Democrats have a direct political interest in making voting easier for their demographic supporters ; Republicans are dependent on white people and older voters who already turn out in large numbers . “ Fear of the increasing diversity of America is driving this , ” says Carol Anderson , chair of African American studies at Emory University .\nThey ’ re passing photo ID laws , cutting early voting hours , and purging voter rolls of infrequent voters , citing the need to defend against fraud . Democratic leaders are angry about the changes , charging that the real aim is to make it harder for minorities and younger people – key Democratic constituencies – to vote . In a larger sense , the battle is part of a broader war between the Democratic coalition of transformation , composed of groups comfortable with rapid racial and cultural change , and the Republican coalition of restoration , reliant on voters who aren ’ t .\nFifty-four years after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law , a renewed and intensifying struggle over ballot access and voting power is shaking the structure of American democracy . It began in 2013 , when the Supreme Court struck down a key Voting Rights Act provision and freed nine states , most in the South , to change their election laws without advance approval from the federal government . Since then , some Republican governors and GOP-controlled state legislatures have begun tightening access to the ballot box .\nPresident Lyndon B. Johnson used 50 pens to sign the Voting Rights Act into law . Television footage of the Aug. 6 , 1965 , ceremony shows the president putting each to paper for a moment , scratching perhaps a half-letter , and then swapping the instrument out for new . When finished , he handed the pens to some of the famous figures gathered around him . Sen. Robert F. Kennedy got one . So did the Rev . Martin Luther King Jr . So did civil rights activist and future member of Congress John Lewis .\nMost pen recipients felt it was one of America ’ s finest hours . The law put federal muscle behind African Americans ’ long struggle for equal voting booth access – and the political power that access bestowed . But Johnson ’ s own feelings that day were complicated . His daughter Luci Baines Johnson later told journalist Ari Berman , in an interview for his voting rights history “ Give Us the Ballot , ” that LBJ felt both victorious and afraid .\nPresident Johnson knew he had just transformed the political structure of the nation , in ways both predictable and unforeseen . He could no longer control what would happen , the progress and the inevitable backlash , and how those might balance .\n“ It would be written in the history books . But now the history had to be made , ” Ms. Johnson said .\nFifty-four years later , a renewed and intensifying struggle over ballot access and voting power is shaking the intricate structure of American democracy .\nIn the short run , the vote – who gets it , who doesn ’ t , what it ’ s worth – is almost certain to loom large in the 2020 elections . Top Democratic presidential contenders have all criticized recent GOP-led tightening of some state voting laws , claiming these changes are partly intended to make it harder for minorities to cast ballots .\n“ You ’ ve got Jim Crow sneaking back in , ” said former Vice President Joe Biden in a speech in South Carolina on May 6 , evoking the racial segregation laws of the past .\nIn the long run , this conflict could redraw the battle lines between America ’ s two big political parties during a period of rapid demographic change . That ’ s why Democrats made it their first order of legislative business after retaking the House in the 2018 midterms , passing H.R . 1 , a sweeping bill that would establish national automatic voter registration , outlaw the “ purging ” of voter rolls , and in general ease and expand ballot access while countering some state-imposed voting barriers .\nMark Humphrey/AP Suzanne Lanier ( l. ) holds up a sign in the Tennessee House gallery opposing a bill that would impose new restrictions on groups that hold voter registration drives , April 15 , 2019 , in Nashville , Tenn .\nVoting access is becoming a crucial front in what CNN political analyst and journalist Ron Brownstein has dubbed a broader war between the Democratic coalition of transformation , composed of groups comfortable with rapid racial and cultural change , and the Republican coalition of restoration , reliant on voters who aren ’ t .\nMore and more , American electoral politics seems correlated with demographics . The modern Democratic Party is increasingly made up of minorities and young people , and thus has a direct interest in making voting as easy and widespread as possible . Republicans , conversely , are dependent on white people and older voters , demographic groups already more likely to cast ballots . The GOP thus has a direct political incentive to tighten rules and restrict electoral access .\n“ Fear of the increasing diversity of America is driving this , ” says Carol Anderson , chair of African American studies at Emory University and author of “ One Person , No Vote : How Voter Suppression Is Destroying Our Democracy . ”\nMany Republicans reject this framework . Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has flatly refused to bring to the floor a Senate version of H.R . 1 – or , as he calls it , the “ Democrat Politician Protection Act . ”\n“ It ’ s an attempt to rewrite the rules of American politics in order to benefit one side over the other , ” Senator McConnell said on the Senate floor . The bill is a nakedly partisan attempt to grow Washington ’ s power over Americans ’ political speech and elections , the Kentucky senator charged . It would impose onerous and confusing regulations on states and localities , “ while making it harder for [ them ] to clean inaccurate data off their voter rolls , harder to remove duplicate registrations , ineligible voters , and other errors . ”\nThe larger conservative position is that America has come a long way on voting , thanks to the Voting Rights Act and other massive changes , and the country and its laws should recognize that . This was the view underpinning the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder , a pivotal 2013 Supreme Court decision that freed nine mostly Southern states to change their election laws without obtaining advance approval from the federal government .\nWhen the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965 , voter registration of African Americans in Mississippi was 6.4 % , wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion . By the 2004 election , Mississippi ’ s black registration rate was 76 % , 4 percentage points higher than that of white people .\n“ Our country has changed , ” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the opinion . “ While any racial discrimination in voting is too much , Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions . ”\nVoting is fundamental to the exercise of democracy . If there were no votes , how would the collective will of eligible citizens be expressed ? Justice Roberts , in his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing , noted that voting was the “ preservative ” of all the other American rights . “ Without access to the ballot box , people are not in a position to protect any other rights that are important to them , ” he said .\nGiven that , it ’ s perhaps surprising that the Founding Fathers did not leave behind a bit more instruction on the issue . The Constitution did not guarantee voting rights for Americans . Instead , it allowed the states to set their own voting rules .\nAt the time of the Constitution ’ s ratification , most states limited voting to white male property owners . By some estimates , these eligible voters constituted only 6 % of the nation ’ s population . Democracy , indeed .\nSuffrage is a “ part of the Constitution that has not aged well , ” wrote George Mason University political scientist Jennifer Victor in a recent Vox series on the document ’ s flaws .\nMark J. Terrill/AP/File A voter fills out a registration form before getting in line at the Los Angeles County registrar 's office on Nov. 6 , 2018 .\nSince 1789 , periodic waves of reform have greatly enlarged the eligible U.S. voting population . In the 1800s , many states struck the “ property owner ” requirement , opening up voting to most white males . In 1870 , the ratification of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution technically gave all African Americans , including former slaves , access to the ballot . In response , Southern states adopted poll taxes and literacy tests , and employed open violence to disenfranchise African Americans and retain white political hegemony .\nSome states opened the voting franchise to women in the decades before and after the turn of the 20th century , but women weren ’ t fully allowed ballot access until the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 . The most recent reform wave crested with the 1965 Voting Rights Act , which banned discriminatory voter qualification practices , and authorized deployment of federal officials to register voters and oversee elections in areas with a history of blocking minorities from the polls .\nA key enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act ordered states with a poor minority voting record , most of them Southern , to ask Washington for permission before doing almost anything to change voting procedures , from moving a polling place to redrawing legislative districts . It ’ s this part of the law that the Roberts court deemed no longer necessary and struck down in 2013 .\nIn the context of the long rise of democracy throughout the Western world , the voting record of the United States is mixed . The U.S. was indeed one of the first democratic countries to expand its electorate by knocking down explicit economic barriers to political participation , writes Alexander Keyssar , a Harvard professor of history and social policy , in his book “ The Right to Vote : The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. ” Alexis de Tocqueville and other foreign observers were struck by what they perceived as the nation ’ s powerful democratic spirit in the early decades of the 1800s .\nBut the U.S. was also unusual in that it experienced a contraction of voting rights as Southern segregationists essentially negated the 15th Amendment following Reconstruction .\n“ Despite its pioneering role in promoting democratic values , the United States was one of the last countries in the developed world to attain universal suffrage , ” writes Dr. Keyssar .\nToday , the story of voting rights in America is largely a tale of two kinds of states , moving in two different directions .\nSome states – mainly but not exclusively blue ones – are adopting measures to make it easier to register and vote . Automatic voter registration , for example , is a system where citizens who interact with government agencies are automatically added to the voter rolls , or automatically have their address or other voter information updated , unless they opt out of the process . Fifteen states covering about a third of the U.S. population , from Vermont and New Jersey to Nevada and California ( plus the District of Columbia ) , now have some form of automatic registration , according to data from the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law .\nBruce Newman/Oxford Eagle/AP/File A poll worker checks a voter 's identification against a list before allowing her to vote in the party primary , June 3 , 2014 , at the Oxford Park Commission in Oxford , Mississippi .\nOther states – mainly but not exclusively red ones – are going in the opposite direction and tightening voting rules . These changes range from strict requirements for photo IDs to cutbacks in the time allowed for early voting to the winnowing of presumed nonvoters from the rolls and other general registration restrictions . Since the 2010 midterms , at least 25 states have enacted tougher ballot laws , according to the Brennan Center .\nSome of these changes , in basic form , garner widespread approval among voters . This is particularly true of photo ID . A 2016 Associated Press poll found that 79 % of respondents favored requiring all voters to provide some form of photo identification .\nProponents frame many of the changes as a means to defend against fraud . But the days of deceased voters allegedly casting ballots in Illinois ’ Cook County , and voter turnout in some Louisiana precincts reaching 120 % , are long over . Documented cases of in-person fraud are “ super rare , ” says Dan Hopkins , a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania whose research focuses on elections and public opinion .\nOne 2014 study in an academic journal , Dr. Hopkins points out , concluded that in the U.S. voter impersonation – the fraud against which photo ID is meant to defend – is reported at about the same rate as instances of alleged abduction by extraterrestrials .\nThe problem , Dr. Hopkins notes , is America ’ s long and troubled history of denying racial minorities their right to vote . Today ’ s new restrictions are inevitably seen in that old context .\nTake photo ID . Many Americans see that as an easy hurdle to surmount . Who doesn ’ t have a driver ’ s license or a passport or something like that ?\nLots of people , actually . And they tend to be those on the edges of mainstream economic society . People of color , poorer people , both young and elderly , tend to be most affected by ID requirements .\nThe effects of the restrictions can also depend on the way they are set up . Dr. Anderson of Emory University uses the example of Alabama . In that state , you have to have a government-issued ID to vote – but a public housing ID doesn ’ t count . Seventy-one percent of public housing occupants in the state are African Americans . Also , Alabama has been closing Department of Motor Vehicle offices in black counties .\nYou create an obstacle , then you create an obstacle to the obstacle , says Dr. Anderson . “ We believed we had overcome , ” she says . “ We haven ’ t . ”\nDr. Anderson says that one of her goals when writing her 2018 book “ One Person No Vote ” was to counter the idea that many of the new voting restrictions are just reasonable responses to concerns about the integrity of America ’ s voting systems .\nPoor people move often , so they miss the official postcards asking if they wish to remain on the voting rolls . Young people , students , and minorities disproportionately don ’ t vote regularly . After missing a few ballots , their names start to be crossed out as well .\nRight now America isn ’ t a real democracy , Dr. Anderson says .\n“ We came close to being a democracy with the Voting Rights Act , ” she says . “ But the forces of white supremacy have kept fighting back . ”\nDo voting restrictions actually affect elections ? If so , how much ?\nDr. Anderson and other fierce critics would certainly say yes . Their Exhibit A is the 2016 presidential election in Wisconsin . Wisconsin ’ s voter ID law , passed under GOP Gov . Scott Walker , requires all voters to present a driver ’ s license , state ID , passport , military ID , naturalization papers , or tribal ID to vote . ( Other forms of ID are acceptable under certain circumstances . ) Voters without proper identification can cast a provisional ballot , which will count if they present the document at a state office within 72 hours of the election .\nIn 2016 , the first presidential election affected by the new law , there were 60,000 fewer votes for president than in 2012 , says Dr. Anderson . Sixty-eight percent of the decline was in Milwaukee alone , a heavily Democratic and minority area .\nMorry Gash/AP/File Observers look over test results as a statewide presidential election recount began Dec. 1 , 2016 , in Milwaukee . Donald Trump won Wisconsin by less than a percentage point over Hillary Clinton after polls had predicted a Clinton victory .\nDonald Trump won Wisconsin by roughly 20,000 votes . It was a harbinger of similarly close triumphs in other Rust Belt states that helped provide his margin of victory .\nBut many political scientists have a more nuanced view on the subject .\nEvidence shows that photo ID requirements and other restrictions indeed prevent some voters from casting ballots or going to the polls in the first place , says Dr. Hopkins of the University of Pennsylvania . But studies also show that the magnitude of the effect is not great enough to actually sway many outcomes .\n“ This is an important issue of voter rights and civil rights . But the levels of disenfranchisement we have seen do not indicate any election we can point to that would have been shifted , ” says Dr. Hopkins .\nTake Wisconsin . It ’ s true minority turnout dropped in 2016 relative to 2012 . But was that due to voting restrictions , or the fact that Barack Obama , the nation ’ s first African American president , wasn ’ t on the ballot ? How did party mobilization efforts compare for those years ? Could there have been some other factor ?\nLike many states , Wisconsin also has something of a split personality on voting issues . Under a GOP-led state government , it tightened ID laws – but it also allows same-day voter registration .\nThe way restrictions are drawn up and implemented also matters a lot . What IDs count ? The question of whether a student ID is acceptable makes a big difference in heavily collegiate states such as New Hampshire and Wisconsin .\nIn the short run , new restrictions can sometimes even boost turnout . Studies have shown that they can produce a powerful emotional response among Democrats in general and affected groups in particular , spurring a counter-mobilization that actually leads to higher turnout at the polls . That response might eventually wear off – but long-term effects are difficult to predict . Older voters tend to skew Republican , and as they age they become statistically less likely to have driver ’ s licenses , passports , or other IDs .\nNevertheless , the partisan intent seems clear . It is Republican governors and legislators who are pushing for and implementing new restrictions . In 2012 , Pennsylvania ’ s Republican state House leaders said publicly that the state ’ s new voter ID law would “ allow ” GOP candidate Mitt Romney to take the state . ( A state judge later threw out the law as contrary to Pennsylvania ’ s Constitution . )\nPresident Trump has called for a nationwide photo ID requirement , saying it would ensure only U.S. citizens vote in U.S. elections . ( Multiple nationwide studies have found only a handful of documented cases of noncitizen votes . )\n“ There are sometimes clear political motivations [ for instituting voting restrictions ] , ” says Dr. Hopkins .\nBut voter photo ID , “ purges ” of infrequent voters from the rolls , and other moves are not the only things affecting the voting rates of minorities . At a time when America is rapidly becoming more diverse , it is voters ’ own disengagement that may be most slowing the rise of the “ transformative ” coalition , and maintaining the clout of the “ restorative ” counterpart .\n“ It is this broader story of encouraging people to participate that ’ s the issue , ” says Bernard Fraga , assistant professor of political science at Indiana University and author of “ The Turnout Gap : Race , Ethnicity , and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America . ”\nThe U.S. has long lagged on turnout compared with other developed nations . In part , this is because registration to vote in the U.S. has traditionally been an individual responsibility . Other nations may vote on weekends , or holidays . According to Pew Research data , 24 nations make voting compulsory , including the perennial top turnout nation , Belgium , which averages close to a 90 % turnout .\nIn U.S. presidential elections , about 50 % to 60 % of eligible voting-age citizens typically turn out to vote . Midterms attract a turnout of about 40 % , while local elections draw even less . Municipal primaries may be decided by as little as 15 % of those eligible to vote .\nTurnout of minority groups in America is particularly low . Whether it is the barrier of an ID , or simply apathy – a decision to not decide on political choices – minority turnout lags far behind that of white people , says Dr. Fraga .\nIn 2016 , 65.3 % of eligible white people said they voted , according to Pew data . Forty-nine percent of black people said the same thing , representing a sharp decline from 2012 ’ s record 66.6 % turnout .\nLatino turnout lagged behind at 47.6 % , according to Pew . A greater number of eligible Latinos have not voted than voted in each presidential election since 1996 .\nAsian Americans historically do not break the 50 % turnout barrier , either . In 2016 , their voting percentage was 49.3 .\nVoter ID and other restrictive policies don ’ t explain this minority turnout gap , says Dr. Fraga . Some states that have implemented relatively tight laws actually have higher minority turnout numbers .\nAnd the gap has clear electoral effects . If minority turnout had equaled white turnout , given that minorities are preponderantly Democratic , Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency in 2016 instead of being narrowly defeated . Democrats would have regained a majority in the Senate .\nInterestingly , the turnout gap is much smaller in places where minority groups make up a larger share of the population . This may be due to the fact that African Americans or Latinos feel they have the power to affect outcomes in a way they do not in overwhelmingly white areas . Or it may be because political campaigns cater to them and target them more when they might make more of a difference .\n“ The broad conclusion is , this is a story about engagement , empowerment , and mobilization , ” says Dr. Fraga .\nAll of this – sweeping demographic change , voter ID , voter roll “ purges , ” minority turnout , plus cameo appearances by partisan gerrymandering and the Electoral College – may roll into the electoral storm of the century in 18 months .\nThe 2018 midterms saw a huge spike in voter interest and turnout . As Dr. Hopkins pointed out in his 2018 book “ The Increasingly United States : How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized , ” the old saying that “ all politics is local ” has now been turned on its head . All politics is now national , focused on the big stories from Washington via social media and nationalized media . Midterm interest was driven by anger toward and defense of President Trump . With the president himself on the ballot next fall , turnout could be off the charts .\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nIt will be a great clash between the transformative coalition of anti-Trump Democrats and the restorative coalition of the pro-Trump base . A recent Fox News poll found that the percentage of voters who say today that they are “ extremely ” interested in the 2020 presidential election is already higher than the percentage who said the same thing on the day before the 2016 vote .\nMichael McDonald , an election specialist at the University of Florida , is predicting record participation levels . “ We are likely in for a storm of the century , ” he recently tweeted , “ with turnout levels not seen for a presidential election in the past 100 years . ”


Get breaking news alerts and special reports . The news and stories that matter , delivered weekday mornings .\nDES MOINES , Iowa — President Donald Trump ’ s campaign and allies have blocked efforts to expand mail-in voting , forcing an awkward confrontation with top GOP election officials who are promoting the opposite in their states .\nThe rare dissonance between Trump and other Republican elected officials also reflects another reality the president will not concede : Many in his party believe expanding mail-in voting could ultimately help him .\nTrump ’ s campaign has intervened directly in Ohio , while allies have fired warning shots in Iowa and Georgia , aimed at blunting Republican secretaries of state in places that could be competitive in November .\n“ There is a dimension to legislatures underfunding or undercutting election officials that could ironically backfire and hurt Republicans , ” said Michael McDonald , a University of Florida professor and director of the nonpartisan United States Election Project .\nAction by these three secretaries of state , who are the top election officials in their states , was designed to make ballot access easier during the coronavirus pandemic . Trump has repeatedly made the unfounded claim that voting by mail could lead to fraud so extensive it could undermine the integrity of the presidential election .\nIn Ohio last month , senior Trump campaign adviser Bob Paduchik weighed in on Secretary of State Frank LaRose ’ s proposal , insisting to GOP legislative leaders that they drop a provision to allow voters to file absentee ballot applications online , according to Republican officials involved in the discussions . The GOP officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal communications regarding the legislation .\nOhio already allows the secretary of state to send absentee ballot requests to every registered voter . The provision was aimed at allowing a faster processing option , while making mail-in application processing available .\nPaduchik , Trump ’ s 2016 Iowa campaign director , insisted there be no substantive changes ahead of the November election in Ohio , which Trump won in 2016 by 8 percentage points under the existing rules , according to the GOP officials .\nTrump campaign aides did not respond to requests for comment .\n“ This bill didn ’ t do everything I wanted it to do . In fact , there ’ s several things I wanted to get done that are not included in this bill , ” LaRose said in a video statement this month , promising to try ” to get some of those other changes made in the future . ”\nLet our news meet your inbox . The news and stories that matters , delivered weekday mornings . This site is protected by recaptcha\nTrump has railed against expanding vote by mail , arguing without evidence that the practice , despite being the primary voting method in Colorado , Hawaii , Oregon , Washington and Utah , is ripe for widespread fraud .\nOn Sunday , he renewed the criticism , tweeting “ Mail-In Voting , on the other hand , will lead to the most corrupt Election is USA history . Bad things happen with Mail-Ins . ”\nThat claim is part of a pattern . He also has incorrectly equated a secretary of state widely distributing absentee ballot requests with the ballots themselves in Michigan .\nLast week , after Iowa voters broke a 26-year-old statewide primary election turnout record , the Iowa Senate ’ s GOP majority pressed to bar Secretary of State Paul Pate from sending absentee ballots to all 2 million registered voters this fall , as he did before the June 3 primary .\nRepublican Gov . Kim Reynolds , a Trump ally , last week signed compromise legislation requiring Pate and his successors to seek approval from a partisan legislative council for similar future actions . The GOP-controlled council unanimously rejected Pate ’ s request to widely send absentee ballot applications this fall .\n“ My goal was to protect Iowa voters and poll workers while finding ways to conduct a clean and fair election , ” Pate said last month . “ I stand by my decisions . ”\nHis Georgia counterpart , Brad Raffensperger , faced a similar fate after he , too , sent absentee ballot applications to nearly 7 million registered voters ahead of the state ’ s June primary . Although Raffensperger objected to proposed limits being put on his authority , legislation to do that died when the legislature adjourned and after he said he would not repeat the move this fall .\nTrump carried Georgia , Iowa and Ohio comfortably in 2016 . To win again , he would likely need to match his sizable winning margins in their rural counties , home to many in his older , white base .\nPresumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has backed mail-in voting , saying it would make it easier for people to vote this November amid the coronavirus pandemic .\nSome longtime GOP activists say expanded vote by mail is essential for older voters who are accustomed to voting in person but hesitant to during the pandemic and who are unfamiliar with the process .\nAnn Trimble Ray , a veteran Iowa GOP activist , voted in June by mail and says Pate made the right call , especially for the many older voters in her rural home in Sac County , which Trump carried with 72 % of the 2016 vote .\n“ Reducing their exposure by voting absentee , we think , was a considerate thing to do , ” she said . “ I was grateful for Secretary of State Pate ’ s mailing and encouragement for absentee voting . ”\nConsolidation of rural polling places , shrunken election staff and long lines may deter rural voters vital to Trump , said University of California Irvine professor Richard Hasen , chair of a committee of U.S. scholars that has recommended changes ahead of the 2020 elections .\n“ The voters Trump is hurting are likely his own when he ’ s making these comments against mail-in balloting , ” said Hasen , “ because it ’ s a safe and generally effective way to cast a ballot , especially in the midst of a pandemic . ”\nThe check on ballot request steps in Iowa and Georgia also could threaten rural votes from being counted , based on McDonald ’ s study .\nThough Ohio counts all mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day , a number of absentee ballots came in late for the March 17 primary , including 4,000 in Greene County in southeast Ohio , a county where Trump won 60 % of the vote .\nUnderstaffed election offices and longer processing time between rural areas and metro postal centers could leave some rural voters unable to mail their ballots on time , McDonald said .\n“ I ’ m pretty convinced that ballot request step is hurting rural voters , ” McDonald said .


In their lame-duck session , Republicans passed legislation that removed key powers from both Evers and Kaul and transferred them to lawmakers . Most notably , Republicans took away Evers ’ ability to appoint members of several state boards and agencies . They also usurped Kaul ’ s authority to decide whether to approve court settlements and whether the state should even defend lawsuits like those challenging voter suppression and gerrymandering . And they slashed early voting availability , although that move had been put on hold until the recent 7th Circuit ruling .\nThe Supreme Court upheld the laws stripping powers from Evers and Kaul , an unsurprising decision given the court ’ s ruling last year that rejected a challenge to the legality of the entire lame-duck session itself . These decisions , along with one in April that blocked Evers from postponing elections that month to avoid exposing voters to coronavirus , cement the court ’ s Republican-aligned majority as one of the most partisan in the nation—one that has willingly facilitated GOP legislators ’ attempt to reject the legitimacy of Democratic victories in 2018 .\nMeanwhile , in the voter ID case , the court revived a limit of two weeks for early voting , which had been allowed for as long as six weeks in some parts of the state . The judges also restored a requirement that voters maintain residency for at least 28 days to be able to vote at a given location , even if they ’ ve moved from elsewhere within the state . Voters with fewer than 28 days of residency would have to vote at their previous address .\nIn addition , the court barred the state from letting most voters receive an absentee ballot by fax or email so that they can print them out and return them by mail , even though military and overseas voters are permitted to do so . Multiple federal courts have also temporarily allowed blind voters in other states to obtain ballots this way due to the pandemic .\nMost ominously , the judges , all of whom were appointed by Republicans , implied that any manipulation of election laws for partisan gain was constitutional even for laws that potentially discriminate against voters based on race . “ If one party can make changes that it believes help its candidates , the other can restore the original rules or revise the new ones , ” they wrote , even though the very purpose of such laws is to make it impossible for the disadvantaged party to regain control .\nThis reasoning is the logical extension of the U.S. Supreme Court ’ s 2019 decision prohibiting all federal challenges to partisan gerrymandering . If adopted by other courts , especially the Supreme Court , it would be open season for lawmakers to all but rig elections outright .\nThe ruling , however , was not a complete defeat for the plaintiffs . The 7th Circuit did uphold a decision letting college students use expired university IDs , as well as a prohibition on requiring schools to share citizenship information with the state . The judges gave the lower courts a chance to rewrite their now-invalidated injunctions to give voters who lack an ID the ability to easily get one , though that may be easier said than done especially because of the pandemic . The plaintiffs have not yet indicated whether they will appeal .\nIn a third recent case , the Wisconsin Supreme Court opted not to expedite an appeal by conservative activists who are trying to compel the state to purge roughly 129,000 voter registrations . The court won ’ t hear the case at least until Sept. 29 , when progressive Judge Jill Karofsky will have replaced conservative Justice Dan Kelly following her victory in April ’ s election .\nThe timing matters because with Kelly still in office , conservatives would likely have had at least a 4-to-3 majority in favor of ordering the purge . However , once Karofsky takes her seat , conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn will most probably decide the fate of this lawsuit . Earlier this year , he sided with the progressive minority in declining to expedite the case , though it ’ s unclear which way Hagedorn leans on the merits of the case . Even if the court permits the purge , such a decision may come too late to affect the November general election .\n● Arkansas : Redistricting reformers have submitted approximately 99,000 signatures to place an amendment on November ’ s ballot to establish an independent redistricting commission . About 89,000 signatures must be found valid , including an amount equivalent to 5 % of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election in at least 15 of Arkansas ’ 75 counties .\nSubmitting only 10,000 more signatures than the minimum needed gives the initiative ’ s backers less margin for error than is typically advised for such an effort , and even supporters estimate that only around 75,000 of their signatures are probably valid . However , Arkansas gives organizers one additional month to gather signatures if their initial submission includes valid signatures equivalent to 75 % of the total needed both statewide and in at least 15 counties .\nSupporters are waging an ongoing federal lawsuit seeking to suspend a requirement that initiative petition signatures be witnessed or notarized in-person . A lower court had temporarily blocked the requirement , allowing voters to sign petitions at home and mail them in , but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a short-term stay of that ruling last month while it decides whether to issue a lengthier stay while the GOP ’ s appeal proceeds .\nSeparately , electoral reform supporters have submitted roughly 95,000 signatures for a different constitutional amendment that would establish a “ top-four ” primary . Under this system , all candidates regardless of party would compete on a single primary ballot , with the top four finishers advancing to a general election that would be decided by instant-runoff voting .\n● Massachusetts : Supporters of a ballot initiative that would enact a statute implementing instant-runoff voting in congressional and state elections have submitted nearly double the 13,000 additional signatures needed to qualify for November ’ s ballot . As a result , it ’ s likely that voters will have a chance to decide whether to make Massachusetts the second state after Maine to adopt this reform for all state and federal races , aside from the presidency .\n● North Dakota : Supporters of a ballot initiative that would amend North Dakota ’ s constitution to reform redistricting and its electoral system have submitted some 37,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot , 27,000 of which must be valid . Officials will determine by Aug. 10 whether the measure has qualified .\nAs we ’ ve previously detailed , this measure would replace traditional primaries with a “ top-four ” system where the four candidates with the most support would advance to the general election regardless of party . From there , instant-runoff voting would be used to determine the winner . Additionally , the measure would require that any voting machines create a paper record of every vote—North Dakota currently uses paper ballots by default and voting machines for voters with disabilities—and that the secretary of state conduct routine audits of elections .\nThe other major change would remove the Republican-dominated legislature ’ s control over state legislative redistricting ( North Dakota only has a single congressional district , which covers the entire state ) . The proposal would hand redistricting over to the state Ethics Commission , which voters created with a 2018 ballot initiative . The commission ’ s five members are chosen by unanimous agreement of the governor and the majority and minority leaders of the state Senate ; they would draw maps using several nonpartisan criteria .\n● San Francisco , CA : The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has unanimously voted to put a referendum on the ballot this November that would amend the city ’ s charter to lower the voting age to 16 in local elections .\nVoters narrowly rejected a similar proposal 52-48 in a 2016 referendum , but if they pass the measure this time , San Francisco would become the first major city in the country to lower the voting age , though a few small localities in Maryland already allow 16-year-olds to vote in local elections .\nRelatedly , all California voters will also get a chance to decide on another November referendum that would amend the state constitution to let 17-year-olds vote in primary elections for all levels of government if they will turn 18 by the time of the general election , a policy that a number of states already allow .\n● Michigan : A federal district court has dismissed a Republican-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Michigan ’ s new independent redistricting commission that voters passed at the ballot box in 2018 . This ruling follows a GOP loss in April before a panel of three judges on the GOP-heavy 6th Circuit Court of Appeals , which had unanimously upheld the lower court ’ s refusal to temporarily block the law creating the commission while the case proceeded on the merits .\nRepublicans had been challenging the new commission in two lawsuits that were consolidated into a single set of proceedings . One lawsuit argued that the new commission violated Republicans ’ First Amendment rights to free speech and association and their 14th Amendment right to equal protection because it imposes prohibitions on who may serve as a commissioner .\nRepublicans argued in the other lawsuit that the process for selecting commissioners violates the GOP ’ s First Amendment rights to freedom of association by preventing political parties from picking their own commissioners . The appeals court rejected both arguments by citing Supreme Court precedent enabling prohibitions on certain individuals serving on the commission , a decision the district court cited in its own ruling .\nThe Republican plaintiffs have not yet announced whether they will appeal but said they are considering their options .\n● New Jersey : Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey have introduced a constitutional amendment that would delay the implementation of new legislative districts from 2021 until 2023 and keep the current districts in place if the Census Bureau is unable to deliver the data from the 2020 census needed to draw new districts on time next year . The Trump administration has already told Congress that it doesn ’ t expect to be able to meet its early 2021 deadlines because of the pandemic and requested a new deadline of July 31 . The proposed amendment would come into effect if the census doesn ’ t certify New Jersey ’ s data by Feb. 15 .\nDemocrats hold the three-fifths supermajorities needed to put the amendment on the ballot without any GOP support , although voters would have to approve it in November for it to take effect . If no amendment passes , however , and the state is unable to meet its deadlines mandated under its constitution , it ’ s unclear what exactly would happen except that litigation would be a certainty .\nNew Jersey has a bipartisan redistricting commission appointed by legislative and state party leaders , and in past decades , a court-appointed tiebreaker has chosen between maps proposed by the two parties rather than draw their own lines . After the 2010 census , the tiebreaking member selected the Democratic proposal , leading the GOP to blast this proposed amendment as a power grab , although common statistical measures find no unfair advantage for Democrats under the current map .\n● District of Columbia : The D.C. Council has once again passed a bill to completely eliminate felony disenfranchisement as part of a larger package of police reforms , repealing and replacing the version it passed last month over what the lead sponsor called “ relatively minor tweaks , ” sending the latest legislation to Mayor Muriel Bowser for her expected signature .\nThe bill would immediately restore voting rights for several thousand citizens and would require officials to provide incarcerated citizens with registration forms and absentee ballots starting next year . However , because it is emergency legislation , it must be reauthorized after 90 days , though Council members plan to make it permanent soon .\nOnce Bowser signs the bill , D.C. would become only the third jurisdiction in the country after Maine and Vermont to maintain the right to vote for incarcerated citizens . It would also be the first place to do so with a large community of color : The District is 46 % African American , and more than 90 % of D.C. residents currently disenfranchised are Black .\n● Florida : Voting rights advocates have asked the Supreme Court to overturn a recent stay by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals of a lower court ruling that had struck down the Florida GOP ’ s poll tax on citizens who have served their felony sentences but owe court fines or fees . If it ’ s put back into effect , the district court ’ s ruling would pave the way for approximately 800,000 citizens who couldn ’ t pay off Florida ’ s predatory court costs to regain their voting rights , a group of citizens that is disproportionately Black .\nSeparately , the 11th Circuit scheduled a hearing on the merits of the case for Aug. 18 , the very same day as Florida ’ s statewide primary and nearly a month after the July 20 voter registration deadline for that election , ensuring that affected voters will be unable to vote in that election if the Supreme Court doesn ’ t intervene .\n● Minnesota : Minnesota officials have announced that they will not appeal a federal district court ruling from June that issued a preliminary injunction blocking a state law that would have listed Democrats last on the ballot in every partisan contest statewide in November after national Democrats sued . The court said that ballot order will be determined randomly for 2020 , though the state ’ s agreement with plaintiffs would give lawmakers a chance to change the law legislatively next year before the case proceeds further . As we ’ ve previously explained , being listed higher on the ballot can give candidates a modest boost , particularly in less-salient downballot races .\n● Indiana : Voting rights advocates have filed a federal lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of a law that Republicans passed in 2019 to prohibit voters , parties , and candidates from asking a court to keep polling locations open past 6 PM local time on Election Day if there are problems with voting . Under current law , only bipartisan county election boards can ask a court to extend polling hours , and only after a unanimous vote .\nThe plaintiffs argue that this law violates the First and 14th Amendments and has a disparate impact on Black and Latino voters . Alongside Kentucky , Indiana is the only state that closes its polls at 6 PM on Election Day ( all others close 7 PM or later ) , and this early closure makes it difficult to vote for people who work on Election Day or are caregivers for children or family members .\n● Iowa : Republican Gov . Kim Reynolds has signed a budget bill into law that makes Iowa ’ s voter ID regime more onerous and makes absentee voting more cumbersome for election officials to facilitate despite an expected surge in mail voting due to the pandemic .\nThe law adds a new requirement that voters present ID if they go to their county government offices to vote early in-person . A second provision requires absentee ballot applications to include the voter ’ s “ voter ID PIN , ” a state-issued four-digit number that few voters are likely aware of .\nIn addition , under the state ’ s previous laws , county officials could verify voter identities using other information on their applications or the state ’ s registration database , but this new law disallows that . Instead , officials would have to contact the voter individually to confirm their identity , which could cause significant delays in processing absentee requests and lead to voters not receiving their ballots in time to vote by mail .\n● Montana : A state court has issued a preliminary injunction blocking a GOP-supported law that makes it a crime for most Montanans to turn in another person ’ s absentee mail ballot , ruling in favor of the Native American advocates who brought a suit arguing that the statute violates the state constitution . The court had previously blocked the law on a short-term basis days before the June 2 primary , but this latest ruling suspends the law until the judge can issue a final ruling on the law , which may not happen until after November ’ s elections .\nThe law in question was approved by voters in 2018 after Republican legislators placed it on the ballot to circumvent a veto from Democratic Gov . Steve Bullock . It makes it a felony to turn in someone else ’ s absentee ballot unless the person doing so is the voter ’ s family member , caregiver , household member , or acquaintance , and even those individuals may turn in no more than six others ’ absentee ballots . Only postal workers and election officials are fully exempt .\nMontana is one of a few states that lets voters opt into permanently receiving an absentee mail ballot in all elections , which is intended to make it easier to vote . In addition , the pandemic prompted officials to mail every voter a ballot for the June 2 primary , and mail voting is likely to be very popular in November . However , because many Native Americans living on remote reservations lack reliable postal service and access to transportation , many ask others who do not face such barriers to turn in their ballots for them .\nRepublican state Attorney General Tim Fox and Secretary of State Corey Stapleton have not yet indicated whether they will appeal , though the lead GOP sponsor of the law said he hoped that they would .\n● Electoral College : On Monday , the U.S. Supreme Court rejected two legal challenges to the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting “ faithless electors ” in the Electoral College , ruling that states may enforce their laws that require the replacement of electors attempting to vote for a candidate other than the one whose slate they appeared on . Faithless elector bans are the law in 32 states and the District of Columbia , but only 15 states have provisions that actually enforce those bans by requiring faithless electors to be replaced with faithful ones .\nThe 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Colorado ’ s ban on faithless electors last year , but Washington ’ s Supreme Court upheld its state ’ s ban . The losers in both lawsuits had appealed to the Supreme Court , which ultimately upheld Washington ’ s ruling and overturned the case out of Colorado .\nSupporters of overturning faithless elector bans brought their cases in the hopes that victory would undermine public support for the Electoral College and lead to reforms abolishing it . However , justices such as Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh raised concern that doing so would “ lead to chaos ” and a “ massive campaign to try to influence electors ” in a close election , which could open the door to corruption , blackmail , and potentially the disenfranchisement of voters .\nAlthough the cases did not address the ongoing effort to reform the Electoral College by having states with a majority of electoral votes to pledge their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner , it may nevertheless neutralize one of the several potential legal threats to this project , known as National Popular Vote Interstate Compact . That ’ s because the court validated the notion that the Constitution grants the states sweeping authority to determine how they award their electors , although other potential constitutional challenges remain if the compact attains enough member states to enter into effect .\n● Mississippi : This fall , Mississippi voters will have their chance to repeal a provision of the state ’ s Jim Crow-era constitution that deliberately penalizes Black voters and the Democrats they support in elections for statewide office . However , the proposed change could end up replacing one major hurdle for Democratic candidates with another .\nLast week , Republican Gov . Tate Reeves signed a bill placing a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would change the way the state conducts elections by eliminating Mississippi ’ s version of the Electoral College , a key feature of the state ’ s 1890 constitution that proponents openly announced was enacted “ to secure to the State of Mississippi ‘ white supremacy . ' ”\nThe provision in question requires candidates for statewide offices such as governor or attorney general to win not only a majority of the vote but also a majority of the state House ’ s 122 districts . If no candidate surpasses both thresholds , the members of the House choose the winner , and there ’ s nothing to stop them from picking the person who lost the popular vote .\nAfter Republicans took control of the legislature in 2011 , they redrew their own districts to guarantee they ’ d never lose their grip on power . They did so by making sure a majority of districts would be heavily white and , therefore , heavily Republican . As a result , they not only gerrymandered the state House , they gerrymandered every statewide election , too . The effect was so pronounced that in last year ’ s race for governor , which Democrat Jim Hood lost by 52-47 , Hood would likely have had to win by 15 points just to have a shot at carrying 62 House districts .\nThis proposed amendment would no longer require candidates for statewide office to carry a majority of the state House districts , but it would mandate a separate general election runoff if no candidate earned a majority of the vote . Georgia has had a similar runoff law on the books for years , and those runoffs have consistently seen turnout plummet and hurt Democratic candidates . If Mississippi Republicans wanted to ensure candidates are elected with majority support , they could instead replace the current system with instant-runoff voting or another preferential voting system that would eliminate the need for a separate runoff election .\nEven if this amendment fails to pass , it may not be the last word . Last year , a group of Black voters challenged this mini-Electoral College in federal court on the grounds that it violated the Constitution ’ s guarantee of one person , one vote . While the judge who heard the case agreed , he put the suit on hold to give lawmakers time to correct the problem themselves . If they fail to , the judge said , he ’ d allow litigants to once more pursue their claims .\nPlease bookmark our litigation tracker for a complete summary of the latest developments in every lawsuit regarding changes to elections and voting procedures as a result of the coronavirus .\n● Colorado : The Colorado Supreme Court , which has a 6-1 majority of Democratic appointees , has unanimously overturned Democratic Gov . Jared Polis ’ executive order that had allowed ballot initiative supporters to gather voter signatures by mail or email , siding with the business groups that brought the case and reinstating a requirement that signatures be witnessed in-person . This ruling may make it impossible for some measures to qualify for the ballot ahead of the Aug. 3 deadline to submit signatures .\n● Michigan : The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to stay a district court ruling that required Michigan to either lower the number of signatures needed to put initiatives on November ’ s ballot or give supporters more time to gather them . The state has not yet indicated whether they will appeal the stay while the case proceeds on the merits .\n● New Hampshire : Advocates for blind voters have filed a federal lawsuit arguing that New Hampshire makes it impossible for them to exercise their right to vote a secret ballot using an absentee ballot . They want the court to require that New Hampshire let voters with such disabilities use the same absentee voting system available to military and overseas voters , which allows voters to fill out their ballots using a computer and print them out to mail them in .\n● New York : Civil rights advocates have filed a federal lawsuit objecting to New York ’ s procedures for rejecting absentee ballots . They aim to avoid a repeat of 2018 , when New York had the highest rate of rejected mail ballots in the country , with 14 % of such ballots invalidated . The plaintiffs are challenging how ballots with problems such as a signature either missing or not matching the one on file are rejected without notifying voters . They want the state to require that voters be alerted and given a chance to remedy the problem in a timely manner .\n● North Carolina : Voters who are suing North Carolina in state court to make it easier to vote absentee have amended their lawsuit to include a request for 21 extra days of in-person early voting . The case remains pending before a lower court .\nSeparately , the ACLU has filed a new lawsuit in state court to suspend the requirement that absentee voters have someone witness their ballot in-person . The GOP legislature with the support of Democrats passed a law earlier this year to require only one witness instead of two witnesses or a notary . However , even one required witness is more than most states mandate and has been waived by courts this year in other states with such requirements on their books .\n● Oregon : Redistricting reformers announced on Wednesday that they had failed to obtain enough signatures by the July 2 deadline to put an initiative on the November ballot that would establish an independent redistricting commission . However , their campaign isn ’ t over just yet thanks to a lawsuit that organizers filed in federal court shortly ahead of the deadline . The plaintiffs are asking the court to lower the number of signatures needed , which is currently about 150,000 , and for an extension of the deadline to submit them .\nReformers did not reveal how many signatures they had already submitted to the state , only saying it was in the “ tens of thousands. ” It ’ s unclear whether they will be able to meet the requirements if only one or the other of their two requests are granted and not both , since they lack the ability to obtain signatures electronically and instead have to direct supporters to an online form that must be printed out and mailed in to officials .\n● Pennsylvania : The Trump campaign and several Republican Congress members have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to prohibit counties from setting up drop boxes or locations aside from the county board office for voters to return their absentee mail ballots . They also want to bar officials from counting mail ballots that aren ’ t placed in a secrecy envelope and allow Pennsylvanians to serve as poll watchers across the state regardless of which county they live in .\nThese provisions would add onerous burdens for mail voting access , and the measure on poll watchers in particular appears intended to encourage voter intimidation in urban communities of color in cities like Philadelphia . At one 2016 campaign rally , Trump listed several cities with large Black populations—including Philadelphia—and urged his supporters to volunteer as poll watchers in them .\n● Puerto Rico : Governor Wanda Vázquez of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party ( known by its Spanish acronym , PNP ) signed a bill into law making changes to Puerto Rico ’ s election code late last month only after lawmakers removed a contentious provision that would have enabled online voting for absentee voters this year and set the island on a path to transition entirely to universal online voting by 2028 . Lawmakers removed the provision after election security experts expressed alarm at the major risk of hacking with such a system .\nVázquez ’ s party passed the final bill over the objections of the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party , or PPD , which is the island ’ s other major party . The bill expanded early voting and eligibility for mail voting , but the PPD denounced it as a power grab . Opposition lawmakers claimed it would allow Puerto Ricans who ’ ve left the island for the mainland to vote absentee in an effort to bolster the PNP ’ s support , which has been hurt by scandals that culminated in Vázquez ’ s predecessor resigning last year .\n● South Carolina : South Carolina ’ s state Election Commission has announced that it will provide prepaid postage on all absentee ballots this year amid an ongoing federal lawsuit by Democrats seeking to ease access to absentee voting . Democrats are still challenging the requirement that voters must provide a valid excuse , which the GOP waived for the primaries but has left untouched for November .\n● Tennessee : Republican officials announced that they plan to enforce parts of a 2019 law restricting absentee voting eligibility despite a recent state court ruling that allows all voters to cast an absentee ballot due to concerns over COVID-19 . The law requires that newly registered voters who registered by mail , a voter registration drive , or public assistance offices must vote in-person the first time . Black voters in particular have been more likely to register through registration drives in recent years , exposing them to a disproportionate impact .\nRepublicans passed this restriction in 2019 in reaction to a 2018 surge in Black voter registrations . The law added criminal penalties to certain components of voter registration drives in an effort intended to make them all but impossible to conduct . While the GOP subsequently repealed some of those provisions regarding registration drives after a court ruling had curtailed them , other provisions of the law remain in effect , such as one that makes it a crime to pay workers based on the number of registrations they gather instead of paying them hourly or allowing them to volunteer .\nHowever , the GOP ’ s decision to enforce this in-person voting requirement for these registrants is not the final word , as the plaintiffs in the case that loosened the absentee voting restrictions are challenging this mandate as well . Republicans are currently appealing that ruling to the state Supreme Court , although the high court refused to stay the lower court ’ s decision while the appeal proceeds .


The federal government is warning a former National Football League player 's company to stop advertising his medicinal cannabis products as treatments for the novel coronavirus .\nThe Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration sent a warning letter to that effect on Tuesday to the Las Vegas headquarters of Neuro XPF , which is owned by former NFL offensive tackle Kyle Turley . Turley insists that CBD , a popular non-psychoactive cannabis derivative , can cure the coronavirus .\nIn fact , Neuro XPF had an entire page of its website , headlined “ CRUSH CORONA , ” devoted to those claims . “ Your best defense against the COVID-19 blitz starts with a strong immune system , ” the page claimed , and “ a growing body of scientific evidence shows that CBD can help keep your immune system at the top of its game . ”\n“ We want everyone to take CBD and take advantage of its potential to help prepare your body to fight a coronavirus infection , ” Neuro XPF said . “ So , we ’ re making all of our products more affordable . ”\nThose claims quickly drew the ire of federal regulators that have cracked down of late on advertisements and scams hawking medically dubious coronavirus treatments .\n“ FDA is taking urgent measures to protect consumers from certain products that , without approval or authorization by FDA , claim to mitigate , prevent , treat , diagnose , or cure COVID-19 in people , ” the agencies ’ joint letter advised . “ We request that you take immediate action to cease the sale of such unapproved and unauthorized products for the mitigation , prevention , treatment , diagnosis , or cure of COVID-19 . ”\nA failure to comply , the agencies warned , “ may result in legal action , including , without limitation , seizure and injunction . ”\nIt appears that Turley ’ s company did , in the end , comply . The CRUSH CORONA page , which was active as late as March 29 , has since been taken down . The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment .\nIn his own public communications , Turley , a first-round 1998 NFL draft pick who spent much of his career with the Saints before retiring in 2007 , is adamant that his products are a coronavirus panacea . “ CBD CAN PREVENT AND CURE THE CORONA VIRUS ! ” he tweeted last month . He also insists that the drug cured his wife ’ s skin cancer .\nTurley has spurned colleagues in the recreational and medicinal cannabis industry who have criticized him for his outlandish claims about the products ’ medical benefits . Critics are “ scared to say too much because we don ’ t want the government , we don ’ t want the man , to start coming down on us , ” he told Marijuana Moment on Tuesday .\n“ Well guess what ? ” he added . “ I was a first round draft pick , I made millions of dollars , god saved my life through this plant and I live in America . So get used to it ... And I ’ m going to continue to spread his word . ”


Washington ( CNN ) President Donald Trump made yet another false claim about coronavirus testing on Wednesday , wrongly saying at a White House briefing that the US is conducting more tests than any governor probably even wants . In fact , numerous governors , including Republicans , have said that more testing is necessary .\nTrump also continued to embellish about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 's February 24 visit to San Francisco 's Chinatown , inaccurately saying that she had held a Chinatown `` rally . '' He continued to insist that his travel restrictions on China were a `` ban , '' though they contained significant exemptions . And he threw in an old false claim about Michelle Obama for good measure .\nTrump bragged about the level of coronavirus testing in the US and played down criticism from medical professionals that there still is n't enough testing to get a handle of the pandemic .\n`` Ultimately , we 're doing more testing , I think , than probably any of the governors even want , '' Trump said , suggesting that his administration was leading the way on coronavirus testing .\nTrump later said that `` not everybody believes as strongly as some people on testing . '' And suggesting that calls for more testing are some sort of partisan plot , he claimed that `` some people want ( us ) to do testing because they think it 's impossible for us to fulfill that goal . ''\nFacts First : Trump is off the mark . There have been bipartisan calls from governors and medical professionals for the Trump administration to ramp up testing and give states the supplies they need to get it done . There is no evidence that calls for more tests are some sort of anti-Trump plot ; nonpartisan public health experts have said it 's critical for the government to significantly increase the level of testing as part of any plan to end social distancing and lift economic restrictions .\nEven as Trump shifts his rhetoric to reopening the country , governors from both parties say they need more testing or that they 're still struggling to obtain the testing materials they need . This includes Republican governors from Ohio , Nebraska , Maryland , Massachusetts , South Dakota and Wyoming\nDuring the same briefing on Wednesday , Surgeon General Jerome Adams , a Trump appointee who has been a strong defender of the President during the pandemic , acknowledged that `` many different groups '' have talked to the administration about testing , `` and we hear that testing is absolutely a concern . ''\nIt 's not clear who Trump is referring to when he says some `` not everybody believes as strongly as some people '' in testing . While skeptics certainly exist , there is a strong consensus among public health and elected officials that testing is pivotal . These views are shared by major business executives , doctors , and even some Trump appointees , including Dr. Scott Gottlieb , his former chief of the Food and Drug Administration .\nDuring Wednesday 's press briefing , Trump repeated a false claim he 's made numerous times about the travel restrictions imposed on China due to the coronavirus .\nHe once again described the restrictions as a `` ban '' and claimed that `` if we did n't close our country to China , we would have been so infected like nobody 's ever seen . ''\nFacts First : Trump 's comments are misleading because he did not `` close our country to China . '' On February 2 , the United States began Trump 's comments are misleading because he did not `` close our country to China . '' On February 2 , the United States began implementing travel restrictions that denied entry to foreign nationals who had visited China within 14 days of arrival in the United States . But the travel restrictions contain exemptions for US citizens who had visited China , which makes Trump 's characterization that there was a `` ban '' misleading .\nAs of February 2 , US citizens who had been in China 's Hubei province in the two weeks prior to their return to the United States are subject to a mandatory quarantine of up to 14 days upon their return to the US . American citizens returning from the rest of mainland China may also face up to 14 days of quarantine after undergoing health screenings at selected ports of entry .\nOnly foreign nationals who have visited China within the past 14 days are temporarily banned from entering the United States .\nDespite publicly disagreeing with Georgia Gov . Brian Kemp 's decision to open up businesses such as barbershops and tattoo parlors , Trump reiterated his past support for the governor . He compared his efforts to get Kemp elected with those of Democrats , erroneously claiming that Michelle Obama joined her husband in campaigning for Kemp 's opponent .\n`` As you know , Brian Kemp , governor of Georgia , I worked very hard for his election , he beat their superstar , he beat the superstar of their party . I think you can say I helped a lot , '' Trump said , `` Michelle Obama , Barack Obama , Oprah Winfrey they all went in , they campaigned for him very , very hard and he lost . ''\nFacts First : Michelle Obama did not campaign for either of Kemp 's opponents . Kemp beat Republican Lt. Gov . Casey Cagle , a man , in the primary and Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams , a woman , in the general election .\nWhile Trump 's comments make it unclear which of Kemp 's opponents he 's referring to specifically , he has claimed on multiple occasions that both the Obamas and Winfrey campaigned for Abrams . While Barack Obama and Winfrey did , Michelle Obama did not .\nTrump again exaggerated about Pelosi 's visit to San Francisco 's Chinatown on February 24 , this time claiming Pelosi was having a `` rally in San Francisco , in Chinatown . ''


She advocates limiting social media consumption and finding opportunities to help others and live in a purpose-driven way . “ When we ’ re using our skills , resources , and capacities to contribute to the betterment of society , ” she says , “ that really is known to elevate and protect our well-being through times of difficulty . ”\n“ Sometimes a crisis can give us a lot of fear but it can also prompt us to think deeper and to think better , ” says Dr. Kristen Lee , a behavioral science expert at Northeastern University in Boston who cautions against “ hype contagion . ”\nConspiracy theories have spread faster than the virus itself . Scientific papers are being hastily released – and debunked . The Trump administration has alleged a foreign disinformation campaign to spread fear . As everyone from data scientists to pastors try to address this parallel challenge , dubbed an “ infodemic ” by the World Health Organization , many see an opportunity for society to come together in this crisis and emerge the stronger for it .\nIt ’ s one thing to quarantine people , it ’ s another to contain the fear and false information that ’ s gone viral in the world ’ s first social media pandemic .\nOne thing quarantines can ’ t stop is the spread of false information and fear on Facebook and other popular platforms . In the world ’ s first social media pandemic , that presents a parallel set of challenges for citizens and leaders alike .\nMany have found social media an effective tool for rapidly conveying official guidelines and recommended practices , as well as for connecting with each other and supporting the most vulnerable in society . But mixed in has been a torrent of misguided advice and inaccurate claims – including from supposedly scientific studies . This false information has amplified concerns in ways that have made it difficult to ascertain clearly the scope of the global health challenge and how best to address it .\nThe director-general of the World Health Organization has called on governments , companies , and news outlets around the globe to tackle an “ infodemic ” of fake news , which he characterized as being as dangerous as the coronavirus itself . The U.S. State Department ’ s foreign propaganda-busting center has compiled a report on some 2 million tweets spreading conspiracy theories about the epidemic , concluding that at least some of the activity was due to coordinated campaigns involving fake accounts , according to The Washington Post . And amid the swirl of dire predictions , a microbiology professor in Spain has deemed this a “ pandemic of fear . ”\nIndeed , fear and false information have gone viral . Everyone from data scientists and doctors to psychologists and pastors are weighing in on how to contain this infodemic and its attendant effects . Many see an opportunity for society and individuals to come out of this crisis the stronger for it .\n“ Sometimes a crisis can give us a lot of fear but it can also prompt us to think deeper and to think better , ” says Kristen Lee , a behavioral science professor at Northeastern University in Boston who cautions against “ hype contagion . ”\nTo avoid the sometimes paralyzing effects of fear , she advocates limiting social media consumption and finding opportunities to help others and live in a purpose-driven way . “ When we ’ re using our skills , resources , and capacities to contribute to the betterment of society , ” Dr. Lee says , “ that really is known to elevate and protect our well-being through times of difficulty . ”\nClaudio Furlan/LaPresse/AP People walk past a billboard reading `` Andra tutto bene , '' which is Italian for `` Everything will be alright , '' in Milan , Italy . Amid a nationwide lockdown to slow the spread of the coronavirus , Italians are finding ways to come together virtually in solidarity . This week , children ’ s drawings of rainbows are appearing all over social media as well as on balconies and windows in major cities .\nCarl Bergstrom , a biologist at the University of Washington , says half-jokingly that he was “ pre-designed ” for this crisis , with a background in studying novel infectious diseases as well as how information spreads through networks from ant colonies to Facebook .\nAs he ’ s monitored false information online about COVID-19 , he ’ s seen everything from anti-China conspiracy theories including the intentional development of coronavirus as a bioweapon to “ snake-oil salesmen ” peddling fake cures . Those cures have included special toothpaste and potions , prompting a spoof from comedian John Oliver who offered “ Premium Werewolf Solution ” for $ 49.99 .\nOne of the challenges of combating false information is the underlying architecture of social media and the algorithms that drive it .\n“ What goes viral doesn ’ t have a lot to do with what ’ s true , it has to do with what ’ s shocking , ” says Professor Bergstrom , who commends social media companies for trying to prevent misinformation from spreading on their platforms . “ On the one hand , kudos to them for doing that . On the other hand , the problem exists in an ecosystem of their making . ”\nIn addition to the often well-intentioned sharing of unverified information that turns out to be false , another threat is organized disinformation campaigns designed to distract , distort , and deceive .\nWhen the crisis ramped up last week , there was a four- to five-day window in which official communication channels were relatively unfettered by such campaigns , says Marc Ambinder , a digital fellow at the University of Southern California studying disinformation and cybersecurity around elections . But , he adds , if the number of cases spikes , “ there ’ s going to be more anxiety , and the purveyors of disinformation in this arms race are going to regain their footing very quickly . ”\nThe Trump administration has alleged that a foreign disinformation campaign is underway to sow fear . This past weekend , the National Security Council tweeted , “ Text message rumors of a national # quarantine are FAKE . There is no national lockdown. ” Governors and mayors have issued similar missives . And the Pentagon has called out China for spreading “ false & absurd conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID-19 blaming U.S. service members . ”\nAn internal European Union document describes a “ significant disinformation campaign by Russian state media and pro-Kremlin outlets regarding COVID-19 ” in numerous languages designed to “ exacerbate confusion , panic and fear ” and thereby undermine public trust in authorities and national health care systems . Messages in Spanish , for example , “ advance apocalyptic stories , blame capitalists for trying to benefit from the virus , and emphasise how well Russia and [ President Vladimir ] Putin are dealing with the outbreak , ” according to a Financial Times report .\nNicholas Christakis , a physician and sociologist at Yale who has become a prominent voice on COVID-19 , complained on Twitter of having gained the unwanted attention of lots of Russian bots . “ Their intent seems to be to waste my time . Their psychological tricks are incredible , ” he wrote .\nToomas Hendrik Ilves , the former president of Estonia , which is a leader in countering disinformation , responded that attempts to disrupt , disinform , and dismay are par for the course . He tweeted back , “ No need to interact . Block . ”\nEver since I started tweeting useful and accurate information about coronavirus , I seem to have attracted the attention of a lot of Russian bots ( with 50 followers and nutty twitter streams ) . Their intent seems to be to waste my time . Their psychological tricks are incredible . — Nicholas A. Christakis ( @ NAChristakis ) March 16 , 2020\nIn this turgid information environment , it has been difficult for leaders to find “ a healthy balance between conveying calm and being frank about troubling facts , ” as former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. advised in a Washington Post op-ed last week . Imparting lessons he learned from helping to steer the nation through the 2008 economic crisis , he called fear “ as big an enemy as the virus itself . ”\nTo be sure , minimizing or ignoring information from official sources carries its own dangers , and there is disagreement about what constitutes an “ appropriate ” level of fear . Some say fear spurs people into necessary action . But it can also lead to poor decision-making and unnecessary worry , and negatively affect one ’ s health .\n“ After working for 45 years in the field of psychiatry , I have seen fear cause a lot of long-term consequences in people ’ s lives , ” says Dr. Mary Moller , associate professor of nursing at Pacific Lutheran University in Washington and the 2018 American Psychiatric Nurses Association ’ s Psychiatric Nurse of the Year . “ Ultimately , over time , it can lead to compromising your immune system . ”\nIn addition to mental health professionals ’ efforts to help people address their fears , faith leaders are also pointing seekers to spiritual sources and encouraging them to minister to their neighbors .\n“ There ’ s not only a physical toll but there ’ s a psychological , emotional , and spiritual toll that we need to be aware of and we need to pray through , ” says Derwin Gray , lead elder-pastor of Transformation Church in Indian Land , South Carolina , citing scriptural promises of reassurance . “ When we are serving other people ’ s needs , that ’ s when we tend to be the most healthy . ”\nComing together to work through this crisis could be a catalyst for human progress , says virologist Anjeanette Roberts , who worked on SARS for three years and serves as a research scholar with Reasons to Believe .\n“ It ’ s the crises that have the ability to bring out the very best in us because it makes us lay aside what we tend to focus on that can divide us , ” says Dr. Roberts , a public advocate of her Christian faith who is deeply concerned about the level of polarization in American society today . “ We have gotten really far away from the idea of ‘ Do unto others as you would have them do unto you . ’ ”\nNow , with a global health challenge that has neighbors leaning out their windows and singing together , younger people going grocery shopping for their older neighbors , little kids leaving drawings in every mailbox in their neighborhood , and many other examples of people helping each other , some see an opportunity not only to survive the crisis but come out stronger for it .\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nPastor Gray says , “ I think it ’ s putting us in a place of saying , ‘ Wow , maybe I do need a hope and a power and a strength and a love that is beyond me . ’ ”


During a briefing at the White House Tuesday afternoon , Press Secretary Kayleigh McEneny corrected Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren after she presented false Wuhan coronavirus data at a Senate hearing earlier in the day .\n`` I talk to Dr. Birx regularly . In fact , I talked to her just before I came out here because I had some questions about some funny numbers I heard from Elizabeth Warren and she helped me to correct those numbers which I 'd like to correct here because I think it 's unfair to the American people to give inflated case numbers and mortality numbers because it leads to those same Americans making a decision to not get a mammogram , to not have the cancer screenings they need so I 'd like to reveal some information Dr. Birx just shared with me , '' McEnany said .\n`` Elizabeth Warren erroneously said there were 25,000 new cases today , in fact there were less than 20,000 . Senator Warren said there were 2000 deaths , in fact there have been less than a 1000 . I spoke to Dr. Birx about that so I would encourage our Democrat colleagues and all Americans to make sure we 're putting out good information because it does have consequences , '' she continued .\nMeanwhile , the White House continues to help states access testing supplies in order to get through the three-phase reopening guidelines issued by the Wuhan coronavirus task force last month .\n`` President Trump will continue to fight for the health , safety , and economic wellbeing of ALL Americans , especially those impacted in low-income communities and disadvantaged communities . '' — @ PressSec pic.twitter.com/zVwlX1smhJ — The White House ( @ WhiteHouse ) May 12 , 2020


fighting an “ infodemic ” of rumors and misinformation , and you can help . Read our coronavirus fact checks . Submit any questionable rumors and “ advice ” you encounter . Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers . And , please , follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease . As governments fight the COVID-19 pandemic , ███ isan “ infodemic ” of rumors and misinformation , and you can help.our coronavirus fact checks.any questionable rumors and “ advice ” you encounter.to help us hire more fact-checkers . And , please , follow theorfor guidance on protecting your community from the disease .\nMicrosoft founder Bill Gates is a rich man . He has put some of that wealth toward charitable organizations and initiatives through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation . A primary focus of that foundation , and of Gates ’ philanthropy in general , is the reduction of inequalities in health outcomes , with a focus on the developing world . Via these organizations , he also funds research into technological solutions to public health problems in the poorest communities globally . Since 2015 , he has been raising alarms about the world ’ s potentially catastrophic lack of preparedness for a pandemic .\nIn part because of his advocacy for vaccines , Gates has also been a major recipient of the anti-vaccine movement ’ s vitriol for well over a decade . Years of manufactured animosity built by false claims from these anti-vaccine groups have , as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded , combined with the dubious claims of doomsday soothsayers and cryptocurrency Youtubers to create a sprawling COVID-19 conspiracy theory centered on Gates .\nThe basic allegation against Gates goes like this : He is using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to push a vaccine with a microchip capable of tracking you along with the rest of the world population .\nFrom a factual standpoint , Gates has never proposed or funded research into the development of a vaccine — for COVID-19 or for anything else — that includes the injection of a device that could actively track your location , monitor anything you are doing , or “ control ” you .\nThe Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation did fund a pilot study conducted by MIT and Rice University researchers into a potential vaccine-delivery device that could impart an invisible mark detectable by a smartphone . This study was theoretical , the technology described was passive , and the device was incapable of any sort of tracking or monitoring . Still , much of the credence lent to the false notion that Gates has designs to track you using vaccines comes from mixing the existence of that pilot study with another public health concept Gates is actively involved in researching called a “ digital identity . ”\nThe basic premise behind a digital ( or decentralized ) identity in the context of Gates ’ work is simple : It would involve some sort of cloud-based storage of medical and/or personal-identification documents accessible only with the consent of the owner but available anywhere in the world . Crucially , such a concept , whose central scientific challenges are in the realm of encryption and blockchains , has nothing to do with anything injected into the body . Despite this , conspiracy theorists falsely use Gates ’ support for digital identity initiatives as evidence of his intentions to build a vaccine-enabled surveillance state .\nAs someone who has funded general research into vaccines and pandemics , Gates has made several public statements on the present crisis . Broadly speaking , these statements reflect Gates ’ commitment to researching and developing both treatments and vaccines for COVID-19 , and to stressing the need for a scalable method to quickly identify people who have either recovered from COVID-19 or received a vaccination against it as a means to restart the global economy . For example , in an interview with Chris Anderson , who runs TED Talks , Gates indicated he believes some sort of “ immunity certificate ” will be instrumental in reopening the global economy :\nEventually what we ’ ll have to have is certificates of who ’ s a recovered person and who ’ s a vaccinated person , because you don ’ t want people moving around the world where you ’ ll have some countries that won ’ t have it under control . Sadly . You don ’ t want to completely block off the ability for those people to go there and come back and move around . So eventually there will be sort of this digital immunity proof that will help facilitate the global reopening up .\nIn a Reddit “ Ask Me Anything ” ( AMA ) discussion from March 2020 , Gates further detailed his views on disease surveillance in the United States :\nThe testing in the US is not organized yet . In the next few weeks I hope the government fixes this by having a website you can go to to find out about home testing and kiosks . Things are a bit confused on this right now . In Seattle , the [ University of Washington ] is providing thousands of tests per day but no one is connected to a national tracking system . Whenever there is a positive test it should be seen to understand where the disease is and whether we need to strengthen the social distancing .\nGates has praised the more extreme disease-surveillance measures taken by South Korea as a model for future pandemic preparedness . South Korea has had considerable success in limiting deaths from COVID-19 thanks in large part to aggressive “ contact tracing , ” described in an April 2020 report by the Brookings Institute :\nSouth Korea was effective in tracing people who may have come into contact with those who tested positive for COVID-19 . Nearly all South Korean citizens have smartphones and use credit cards , so when someone tests positive , the government can trace where they have been , at what time , and what mode of transportation they used . With this data , the government can trace the potentially infected population , using CCTV footage to identify potential contacts when needed . Those in close contact with the infected are asked to get tested , while indirect contacts are ordered to self-quarantine for fourteen days . This is an arduous process , but the South Korean government has maintained the ability to trace and contact potentially infected persons .\nThe theory that Bill Gates wants to use a vaccine to track people based on any of these statements or views is flawed for at least two reasons . First , nothing he has advocated for above necessitates injecting a tracking device into a body . Instead these theoretical technologies would rely on a combination of biometric identification , encryption , and cloud storage of data . Second , as shown by South Korea , the injection of tracking devices via vaccines would likely be a waste of time , given the fact that most of humanity is constantly connected to a GPS enabled smartphone that probably knows more about you than your parents .\nThe sole bit of evidence used to suggest Bill Gates ’ interest in adding anything that resembles a microchip in vaccines stems from his foundation ’ s funding of a study , published in Science Translational Medicine in December 2019 , that “ developed dissolvable microneedles that deliver patterns of near-infrared light-emitting microparticles to the skin ” that can , when exposed to certain frequencies of light , “ identify the immunization status of infants. ” In several developing countries , a lack of reliable immunization records can , the authors argued , affect the quality of care provided .\nThe study — which was not conducted on human subjects — did not describe the injection of a “ microchip ” co-administered with a vaccine . Instead , it described the use of something referred to as a quantum dot . These dots are essentially molecule-sized particles engineered to have unique structures that react to near-infrared light in a way that could theoretically be identified by a device such as a smartphone . It is physically impossible to implant a quantum dot sized device that could actively ping location or any other data to an unknown third party .\nFurther , this sort of research — if it ever came to fruition in the first place — is in its infancy , and would be years away from actual implementation anywhere , let alone in a potential COVID-19 vaccine that scientists estimate could be available potentially within 18 months . Nonetheless , this study is crucial to the conspiracy theory , as that narrative is dependent on conflating quantum dots with Gates ’ work in digital identities . That ’ s why it is important to understand the misrepresentations made of the Gates-funded group ID2020 .\nID2020 , or the Digital Identity Alliance , is a 501c3 non-profit funded by a diverse range of foundations and corporate sponsors — including Microsoft and the Gates-funded vaccine non-profit GAVI — that provides grants for practical research into the real-world application of digital identities :\nThe ID2020 Alliance provides funding and other forms of material support for high-impact and high-quality digital identity projects that are privacy-protecting , user-centric , and designed for scale , impact , and replicability . Proposals are accepted on a rolling basis at various stages of development . Any individual or organization meeting the required application and evaluation criteria is welcome to submit a proposal .\nSeveral of the projects funded by ID2020 have been characterized by anti-vaccine activists as using the poor and vulnerable as scientific guinea pigs involving the implantation of a device that infringes on their privacy . Outside of the fact that none of these projects involve injecting subjects with anything , the philosophical premise implied by such claims is also in direct opposition to what ID2020 seeks to accomplish . Its goal , however lofty , is to develop a system in which the individual has complete control over personal identification or health documentation . The end product would be a system that allows this sort of information to be accessible anywhere in the world but only with your consent . The ID2020 manifesto makes this explicit :\nOver 1 billion people worldwide are unable to prove their identity through any recognized means . As such , they are without the protection of law , and are unable to access basic services , participate as a citizen or voter , or transact in the modern economy . … We believe that individuals must have control over their own digital identities , including how personal data is collected , used , and shared . Everyone should be able to assert their identity across institutional and national borders , and across time . Privacy , portability , and persistence are necessary for digital identity to meaningfully empower and protect individuals .\nOne pilot project funded by ID2020 is MyPass , which is an effort to provide digital identification to the homeless population of Austin , Texas . The project , still in its infancy , seeks to create an online , cloud-based repository of identification and medical documents . Early versions of the pilot study would likely use some combination of a QR code card given to participating individuals , but future work could involve biometrics like fingerprints or IRIS scans . Importantly , the participants in the study volunteered to be in it , can opt out at any time , and did not and will not have anything injected into them . Another project , currently active in Bangladesh and Tanzania , seeks to test the viability of tying infant fingerprints to digital identities .\nThese projects are small pilot studies with limited relevance to the current COVID-19 pandemic , and none of them involves injecting anything into anyone , let alone something that would contain the functionality that would enable any sort of active tracking or surveillance . Still , conspiracy theorists have pushed the above facts into an unfounded but paranoid narrative .\nAs stated above , Bill Gates has been interested in using vaccines to combat health inequalities for over a decade . Though it has no relevance to the claims at issue for COVID-19 , the assertion that Bill Gates ’ interest in vaccines stems from a goal of “ depopulating ” the world is almost universally included as part of that narrative as a means to imbue Gate ’ s actions with nefarious intent . That false conclusion stems from a grotesque misreading of Gates ’ argument that communities with access to vaccination tend to have lower birth rates because reduced childhood mortality means more children will survive into adulthood .\nAs also discussed above : Gates has been interested in , and financially supportive of , the concept of digital identification as another means of reducing health inequality globally . The narrative pushed by conspiracy theorists involves conflating the concept of a digital identification with the injection of a device . For example , appearing in an interview by far-right Christian conspiracy theorist Rick Wiles ’ on his TruNews platform , a guest asserted without evidence that both concepts were directly related :\nWhat Bill Gates said was eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered , who has been tested … and we will have [ a record of who ] received [ a COVID-19 ] through that digital certificate . Now that digital certificate might just sound like something simple . Maybe it ’ s a computer document . That ’ s not exactly what ’ s going on here . … . This project has researchers at MIT and Rice University with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation working to create that digital certificate system . It ’ s going to be a chip that actually is implanted into humans .\nAs previously explained , the MIT/Rice study was not conducted by the ID2020 alliance , and ID2020-funded projects are not experimenting with injecting things into people . Natural News , a supplement store and alternative health conspiracy blog , similarly conflated digital identity with quantum dot technology to portray Gates as an agent of Satan :\nKeep in mind that this all coincides with the ID2020 agenda , which aims to create a global digital identification system for every person on Earth . As we ’ ve reported in the past , ID2020 and vaccines are being used together to harvest the biometric identities of all mankind , and all for the purpose of creating the global system of tracking and control that was foretold in the book of Revelation . They ’ ve already begun to test ID2020 in Bangladesh , inserting digital IDs in the bodies of newborn babies along with their vaccinations . And Bill Gates is now talking about how so-called “ quantum dot tattoos ” are the next wave of biometrics identification , also to be inserted in people ’ s bodies through vaccination .\nIgnoring the fact that ID2020 is not a product capable of being “ tested , ” the Bangladesh project Natural News references here does not involve dead babies , nor does it involve the “ insertion ” of anything into anyone . It ’ s an exercise in imaging infant fingerprints .\nIn sum , the contention that Gates is using COVID-19 as a pretense to inject monitoring devices into humans relies on a misrepresentation of the research he has funded , the methods those projects have employed , and confusion over what a “ digital identity ” seeks to achieve . If and when a vaccine for COVID-19 comes , it will not be capable of tracking your movements or reporting any data to any entity whatsoever . None of the technology discussed by Gates here is even capable of such a task .\nPandemics are global catastrophes with few easy answers . Gates , a private citizen with no ability to mandate policy or govern international health organizations , has spent over a decade funding research into various strategies that could mitigate their effect . His ideas , though supported by many scientists , are not decrees . Instead , his focus has been on understanding the likely viability and efficacy of various counter-pandemic and public health strategies . These initiatives have been blended into a false narrative involving an as-yet-undeveloped COVID-19 vaccine combined with a made-up microchip device unlike anything Gates has ever been involved in . As such , the claim that Gates is planning to microchip you via a COVID-19 vaccination is false .