Dr. Shaun Fletcher On the Rising Rates Of Depression And Anxiety Among Young Black Americans

For Mental Health Awareness week, BLACK ENTERPRISE is interviewing numerous individuals within the wellness community to talk about the racial disparities that affect the Black community in the hopes of creating a safe place to talk about mental health. 

According to a new study by the Commonwealth Fund, Latinx and Black people are among the groups with the highest risk for mental health concerns due to the impact of the COVID-19: roughly 40% of Latino and Black people reporting mental health issues to the pandemic as oppose to 29% of white people.

For Dr. Shaun Fletcher, the findings aren’t surprising. The professor and mental health advocate spoke about the mental health discourse within the Black community for his 2018 TEDx Talk, highlighting how depression and anxiety specifically affect young Black Americans.

BE: How has the COVID-19 pandemic and protests negatively impacted young Black Americans in terms of mental health? 

Dr. Fletcher: The confluence of COVID and social unrest sparked by police shootings of young Black people can have significant negative consequences. African Americans are already 20% more likely to experience serious mental health problems than the general population (Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health), and our children are more likely to be exposed to violence and violent crimes, which are risk factors of mental health anxiety. It stands to reason that seeing more violence and social unrest in our communities only exacerbates those contributing risk factors.

Access to–and trust in–the health care system has been a historical barrier for the Black community, and now with COVID restrictions, many aren’t able to have regular access to culturally familiar mental health coping mechanisms, like family, community, and faith-based gatherings. On top of that, many young Black Americans are trying to reconcile their place in the fight for social justice, which can bring about undue emotional labor, cultural taxation, and even imposter syndrome. All of which are associated with significant mental health anxiety.

With more public figures talking openly about their mental health struggles, do you think more young Black Americans are changing their opinions of mental health? Why or why not? 

Yes, I do. We’ve long-realized the power of the media and cultural representation in shaping and shifting opinions on critical subjects. Mental health is no different. While we still have more work to do in terms of surmounting historical barriers to mental health access and utilization, I believe we are certainly moving in the right direction. Celebrities and influencers often serve as cultural gatekeepers in “normalizing” what may have been culturally taboo topics like mental health and suicide prevention.

We’ve seen public figures across sport and entertainment begin to do that, along with including mental health care as an option in their advocacy for quality health care for the Black community, in general. Through generational knowledge-gaining and actively confronting barriers to self-care, younger generations are far less saddled with the obstacles that their parents and grandparents faced. Feelings of embarrassment, isolation, and weakness stigmas can be challenged when credible public figures speak up about their own personal issues with mental health. I hope to see more public figures have the courage to speak out and empower those who may feel they’re alone.

How can schools be of better service when their students express they are dealing with mental health issues? 

Schools can provide more mental health practitioners as well as more mental health advocacy resources to continue the normalization of self-care as a standard in our society. Preventative care should be as important as responsive care. I also feel it’s extremely important that we provide our students and communities with culturally representative and competent mental health practitioners. Lack of culturally competent health care practitioners has been shown to have negative impacts on health outcomes in communities of color, including misdiagnosis. I’ve spoken with students who met with a mental health specialist and left feeling unheard and unseen due to cultural incompetence and sensitivity. Representation also matters in mental health care as much as any other field.

It is National Suicide Prevention Month. Recent studies have shown that more and more younger Black adults have experience dealing with thoughts of suicide. How can we be more supportive toward those in our circle who may be struggling?

I believe supporting others begins with taking inventory of our mental health status and feelings regarding mental health care. It’s incumbent upon any support system to not only be aware and sensitive to the needs of someone struggling but also to know the levels of support needed. We must educate ourselves on the resources available and when to access them. Many of the needs of someone struggling with mental health can be addressed within the confines of their inner circle, while others require the support of licensed professionals.

Understanding the risk factors and warning signs in behavior, mood, and conversation can help us all be equipped to support a loved one in need. While educating oneself is extremely important, having the courage to act once the warning signs begin to show is equally, if not more critical. I can speak from personal experience that seeking professional help or calling the national suicide prevention hotline on behalf of a loved one can be scary, but it can also save their life. In my opinion, the responsibility to support the mental health of a loved one comes along with the social contract of love and friendship.

What are some challenges you see when dealing with students who are hesitant to reach out for help? 

Many students are struggling to find balance during these unusual times. For many, it has only complicated the underlying challenges they already faced. Balancing personal obligations with their jobs and schoolwork has reached a dangerous peak. Students are facing financial difficulties and lost jobs, which won’t allow some to register on-time or adequately prepare for school or even meet their living standards. Finding the strength and words to articulate those very personal challenges can create even more mental anxiety than the actual challenges themselves.

For others they are very concerned about their futures, with a lack of internships and entry-level jobs available. Not only has it altered their career and personal goal trajectory, for some, it has impacted their ability to earn a living to support themselves and their families. I’ve seen this manifest in poor attendance, lack of engagement and withdrawal, and even potentially over-disclosing of very personal information. Even when students can’t articulate the need for help, the signs are usually there–we simply need to remain sensitive and open to support.

from Black Enterprise https://ift.tt/3bHWPr8

Dr. Shaun Fletcher On the Rising Rates Of Depression And Anxiety Among Young Black Americans

For Mental Health Awareness week, BLACK ENTERPRISE is interviewing numerous individuals within the wellness community to talk about the racial disparities that affect the Black community in the hopes of creating a safe place to talk about mental health. 

According to a new study by the Commonwealth Fund, Latinx and Black people are among the groups with the highest risk for mental health concerns due to the impact of the COVID-19: roughly 40% of Latino and Black people reporting mental health issues to the pandemic as oppose to 29% of white people.

For Dr. Shaun Fletcher, the findings aren’t surprising. The professor and mental health advocate spoke about the mental health discourse within the Black community for his 2018 TEDx Talk, highlighting how depression and anxiety specifically affect young Black Americans.

BE: How has the COVID-19 pandemic and protests negatively impacted young Black Americans in terms of mental health? 

Dr. Fletcher: The confluence of COVID and social unrest sparked by police shootings of young Black people can have significant negative consequences. African Americans are already 20% more likely to experience serious mental health problems than the general population (Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health), and our children are more likely to be exposed to violence and violent crimes, which are risk factors of mental health anxiety. It stands to reason that seeing more violence and social unrest in our communities only exacerbates those contributing risk factors.

Access to–and trust in–the health care system has been a historical barrier for the Black community, and now with COVID restrictions, many aren’t able to have regular access to culturally familiar mental health coping mechanisms, like family, community, and faith-based gatherings. On top of that, many young Black Americans are trying to reconcile their place in the fight for social justice, which can bring about undue emotional labor, cultural taxation, and even imposter syndrome. All of which are associated with significant mental health anxiety.

With more public figures talking openly about their mental health struggles, do you think more young Black Americans are changing their opinions of mental health? Why or why not? 

Yes, I do. We’ve long-realized the power of the media and cultural representation in shaping and shifting opinions on critical subjects. Mental health is no different. While we still have more work to do in terms of surmounting historical barriers to mental health access and utilization, I believe we are certainly moving in the right direction. Celebrities and influencers often serve as cultural gatekeepers in “normalizing” what may have been culturally taboo topics like mental health and suicide prevention.

We’ve seen public figures across sport and entertainment begin to do that, along with including mental health care as an option in their advocacy for quality health care for the Black community, in general. Through generational knowledge-gaining and actively confronting barriers to self-care, younger generations are far less saddled with the obstacles that their parents and grandparents faced. Feelings of embarrassment, isolation, and weakness stigmas can be challenged when credible public figures speak up about their own personal issues with mental health. I hope to see more public figures have the courage to speak out and empower those who may feel they’re alone.

How can schools be of better service when their students express they are dealing with mental health issues? 

Schools can provide more mental health practitioners as well as more mental health advocacy resources to continue the normalization of self-care as a standard in our society. Preventative care should be as important as responsive care. I also feel it’s extremely important that we provide our students and communities with culturally representative and competent mental health practitioners. Lack of culturally competent health care practitioners has been shown to have negative impacts on health outcomes in communities of color, including misdiagnosis. I’ve spoken with students who met with a mental health specialist and left feeling unheard and unseen due to cultural incompetence and sensitivity. Representation also matters in mental health care as much as any other field.

It is National Suicide Prevention Month. Recent studies have shown that more and more younger Black adults have experience dealing with thoughts of suicide. How can we be more supportive toward those in our circle who may be struggling?

I believe supporting others begins with taking inventory of our mental health status and feelings regarding mental health care. It’s incumbent upon any support system to not only be aware and sensitive to the needs of someone struggling but also to know the levels of support needed. We must educate ourselves on the resources available and when to access them. Many of the needs of someone struggling with mental health can be addressed within the confines of their inner circle, while others require the support of licensed professionals.

Understanding the risk factors and warning signs in behavior, mood, and conversation can help us all be equipped to support a loved one in need. While educating oneself is extremely important, having the courage to act once the warning signs begin to show is equally, if not more critical. I can speak from personal experience that seeking professional help or calling the national suicide prevention hotline on behalf of a loved one can be scary, but it can also save their life. In my opinion, the responsibility to support the mental health of a loved one comes along with the social contract of love and friendship.

What are some challenges you see when dealing with students who are hesitant to reach out for help? 

Many students are struggling to find balance during these unusual times. For many, it has only complicated the underlying challenges they already faced. Balancing personal obligations with their jobs and schoolwork has reached a dangerous peak. Students are facing financial difficulties and lost jobs, which won’t allow some to register on-time or adequately prepare for school or even meet their living standards. Finding the strength and words to articulate those very personal challenges can create even more mental anxiety than the actual challenges themselves.

For others they are very concerned about their futures, with a lack of internships and entry-level jobs available. Not only has it altered their career and personal goal trajectory, for some, it has impacted their ability to earn a living to support themselves and their families. I’ve seen this manifest in poor attendance, lack of engagement and withdrawal, and even potentially over-disclosing of very personal information. Even when students can’t articulate the need for help, the signs are usually there–we simply need to remain sensitive and open to support.

from Black Enterprise https://ift.tt/3bHWPr8

Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist is an attempt to remind his base why they love him

President Donald Trump puts his hand on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s shoulder during Kavanaugh’s ceremonial swearing in at the White House on October 8, 2018. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Trump wants to remind loyalists that, if he wins in November, they’ll get more judges who will enact Republican policy.

President Trump released a list of 20 names on Wednesday, pledging that he will use these names — plus a longer list he’s already released — to select his next Supreme Court nominee if he has the opportunity to do so.

In 2016, Trump released a list of 11 candidates for a seat on the Supreme Court as part of an attempt to shore up Republican voters who were unsure that Trump would appoint loyal conservatives to the federal bench.

Many Republicans, including some of the party’s top leaders, believe that this tactic paid off. In a 2019 address to the Federalist Society, an influential conservative group that plays a significant role in selecting Trump’s judicial nominees, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed that “the single biggest issue that brought nine out of 10 Republican voters home to Donald Trump ... was the Supreme Court.”

That’s almost certainly an exaggeration. But the fact remains that top Republicans believe that Trump stumbled upon an effective political strategy in 2016, so it’s smart politics for him to repeat this play in 2020. And, as a bonus, Trump released his new list on the same day that veteran journalist Bob Woodward released new audio showing that Trump intentionally deceived the American people about the dangers of Covid-19. The Supreme Court list could potentially distract from that damning news.

So this is primarily a political move intended to shore up Trump’s base.

That said, the Trump White House and his allies in the Senate have spent years preparing for the next Supreme Court vacancy.

The judicial selection process may be the one professional and highly competent operation in this administration. Trump has filled the bench with fairly young, impressively credentialed ideologues who will reliably cast very conservative votes if appointed to the Supreme Court, and his Supreme Court shortlist reflects that work. Half of the names that Trump just announced are people he previously appointed to a lower court, and several more are individuals he’s appointed to non-judicial roles.

And it doesn’t actually matter all that much which specific name Trump chooses from his list — or whether he ultimately decides to go off-list. Though Trump has kept his promise to only name Supreme Court justices from a pre-released list, he frequently adds new names to it. Neither of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, was on the original list Trump first released in 2016, but were added in subsequent iterations.

What all the names on the list have in common — both old and new — is that they were vetted by Trump’s team (and often by the conservative Federalist Society) to ensure that they are reliable conservatives.

That said, there is one important divide among the names on Trump’s list.

Some, such as former Solicitor General Paul Clement or Fourth Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, are solid conservatives who aren’t known for over-the-top, Trumpy rhetoric. Others, such as Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Tom Cotton (R-AR) are politicians who spent their time in Congress flaunting their conservative bona fides and enraging Democrats. Still others, such as Fifth Circuit Judges James Ho and Kyle Duncan, are sitting judges who take the same trolly approach as Cruz, Hawley, and Cotton, but do so from the bench.

The biggest mystery, in other words, is not what the next potential Trump nominee to the Supreme Court might believe, it’s whether Trump would pick someone with a professional demeanor — or choose a professional troll.

Who is on Trump’s list?

The 20-name list Trump released on Wednesday augments an existing list of 25 names that he has released gradually.

Most of the names on both lists possess many of the elite credentials one would expect to find in a Supreme Court nominee. Close to half of the individuals on the new list clerked on the Supreme Court shortly after graduating from law school. And, though the lists include a few politicians like the three senators mentioned above and Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, both lists are dominated by sitting judges — including many Trump appointees.

Because so many Trump appointees make the list, many of these judges have not served long enough to develop substantial records on the bench. But several of the names on Trump’s new list will raise deep concerns among Democrats.

Judge James Ho, for example, has spent his not even three years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit writing opinions that read like something published by Breitbart. His very first judicial opinion was a sweeping attack on campaign finance laws — and it included an entirely gratuitous swipe at the Affordable Care Act. Ho argued that “if you don’t like big money in politics, then you should oppose big government in our lives,” and he cited the Supreme Court’s decision largely upholding Obamacare to drive home his point.

Ho has also railed against the “moral tragedy of abortion” in an opinion where he accused a fellow federal judge of retaliating “against people of faith for not only believing in the sanctity of life—but also for wanting to do something about it.”

Ho’s Fifth Circuit colleague Kyle Duncan, meanwhile, spent much of his pre-judicial career litigating against LGBTQ rights and the right to vote. As a judge, he’s best known for an opinion where he spent more than 10 pages explaining why he insists on referring to a transgender woman using masculine pronouns.

Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke is a particularly surprising addition to Trump’s list because VanDyke’s nomination to the federal bench was panned by the American Bar Association due to concerns that VanDyke is too lazy to do the job.

“Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules,” the ABA explained in a scathing letter deeming him unqualified for the federal bench. The ABA’s investigation found that VanDyke “lacks humility, has an ‘entitlement’ temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.”

It’s unclear why Trump loyalists would want to see someone appointed to the Supreme Court who may lack the temperament and the work ethic to do the job well.

That said, VanDyke is an outlier on Trump’s list. For the most part, the nearly four dozen names Trump has suggested as possible Supreme Court nominees are diligent and highly talented lawyers. They just also happen to be lawyers who are eager to move the law sharply to the right.

The White House’s judicial selection process is the most professional operation in the Trump administration.

The name “Donald Trump” is practically synonymous with goonish incompetence. But Trump’s judicial selection operation is nothing like Donald Trump. It is both efficient and highly effective in identifying reliable conservative ideologues with sterling legal resumes.

In less than four years as president, Trump has appointed 201 lawyers to lifetime appointments on the federal bench, including 53 to powerful seats on the United States Courts of Appeal. By contrast, President Obama appointed only 55 appellate judges during his eight years as president.

One reason for this disparity is that Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, imposed a near-total blockade on appeals court confirmations during Obama’s final two years in the White House. That meant that Trump has effectively been able to fill all the appeals court vacancies that arose during his presidency plus nearly all the vacancies that should have been filled in Obama’s last two years in office.

Trump’s judges, moreover, are quite young. “The average age of circuit judges appointed by President Trump is less than 50 years old,” the Trump White House bragged in November of 2019, “a full 10 years younger than the average age of President Obama’s circuit nominees.” And a large percentage of them have amassed impressive credentials such as Supreme Court clerkships and other government jobs of great influence.

All of this is a reason for liberals to be more afraid of Trump’s judges — and potential justices — than if Trump were picking undistinguished hacks to fill the bench. Judges of great ability are far more likely to find innovative ways to reshape the law than incompetents and mediocrities.

Moreover, Trump is filling the bench with some of the Federalist Society’s brightest minds at the very moment when the judiciary is gaining power relative to the other branches. As I wrote several months ago in a piece laying out Trump’s impact on the bench:

In an age of legislative dysfunction, whoever controls the courts controls the country. In the past decade or so — or more precisely, since Republicans took over the House in 2011 — Congress has been barely functional. You can count on one hand — and possibly on just a few fingers — the major legislation it has enacted.

Judges, by contrast, have become the most consequential policymakers in the nation. They have gutted America’s campaign finance law and dismantled much of the Voting Rights Act. They have allowed states to deny health coverage to millions of Americans. They’ve held that religion can be wielded as a sword to cut away the rights of others. They’ve drastically watered down the federal ban on sexual harassment. And that barely scratches the surface.

If Trump gets to replace a liberal justice, this practice of judicial policymaking will only accelerate. Environmental regulations are likely to be dismantled en masse. Voting rights will be hollowed out even more. Obamacare could be struck down. And, perhaps most significantly, purely partisan Republican arguments will gain even more purchase in the Supreme Court.

Anyone Trump names to the Supreme Court, if Trump’s allowed to do so, is likely to push the law relentlessly to the right.

---

Help keep Vox free for all

Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what’s happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work, and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. Contribute today from as little as $3.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/3itJ7dW

Today Only, Lexar SD Cards Are Up to 40% off

Save up to 40% on Lexar SD Storage | Amazon Gold Box

Read more...

from The Root https://ift.tt/32ide2G

There might be a shortage of election poll workers. Corporate America wants to help.

California poll workers tape up a “VOTE” sign that points to the direction of the voting station. | Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

Old Navy, Target, Warby Parker, and Compass Coffee are paying employees to vote and work at the polls.

On August 31, Civic Alliance announced that more than 60 of its “member companies” — which include Starbucks, Old Navy, Target, and Microsoft — will work to encourage employees and consumers to serve as poll workers. The organization set a recruitment goal of 350,000 poll workers, the projected number of staffers necessary to keep precincts up and running smoothly.

The 2020 election is less than two months away, and for months, voting rights organizations have sounded the alarm bells about the possibility of a poll worker shortage. Poll workers are the community members who greet voters at their local precinct, check their registration, and direct them to voting booths. According to Pew’s Stateline, these staffers’ presence could be “the difference between a smooth election and long lines, mass confusion, and miscounted ballots.” Anyone over 16 can sign up to work during Election Day and be compensated for their time. However, a majority of these crucial workers are usually senior citizens, who are likely to refrain from working at the polls out of concern for their health during a pandemic. Even prior to the coronavirus, however, nearly 70 percent of states and jurisdictions have struggled to recruit a sufficient number of staff.

The responsibility of poll worker recruitment should theoretically fall on local and state policymakers, but currently, corporations are jumping in to fill this gap and partnering with bipartisan voter organizations, like Civic Alliance and Power to the Polls, to address the shortage.

Old Navy, a subsidiary of Gap, Inc., announced on September 1 that its employees would receive a day’s worth of pay if they signed up to work at the polls. Target, Warby Parker, and DC-based coffee chain Compass Coffee will also give workers paid time off to serve as election workers. On top of these efforts, high-profile companies like Starbucks, Twitter, PayPal, Walmart, and Uber have said they plan to give workers time off to vote. Some are offering workers as little as three hours of paid leave while others are giving employees Election Day off.

Poll workers are needed now more than ever. We’re proud to offer paid time off to our team volunteering on Election Day, and we want YOU to join us. By volunteering you are making a real and meaningful difference in our democracy. Check out @PowerThePolls for more info! pic.twitter.com/HsJCtmnvow

— Compass Coffee (@CompassCoffeeDC) September 1, 2020

Heather Marshall, a café manager at Compass, told Vox that in previous years, she had voted via absentee ballot, and that the thought of serving as a poll worker hadn’t really crossed her mind when she was a college student. “Given the pandemic, I wasn’t sure what this year would look like in terms of in-person voting,” she wrote via email. “So when [Compass employees] were approached with the idea [to be poll workers], I knew it was something for which I needed to volunteer my time. I want to be any part of the effort to ensure a free, fair, and Covid-19 safe election.”

This push from employers like Compass to staff up the polls is the latest move by corporate America to encourage civic participation, as companies take on a “pro-democracy and pro-voter” stance without fear of alienating the political views of any given customer or employee. In 2018, Bloomberg reported that a record 44 percent of US firms committed to giving workers paid time off to vote in the midterm elections; this was an increase of 7 percentage points from the 2016 election, according to the Society for Human Resources Management. For the 2018 midterms, the outdoor apparel company Patagonia launched a campaign called Time to Vote and enlisted 411 companies that represent over 2 million workers. In addition to staffing up election sites this year, companies are also donating personal protective equipment, disseminating information about how to vote, and even offering up building space, the director of Civic Alliance told the Wall Street Journal.

American consumers and workers increasingly expect corporations to take stances, or at the very least engage on political and social issues. A 2019 case study by the Harvard Kennedy School found that consumers are more likely to buy from companies that have encouraged people to participate in the democratic process. The companies analyzed in the study, which included Snapchat, Spotify, Patagonia, Target, and Gap, had a range of voter engagement programs — from internal efforts directed at employees to public campaigns that sought to reach millions of people.

“What’s interesting is that more and more companies are making their voting policies public, which shifts the burden of knowledge away from the individual,” said Philip Chen, an assistant professor of political science at Beloit College. “Before this, if you didn’t have the civic knowledge or engagement to figure out that you are legally allowed to have three unpaid or paid hours to go vote, you probably weren’t going to vote.”

Employee voting policies, though, fluctuate depending on the company: Patagonia will shut down all of its operations on Election Day (as it did in 2016 and 2018), while Walmart will grant its employees three hours off if the hours of their shift prevent them from voting. In some cases, workers will have to give their supervisor a day’s notice about their need to leave to vote, since managers are creating “voting plans” to ensure that shifts remain staffed on Election Day.

“What’s interesting is that more and more companies are making their voting policies public, which shifts the burden of knowledge away from the individual”

These corporate-driven voter initiatives are a positive development, considering how companies decades ago remained mum on the issue. However, the growing involvement of employers — and the reliance on companies to staff polls and increase turnout — is emblematic of the US being “an outlier in established democracies,” Chen said. The US’s voter turnout rate is behind that of other established democracies: In the 2016 presidential election, the Census Bureau reported that only 61 percent of the voting-age population cast a ballot. That’s low compared to countries like Belgium (87 percent turnout) and Sweden (82 percent); America ranks 26th out of 32 developed democracies when it comes to voter participation.

Voting is not compulsory in the United States, nor is voter registration automatic or simple. Plus, there isn’t a federal holiday for citizens to take time off from work to vote. (Thanks to a federal law passed by Congress in the 19th century, Election Day always falls on a Tuesday in November.) This is unlike what other democracies have: Countries like Austria, Australia, Luxembourg, and Singapore mandate attendance at the polls, while others like France, Israel, and South Korea vote on weekends or have instituted federal holidays to encourage turnout. In the US, however, each state has established its own voting laws.

“The short answer is, these laws are entirely dependent on the state,” Chen told Vox. “Some states require paid time off, while others have universal vote-by-mail. Some have no requirements and simply encourage employers to allow their workers to vote. Most states, though, have something in the middle where workers have to meet a set of criteria to take off time to vote.”

In 13 states, Election Day is a paid holiday for state employees, although workers might only get a few hours of leave. Meanwhile, in places like Oregon and Washington, residents have ballots mailed out to them, so voting is a task primarily completed at home. With more companies actively encouraging their employees to vote and serve as poll workers, that could likely contribute to an improvement in turnout.

Yet it’s difficult to predict how the coronavirus pandemic and the Postal Service slowdown will affect the 2020 election and voter participation. During the primaries earlier this year, the Washington Post reported that some half a million mail-in ballots were rejected as a result of late delivery or voter error. Plus, as Recode’s Adam Clark Estes reported, mail service has recently been disrupted nationwide due to Covid-19 and a series of cost-cutting policies instituted by its new postmaster general, Louis DeJoy. Voting rights advocates and politicians are encouraging citizens to make a plan and vote early, and tech companies like Snapchat and Facebook are rolling out “voter checklist” features for users to easily register.

Companies are trying to reduce institutional barriers to voting, but political scientists aren’t exactly certain how having a federal voting holiday or automatic registration would increase turnout, Chen added. “These barriers absolutely have an effect, but it’s hard to figure out the exact effect.” What these corporations are looking to do is “trying to approximate the system we see in other established democracies,” he said. “They’re trying to replicate what we see with paid election holidays, which certainly helps with informing people, and it also looks good from a corporate standpoint.”

---

Help keep Vox free for all

Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what’s happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work, and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. Contribute today from as little as $3.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/3k8muMz