who wanted to fireproof their homes. It reached the governor’s desk with support from Portland-area Democrats and rural Republicans alike.

Before state officials could implement the new regulations, though, they needed to figure out which areas faced the greatest fire danger. For this reason, the bill required the state forestry department to create a comprehensive wildfire risk map within a year, assigning a risk score to every household in the state. The forestry department finished the map right on time in June. It then mailed a letter to every homeowner who was in a high-risk zone, alerting them that new regulations would be coming soon. 

This seemingly anodyne mapping measure produced a frenzy of backlash from every corner of the state. Hundreds of residents showed up at public meetings to berate state officials for designating their homes high risk, and hundreds more wrote in to contest their risk status. Many argued that the state was going to make their insurance more expensive and their property less valuable.

The same Republican lawmakers who had supported the wildfire bill then pounced on the map as an example of state overreach. In early August, the state caved and withdrew the map, vowing to spend another year gathering feedback before releasing a final version. In a tight race for state governor that will be decided next week, the Democratic candidate has distanced herself from the old version of the risk assessment, saying the revision “must address concerns from property owners.”

The fracas over the wildfire map serves as a warning to other states and cities that are trying to adapt to climate change. When the government tries to impose new restrictions on homeowners in vulnerable areas — or even tries to inform them about the risks they face — the homeowners may fight back. Many residents who protested the map were misinformed about how the new regulations work, but there was a grain of truth to their complaints: By publicizing their high-risk status, the state may make their homes less valuable and harder to sell. Like many other adaptation efforts around the country, Oregon’s wildfire program may face the greatest pushback from the very people it’s trying to help.

Kim Mead, who lives on a ranch in mountainous Wasco County, was one of the homeowners who fell in the state’s high-risk category.

“They sent us a letter and it showed that we were in the extreme level,” she told Grist. “We called the number to appeal, but nobody answered. There was not a chance to give input.”

Mead has cleared trees and vegetation on her property and surrounded her house with water and gravel to prevent fires from reaching it. Even though two wildfires have scorched her grazing fields in just the last three years, she feels confident that her house itself is safe.

A few weeks after the letters went out, the state held a virtual meeting to discuss the map. Around 900 residents called in, filling the two-hour video session with a litany of complaints.

“I don’t know what kind of science you used,” said one resident, “but it doesn’t make sense to me.” Another called the measure a “complete fraud, unmistakably a fraud.… I’m having a hard time getting out everything I have to say, because I’m angry.” The state had planned to host an in-person meeting, but it changed to a virtual format after receiving a phone message with a violent threat.

It wasn’t long before all these residents got organized. Nicole Chaisson, a hay farmer who lives outside of a riverside town called The Dalles, started collecting stories of people who’d prepared their property for wildfires but still found themselves designated as high risk. She started working with homeowners in other parts of the state to organize letter-writing campaigns to local legislators. (Chaisson has been active in politics before: In 2020 she founded a Facebook group that spread a baseless theory about the state changing voters’ party affiliation without their consent.)

“A lot of people were just, you know, shocked,” Chaisson told Grist. “The big thing that people think of is, you know, the worst-case scenario, which is losing your insurance and having your property taken away.” Pretty soon, the residents had caught the attention of their elected representatives, many of whom had supported the omnibus fire bill the previous year. After hearing the complaints, some of them reversed their positions. 

Mark Owens, a Republican state legislator who represents the rural eastern part of the state, said he’s worried about how the map will affect home values. Like Chaisson, he worries that insurance costs could go up, and that home values might drop as a result. Some homeowners in risky areas might even have trouble selling their properties, he speculated.

“You’ve possibly just devalued … that property asset by inaccurately reporting the fire danger,” he told Grist. Owens voted for the wildfire bill that ordered the map, saying it would help protect his fire-prone constituents, but since it debuted he’s been focused on rolling it back — also in an attempt to protect his fire-prone constituents, or at least their equity.

Some of these concerns are unfounded. Residents like Mead, who have already hardened their homes against fire, won’t have to do anything once the state debuts the new regulations, since they’ll already be in compliance.  As for insurance, the state insists that its map isn’t causing insurers to raise rates. For one thing, most insurance companies have their own algorithms for evaluating risk, and therefore don’t need the state’s. 

“The statewide wildfire risk map is a representation of risk that already exists — it doesn’t create the risk,” said Derek Gasperini, a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Forestry who led the state’s mapping work. He says that insurers make their own decisions about raising prices and offering coverage. When it comes to home values, though, the map’s possible effects are harder to predict. Studies have shown that informing buyers about flood risk can reduce home sale prices or drive customers away, but it’s unclear whether that trend holds when it comes to fire.

“We don’t have a way to mitigate that concern or a response to concerns about home value,” said Gasperini. “That is subjective.”

Even so, the state is far from alone in its effort to map household fire risk. Utilities and real estate companies have plowed millions of dollars into efforts to predict wildfires, developing detailed datasets and algorithms. Earlier this year, the nonprofit First Street Foundation published a national map of fire risk, allowing anyone to search fire risk for any address. If home prices start to fall in the Oregon map’s extreme zones, the map won’t be the only reason why — or even the biggest.

Still, the state’s map generated a special kind of backlash from rural Oregonians, who seemed to blame the state far more than they blamed the insurers or the housing market. Owens, the Republican legislator, says that’s not because of the map itself, but because of the political dynamics behind the adaptation effort. When a liberal administration tells conservative voters what they need to do on their properties, he said, there’s always going to be backlash. (Oregon’s current governor is Democrat Kate Brown, and Democrats hold majorities in both chambers of the legislature.)

“If they haven’t done great outreach with the community and sat down with them, they’re gonna cause us to go political again,” Owens said. “The only way we can get them to slow down is through the public process of being loud, and that doesn’t make good policy.”

Study: Los Angeles’ major flood risk is much higher than previously thought

When it comes to storm damage, Los Angeles County may not be the first place that comes to mind. But according to a new study, the area’s “hundred-year” flood risk is far greater than what the federal government currently estimates — and a disproportionate danger for Black residents in certain key areas. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency considers a relatively small section of L.A. County to be at high risk of flooding. Researchers estimated that these tracts — mostly along the coast and around Lake Los Angeles — are home to just over 23,000 people. These zones would be especially vulnerable during a so-called “100-year flood” — an event with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year. But while FEMA only bases its assessment on potential flooding along rivers and coasts, a team at the University of California, Irvine identified additional high-risk areas based on the flash flooding caused by rainfall. This inclusion, they argued, is crucial, as global warming will increase the volume of runoff, and there’s often insufficient drainage in urban areas. 

According to the resulting analysis, published Monday in Nature, up to 874,000 people in the county could be exposed to a similar level of flood risk — a nearly 40-fold increase from the population estimate based on government assessments. 

And it may not just be L.A. County that is vastly underestimating its flood risk: “Across the U.S., we witnessed one city after the other get hit by flooding and be seemingly unprepared for the amount of flooding that happens,” said Brett Sanders, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Irvine and the study’s lead author. 

In addition to noting the increased risk, Sanders said it is crucial to understand who within a community is most exposed to these types of events and may face the longest road to recovery. The team at UC Irvine measured the likelihood of different groups in L.A County experiencing each type of flooding — coastal, river, and flash flooding — based on measures of vulnerability, such as race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. 

The researchers found that the county’s non-Hispanic Black residents are 79 percent more likely than non-Hispanic white residents to be exposed to flooding greater than 100 centimeters, roughly three feet. Hispanic residents are 17 percent more likely to be exposed to these levels of flooding when compared to non-Hispanic white residents, and Asian residents are 11 percent more at risk.

The hope, Sanders said, is for communities across the country to replicate this type of analysis in order to better understand where governments should focus flood mitigation or recovery efforts.

These flood events “wreak a lot of havoc,” he said, adding that federal flood assistance programs often fail to reach those who need it most. That’s because those programs often look to states, which in turn often distribute support to communities that already have the resources to advocate for it.  

“If you’re living paycheck to paycheck, and you’re renting your apartment — your employer may go out of business, your housing may be unlivable, and you’ll quickly find your life really upended and unable to recover,” Sanders said. “We have a problem in the U.S. because the most vulnerable communities have no resources and have very little expertise to ask for help. So we don’t know where the hotspots of vulnerability are across the United States. We only know of and hear from the communities that have resources to ask for help.”

Sanders and his team have made their data and analysis public to encourage communities around the country to replicate their model to better understand urban flood risk on a neighborhood level. 

Still, “this type of tool can’t be the last work on where money needs to go,” he said.

Elon Musk’s “blue check” debacle: His brain has been broken by whiny incels

A week after Elon Musk acquired Silcon Valley’s bluest white elephant, Twitter, the tech billionaire appears determined to live up to all the dark suspicions people harbor about him. His ideas on how to run the company seem to be borrowed directly from the worst people on the internet, dudes who spend most of their time toggling between spewing racial slurs into “Call of Duty” and griping on Reddit about how woke bitches won’t have sex with them. That’s because Musk’s brilliant idea for making Twitter profitable is — don’t laugh! — charging people a monthly subscription fee for having a blue check mark next to their name. 

If you spend enough time in the disorienting chocolate factory-like hellscape that is Twitter, you will soon discover a shocking amount of resentment from right-wing nerds about the existence of the aforementioned blue check. Musk himself is channeling this resentment,  claiming he was doing this to end the “lords & peasants” system. But, as Edward Ongweso Jr. of Vice points out, by “elites,” Musk — the richest man in the world — “more or less means journalists.” He may think he’s a man of the people, but he’s a rich brat who cannot believe that anyone is allowed to talk back to him. 

The little blue symbol is affixed to profiles, in theory, to indicate that “this person is who they say they are.” In truth, it’s become increasingly difficult to get one in recent years. It usually requires both having a relatively robust public profile and an employer who is willing to vouch that your persona matters to their bottom line or institutional standing. (I got mine because Salon organized it for every editorial employee with a prominent byline, for instance.) It’s supposed to give Twitter readers a little more confidence that the person who’s talking feels some protectiveness over their reputation and therefore won’t be talking entirely out of their ass.


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


In practice, Twitter gave checks to people like Daily Wire head Ben Shapiro and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, individuals for whom the ass does literally all the talking. As a gauge of information quality, it is deeply compromised. Still, combining the blue check mark with a quick look at someone’s profile can help a user decide whether a tweet is trustworthy or not. Blue check mark plus a Twitter bio saying you work for NBC News? Probably OK! Blue check mark plus a job as a Republican official? Don’t believe a word they say! 

But if you listen to the perpetually aggrieved right-wing dorks who make up Musk’s fan base, you’d think the blue check mark is a trophy being handed out by the Holy Order of Sex-Having Woke Elites. “Elite,” of course, is defined not by someone having real power or money in the world, but by the parlance of right-wing resentment. Which is to say it’s mostly about incel or incel-lite dudes who obsessively fear that liberals are cooler than they are, a fear that gets reinforced by their own suckiness and also because liberals would rather pull their own fingernails out than have a conversation with them. 

In this worldview, the blue check mark is not about identity verification, but a symbol of the kind of social capital that those on the right perceive liberals as having that they don’t have, one they simultaneously envy and loathe. It’s this imagined prestige that fuels the narrative of the “liberal elite.” In this worldview, right-wing billionaires like Musk or Peter Thiel are not “elite,” and neither is Donald Trump, despite all his money and power. But adjunct English professors, freelance journalists and broke college kids in BLM T-shirts are “elite,” mostly due to the haunting and not inaccurate MAGA fear that progressives get invited to cooler parties. 

Of course, the left has plenty of geeks. Still, the sense that there’s a coolness imbalance between left and right has some substance, as evidenced by the right’s inexplicable desire to cling to Kanye West even after his career implosion. They really are so desperate for cultural cachet they’ll settle for a celebrity who is almost entirely famous for how far he’s fallen. More to the point, right-wing media has put their uncoolness right at the heart of their narrative about how badly they are victimized at the hands of the “elite,” those arrogant people who read novels and wear clothes that fit.


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


This is why, for instance, we get periodic bouts of right-wing self-pity over polls showing that more people would refuse to date a Republican than date a Democrat. It fuels “cancel culture” whining, which is predicated on the notion that liberals are the sole arbiters of one’s social status. (Having a comedy special or album that only conservatives buy may make you a ton of money, but it will never be cool.) Or Tucker Carlson’s endless whimpering about how “elites” won’t “let” you say all the vile things he says every single weeknight to an audience of millions. Or the “humor” of Greg Gutfeld of Fox News, in a protests-too-much segment about how college kids these days aren’t good-looking enough. 

The entire GOP has reduced itself to a dude in a bar who tries to buy you a drink, and when you decline, says without conviction, “You’re not that hot, anyway.” 

This fixation on unattainable cool intersects with right wing ideology in one substantive way: It disproves the core assumption that the “free market” has an all-encompassing explanatory power. It’s not just that money can’t buy happiness. The one thing capitalism tells us should be available as a commodity — social status — is still elusive, even with an open checkbook. After all, Musk is the richest man in the world, but that fails to conceal the fact that he’s a total wanker. 

Indeed, the anger that anything of value in this world could be unavailable for purchase was inadvertently expressed by right-wing millionaire David Sacks, who, like Musk, didn’t let his own blue check get in the way of drumming up dork rage-fits over middle class “elites” who got them because of their professional status. 

All of this only lends credence to the theory that libertarianism largely exists as an ideology because social miscreants get attached to the idea that money should matter more than social skills or reputation. 

You can’t buy the Twitter blue check, at least not yet. It’s really more a service to readers than to those with the check marks. But distorted through the right-wing resentment field, it becomes a stand-in for all the other symbols of social capital that are not for sale and therefore considered “elite”: Cool friends, a sense of style, skill at flirting, an ability to communicate without making people back away slowly. 

Musk’s plan to make the blue check a subscription-only feature makes clear how strongly he’s channeling the topsy-turvy worldview of his right-wing dweeb fan base. They were, of course, ecstatic, believing that their billionaire geek god might allow them to purchase the social stature that they can’t earn with their labor or personality. Musk himself sold it this way, dialing up the grievances of those who want to believe that paying $8 a month for a blue check will somehow spite people they envy and fear. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


There’s a problem, though: The so-called “elite” that they hate finds the entire idea silly. First of all, to people with a foot planted in the real world, the meaning of the blue check hasn’t changed: “This person is who they say they are.” It’s only angry nerds who imbued it with prestige. More to the point, to make the blue check mark a pay-to-play feature literally strips it of its current meaning. We can expect a bunch of scam artists and MAGA-hat nobodies to pony up eagterly. People with actual professional reputations, meanwhile, won’t pay for something that confers no meaning other than “I have $8 a month and very little sense.” 

Musk reacted to all these sensible criticisms with a 4chan-style meme that misses the point entirely, but wallows in right-wing pique over the supposed snobbiness of liberals. Yep, right down to the bizarre conservative complaint that going to Starbucks, a chain with more than 15,000 locations in the U.S., is somehow a sign of liberal hoity-toitiness. 

His fanboys swooned over how he sure did stick it to Becky the cheerleader, who drinks pumpkin lattes and wouldn’t go to prom with them. But it’s not clear how that’s supposed to convince anyone to actually pay for a blue check. It only confirmed the suspicion that a blue check will stop being a marker of public officials, celebrities and journalists, and instead signal that this account is run by someone you would cross the street to avoid. 

There is no way to kill Twitter off more quickly than handing it over to people who think female Jedis or Ghostbusters are the greatest injustice since slavery. Maybe that’s just as well, as the platform is already overrun with terrible people and makes even decent people act like their worst selves. It has only survived this long because it has lingering value for politicians, journalists and other public figures who want to promote their work and their point of view. Free blue checks for those folks served Twitter most of all, creating the promise that there were some reputable people saying valuable stuff on the platform. The more Musk works to “democratize” the platform by collapsing the distinction between trolls and non-trolls, the less reason there will be for anyone to use it. 

When I heard Takeoff had been shot and killed, two words came to my mind

Kirshnik Khari Ball, better known as Takeoff, one-third of the multi-platinum hip hop group Migos, was shot and killed at a bowling alley in Houston earlier this week. The 28-year-old was an instant standout in the Grammy-nominated trio thanks to the cocktail of his punchy flow and catchy ad-libs. Takeoff’s death makes him at least the sixth mainstream rapper to be gunned down this year, preceded by Snootie Wild, Archie Eversole, Trouble, JayDaYoungan and PnB Rock, alongside the emerging talents we also lost to gun violence in 2022 alone. All Black men. 

Tighten up, Watkins is the first thought that came to me when I heard the news about Takeoff. Not a hunger to scour the internet for all the details of the shooting. Not punching my Tidal app to build a Takeoff playlist, or even checking the social media pages of the other Migos members, Offset and Quavo, because I am a fan, one of the people who contributed to the more than 1.5 billion streams of their 2017 chart-topper “Bad and Boujie.” I didn’t even go to Takeoff’s page to get a sense of what other fans were feeling. None of those normal reactions to losing a celebrity crossed my mind at the shocking moment. I just took a self-audit and thought, tighten up, Watkins. Like many Black men in this country, hyper-awareness has been my key to survival.

What exactly does “tighten up” mean? For me, it means I pause to consider where I spend time. I grew up in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in one of the most dangerous cities in America — Down Da Hill (DDH) in east Baltimore. This historic city is made up of quaint craft pubs, a thriving art community and some of the most delicious restaurants on the East coast, all of which are perfect hubs for transplants and visitors. But there’s another side. The section that I am from is where a lot of the violence occurs. This is where most of my real friends and many in my family live, where the schools I visit are located and where my book giveaways take place. I live in the whole city, touching all kinds of communities, not just the sweet parts. This means I have to be conscious of what is happening in the neighborhood: Is there a beef going on? Was someone recently shot? Is a drought driving the users crazy? And so forth. 

Like many Black men in this country, hyper-awareness has been my key to survival.

“Yo D, don’t come out today” is a call I’ve heard one too many times. “It’s a lot going on.”

That call doesn’t mean I’m not welcome or my friends are turning their backs on me. It means there could potentially be a shooting and my friends don’t want me, a guy who has nothing to do with the violence, to catch a stray bullet. 

I was caught in the middle of a shootout the night I published my first Salon essay, “Too poor for pop culture.” I wasn’t out looking for trouble, buying drugs, instigating or sticking my nose in someone’s business. I was just trying to get a haircut — in honor of my first publication, to mark the official start of my writing career — in my own neighborhood. That same year, my friend John Jackson, a city worker from the neighborhood whom we called Free, died when a bullet ricocheted off a wall and pierced his head. That same year in the same neighborhood, my friends and I were celebrating making it through the year at a local bar when a bullet burst through the windshield of my car, leaving shards of glass all over the driver’s seat and dashboard. I was blessed to still be in the bar soaking my liver. As I brushed the glass onto the floor mat, I thought, Tighten up when you frequent certain areas, Watkins, because even though your reality has changed, the neighborhood hasn’t. Then I fell asleep in the car. 

We don’t start out like this. Poor Black boys in America live wild, reckless and free lives, just like most boys in the country. We are as curious as we are musty. We play football way past dawn, blow hours on the basketball court shooting jumpers deep into the night, even after the lights go out. We are playful, shy, always goofy. We dream about our crushes. We are always ashy, and always — always — hungry, willing to eat you out of house and home if you allow us. And then something happens. Somewhere between the end of middle school and the beginning of high school. That shift between preteen puberty and becoming a young man. The age when we truly know if we are going to make it in sports or not, and if not, we start to look at the options around us. Normally the quickest, most lucrative, most accessible and most attractive option is the streets. 

This is not the experience of every Black man. But many of us who are from poverty remember exactly how those conversations went with our friends who struggled their way through middle school and couldn’t see high school as an option. Professions like rapper and TV star are pipe dreams; city worker goes out of the window because you need a diploma or GED for that. But hustling, robbing and extortion are real and always hiring, and they pay every day. 

Only an end to systemic poverty will stop the murders and eradicate that mentality.

I don’t know the person who shot Takeoff, but I’d bet my last dollar they didn’t grow up in a community overflowing with hope, love and opportunity. More than likely they are from a place similar to mine, where conflict must be handled in absolutes or you risk losing everything you worked to acquire in that world. And a lecture, a thinkpiece, a reading list, or a “day of peace” cannot and will not fix that. Only an end to systemic poverty will stop the murders and eradicate that mentality. Until that happens, we will be mourning Black rappers, Black city workers, Black hustlers, Black children, Black people. 

And those of us Black men who are visibly successful and aim to be positive examples in impoverished neighborhoods will continue to live delicate, paranoid lives because we know our Black male life is more fragile than a cheap wine glass. It can be canceled at any time by a cop, a kid who found a pistol, or even a street dude with poor aim. As a result, my initial reaction to any murder is to tighten up.

Tighten up. Refuse to live freely. Rarely extend the friend group. Take care of one too many people you hope will take care of you. Never live in the moment. Always plot the next move. Keep an eye on any and everything. Don’t have a lot of fun in the process, because you don’t want to end up as a headline. 

Takeoff should be able to hang at a bowling alley without losing his life. All of us should. America doesn’t always work like that. 

AOC in Twitter battle with Elon Musk

In a Wednesday, November 2 tweet, Twitter’s new billionaire owner, Elon Musk, took a swipe at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York when he posted a photo of an AOC sweatshirt that was selling for $58 and added a frowning emoji. But the progressive Democratic congresswoman, who is never shy about calling out her political adversaries, was quick to defend the shirt and point out that it was made by union labor.

AOC tweeted, “Proud of this and always will be. My workers are union, make a living wage, have full healthcare, and aren’t subject to racist treatment in their workplaces. Items are made in USA. Team AOC honors and respects working people. You should try it sometime instead of union-busting.”

In a separate tweet, the congresswoman added, “Not to mention all proceeds go to community organizing like our Homework Helpers program which gives private tutoring to kids who’ve needed learning support since COVID: Check out our shop!”

Like her political mentor, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the self-described “democratic socialist” has been a vigorous defender of unions and has emphasized that union members enjoy much better working conditions — from salary to benefits — than nonunionized workers.

First elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018, AOC is seeking a third term in the 2022 midterms. The congresswoman has often been attacked by far-right MAGA pundits on Fox News and Fox Business, but she is quite popular in her predominantly Democratic district, which has included areas of the Bronx and Queens.

In 2020, Ocasio-Cortez defeated Republican challenger John Cummings by about 44 percent. And in 2022, AOC is up against conspiracy theorist Tina Forte — a far-right MAGA Republican and QAnon supporter who has posted photos of herself with members of the violent Proud Boys. FiveThirtyEight has given Forte less than a 1 percent chance of defeating AOC on November 8.

 

Pelosi attacker faces deportation

The man arrested and charged in connection to the hammer attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband in their San Francisco home could be deported from the U.S. after he is released from custody, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged an “immigration detainer” on David DePape, who is a Canadian national, NBC News reports.

“The detainer requests that the San Francisco County Jail notify ICE before DePape is done serving time so that immigration officers can take custody of him. ICE places immigration detainers on arrested individuals who it believes it can deport under the Immigration and Nationality Act,” NBC News’ report stated. “Records show DePape entered the U.S. through the San Ysidro, California, point of entry on the southern border in 2008 as a temporary visitor, classified as a B-2, officials said.”

DePape pleaded not guilty this Tuesday to numerous charges including attempted murder. He is currently being held without bail.

 

Indigenous food sovereignty requires better and more accurate data collection

Indigenous communities are increasingly investing in agriculture to sustain their cultures and economies. Indigenous peoples have a long history with agriculture — a history that wasn’t always recognized.

For much of the 20th century, scholars claimed that Indigenous farmers in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States (CANZUS) were marginal food producers who employed unsustainable farming practices, like slashing and burning, that led to environmental declines and their ultimate downfall.

These scholars argued that the “primitiveness” of Indigenous agriculture was reflected in the technologies they used. They posited that tools used by Indigenous peoples, like the digging stick, were rudimentary compared to the more advanced plow cultivation used by European farmers.

We now know those claims are incorrect; Indigenous peoples throughout CANZUS have long engaged in sophisticated forms of agriculture. By some estimates, Indigenous farmers out-produced European wheat farmers in the 17th and 18th centuries by a margin of three to five times per acre.

Despite Indigenous communities’ increasing desire to engage in large-scale commercial agriculture, there is still a lack of data about Indigenous engagement in the agriculture sector in CANZUS. This data is crucial to informing policies that set out to support Indigenous engagement and diversity in the agriculture sector.

Indigenous food sovereignty

Through the erasure of Indigenous agricultural histories, premised on the notion of terra nullius, CANZUS governments justified their appropriation of Indigenous lands and the territorial dispossession of Indigenous peoples.

Latin for “land belonging to no one”, terra nullius was a legal term used in the Doctrine of Discovery to refer to land that was not occupied by the settlers or used according to their law and culture. Such land was considered “vacant” and available for colonization.

Yet in the face of governmental efforts to dismantle Indigenous agricultural economies, Indigenous peoples have remained resilient and are making important strides toward food sovereignty through the revitalization of Indigenous food systems and cultural traditions.

Beyond food sovereignty, by reclaiming their agricultural roots, Indigenous peoples are also alleviating food insecurity and contributing to economic development in their communities. As supporters of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it’s important that CANZUS governments prioritize and support these Indigenous food sovereignty initiatives.

National databases are lacking

Although Indigenous peoples have been participating in the agriculture sector since precolonial times, it hasn’t been until recently that contemporary agriculture has become a policy focus for Indigenous community development and well-being.

However, little knowledge exists about contemporary Indigenous agriculture in CANZUS because of the lack of comprehensive databases at the national level. National scale data collection tools that are currently available are still fairly new or non-existent.

1. Canada

In Canada, the Census of Agriculture does not allow farm and ranch producers to self-identify as Indigenous. However, data from the Census of Agriculture and the Census of Population provide some information about Indigenous engagement in agricultural activities.

Data from both censuses is linked using information which is common to both questionnaires such as name, sex, birth date and address of the operators. This information is used to create the Agriculture-Population linkage database, which provides useful information about Indigenous engagement in agriculture in Canada.

2. Australia

Australia does not maintain a national scale database on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (collectively referred to as Indigenous) production in the agriculture sector. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Agriculture Census also doesn’t allow farm and ranch producers to self-identify as Indigenous, which creates a significant data gap about Indigenous agricultural operations in Australia.

Despite this, there is still information available about the people employed in the industry, including those who identify as Indigenous, through the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Census of Population and Housing.

3. New Zealand

In New Zealand, information about Māori farms (the Māori are the Indigenous Polynesian people of New Zealand, or Aotearoa in the Māori language), are compiled using the Agricultural Production Survey.

Māori farms are identified by matching the survey to three sources of data: Māori enterprises from the Māori authorities, self-identified Māori businesses from the business operations survey and a database held by Statistics New Zealand’s partner Poutama Trust. The matching process yields information about Māori engagement in agriculture, such as the number of agricultural operations, livestock and horticulture crops Māori farm operations have.

4. United States

In the U.S., a national scale data collection effort was piloted in 2002 in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota to collect information about agricultural activity on American Indian reservations. Starting with the 2007 Census of Agriculture, this pilot project was expanded to include reservations across the U.S.

The Census of Agriculture in the U.S. allows farm and ranch producers to self-report agricultural activity on American Indian reservations. If producers don’t respond to the mailed report, census employees — many who are tribal members that can bridge language or cultural barriers — follow up with them in person to help them completing their forms. The process yields an overview of agricultural activity on reservations in the U.S.

Better data is needed

The lack of baseline data on the scale and scope of Indigenous involvement in the agriculture sector continues to be an obstacle to effective engagement of Indigenous communities within the sector. This gap in data prevents governments and agri-food organizations from knowing what kinds of supports should be provided to reinvigorate Indigenous agricultural economies.

In order to better support the involvement of Indigenous peoples in agriculture, more accurate data is needed. Being able to collect such data is crucial for developing a framework for Indigenous peoples and communities that are interested in starting or expanding their engagement with the agriculture sector.

Omid Mirzaei, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, University of Regina and David Natcher, Professor, College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Bathed in beer, these garlicky fries are as easy to make as they are delicious

I was determined to have as Belgian an experience as possible. I visited the little peeing guy. I ate a waffle smothered in chocolate and chantilly, aka sweet whipped cream. I gawked at a lot of Magrittes.

What I wanted above all, however, for the brief few days I recently found myself bouncing around Brussels, Bruges and Antwerp, was to consume as much beer and as many fries as was socially acceptable. While I left feeling as though I’d given my best to a country that takes its carbohydrate-dense products seriously, when I got home, I wondered if I might have made better progress by doubling up.

Beer fries, I confess, don’t pack a particularly beer-ish punch. If you want to feel like you’re drinking, I suggest drinking. But if you like the idea of a knockout side dish with a certain savory je ne sais quoi, this is just the ticket.

Soaking sliced potatoes in water is a Martha-approved trick for perfectly cooked, crunchy on the outside, fluffy on the inside oven fries. Adding a level of intensity by using a beer brine instead of water only makes everything that much more flavorful. (The garlic and paprika don’t hurt, either.) With a little bit of pre-planning, you’re good to go at dinner time in a well-spent half hour.


Hungry for more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter, “The Bite.”


I’ve made my spuds shoestring style here (mostly because I’ve been feeling as though I don’t appreciate my mandoline enough lately), but you can cut yours any way you like. Simply adjust the bake time for variations in the thickness of the potatoes. 

Burgers or brats are an expected accompaniment, but for a relaxed pairing, I served my fries with seared salmon the other evening. Whatever journey you choose, you’ll definitely want to pour yourself a good Belgian beer to go along with the works. It’s not quite the same as being in Bruges, but it’s a decadent enough approximation.

* * *

Inspired by The Beeroness

Oven-Baked Beer Fries
Yields
 4 servings
Prep Time
 10 minutes, plus chilling
Cook Time
 30 minutes

Ingredients

  • 2 large russet potatoes, scrubbed but not peeled
  • 1 12-ounce pale ale (Belgian, if you’ve got it)
  • 2 tablespoons olive oil
  • 1 teaspoon garlic powder
  • 1 teaspoon paprika
  • Salt and pepper, to taste

 

Directions

  1. Using a mandoline or knife, cut the potatoes into your favorite fry-sized slices.
  2. Add the potatoes and beer to a large bowl. Sprinkle with a few pinches of salt and stir. Cover with plastic or foil, then refrigerate for at least an hour. (You can also prep the potatoes in the morning and finish this recipe for dinner.)
  3. Preheat the oven to 425 degrees. Line a sheet pan with parchment paper.
  4. Remove the potatoes from the beer and blot with paper towels. Transfer to the sheet pan and drizzle with olive oil. Next, dust with garlic powder, paprika, salt and pepper. Stir well.
  5. Bake for roughly 25 minutes, turning halfway through. Depending on the thickness of your fries, you may need to bake them longer.
  6. Serve immediately.

Cook’s Notes

Feel free to mix it up with your seasonings. Some everything bagel spice mix would be so good here.

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. While our editorial team independently selected these products, Salon has affiliate partnerships, so making a purchase through our links may earn us a commission.

Make floating islands like on “The Great British Baking Show”

Continuing the transition from “The Great British Baking Show” to “The Great British Things-You-Might-Make-in-the-Vicinity-of-an-Oven Show,” this week celebrated custards — and the signature challenge kicked off the episode with the classic dish of wet light eggs on top of wet heavy eggs: floating islands.

The English version of the French île flottante sets islands of stiffly beaten egg whites afloat in a sea of crème Anglaise, often topped with caramel and served chilled. The various precise parts of the original concept, including using egg whites poached in milk, rather than baked like meringues long earned it a reputation as fancy and finicky. But it also does a marvelous job of showing off the remarkable versatility of eggs in a single dish.

Floating islands evolved from snow eggs, or ouefs à la neige, originally beaten egg whites topped with egg yolks. The yolks later migrated into the custard and earned a spot in classic French cuisine. The first English mention of the dish came in 1747, according to the “Oxford Companion to Food,” and used thin slices of French roll rather than meringue. Also, the author, Hannah Glasse, called it a “flooting island” which is an objectively funny name. (Also funny? Jürgen, who you might remember from last season. He’s still a delight, as evidenced by him playing the trombone on stage with Japanese Breakfast.)

Famed French chef Escoffier also traded in the whites for light, fluffy cakes, but those have mostly gone out of fashion and the dish returned to its previous form by the time Julia Child declared it one of her favorite desserts — though she did sometimes bake her meringues, which cuts down on some of the skill required to make it, because “it is light, delicious, and so very easy to do in the electric mixer.” She also makes the crème Anglaise optional: “Those little mounds of egg white floating on custard may be English floating islands,” she wrote in her original “Mastering the Art of French Cooking,” but the French version required no such thing. Paul Hollywood would probably not approve.

But for all its reputation as a persnickety pudding, our test-kitchen-approved version of floating islands breaks it down into simple steps. Crème Anglaise is a basic custard sauce, made by whipping together egg yolks and sugar, then thinning it with hot milk and/or cream, usually flavored with vanilla. You can make your crème Anglaise ahead of time — and, in fact, you need to, since it should be chilled. Then you can focus on milk-poaching your meringues. The meringues are made by whipping together egg whites, cream of tartar, and sugar, then spooned into warm milk for just a minute or two. This recipe suggests finishing by decorating with warm jam, which adds a splash of color, along with fresh raspberries and pistachios — a nice spin on the rather brown traditional toppings of caramel and almonds.

In “American Horror Story: NYC,” New York is depicted as small and rashy

A funny thing about New York is that, for as large of a city as it is, it still manages to feel small at exactly the moments you’d least like it to feel small.

In real life, this is experienced even if you ride in a different subway car every morning and evening but still manage to run into the same five people you hope to never see again in your lifetime. For Ryan Murphy’s New Yorkers in “American Horror Story: NYC,” this big city-small town feeling is exhibited as the entire population of Big Apple queers being in cahoots for murderous reasons and/or sharing the same rash.

One of my favorite things about the “American Horror Story” franchise is that you can come away from every episode thinking, “Well, that was crazy,” yet creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk will still find a way to top it in the next. In Season 11, the show is throwing everything it’s got at us in armloads; the crazy is consistent, except we get it in double doses via the new release schedule of two new episodes per week. It’s as though Murphy heard fans’ cries for more sexy, freaky content and answered them by saying, “Here! How about two hours of just every batsh*t thing you could think of!”

Releasing new episodes in twos isn’t the only big change this year. For the first time in 11 seasons, the storyline is getting better as the season progresses versus the mid-run decline to which fans had grown accustomed. In previous seasons (not counting “Murder House,” which was, in my opinion, a near-flawless series debut), Murphy, Falchuk and their team of writers would start out strong and then get a bit flaccid around, well, now. But here we are with only two weeks of episodes left, and things are still ramping up. Ramping up to what? Who the hell knows, but something!

Here’s everything we’ve learned so far:

  • Mr. Whitely (Jeff Hiller) is the Mai Tai killer, and he’s using the combined skills gleaned from his background in both the military and a vague medical profession to hack up gays and make some sort of corpse monster.
  • Dr. Hannah Wells (Billie Lourd) is taking blood samples from gays and random woodland creatures throughout the Greater New York area to get to the bottom of a mutating amoeba that causes rashes which sometimes look like scabies and other times like full-blown AIDS. Oh, and she’s also pregnant with a baby she dreams of being born with tentacles. (Let’s see this!)
  • Adam (Charlie Carver) spent the first few episodes passionately searching for his missing roommate . . . and then kind of stopped. He’s the father of Hannah’s baby. Why? Or, how? Doesn’t matter.
  • “Big Daddy,” played by newcomer Matthew William Bishop in his first televised role, doesn’t seem to be an actual person but rather a metaphorical dark angel of death or some such thing.
  • Patrick (Russell Tovey) is a gay cop with an ex-wife who, we learn in Episode 6, “The Body,” f**ked a man to death in 1979. And yes, part of that f**king took place while the man was dead.
  • Barbara (Leslie Grossman), a non-gay and ex-wife to Patrick, as mentioned above, is now dead from whatever sort of creepin’ crud is infecting the city, so now we know that this season not only has it out for queers but also just any ‘ol person. This somehow makes me feel better about the season as a whole.
  • Henry (Denis O’Hare) is a fixer for the mob, who I swear I heard referred to in Episode 6 as “The Velvet Touch.”
  • Fran (Sandra Bernhard) is all of the sudden a psychic.
  • Sam (Zachary Quinto) has a history with Patrick and was with him when he f**ked that man to death back in 1979. Though clearly a psycho, he’s shown in Episode 6 as also being kind of a nice guy who will offer to drive you back to Fire Island to re-bury a body. 

You may be asking yourself at this point, “How is all of this going to get wrapped up in the remaining 4 episodes?” And to that, I say, in all caps no-less, “HAHAHAHA! IT WON’T!”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


But that’s half the fun of “American Horror Story,” isn’t it? Similar to our united relationship with Trump, a man who has not been in a formal position since January 2021, what would we have to bitch about if we didn’t have (gestures) . . . this?

The biggest takeaway from this week’s episodes is that Patrick is trash. Fans have been speculating all along that he may have more to do with the murders taking place in the city than meets the eye. While I don’t think he’s the apex villain, he definitely shouldn’t hold a position that comes with the issue of a badge and authorized weapon. It seems like his wang is maybe weapon enough.

And poor Gino! First, he learned that his boyfriend had been hiding a love for leather goods, and now he has to stand there and watch him casually fiddle with a dead body on the sunny sands of Fire Island. Dating apps weren’t around in 1981, but if they were, it would be suggestible for Gino to get on one, pronto. Rashes are temporary. Toxic exes are forever.

Rashes are temporary. Toxic exes are forever.

The two-episode release schedule this season has developed a brand-new pattern to go along with it, in which the first of the two episodes acts as the wind-up, advancing the story just enough to get all the main characters from one point to the next so the second episode can deliver the pitch. In Episode 5, “Bad Fortune,” Fran and Kathy’s (Patti LuPone) out-of-nowhere, psychic side hustle is used to introduce more of a supernatural element to the danger we’ve been shown so far.

Learning the tarot, and then immediately mastering it, Fran gives readings to the gays that, while intended to be for entertainment purposes only, veer into nightmare territory when, more often than not, the cards deliver warnings of imminent death and destruction.

Heading over for their own reading, Hannah and Adam make time for some lighthearted humor amid a series of events that would send most other people to their beds for a year, hiding under the covers, hoping for hell to pass them by.

Given that Billie Lourd is the daughter of the late great Carrie Fisher, who played Princess Leia in the “Star Wars” franchise, this was a fun little Easter egg.

As a now very visibly pregnant Hannah walks down the sidewalk, Adam drops to his knees, clutching her belly to say, “I am your father,” in his best Darth Vader impression.

Given that Billie Lourd is the daughter of the late great Carrie Fisher, who played Princess Leia in the “Star Wars” franchise, this was a fun little Easter egg.

They receive a similar reading to the ones that the other gays on main receive in this episode. All bad things are coming — and all bad things are coming for them.

In terms of these rashes that will inevitably be the main crux of the season, we don’t see exactly what the “bad thing” is in Episode 6, but we see a large chunk of it. The Mai Tai killer has advanced from poke and prod to slice and dice. In “The Body,” it’s revealed that he’s collecting body parts from slain gays to make what, in my mind, will be a much more gruesome version of the Adam character from “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” There’s something almost wholesome about this, she says now, having no idea what next week has in store.

“Here we go”: Judge “upbraids” Trump attorney in court for not knowing what “objectively” means

State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron reportedly admonished an attorney for former President Donald Trump after he changed the definition of “objectively.”

In a hearing on Thursday, Trump attorney Chris Kise objected to the potential appointment of a court monitor that has been requested by New York Attorney Letitia James after the former president created a new company that could be used to shield his wealth from court rulings.

James’ office is suing the Trump Organization for alleged real estate fraud. Trump has recently launched a counter-lawsuit.

“Here we go,” Colin Kalmbacher reported from the Thursday hearing. “An actual upbraiding from the court for the Trump Org.”

“Objectively according to whom?” Kise asked the judge.

“Objectively doesn’t mean according to anybody. Objectively means objectively,” Engoron replied.

Kalmbacher noted that the New York Attorney General’s office previously accused the Trump Organization of “using objectively false factual assumptions like inflated square footage.”

Engoron has indicated that he may rule on the need for a court-appointed monitor for the Trump Organization on Thursday.

Sometimes we can go home again: “Atlanta” comes full circle in its final season, only richer

When “Atlanta” creator Donald Glover told journalists attending a recent Television Critics Association press conference that the theme for the show’s final season is “have more fun,” describing it as the most grounded of the four, he wasn’t hiding any spoilers.  

This season is straightforwardly fun, exuding the spirit that launched the show and re-establishing Atlanta, Georgia as a state of mind, not just a place.

Nevertheless, the real meal is not in the surface plot, but in the show’s secondary or tertiary messages. The eighth episode, “The Goof Who Sat By the Door,” is the finest example of this.

Most of the season follows Glover’s character Earn; his cousin Al (Bryan Tyree Henry); their friend, sage and confidante Darius (LaKeith Stanfield); and Earn’s on-and-off love Van (Zazie Beetz)  on various missions. But this standalone faux-documentary presents an alternate history in which The Walt Disney Company votes in its first Black CEO, Thomas “Tom” Washington’s (Eric Berryman).

According to the script written by Francesca Sloane and Karen Joseph Adcock, Washington is responsible for making Disney’s Blackest movie ever. No, not “The Lion King” – “A Goofy Movie.”

To know Glover is to know there are layers of truth within a story that is mostly cut out of whole cloth. The concept springs from Glover’s awareness of online culture and memes, including the stature “A Goofy Movie” holds among Black millennial nerds.  

The 1995 animated movie follows Goofy and his good-natured son Max, whose school principal warns Goofy that Max is going to end up in the electric chair. In the “Goofy” revisioning, Washington sees the movie as means of establishing and reclaiming Goofy’s Blackness.

The writers’ fervor for experimentation … makes this show one of the few places on TV where anything can happen.

This assumption is based in fact. Within the story, the writers and Glover, who directs the episode, include an actual (and racist) quote from Goofy’s creator, the animator Art Babbitt.

“Think of the Goof as a composite of an everlasting optimist, a gullible Good Samaritan, a half-wit, a shiftless, good-natured colored boy, and a hick,” Babbitt told his staff in 1934. “His brain is rather vapoury. He laughs at his own jokes because he can’t understand any others. He is very courteous and apologetic and his faux pas embarrass him, but he tries to laugh off his errors.”

AtlantaLaKeith Stanfield on “Atlanta” (Guy D’Alema/FX)

The understanding is that this history isn’t actual, but there’s enough truth within to compel a person to read between the lines. In one scene, a friend of Washington’s recalls him saying, “I’m not here for a long time, I’m here for a good time.” What that meant to his confidante was that Washington knew he was going to be fired.

The same philosophy drives Glover and his creative team on “Atlanta.” Fellow executive producer Stefani Robinson recalled at that same press conference that on their very first day of writing for the show, “Donald looked at all of us in the eye and said … ‘We’re probably going to get canceled, so let’s have fun.'”

To see “Atlanta” fire off a mic-dropper like this with merely two episodes left shouldn’t surprise anyone. The writers’ fervor for experimentation coupled with Hiro Murai’s gauzy, fantastical directing style make this one of the few places on TV where anything can happen, and more often than not, the big swings work.

But like every other story in Season 4, “The Goof Who Sat By the Door” circles back to where “Atlanta” began. The fake documentary is airing on BAN, the fictional Black cable network from a season one killer that was equally a tribute to classic sketch comedies like “In Living Color” and a parody of BET.  

The difference is that this version of the Black American Network is slicker than the public access-looking jokey-joke version seen in the first season. Like Earn, Alfred, Darius, and Van, it’s working with a larger budget. What we’ll never know is whether the audience in the “Atlanta” universe views it differently – which is another way of asking the unspoken question driving these final episodes.

AtlantaDonald Glover and Zazie Beetz on “Atlanta” (Guy D’Alema/FX)

If more people are connecting with the fourth season of “Atlanta” than the more conceptual, anthology-structured European tour that comprised its third, that’s because the characters have returned home, mostly unchanged save for their wealth and influence. Glover shared in that press conference that he and the writers began in a place assuming that “no one cares about a lot of stuff.”

Now, he says, the “Atlanta” family has grown up, and it’s clear that people do care. But what does that mean for the characters?  It varies. Al is now wealthy and famous, and he’s still running for his life from people with beefs from back in the day.  But since TikTok shortened the window for fame and relevance, he’s also considered an elder statesman of the local hip-hop scene, if not obsolete. The season begins with him finding out that one of his biggest heroes in the local rap scene died, and for reasons you should see for yourself, few mourned him.

Money brings them more comfort and ease, but there’s also a real awareness that the power it brings is finite.

Darius moves through life in a state of rarely perturbed Zen, but Earn can’t, despite having enough money to dump tens of thousands of dollars into ruining a stranger’s life for completely petty reasons. In the same episode, he also goes to therapy, coming to terms with the reason he left Princeton, a story that was never told until this season.

That story explains a lot about why Earn is the person we’ve come to know, and why he’s sabotaged his relationship with Van (although he stated, as clearly as he showed in Season 3, that he loves her).

Money brings them more comfort and ease, but there’s also a real awareness that the power it brings is finite, and whatever it is that affords people this power is a hungry beast that demands constant feeding. The script handles that idea with a lighter touch through the core characters’ arcs, going all-in for the fifth episode, “Work Ethic!, which shoves Van and her daughter Lottie inside a psychological thriller set on a production lot meant to parody Tyler Perry Studios.

AtlantaDonald Glover on “Atlanta” (Guy D’Alema/FX)

But the “Atlanta” version of Tyler Perry is a media tycoon named Kirkwood Chocolate (Glover, encased in slightly less latex than in “Teddy Perkins”), who runs the place from inside a fortress. Chocolate is more clown than horror villain, but like Teddy Perkins, he symbolizes something larger.

Kirkwood lords over a TV and film factory that belches out a tawdry vision of Black culture designed to be palatable to mainstream audiences, but his sway is at its most potent inside the acreage he’s carved out for himself.  When Van finally gets to him, he’s as human as the supposedly great-and-powerful Oz, a man subsisting in grits he eats from a mug. He’s also massively successful because he meets the market’s expectations for Black stories, knowing that even now, the bar is depressingly low.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


This episode is also hilarious on its face, especially since the furious knit a punchline with which audiences are all too familiar and without specifically making Kirkwood Chocolate (or Tyler Perry by proxy) into a villain. He’s simply happened on a successful by-the-numbers formula of which Van wants no part. The adventure that brings her to that conclusion is the braver burst of originality, and that’s the larger point of the episode and the series itself.

Glover never allowed “Atlanta” to be pigeonholed in one genre or bought into delineations between so-called high art and supposedly disposable culture, allowing him and his creative partners to draw fertile inspiration from unlikely places. The show’s “Robbin’ Season,” its critically acclaimed second, is loosely patterned on another Disney cartoon the “Tiny Toons Adventures” movie titled “How I Spent My Vacation,” emulating the ways the cartoon characters’ terror becomes comedy.

Even if you were unaware of that on first viewing, the tension, frustration and absurdity are relatable. That level of fearless creativity ensures “Atlanta” will be remembered and appreciated years after it’s over — and that’s a legacy that Glover and the fictional family he brought to life can take pride.

“Atlanta” airs Thursdays at 10 p.m. on FX, streaming the next day on Hulu.

“Young people are fed up”: Inside the fight to defend young voters

In 2012, the Supreme Court gutted voting rights by ruling in Shelby County v. Holder that states with a history of voter suppression could now change their election laws without prior court approval. That attack on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 triggered a modern wave of voter suppression of already marginalized communities very much including young people of all races (18 to 29) who as boomers, millennials or gen Xers had already been chronically and disproportionately underrepresented in the electorate.

For the last four congressional sessions, beginning in 2015, legislation has been introduced to restore the Voting Rights Act’s lost protections, but absent the 60 votes required to outmaneuver a Senate filibuster, U.S. Rep. John Lewis, in whose honor the current voting rights bill was named, went to his grave in 2020 with his legacy unfulfilled.

Only 21 when he became one of the original 13 Freedom Riders in 1961, Lewis lived to see the ravages of the Shelby ruling firsthand. Between 2014 and 2016, purges knocked 16 million voters off the rolls and gerrymandering targeted college campuses, especially historically Black colleges and universities. The post-Shelby epoch has seen many state legislatures, including those without a history of suppression, attempt to pass laws that restrict participation. 

And since the proliferation of the “Big Lie” — the unsubstantiated accusation that the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate — the tools of democracy have increasingly been turned against it. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, between Jan. 1 and Sept. 27, 2021, 19 states enacted 33 laws that made it harder for Americans to vote.

Eighteen of those states are controlled by Republican majority legislatures. These legislators have been trying to suppress young people’s votes for much the same reason they want to suppress the vote of Black Americans: Both groups tend to vote for Democrats. Tactics like closing polling places, removing drop boxes and eliminating same day registration and voting hurt voters of all ages but land especially hard on young people who already face material barriers (such as getting time off work, lack of gas money or access to transportation), and knowledge gaps (where, how and when to vote).

What’s more, this is happening in a political season in which 345 candidates are adherents of the Big Lie, with dozens of election deniers running in Pennsylvania (37), Arizona (31), Wisconsin (21) and Georgia (19) — four of the five top states identified by the Youth Electoral Significance Index (YESI) as those in which young voters can have a decisive impact. Under unprecedented circumstances, youth activists have partnered with adults across the country to stop these threats to democracy. They aim to surmount the restrictions and create an enduring electoral bloc to defend and promote its generational interests in the political arena beyond a single election cycle. 

“Among 18- to 29-year-olds, voter turnout was just 36% in 2018 during the last midterm cycle. While this is a vast improvement from 20% in 2014, it’s not nearly enough,” says Leah Qusba, executive director of Action for the Climate Emergency (ACE), which boasts a youth climate activist network of over 800,000 members. “We must ask ourselves how the most free and fair democracy on the planet has allowed this to happen — and then we need to fix it.” 

Fixing it has become a matter of such urgency for ACE’s membership that the organization has temporarily paused its mission “to educate young people on the science of climate change and empower them to take action” and will instead focus on “educating our nation’s youngest and most diverse eligible voters about our democracy, how to fully participate, and how to get family and friends to do the same.”

ACE is mobilizing in five YESI states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. On the ground in Milwaukee, heading up ACE’s Wisconsin canvass, 40-year-old Brennan Balestrieri says you won’t hear ACE canvassers utter the word “climate” until the second after the polls close. “Our members have demanded that we devote our organizational resources full time to youth voting, and that is what we’re doing,” explained Balestrieri.

They’re at it six days a week, five in the field and one devoted to planning, preparation and strategy. Canvassers are talking to young people from every neighborhood and at multiple high schools and five college campuses in Milwaukee. “The urgency is coming from so many sides,” Balestrieri says. “Young people feel a lot more under threat. They look around the United States and they see an erosion of voter rights. They’re starting to make that connection that if these rights go, if we aren’t smart about getting people registered to vote, this situation is not going to improve.”

Balestrieri says ACE is pursuing its pro-democracy work in Wisconsin within the context of a “very draconian voter suppression law” — a voter ID law that discourages the state’s more than 320,000 students from voting.

“We have a very complicated system that requires not only proof of identification, but proof of residence, to register to vote, and then on voting day you also have to have a license that is unexpired,” he explains. The state added a free ID as an alternative to a driver’s license but, he says, getting one is a very cumbersome process. On the eve of Wisconsin’s 2016 presidential primary, Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wisc.) told a television reporter that despite past Republican losses, he expected that 2016 would be different because “now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is gonna make a little bit of a difference.” 

It has. Political scientists Kenneth R. Mayer and Michael G. DeCrescenzo studied the Wisconsin voter ID law’s effect on two counties in the 2016 election and found that “little bit of difference” corresponds to 16,801 people in the two counties deterred from voting, and could be as high as 23,252 eligible voters; extrapolating statewide, the authors say as many as 45,000 voters were deterred. That’s significant in elections won or lost by small margins; statewide, only 20,000 votes separated Biden, the victor, from Trump. By one measure it’s harder to vote now in Wisconsin than it was in 2020.

Balestrieri says that ACE is out meeting voters, pushing back against a system that is designed to suppress the youth vote.

“When you hire a bunch of attorneys, and you write all these laws and you know there’s going to be a huge negative impact on the number of people who show up to vote, why would you do that? Why are we creating these barriers now?”

The canvass was heading to engage youth voters outside a Milwaukee Bucks basketball game. “We’re really drawing a line in the sand and saying if we keep marginalizing people under 30 in vote after vote, we’re only going to have a certain set of people in power,” says Balestrieri. “Young people are fed up. They’re not going to leave it for their kid brothers and sisters to clean up this mess. They’re going to take the reins.”

An estimated 8.3 million young people in the U.S. have turned 18 since the last election. But will they vote, and if so, will their ballots be counted?

Peter de Guzman works at the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), a nonpartisan research center at Tufts University. The 25-year-old focuses his research on voting laws and on identifying formal restrictions and informal barriers to youth voting. 

“We know that young people and voters overall in 2020 really increased their use of the vote, and that is something that we expect to continue in the 2022 elections,” de Guzman says. “Young voters have done a really great job the past couple of elections of contacting each other and setting up organizations and movements and campaigns to register other young voters.” He points to the state-by-state guides produced by the Fair Elections Center and resources from the Students Learn Students Vote Coalition intended to empower young voters.

In research conducted after the 2018 midterms, CIRCLE found that even young people who’d expressed cynicism were more likely to say that they’d participate if voting was made more accessible. De Guzman has published new research showing that nearly half of 18- to 29-year-olds voting by mail or absentee ballot drop-off reported dropping off their absentee ballot in 2020, rather than mailing it in. That was even higher for youth of color: 54% of young voters of color reported that they dropped off their absentee ballot, compared to 46% of white youth. In 2020, 30 states and the District of Columbia provided drop boxes, but more recently some states have been cracking down.

“In July 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that absentee ballot drop boxes are illegal under state law,” de Guzman explains. Other states have restricted their availability. SB 202 in Georgia limited counties to one absentee ballot drop box per 100,000 registered voters, and they have to be indoors and only available during business hours. In Fulton County, Georgia, the number of drop boxes has been reduced to eight from 38. In Florida, they can only be placed in early voting sites and in elections offices, and must be monitored in person by employees of the local elections offices. “Having fewer options is really tough for young people,” he says. 

Yael Bromberg is an expert on youth voter suppression and the 26th Amendment, which was adopted in 1971 after 38 states ratified it in less than 100 days. What Bromberg terms “the forgotten amendment” lowered the voting age in the U.S. from 21 to 18 and outlawed age discrimination with regard to ballot access. Almost upon its ratification, there was a sweep to suppress the youth vote; not only college students, but in the military too. “People didn’t want them to vote from the army bases,” she explains, “for the same reason that they didn’t want the college students to vote. These are outsiders, they’re nomads.

Bromberg also serves as special counsel and strategic adviser to the Andrew Goodman Foundation. In 2018, the foundation partnered with the League of Women Voters of Florida and six university students in successfully suing the Florida secretary of state and forcing him to overturn a statewide ban on early on-campus polling stations. After the ruling, 60,000 registered voters in nine counties cast early in-person ballots at 12 on-campus voting locations.

Just ahead of the 2020 election, after a three-year court battle, the foundation, along with Bard College, successfully sued Dutchess County in central New York state, gaining on-campus voting at Bard. This past spring the New York state Legislature passed a bill to make on-campus voting the law throughout the state, mandating polling places on or near college campuses with 300 or more registered students. It also prohibited chopping campuses into multiple districts. “Sometimes you’ll see the campuses gerrymandered; the students are sent to different locations,” Bromberg explains “Then they’re turned around and sent to another one. There’s a lot of confusion.”

The Youth Voting Rights Act, which Bromberg helped write, was introduced this summer by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Nikema Williams (D-Ga.) to clarify enforcement of the 26th Amendment. It would also override many of the restrictions passed since the Shelby decision by effectively nationalizing on-campus voting; there are also several other provisions that facilitate youth voting. “The reason it doesn’t happen is [that those in power] don’t want people that are not ‘their voters’ to show up on Election Day,” explains Bromberg. “It’s a form of controlling the election.” 

But in 2022 young voters may not be so easy to control. Despite the moves to block or discourage them, the Harvard Youth Poll published on October 27 finds the young adult vote is likely to match or even exceed “historic” 2018 levels in 2022. Inflation, abortion, protecting democracy and climate change are the main drivers. Additionally, 45% of youth voters in battleground states are more likely to vote than those from either red (33%) or blue states (40%), and are also more likely to vote than those who voted in battleground states in 2018 (38%).

“Young people have always been a part of writing the story of America,” said Bromberg, recalling that in 1964, 20-year-old Andrew Goodman was recruited by 23-year-old John Lewis to join James Chaney and Michael Schwerner in looking into an arson in Mississippi of a Black church, a site of civil rights work. They were killed by men who’d commit murder rather than share power. 

“It is such a powerful story to tell with the rise of xenophobia and antisemitism and hate, and to connect with the need to protect democracy,” says Bromberg. Lewis and Goodman’s encounter is about “purging divides and coming together,” but it’s traumatizing outcome prompts in Bromberg fundamental questions about American politics and the role that young voters could play within it.

“What is this radical experiment of America?” she wonders. “And who do we consider to be a valid member of the American family, such that they have voting rights and civil rights and equal participation in democracy?”

“They had a damn insider on SCOTUS”: Experts alarmed after Trump lawyer emails inadvertently leak

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers believed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was their best bet to overturn the results of the 2020 election, according to newly released emails.

Eight emails obtained by POLITICO revealed correspondence among Trump lawyers discussing legal strategies to convince Republican members of Congress to block the official certification of electoral votes on Jan. 6. The emails, which Trump legal adviser John Eastman tried to shield from Congress, were obtained after Eastman’s lawyers accidentally uploaded the emails to be shared with the House Jan. 6 committee in a public Dropbox link.

In one email from Trump attorney Ken Chesebro to Eastman and others, Chesebro wrote that Thomas would “end up being key” to their plot to overturn President Joe Biden’s win.

“We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Chesebro wrote days before the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Supreme Court justices are responsible for handling emergency matters in individual states, and Thomas is the justice assigned to handle emergency matters in Georgia – putting him in position to receive any urgent appeal of Trump’s lawsuit to the Supreme Court.

Eastman responded to the email agreeing with the plan. Their emails further discussed filing a lawsuit that they hoped would result in an order that “TENTATIVELY” held that Biden’s electoral votes from Georgia were not valid due to election fraud, CNN reported

Eastman, who once clerked for Thomas, attempted to withhold the emails from the Jan. 6 select committee, but a judge ordered the emails be turned over, citing evidence of likely crimes committed by Trump and Eastman.

At least one email included correspondence between Eastman and Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginni Thomas inviting Eastman to speak on Dec. 8, 2020, to a group of conservative activists to provide an update about election litigation, according to the Washington Post

Ginni Thomas also lobbied state legislators in Arizona and Wisconsin via email, urging them to help overturn Biden’s victory.

Following the release of the emails, legal experts raised concerns about Thomas’ role on the Supreme Court and criticized him for not recusing himself from matters related to his wife’s efforts to overturn the election. 

“They had a damn insider on SCOTUS who they thought would help them overthrow our democracy.  He’s married to a deranged MAGA cult member. He won’t even recuse himself,” wrote former federal prosecutor Richard Signorelli.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


“When is it enough?” wondered Rachel Sklar, an attorney and journalist. “His wife is an insurrectionist. He refuses to recuse. He’s the Trump election-denial go-to? Come on.”

The report comes as legal observers and government watchdog groups call for an investigation into Thomas’ refusal to recuse himself from election-related cases.

“Hey look! It wasn’t just critics of the Supreme Court who thought Clarence Thomas was corrupted – Trump’s lawyers said so too in secret emails just revealed,” tweeted journalist Helen Kennedy.

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote that Chesebro, who saw Thomas as Trump’s “only chance” to stop the 2020 election, should be held accountable for his actions as well.

“Such abhorrent abuse of an attorney’s license to practice law should be strictly disciplined and perhaps criminally prosecuted,” Tribe tweeted.

Reporter Jacqueline Alemany, who covered the emails for The Washington Post, told MSNBC that the discussions also raise questions about why Eastman and Chesebro were so confident that Thomas “would be so sympathetic” to their cause and his wife’s communications with Eastman and others about overturning the election.

“It’s a very small world here,” Alemany said. “There was no indication in the correspondence that either of the Thomases were [copied] on the e-mails, but you can clearly see why John Eastman was fighting hard to prevent the release of these e-mails.”

Legal expert: New DOJ immunity deal “signifies grave criminal peril for Donald Trump”

Norman Eisen, a CNN legal analyst, believes the upcoming testimony from Kash Patel could mean trouble for former President Donald Trump.

On Wednesday, November 2, the Wall Street Journal reported that Patel — a Trump ally who also served as an official for the U.S. Department of Defense — has been granted immunity in exchange for his agreement to testify.

“Kash Patel, a close associate of former President Donald Trump, is set to soon testify before a federal grand jury probing the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after receiving immunity for his information, people familiar with the matter said,” WSJ reported.

“A federal judge recently decided the Justice Department couldn’t force Mr. Patel to testify without such protection against his statements being used against him in some future prosecution,” the news outlet added. “That ruling, the people said, opens the door for Mr. Patel, who says Mr. Trump broadly declassified White House documents while still president, to answer questions.”

Initially, Patel invoked his Fifth Amendment right to avoid the possibility of self-incrimination while delivering grand jury testimony.

Patel has also gone on record insisting that he personally witnessed the former president declassify the documents at the center of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigation.

During the latest segment of CNN’s OutFront, host Erin Burnett reported the latest development and asked Eisen to weigh in with his perspective on what Patel’s testimony might mean for the former president, per Mediaite.

“Erin, it signifies that in this investigation of the classified documents that the Department of Justice has found there is probable cause that crimes were committed when these documents were removed from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, that Kash Patel himself has some fear of self-incrimination,” Eisen said.

He added, “That’s why you get an immunity order, because what you have to say could get you in criminal trouble. And, Erin, I think here it also signifies grave criminal peril for Donald Trump. Because it’s pretty unusual to give this immunity to a witness.”

Triple threat: Flu and RSV cases could worsen COVID winter wave

A virus that attacks the lungs and airways is rapidly spreading across North America, especially infecting kids — and hospitals are so overwhelmed that many have no beds available. No, it’s not COVID causing this surge of illnesses. It’s respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a virus that’s been known to doctors since 1956, and is one of the most common childhood illnesses.

In most cases, the virus causes a cold-like sickness that sometimes develops into bronchiolitis or pneumonia. Every year, it hospitalizes an average of 1 to 2 percent of children younger than 6 months. In some cases, it’s even fatal, killing about 120,000 children across the globe annually. Older adults and those with compromised immune systems are also at increased risk from the virus.

Normally, hospitals can sustain a surge in RSV cases, but this year has been putting unusual strain on pediatric wards in the United States and Canada. From Nevada to Texas and Connecticut to Oklahoma, RSV is forcing hospitals to scramble for solutions as beds are rapidly filled. At Boston’s Children’s Hospital, RSV cases have forced cutbacks on elective surgeries and on October 31, Orange County, California officials declared RSV a public health emergency. In some cases, children have even died, such as a 6-year-old boy from Macomb County, Michigan. The Atlantic described the situation as “the worst pediatric-care crisis in decades.”

Experts recommend that we can fight RSV using the same mitigation methods used to battle COVID: wearing masks, washing hands and disinfecting surfaces. In fact, this surge in RSV cases can be attributed to following those procedures the past two winters. Masking and social distancing, working remotely and school closures also contributed to an enormous drop in flu and RSV infections over the past two years.

“When the pandemic hit the U.S. in March 2020, we saw the rates of all viruses plummet,” Dr. Vandana Madhavan, director of advanced pediatrics at Mass General Brigham in Boston, told NPR. Now, as precautions against COVID are loosened, both flu and RSV are roaring back — and much earlier than previous seasonal waves.

And, of course, COVID hasn’t disappeared either, with a potential “variant soup” of multiple strains of virus arising at once this winter. There are vaccines against COVID and flu, of course, but not RSV — at least not yet, but that may change in the near future.

The symptoms of all three infections can overlap. With RSV specifically, it can start as a runny nose, cough, sneezing or fever. These symptoms can worsen, developing into wheezing, bluish skin and struggling to breathe. If your child is experiencing labored breathing, seek medical attention.

Access to treatment is critical for weathering severe RSV. “You survive RSV if you get access to care, to breathing support and to oxygen,” Dr. Keith Klugman, who directs the pneumonia program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, told the New York Times. “In the absence of those, babies will die.”

But as more hospitals fill up, it could make certain medical care more scarce. If, as many experts predict, flu and COVID also surge this fall and winter, these issues could compound into an even bigger disaster. Some are calling this the “tripledemic.”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


We have a few defenses against RSV. There’s Palivizumab (brand name Synagis), an injectable synthetic antibody that can be given to premature infants or infants born with certain lung disorders or heart disease. It’s not usually given to most children, however. Over-the-counter drugs like acetaminophen and ibuprofen can also help (but avoid aspirin), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s also especially important to stay hydrated, as the loss of fluids can worsen infection.

While vaccines exist for both flu and COVID — and should be strongly considered for anyone older than six months — the same isn’t true for RSV. A few vaccines are in development, however, including one from Pfizer Inc. On Tuesday, the biotech company announced positive results from a Phase 3 clinical trial called MATISSE (MATernal Immunization Study for Safety and Efficacy.)

The results, which have yet to be peer-reviewed, are promising, demonstrating 82 percent efficacy against severe disease with no safety concerns for both vaccinated individuals and their newborns. If approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the vaccine may not be available until late next year and it would only be for pregnant people.

Still, this is a significant pathway for immunizing infants younger than six months, as we already do with tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis vaccines, for example. And other companies, including Moderna Inc. and Johnson & Johnson are also developing their own RSV vaccines.

Attempts to formulate an RSV vaccine have been underway since at least 1969, but for various reasons, these vaccines haven’t worked out. It’s not clear if Pfizer or these other companies will hit a dead end, either. But thanks to all the research and attention generated by COVID, experts are looking at other viruses to squash. RSV has long plagued humanity, killing hundreds of thousands of children every year, but its days could finally be numbered.

GOP reassembles dozens of lawyers who pushed bogus 2020 election lawsuits ahead of 2022 midterms

Republicans are getting the band back together as it reassembles much of Donald Trump’s 2020 legal effort ahead of the midterm elections, according to a new report by The New York Times based on campaign finance and legal filings.

“At least three dozen lawyers and law firms that advanced Donald J. Trump’s failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election are now working for Republican candidates, parties and other groups, filing lawsuits and other complaints that could lay the groundwork for challenging the results of midterm elections,” the newspaper reported. “Though the 2020 legal push failed, with just one victory out of more than 60 lawsuits, scores of lawyers behind it have continued to work on election litigation.

The list includes both law firms that filed, but then withdrew lawsuits along with those who spent months challenging the election results.

“On that list are Cleta Mitchell and John Eastman, two lawyers who helped devise Mr. Trump’s legal strategy in 2020 and are now mobilizing activists to hunt for evidence of fraud in the midterm count,” the newspaper reported. “Lawyers with the Thomas More Society, a conservative legal group that tried to push the so-called fake electors proposal through the courts after the 2020 election, have recently filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania disputing how officials handle absentee ballots.”

The effort may quickly spread beyond the courtroom. Historian Tim Naftali wrote, “We don’t how many seats each party will win next week. But we live in a political climate where if there isn’t a Red Wave, the GOP elite may likely not accept many of the results.”

He’s not the only one worried about what happens after the polls close.

“Election lawyers and administrators say they fear 2020 may have ushered in a sea change in election law,” The Times reported. “With less than a week to go before Election Day, the 2022 midterms have had an avalanche of litigation. More than 115 cases have been filed this year, with a roughly even split between groups aligned with Republicans and Democrats, according to Democracy Docket, a left-leaning website that tracks election litigation. At this point in 2020, fewer than 70 lawsuits had been filed.”

The newspaper reported GOP groups have spent more than $10 million on “firms or lawyers who helped with the 2020 litigation effort.”

Read the full report.

Let’s fall back and stay back: In defense of Standard Time, the best time of the year

It’s dark and chillier in the morning these days when I shake my little dog awake, dress her in her absurd purple coat, and prod her out the door for her first walk of the day. Later, during our after-work stroll, the sun is just starting to set through the sparse golden leaves on the tree in the front yard. It’s fall! Pull on your mittens and grab your pumpkin spice and a map to Stars Freakin’ Hollow! Everyone loves autumn, right? Until the first week in November when suddenly it’s all, wait just one minute, oh, I would like to speak to the manager about the time.

As we prepare to roll the clocks back and end another year’s Daylight Saving Time, the grumbling about the dark has already started. A majority of Americans seem to be banking a lot on the promise of how much better life would be if we were not planning on setting the clocks back to Standard Time on November 6. An hour more daylight in the fall and winter evenings would, apparently, cure all our mood issues and, because this is America, make us all more money. I get it. The time change itself sucks. The adjustment period is brutal and can even be dangerous; we all hate it. I’m fully on board with abolishing the practice of time change. But so many people are wrong about what time we should land on. Don’t I love daylight? I do! In the spring and summer, where it belongs. 

“Standard time most closely approximates natural light, with the sun directly overhead at or near noon,” actual professor of neurology Beth Ann Malow explains. And while there’s a lot of “natural” I’ll take a pass on — give me all the vaccines, water purification, and hair dye — I do prefer, when I look for it, to find the sun where it belongs. 

We manipulate time enough already. Linger long enough on the border of a time zone and they begin to feel suspiciously arbitrary. By any reasonable assessment of the sun in the sky, I should be writing this from Central Time, not Eastern — but good thing I’m not, because Central Time has the most unsettling vibes of the American time zones. (The best time zone? Mountain Time, clearly some kind of magical vortex!) In the height of summer, it isn’t fully dark on my block until almost 9:30 p.m. That’s just weird.

I’m not saying let’s do away with time zones and leap years and go completely au naturel. I can understand the desire, if we’re already bending ourselves around a human-made framework to make transportation and commerce and daily life work, to simply continue to shape time and reality around human preferences rather than, say, what the sky ought to look like at 5 p.m. in December. That doesn’t mean we all have to pretend to like it.

A quick recap of Daylight Saving Time and how we got here, courtesy of Ramsey Touchberry’s reporting on the bipartisan effort to abolish changing our clocks twice a year: 

Daylight saving time (DST) currently lasts from March to November in most states. (Arizona and Hawaii never change their clocks). Its origins dates back to World War I as a wartime effort to conserve fuel; in fact, it was first implemented in Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, foes of the U.S. and its allies in that conflict. DST was originally opposed by the agricultural industry, contrary to the popular belief that it was created for the benefit of farm families. Although virtually all nations in Europe and North America practice the biannual clock switch, the vast majority of countries in Asia, Africa, South America and Oceania have either abandoned DST in recent years or never used it at all.

Earlier this year the Senate did pass a bill to abolish the time change. If it is signed into law — which might take a while, because the House left them on read — then in March, we would spring forward and stay that way.

I protest. If we’re going to do this, we should do it right. And the right way is to fall back permanently.

I’m aware this is not the most popular stance, but I’m also not alone. Hawaii and Arizona get it. About one-third of Americans prefer Standard Time, according to a recent CBS News poll. We walk among you daylight grumblers, and frankly, we’ve been getting the shaft. The most common complaint I hear when I celebrate the start of Standard Time is a variation of “so, you think it should be pitch-black outside at 4 p.m.?” as if we lived through a Westeros-style long winter in the pre-DST era. The days will continue to get longer after the winter solstice, I’m pretty sure of it.

We’d rather literally reorient society’s clock than take stronger measures toward improving road safety and access to mass transit.

Admitting you’re a Standard Time fan on the internet is like admitting you’re an extrovert; both confessions are met with suspicion. But it’s ridiculous that some of us only get four months of that productivity and energy out of the year. Once upon a time, we at least split the year a bit more fairly. But over time, Big Daylight won, and we’ve been on this eight-four split for a while now. Listen, I get it. Rise and grind! It’s already late! Progress ahead! What’s more American than trying to get a jump on the clock itself? But Standard Time is what time it’s supposed to be, even if we only admit it four months out of the year. 

I am not an unreasonable person. There are solid, sensible reasons for “saving daylight,” like for women who feel much safer going for an after-work run when it’s not pitch-dark outside. I’m sympathetic to folks who struggle with Seasonal Affective Disorder in the winter (though some people do experience it in the summer months instead). Are there really energy-saving benefits? Well… studies say it’s a wash. But all darkness is not equal, apparently, when it comes to road safety, because the after-work drive is apparently much riskier than the morning commute — taking rogue deer into account, it’s even worse — and an extra hour of light during rush hour could help cut down car accidents. It doesn’t escape notice, though, that we’d rather literally reorient society’s clock than take stronger measures toward improving road safety and access to mass transit.

Some science, though, is on my side. Our brains house an internal clock (the suprachiasmatic nucleus, or SCN) which, as Anisha Kalidindi writes, “can sync time throughout the body through hormonal and chemical signals” to regulate “many bodily processes that we know are important for health, such as our sleep-wake cycles, and … the physiology of our body in several ways, from our liver function to our immune system.” One of the most important elements that regulate our SCN is light. And light disruption such as the manipulation of Daylight Saving Time, Kalidindi writes, “can have catastrophic effects” on our biological clocks.

But enough of the technicalities! I fully understand why I react the way I do to the time change: Standard time just feels right to some of us, and the closer we get to the fall-back hour, the more my brain chafes against the time I’ve been pretending it is. In late fall and all through winter, I want dark evenings to be lit by flickering candles and twinkly holiday lights (which we should, of course, leave up until Valentine’s Day). I do not want to trick myself into thinking I should feel more productive near the end of a winter’s day. I want to hit the morning running and then later, hygge it up inside, or bundle up and walk through the frost. I want to appreciate the seasons for what they are, not for what I wish them to be.

If the House gets behind the Senate’s bill, this could be my last year of Standard Time. If so, I need to make the most of it. Time to start getting up early to write a new book proposal and work out as much of a rough draft as I can before the clock catches up to me in March, so I can properly take advantage of my soft, cozy evenings. I plan on falling into a warm bed at a decent hour instead of staying up to doomscroll against my better judgment. The light will return anyway, slowly, a little bit at a time, starting in late December. It always does. This year I’m going to pay closer attention, knowing a November six o’clock may never look the same again.

“Enormous damage to democracy”: Ken Paxton targeted election workers with probes that went nowhere

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

 

In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, Republican officials around the country have been giving increasing attention and resources to investigating election crimes. Most have focused on the alleged wrongdoing of voters.

But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is also working a different angle: His office has been criminally investigating the people who help run elections.

Over the past two years, Paxton’s office opened at least 10 investigations into alleged crimes by election workers, a more extensive effort than previously known, according to records obtained by ProPublica. One of his probes was spurred by a complaint from a county GOP chair, who lost her reelection bid in a landslide. She then refused to certify the results, citing “an active investigation” by the attorney general.

In at least two of the cases, Paxton’s office unsuccessfully tried to indict election workers, attempts that were first reported by the Austin American-Statesman. In the remaining eight investigations identified by ProPublica, it is unclear just how far the probes went. As of mid-October, none of the cases resulted in criminal charges.

The attorney general’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Most of Paxton’s investigations of election workers center on allegations of obstructing a poll watcher, which is banned by a controversial and recently expanded law that experts fear could open the door for turmoil in the election process. Texas is one of the few states where blocking the view or limiting the movements of poll watchers — partisan volunteers who monitor election sites — can bring criminal penalties. Obstruction is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.

Experts worry such investigations could exact a stiff price, chilling participation in the process, slowing down elections and fostering misinformation and distrust in the vote. These probes may be a harbinger of potential chaos in the midterms.

“To have law enforcement policing around and creating the perception that these elections are not secure is doing enormous damage to democracy,” said Lorraine Minnite, a political scientist at Rutgers University, Camden who has studied voter fraud allegations.

Paxton, who has been under a securities fraud indictment for seven years, has touted his eagerness to pursue election-related crimes. He created a unit dedicated to doing so five years ago, long before so-called election integrity units became a trend in Republican-controlled states. (He’s denied wrongdoing in the ongoing securities fraud case.)

Between January 2020 and September 2022, records show, the office opened at least 390 cases looking into potential election crimes. That includes criminal investigations of both voters and election workers. It’s not clear how many cases Paxton’s office attempted to prosecute. But the records show that, like other prosecutors’ efforts around the country, Paxton often comes up empty. His office secured five election-related convictions during that period.

A skeptic of the legitimacy of President Joe Biden’s election, Paxton has been soliciting tips from the public about the upcoming midterms, during which he will be operating with broad new powers. Last year, the Texas Legislature dramatically expanded the state’s ability to pursue criminal sanctions against election officials. This year’s midterms will be the first general election where law enforcement could use the new criminal statutes to prosecute.

Paxton will also be sending a “task force” to Harris County, which contains Houston, a Democratic stronghold, to respond to “legal issues” with the election, according to a letter from the Texas secretary of state. Paxton is up for reelection in the midterms, in a race that polls indicate could be close.

America’s voting system depends on the thousands of public employees and volunteers, often retirees, who do the tedious job of managing elections. Officials have long reported challenges in recruiting enough poll workers to run elections efficiently. Now, prospective poll workers may find themselves wrestling with the possibility of facing criminal charges.

This growing scrutiny and animosity have taken a toll. Officials have resigned en masse, as conspiracy theories and physical threats have increasingly become a part of the job. Over the last two years, roughly a third of Texas’ election administrators have left their posts, according to the Texas secretary of state.

Paxton’s election worker investigations span large, heavily Democratic cities and deep-red rural counties alike. Some officials learned they were under scrutiny when they were contacted by sergeants in Paxton’s office. Others told ProPublica they were unaware an investigation had occurred. At least five suspects were in their 60s or 70s. Several cases were prompted by a referral from the Texas secretary of state. Others stemmed from complaints made by small-town sheriffs or voters.

Sam Taylor, a spokesperson for the secretary of state, said the office is required to refer complaints to the attorney general if there is reasonable cause to believe a crime occurred.

Dana DeBeauvoir said she has already seen the impact of Paxton’s efforts on the ground — and in her own life. She told ProPublica that in her 36 years as the top election official in Travis County, where Austin is located, nothing compared to the disruption she saw in the 2020 election.

When an unmasked poll watcher named Jennifer Fleck began photographing the counting of ballots, which was against the rules, a volunteer asked her to leave. Fleck refused, then began screaming and banging on the window of the room where votes were being counted, DeBeauvoir said. Ultimately, the police arrived, arrested Fleck and charged her with criminal trespass.

Officers allegedly found that Fleck had a “button camera on her shirt” connected to a “recording device that had been secreted in Fleck’s pants,” according to police records. Fleck also faces a perjury charge because she swore in an affidavit that she would not use recording devices. The case is pending.

Weeks later, DeBeauvoir said, the county attorney informed her that Paxton’s office had a different view of the incident: DeBeauvoir herself was now the subject of a criminal investigation. Attorneys advised her to not speak about the case.

“I never felt more alone,” DeBeauvoir said. “Everything that was being said was completely untrue. And I could not defend myself.”

The next year, Paxton attempted to prosecute DeBeauvoir for obstructing a poll watcher, court records show. In an unusual move, when his office brought her case before a grand jury, prosecutors didn’t do it in Travis County — where DeBeauvoir lives and the incident took place — but in a suburban county that is more conservative.

Yet, in a rarity for the criminal justice system, the grand jury in April 2021 declined to indict her.

“I was completely terrified” by the investigation, DeBeauvoir said.

Fleck did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Among the new powers Paxton will now be able to wield: The Legislature made it a felony for an election official to send a mail-in voting application to a person who didn’t request one. It gave new authority to poll watchers, allowing them “free movement” around voting facilities. And it broadened the obstruction statute Paxton had used to try to prosecute officials like DeBeauvoir.

“We’ve seen this kind of onslaught of laws that are essentially treating voting booths like crime scenes,” said Liz Avore, senior policy adviser at Voting Rights Lab, a nonprofit that analyzes election legislation. She said Texas’ new poll-watching provisions could hamstring election officials who witness partisan volunteers harassing voters and make it hard to keep polling places “a safe place for voters to cast their ballots.”

Even when investigations don’t result in criminal charges, they can be used as a pretext to disrupt the election process.

In 2020, Cynthia Brehm was running for reelection as chair of the Bexar County Republican Party. She secured more votes than any other candidate in the March primary, but it was a close race and she’d have to go through a runoff to retain her seat. In June, Brehm made a Facebook post suggesting George Floyd’s death was staged. Sen. Ted Cruz and other top Texas Republicans called for her to resign. Her chances were starting to look bleak.

Then Brehm made a move that would have surprising consequences. She filed a complaint with Paxton’s office about the election, records show, prompting the attorney general to open a criminal investigation into the county elections administrator.

A police report details what the official stood accused of. First, that the primary results were incorrect. Second, that there were “several other” allegations “that include obstructing poll watchers.”

In July, Brehm lost in the runoff by 32 points. But as party chair, she held the authority to certify the results. She refused to do so — pointing to the fruits of her complaint.

“The Texas Attorney General has an active investigation ongoing into the results of the Primary Election,” Brehm wrote in a press release justifying her decision. “I Cynthia Brehm, have determined that every aspect of this election has been severely compromised.”

In response to a public records request, Paxton’s office said the investigation into the elections administrator, Jacquelyn Callanen, is now closed. Brehm and Callanen did not respond to requests for comment. The winning candidate ultimately took over Brehm’s post.

At least three suspects in Paxton’s investigations were the top election officials in their counties, but his probes have also ensnared volunteers. In 2020, Robert Icsezen, a Houston-based attorney and self-described “election nerd,” volunteered to serve on his county’s signature verification committee, which is responsible for checking the signatures on mail-in ballots. On Oct. 14, a poll watcher asked Icsezen to let her into the area where ballots were being processed, he said. He thought that wasn’t permitted and turned her away. Later that morning, he received a call from a local official, who told him the secretary of state’s office said he needed to let the poll watcher in. The woman never returned, Icsezen said.

Shortly thereafter, an officer in Paxton’s election police unit contacted Icsezen. Assuming it was all a misunderstanding, Icsezen agreed to speak with him, he said.

Eight months later, Paxton’s office brought the case before a grand jury and unsuccessfully tried to indict Icsezen for obstructing a poll watcher, records show.

“I have four kids,” Icsezen told ProPublica. “There could have been cops coming to my door to cuff me and take me away.”

He will not volunteer to help in another election, he said.