The EconomistApril 4th 2020 United States 332 What is baffling is how debate about
holding the vote has dragged on. Officially
Democrats, including Mr Evers, would
back postponement of the state’s primary,
although some worry that the pandemic
could turn out to be worse later. In reality,
most would prefer a wholesale switch to
postal voting. Mr Evers last week called for
officials to send each registered voter an
absentee ballot, just in case. More than 1m
voters have applied for them anyway, up
from 250,000 in the spring election of 2016.
The Democratic Party expects a surge in
turnout, which, along with early voting,
typically helps their side.
But the governor cannot make any
change without the nod of Republicans,
who run the legislature. They are not af-
fected by the Democratic primary contest
but are concerned about elections for hun-
dreds of municipal officials, from county
boards to councillors and mayors of cities,
and most of all a tantalising election of a
state Supreme Court justice. No plan exists
for what to do about these if voting were
put off. “Election law everywhere has never
seriously considered holding an election
in the middle of a contagious virus,” says
Charles Franklin of Marquette University.
Republicans oppose ending in-person
voting, likening any change to poll-rigging.
Not coincidentally, they rely on older,
small-town and rural voters who, polls sug-
gest, are less fearful of the pandemic. “Our
electorate is more likely to show on elec-
tion day,” says Brian Reisinger, a conserva-
tive lawyer. Without them, his party would
struggle against Democrats’ expected sup-
port from absentee and early voters.
Why does this matter? Interest in the
presidential primary has waned, although
Joe Biden will be road-testing his strength
in blue-collar parts of a crucial swing state.
It is the court race that really sets Wiscon-
sin political hearts aflutter. Conservatives
have a 5-2 advantage on the bench, but one
of their incumbents is up for re-election in
a tight race. The equivalent contest last year
was decided by fewer than 6,000 votes.
That judicial race is politically impor-
tant because of two significant cases on the
court’s docket. It may rule, possibly before
November, on whether 200,000 supposed-
ly out-of-date registered names can be
purged from the voting roll, and on what
kind of voter ids should be acceptable at
polling stations. Democrats fear this could
hurt them. The court will also have a big say
on redistricting plans next year. Republi-
cans fret that a new liberal-minded judge
might press the court to unpick earlier re-
forms, perhaps to restore some powers
stripped from public-sector unions.
Wisconsin’s experience also sheds light
on what it means to campaign and, per-
haps, vote in the midst of a pandemic. A
battle is looming in many states on how
much to extend postal voting. Democrats
are keen. Republicans say changes to elec-
toral practice, especially during a cam-
paign, are unacceptable. Ben Wikler, who
leads the Democrats in Wisconsin, says Re-
publicans want to “disenfranchise” voters
with over-strict rules on postal ballots. His
state has long been “a Petri dish for seeing
how the gop behaves” everywhere, he says.
Marquette’s Mr Franklin draws lessons
for other states. “Wisconsin is a peek into
the future,” he says, a reminder to other
states to “make decisions sooner”, to get bi-partisan agreement on basic matters like
how to run an election and to give officials
time and money to print, distribute and
count a huge pile of absentee ballots. Par-
ties, too, have to think about how they can
reach voters at home when knocking on
doors is off-limits. Wisconsin’s Democrats
have the additional challenge of rethinking
their plans for Milwaukee to host 50,000
people at the party’s national convention
in July. The pandemic looks likely to strike
down that event, too. 7I
n march 2019, about a month before
Joe Biden began his presidential cam-
paign, a former state representative from
Nevada, Lucy Flores, accused him of
unwanted kissing, touching and hair-
sniffing. Several other women—in-
cluding Tara Reade, who worked for
then-Senator Biden for nine months in
1992 and 1993—subsequently made simi-
lar complaints, prompting Mr Biden to
release an apologetic video in which he
acknowledged that “the boundaries of
protecting personal space have been
reset and I get it.” Recently, however, Ms
Reade has levelled a more serious charge.
In an interview broadcast on March
25th she said that Mr Biden touched her
in ways that made her feel “like an inani-
mate object”. She said that one day a
scheduler in Mr Biden’s office told her to
bring the senator his gym bag. When she
did, he allegedly held her against a wall
and put his hands up her skirt. When she
pulled away, she says Mr Biden said,
“Come on, man, I heard you liked me.”
Ms Reade says that she was later movedto a windowless office and frozen out.
Mr Biden’s campaign denies the
accusation. Marianne Baker, his exec-
utive assistant at the time, says she had
“absolutely no knowledge or memory of
Ms Reade’s accounting of events, which
would have left a searing impression on
me.” Sceptics have pointed out inconsis-
tencies in Ms Reade’s testimony (which
are not uncommon in stories of sexual
assault), her history of floridly praising
Russia and Vladimir Putin, and her
support for Bernie Sanders.
Ms Reade sought help from the time’s
upLegal Defense Fund, which helps
victims of sexual harassment. She could
not find a lawyer to take her case, and the
outfit does not offer public-relations
help to accusers without lawyers. Some
cite that, and the fact that the prfirm
affiliated with the fund is run by a Biden
adviser, as evidence of a stitch-up.
The fund replies that the prfirm in
question did not know about Ms Reade
until journalists started calling. The fund
worried about getting involved in a case
against Mr Biden because tax-exempt
non-profits are barred from political
campaigns. And Ms Reade was interested
less in going after Mr Biden than in those
accusing her of being a Russian agent,
which is outside the fund’s purview.
The most striking thing about Ms
Reade’s story may be the silence with
which it has been greeted—particularly
from some of those who argued that a
sexual-assault allegation should disqual-
ify Brett Kavanaugh from the Supreme
Court. That may stem partly from the
difficulty of vetting her story. There were
no witnesses, though Ms Reade says she
told her brother and a friend. But Mr
Biden may have to answer questions
eventually. Donald Trump’s supporters
may wave away dozens of allegations of
sexual misconduct and assault. Mr Biden
probably does not have that luxury.Reade’s digest
The presidential campaignWASHINGTON, DC
How to weigh an allegation against the presumptive Democratic presidential nomineeDelaware waterfall