The Economist - USA (2020-11-07)

The EconomistNovember 7th 2020 United States 27

2

I

f you want to see where the momentous

events of 2020 had their biggest impact,

look not at the national contest but at the

governors’ races and local referendums.

Covid-19 and other traumas turned com-

petitive races into walkovers and showed

that states could still push through social

changes even while the country is count-

ing every last vote.

Governors have been the dominant fig-

ures of the pandemic response, choosing

when and how to lock areas down. As a re-

sult, gubernatorial races often turned into

referendums on states’ responses to co-

vid-19. Take the contests in New England,

where Democrats might have fancied their

chances of unseating one or both Republi-

can governors up for re-election, Chris Su-

nunu of New Hampshire and Phil Scott of

Vermont. Mr Biden won both states easily.

But on covid-19, the governors were the un-

Trumps. When the president told Ameri-

cans not to be afraid of covid, Mr Sununu

shot back, “I’m afraid of covid. I think

everyone should be very concerned.” Mr

Scott even endorsed Bill Weld, Mr Trump’s

rival in the Republican presidential prim-

ary. Both earned sky-high approval ratings

for handling of pandemic; both won re-

election in blue states by over 30 points.

There was a similar story in North Caro-

lina, where the Democratic governor, Roy

Cooper, won by four points in a state where

the presidential and Senate races were in

essence tied. Mr Cooper, an affable cen-

trist, won plaudits for taking the pandemic

seriously from the start. His Republican

challenger, in contrast, criticised the

health restrictions and mask-wearing.

The only governorship which changed

hands (out of 11 races) was in a state where

covid-19 policy was barely mentioned. This

was Montana, where the Democratic in-

cumbent was term-limited and ran for a

Senate seat. Neither candidate for governor

made the pandemic an issue, though Mon-

tana now has the fourth-highest covid ca-

seload, relative to its population, in Ameri-

ca. In the absence of debate, the state

reverted to its habitual hue, with Republi-

cans winning every statewide office.

Just as only one governorship changed

hands, so only four state houses seemed

likely to switch party, the fewest since 1946

(a handful were undecided as The Econo-

mist went to press). Democratic hopes of

winning the Texas and Michigan legisla-

tures came to naught. The 2020s will see a

new round of redistricting, to Democrats’

dismay. Republicans will gerrymander five

times as many state maps as they will.

The political impact of covid-19—and of

that other upheaval of 2020, the Black Lives

Matter (blm) movement—was clearest in

the state and local ballot initiatives put to

voters. There were fewer than usual, about

120 state ones, because lockdowns made it

harder to collect the signatures required to

get proposals on the ballot. Of those that

got through, many tackled health and ra-

cial inequalities. Surprisingly, voters tend-

ed to approve socially liberal proposals,

while rejecting conservative ones.

Two Californian referendums showed

the contrast in criminal-justice policy. A

proposition permitting felons on parole to

vote passed. One that would have tough-

ened sentencing failed. Six cities asked

voters to approve or expand the powers of

independent panels to oversee local police

forces. All passed, including in Columbus,

Ohio, a state Mr Trump won easily.

Amy Liu, who tracks state and local gov-

ernments for the Brookings Institution, a

think-tank, argues that cities and states are

still able to make social policy through bal-

lot initiatives, despite paralysis at the fed-

eral level. Coloradans approved state-wide

paid family leave and repealed a constitu-

tional provision that kept property taxes

low. A majority of Floridians backed Mr

Trump—and a hike in the hourly minimum

wage from $8.56 to $15 by 2026.

Even so, there are limits to state pro-

gressivism. In Illinois, a constitutional

amendment to change the state’s flat-rate

income tax to a graduated one (which

would have raised taxes on the wealthy)

went down to defeat. The governor, J.B.

Pritzker, spent millions of his family for-

tune backing the idea. His cousin, Jennifer

Pritzker, spent hers defeating it. Partisan-

ship may be less hyperbolic in state politics

but families are still deeply divided. 7

In state and local elections, health and

social policy still matter

Governorships and ballot initiatives

The covid races

ing a judge’s one-paragraph dismissal of its

complaint that campaign workers sent to

observe vote-canvassing were denied suffi-

cient access. Twin suits in state and federal

courts involve mail-in voters seeking to

correct errors such as a missing envelope

or mismatched ballot signature; the oppor-

tunity to “cure” a ballot, according to one

filing, entails a “high risk of jeopardising

the integrity” of the election. Another suit

contends that Pennsylvania ballots that

lack proof of identification should be

thrown out if not fixed by November 9th.

Such efforts aim to give Mr Trump small

advantages. None of them seems destined

to alter the president’s electoral prospects

or get a hearing in America’s Supreme

Court. The Nevada state supreme court re-

jected a canvassing-observation complaint

on November 3rd, finding that observers

for the Trump campaign had plenty of ac-

cess. A judge on November 4th seemed un-

impressed with one of the ballot-curing

challenges. Didn’t the Pennsylvania legis-

lature, the judge asked, intend to “fran-

chise, not disenfranchise, voters?”

A battle with higher stakes for the Penn-

sylvania race is Republican Party of Pennsyl-

vania v Boockvar, a case that has seen two

visits to the Supreme Court and is now back

for a third. The matter involves the Penn-

sylvania state supreme court’s order in

September, amid the pandemic, to allow a

three-day extension to the receipt deadline

for mail-in ballots. Republican challengers

could not persuade five justices that this

move was an illegitimate usurpation of the

state legislature’s will. They tried and failed

again one week later, when the newly

minted Justice Barrett chose not to partici-

pate in the matter.

But on October 28th, in a separate opin-

ion involving the case’s second trip to the

court, three justices told Pennsylvania’s

Republican Party that it may have better

luck asking a third time. Accepting the in-

vitation, the Trump campaign has joined

the suit with the hope of shredding any bal-

lots arriving after election day.

If the presidential election comes down

to Pennsylvania, stemming votes trickling

in by November 9th—ballots that are help-

ing Mr Biden erase his deficit—might be

just what Mr Trump needs to hold on to a

slim lead and win 20 critical electoral

votes. But it may not come to that if Mr Bi-

den finds his way to 270 votes without the

Keystone State. Efforts to halt voting in

Michigan, throw out a small stack of

mail-in ballots in a single Georgia county

or force a recount in Wisconsin, where Mr

Biden has a 20,000-vote advantage, all

seem quixotic.

Mr Trump won the White House four

years ago with a brash, take-no-prisoners

campaign. He seems intent on losing it—if

the 2020 election comes to that—in much

the same posture. 7