ELECTIONS IMPEDE E.U. COVID RESPONSE

At the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in the European Union, governments of member states invoking draconian measures in attempts to control the spread of the virus could do no wrong. Few complained when anti-democratic authoritarian methods were used to enforce restrictive regulations. Many countries crawled back within their own boundaries, and multiple "Schengen area" countries closed their borders to stem the spread of the virus. Approval ratings for national governments soared. Italy's leaders' public support grew 27%, while Germany's and France's confidence in government improved by 11% each. After several months of relative success, infatuation with prolonged resolute leadership is rapidly fading, affecting both the political will and popular compliance. During the last few weeks a surging pandemic has come roaring back across Europe. This one promises to be as significant as the one contacted during the same time last year. However, this time different elements are in play. The science has evolved, and we now know more of what we are facing. This version of the pandemic is predominantly driven by the U.K. variant, B117, which, according to several studies, is 60% more lethal than other strains. It hit during a period of relaxed compliance with health directives, increased resistance to drastic responses implemented to subdue the virus, growing fatigue and diminishing confidence in governments' ability to counter the epidemic. And for several major countries, leaders are caught up in the middle of political campaigns focused on impending and consequential national elections. The latter has led to conflicting messaging between health professionals and dominant politicians, often resulting in hesitant guidance when resolute leadership is again called for. Of scheduled elections, not all are terribly consequential for the E.U. per se, although in every instance responses to the pandemic affect the outcome. Portugal, which voted January 24, re-elected, largely ceremonial, President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. The country pointedly waited until the day after the election to introduce a new national lock-down. Italy's government fell mid-January when former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi pulled his centrist party "Italia Viva" from the ruling coalition, effectively unseating P.M. Giuseppe Conte's government. Mario Draghi, former president of the European Central Bank, was sworn in a few weeks later as P.M. of an emergency government, supported by all major parties. Unencumbered by upcoming elections, he essentially placed the entire country again under lock-down. Elections in The Netherlands were completed on March 17. Center-right Prime Minister Mark Rutte, running for a 4th term, was extremely popular last year as he steered the country through the pandemic which killed 16,000 people in The Netherlands. However, his popularity dropped significantly during recent weeks as public support for a month-long lock-down declined. Nevertheless, he retained sufficient support to be re-elected, and claimed 35 seats for his party in the new parliament. Notable, however, was the strength of far-right opposition parties which came in with a combined 29 seats. In none of these situations were elected legislators significantly handicapped politically when selecting strategies to combat the resurgent pandemic. Not so with the run-up of the very consequential German federal election scheduled for September 26, and France's presidential election in April of 2022. They are consequential, because in either case leadership positions in the E.U. are at stake. The timing of the German federal election corresponds to the date that Chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to step down after 16 years in office. Merkel's leadership has been essential to the European Union. Provided her party will again be dominant leading the country following this election, the leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is also expected to assume the mantle of Chancellor. Back in January, Armin Laschet, Minister-President of the state of North Rhine-West Phalia, was elected to succeed Merkel as leader of the party. But while Merkel's handling of Covid during the first phase was widely applauded, her response to the current phase is no longer popular. Perhaps consequentially, the CDU has already lost two regional elections. In excess of 88% of voters are dissatisfied with the slow vaccine roll-out, especially after the government decided to temporarily suspend use of the Oxford/AstraZenica vaccine. Merkel's plan to ease Germany's lock-down, designed to counter national dissatisfaction, is also in disarray. Parts of Germany is shutting down again anyway. In a matter of weeks, the CDU's "Covid bonus" evaporated almost entirely. And the party does not have the political will to implement the essential restrictions its health advisors are recommending. While France's national election won't take place until April next year, strategic positioning is already taking place full steam. President Emanual Macron's "La Republique en Marche" will face significant competition from Marine Le Pen's, far-right, Euroskeptic, "National Rally." Her party is gaining substantial ground, not in the slightest because of spreading coronavirus fatigue. Avoiding lock-downs is a mainstay of Macron's management of the Covid-19 epidemic. He appears keen to avoid the measure at all cost in a bid to safeguard the social and economic life in the country. However, Minister of Health Olivier Veran disagrees and recently reinstalled a lock-down of the Paris region and Hauts de France for another four weeks to combat the current phase. The point of all this is that politicians up for reelection seem to have become gun-shy, afraid of implementing drastic restrictions on populations already exhausted and frustrated with ongoing constraints, no matter how necessary. It does not help that the E.U. has dragged its feet approving the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, and that the use of AstraZenica was suspended by 15 countries over reports of dangerous blood clots in some recipients. Observers have charged that the latter was very much a politically "safe" move. The European Medicines Agency, which recently cleared the vaccine, had been investigating 30 cases of unusual blood disorders among 5 million recipients on the continent and 11 million in the U.K. The agency's "go ahead" was welcomed, but the damage was done. Many potential European recipients remain skeptical about the vaccine's safety. The current pandemic wave could have been ameliorated with greater emphasis on expediting vaccination programs and systemic responses that were less politically cautious. Theo Wierdsma

VOTING RIGHTS IN THE CROSSHAIRS

As a counterweight to voting rights restrictions being advanced in Republican controlled state legislatures, the U.S. House of Representatives, on March 3rd, by a vote of 220-210, passed HR1, a sweeping voting rights bill. The "For the People Act of 2021," which faces unanimous Republican opposition, includes, among other fundamentals, a national system for automatic voter registration, transparency requirements for political advertising, and it establishes non-partisan redistricting commissions to end partisan gerrymandering. Republicans argue that this bill, which faces an uphill fight in the Senate, would give license to unwanted federal interference in states' authority to conduct their own elections. Solid Republican opposition to this legislation is fed by the fear that these changes would ultimately benefit Democrats through higher turnout, most notably among minorities. For Democrats, this is the third attempt to restore key provisions of the "Voting Rights Act of 1965." Republican control of the Senate and the White House insured that previous endeavors had no chance of succeeding. According to "History.com," the "Voting Rights Act," which passed August 6, 1965, and was designed to enforce voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, was "one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history." The Act was subsequently amended 5 times, to bring it in line with contemporary realities. However, in 2013, in "Shelby County v. Holder," the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the law's core provision. By a 5-4 majority vote, the Court concluded that section 5 of the Act, which mandated that states had to get permission in advance - "preclearance" - from the Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington D.C. before making any changes affecting voting processes. They had to prove that their proposed changes were not racially discriminatory. The Court decided that this section was antiquated, and declared it unconstitutional. Immediately following publication of this decision, Texas announced that it would implement the country's strictest voter i.d. law. Other states followed suit. In a backlash to historic voter turnout in the 2020 general election, and grounded in a rash of baseless and racist allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities, Republican legislators, still taking advantage of the 2013 Supreme Court decision, introduced well over four times the number of bills to restrict voting access they had proposed during the same time last year. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 33 states introduced over 165 restrictive bills, compared to just 35 by February 2020. Absentee voting reform appears to be of particular interest. The general tendency is to limit voting access, impose stricter voter i.d. requirements, slash voter registration opportunities and enable more aggressive voter roll purges. Specific examples include Arizona's proposal to enable the legislature to overthrow the state's voting result for president, awarding Arizona's Electoral College votes to the candidate of the lawmaker's choosing. This state also proposes to require voters to get their mail-in ballots notarized before sending them back. Georgia wants to limit Sunday voting. (African-Americans tend to vote on Sunday in larger proportions than other demographic groups.) In general, Arizona is discussing 19 restrictive bills, Pennsylvania 14, Georgia 11, New Hampshire 10 and so on. The objective has been simple and quite clear: "Help the Republican Party win elections." Most of these bills still require adoption by respective state Senates and signatures from their governors. Pennsylvania and Michigan, unlike Arizona, Georgia and Texas, have Democratic governors who may veto some election-related bills passed by GOP controlled legislatures. The voting rights bill passed by the House would invalidate many of the restrictions that are being proposed. However, Democrats would need to convince 10 Senate Republicans to go along with them. Without significant process changes this would be a steep hill to climb. Progressive Democrats see ending Senate filibuster rules, which would "only" require a simple majority, as a primary target. Representative John Sarbanes (D-MD), author of HR1, during a recent "Vox" interview, suggested that "there's all manner of ways you could redesign the filibuster so [the bill] would have a path forward." But conservative groups have already embarked on a $5 million campaign to persuade moderate Senate Democrats to oppose rule changes needed to pass any measure to accomplish that. The 15th Amendment to our Constitution reads: "[t}he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude." While this statement appears pretty straight forward, political opposition following its ratification in 1870 continues to focus on blatantly ignoring or circumventing its provisions, from establishing poll taxes and literacy tests early on to, more recently, usurping flagrant misinterpretations reflecting "contemporary" reality. It's time to remove partisanship from the equation and accept the Amendment's intent at face value. Theo Wierdsma