Mediaboss Marketing

Arthur Allen

Once dismissed as a conspiracy theory, the idea that the covid virus escaped from a Chinese lab is gaining high-profile attention. As it does, reputations of renowned scientists are at risk and so is their personal safety.

It can be republished for free.

At the center of the storm is Peter Daszak, whose EcoHealth Alliance has worked directly with Chinese coronavirus scientists for years. The scientist has been pilloried by Republicans and lost National Institutes of Health funding for his work. He gets floods of threats, including hate mail with suspicious powders. In a rare interview, he conceded that he cant disprove that the deadly covid-19 virus resulted from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology though he doesnt believe it.

Its a good conspiracy theory, Daszak told KHN. Foreigners designing a virus in a mysterious lab, a nefarious activity, and then the cloak of secrecy around China.

But to attack scientists is not only shooting the messenger, he said. Its shooting the people with the conduit to where the next pandemic could happen.

Yet what if the messengers were not only bearing bad news but also accidentally unleashed a virus that went on to kill more than 3 million people?

The generally accepted scientific hypothesis holds that the covid virus arose through natural mutations as it spread from bats to humans, possibly at one of Chinas numerous wet markets, where caged animals are sold and slaughtered. An alternative explanation is that the virus somehow leaked from the Wuhan Institute, one of Daszaks scientific partners, possibly by way of an infected lab worker.

The lab leak hypothesis has picked up more adherents as time passes and scientists fail to detect a bat or other animal infected with a virus that has covids signature genetics. By contrast, within a few months of the start of the 2003 SARS pandemic,scientists found the culprit coronavirus in animals sold in Chinese markets. But samples from 80,000 animals to date have failed to turn up a virus pointing to the origins of SARS-CoV-2 the virus that causes covid. The viruss ancestors originated in bats in southern China, 600 miles from Wuhan. But covid contains unusual mutations or sequences that made it ideal for infecting people, an issue explored in depth by journalist Nicholas Wade.

Scientists from the Wuhan Institute have collected thousands of coronavirus specimens from bats and registered them in databases closed to inspection. Could one of those viruses have escaped, perhaps after a gain of function experiment that rendered it more dangerous?

Daszak, who finds such theories specious, was the only American on a 10-member team that the World Health Organization sent to China this winter to investigate the origins of the virus. The group concluded its work without gaining access to databases at the Wuhan Institute, but dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as unlikely. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, however, said the hypothesis requires further investigation.

On Friday, 18 virus and immunology experts published a letter in the journal Science demanding a deeper dive. Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable, they said, adding that the Wuhan Institute should open its records. One of the signatories was a North Carolina virologist who has worked directly with the Wuhan Institutes top scientists.

That demand is definitely not acceptable, responded Shi Zhengli, who directs the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute. Who can provide evidence that does not exist? she told MIT Technology Review. Shi has said that thousands of attempts to hack its computer systems forced the institute to close its database.

Many leading virologists continue to believe that zoonotic transmission from a bat or some other animal to a human remains the most likely origin story. Yet the lack of evidence for that is troubling, 17 months after the emergence of covid, said Stanley Perlman, a University of Iowa virologist who was not among the Science letter signatories.

The fact that no bat or other animal has been found infected with anything resembling the covid virus, which suddenly swept through Wuhan at the end of 2019, has put the lab leak hypothesis back on the table, although there is no evidence supporting that theory either, he said.

Alina Chan, a Broad Institute postdoctoral researcher who signed the Science letter, agrees that there is no dispositive evidence either way for covids emergence. But a network of amateur sleuths have put together evidence, she said, that the Wuhan Institute has covid-like viruses in its collection that it has not deposited in global databases, as would be customary during a global pandemic. Chan and others are particularly curious about a bunch of SARS-like viruses that the institute collected from a cave in Yunnan province where guano miners suffered a deadly outbreak of respiratory disease in 2012.

We dont have access to that data, Chan said. She and other scientists wonder why the covid virus was so ideally suited to human-to-human transmission from the onset without signs of an intermediate host or circulation in the human population before the Wuhan outbreak.

In a paper posted to a virology forum last week, Robert Garry of Tulane University, who doubts the lab leak hypothesis, brought forth a new fragment of spillover evidence: The WHO report shows that some of the first 168 cases of covid were linked to two or more animal markets in Wuhan, he said, with strains from different markets showing slight differences in their genetic sequence. Maybe one animal was in a truck with a bunch of cages and then it spread it to another species and thats where the shift took place, Garry said.

Garry and other international scientists have worked with Shi and her lab for years. The evidence for Garrys supposition isnt airtight, he admitted, but its more convincing than contriving something where some of the worlds leading virologists are covering up at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party, he said.

Shi has no greater defender in the United States than Daszak, whose EcoHealth Alliance was a wildlife protection organization when he joined it two decades ago. The group has since expanded its goals from protecting endangered animals to protecting humans endangered by the pathogens trafficked with those animals. The more than $50 million EcoHealth Alliance had received in U.S. funding since 2007 includes contracts and grants from two NIH institutes, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as Pentagon funds to look for organisms that could be fashioned into bioterror weapons.

Daszak has co-authored at least 21 research papers on bat coronaviruses since 2005, finding hundreds of viruses capable of infecting people. He estimated that about 1 million people a year are infected with bat viruses a number thats grown as humans encroach on bat habitats.

He recalled a 2019 visit to a cave filled with millions of bats. Tourists were going in there in shorts, and we were in there in full PPE. They asked us, What are you doing? and we told them, Were looking for viruses like SARS.

In April 2020, citing what he said was evidence of the viruss link to the Wuhan lab, President Donald Trump ordered the NIH to cancel a five-year, $3.7 million grant for EcoHealth Alliances bat virus research. But about 70% of the groups annual $12 million budget continues to come from the U.S. government, Daszak said.

When the NIH grant was frozen, Daszak called the lab leak hypothesis pure baloney, saying he was confident his Chinese scientific partners were not hiding anything. But he admits it is impossible to disprove.

There are plenty of reasons to question Chinas openness and transparency on a whole range of issues including early reporting of the pandemic, he told KHN. You can never definitively say that what China is telling us is correct.

Daszak said he thinks it more likely that China is covering up the role of the countrys wildlife markets in covids origin. Farming of these animals employs 14 million people, and the government has closed and reopened the markets since SARS. Following the covid outbreak, the Chinese authorities investigation of Wuhans animal markets, where the virus could have mutated after passage through different species, was incomplete, Daszak said.

People dont realize how sensitive China is about this, he said. Its plausible that they recognized there were cases coming out of a market and they shut it down.

A Controversy With Roots

The scientific conflict over the lab hypothesis is partly rooted in a debate over gain-of-function experiments, work that in theory could lead to the creation and release of more infectious or deadly organisms. In such experiments, scientists in a lab can, for example, test a viruss ability to mutate by exposing it to different cell types or to mice genetically engineered with human immune system traits.

At least six of the 18 signatories of the Science letter are part of the Cambridge Working Group, whose members worry about the release of pathogens from the growing number of virus labs around the world.

In 2012, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads NIHs National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, came out in support of a moratorium on such research, posing a hypothetical scenario involving a poorly trained scientist in a poorly regulated lab: In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Fauci wrote.

In 2017, the federal government lifted its pause on such experiments but has since required some be approved by a federal board.

In his questioning of Fauci in the Senate last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) cited a 2015 paper written by Shi, Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina and others in which they fused a SARS-like virus with a novel bat virus spike protein and found that it sickened research mice. The experiment provided evidence of the perils that lurked in Chinese bat caves, but the authors also raised the question of whether such studies were too risky to pursue.

.@RandPaul: "Dr. Fauci, do you still supportNIH funding of the lab in Wuhan?" Dr. Anthony Fauci: "Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect"Full video: https://t.co/ILTKlTSQdC pic.twitter.com/t0HxwsWXmm

Critics have jumped on this paper as evidence that Shi was conducting gain of function experiments that could have created a superbug, but Shi denies it. The research cited in the paper was conducted in North Carolina.

Using a similar technique, in 2017, Barics lab showed that remdesivir currently the only licensed drug for treating covid could be useful in fighting coronavirus infections. Baric also helped test the Moderna covid vaccine and a leading new drug candidate against covid.

Research into covid-like viruses is vital, Baric said. A terrible truth, he said, is that millions of coronaviruses exist in animal reservoirs, like bats, and unfortunately many appear poised for rapid transmission between species.

Baric told KHN he does not believe covid resulted from gain-of-function research. But he signed the Science letter calling for a more thorough investigation of his Chinese colleagues laboratory, he said in an email, because while he personally believe[s] in the natural origin hypothesis, WHO should arrange for a rigorous, open investigation. It should review the biosafety level under which bat coronavirus research was conducted at the Wuhan Institute, obtaining detailed information on the training and safety procedures and efforts to monitor possible infections among lab personnel.

Fauci also told KHN, in an email, that we at the NIH are very much in favor of a thorough investigation as to the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

Scaling the Wall of Secrecy

U.S.-China tensions will make it very difficult to conclude any such study, scientists on both sides of the issue suggest. With their anti-China rhetoric, Trump and his aides could not have made it more difficult to get cooperation, said Dr. Gerald Keusch, associate director of the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory Institute at Boston University. If a disease had emerged from the U.S. and the Chinese blamed the Pentagon and demanded access to the data, what would we say? Keusch asked. Would we throw out the red carpet, Come on over to Fort Detrick and the Rocky Mountain Lab? Wed have done exactly what the Chinese did, which is say, Screw you!

Still, while China has shut off its laboratories to outside inquiry, that doesnt mean all investigative avenues are closed, Chan said. Many Chinese scientists were in contact with colleagues and journals outside the country as the pandemic emerged. Those communications may contain clues, Chan said, and someone should methodically interview the contacted individuals.

Its worth recalling that the only U.S. bioterror attack so far in the 21st century consisted of a U.S. bioterrorism researcher mailing anthrax spores to politicians and journalists. Hundreds of millions of dollars go into researching organisms around the world and there are risks of leaks, accidental or intentional, no matter how sophisticated the lab, Chan said.

But it would be unwise to limit support for global virus research, said Jonna Mazet, a University of California-Davis professor who led a USAID-funded program that trained scientists around the world to collect and research animal viruses. For her pains, she has received death threats and hacking attacks on her computers and home alarm system.

If we dont do the work, she said, were just sitting ducks for the next one.

KHN correspondent Rachana Pradhan contributed to this report.

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

This story can be republished for free (details).

Read the original:
To the Bat Cave: In Search of Covids Origins, Scientists Reignite Polarizing Debate on Wuhan Lab Leak - Kaiser Health News

President Joe Biden's chief medical adviser, Dr. Anthony Fauci, on Tuesday confirmed what Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told him two months ago about mask-wearing being unnecessary for Americans vaccinated against COVID-19.

Fauci appeared on ABC's"Good Morning America" to discuss the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's new mask recommendations, reiterating that the CDC says it's safe for vaccinated people to stop wearing face coverings. He explained that the science has "evolved" over the last few weeks to show that vaccinated people are protected from infection and that the risk of them spreading the virus to someone else is "extremely low, very very low."

When asked by host George Stephanopoulos how his personal mask-wearing habits have changed, Fauci responded that he feels more comfortable being seen in public indoors without a mask. Though he was vaccinated in December, Fauci said he had continued to wear a mask to avoid sending "mixed signals" to the American people by not wearing a mask.

"I'm obviously careful because I'm a physician and a health care provider. I am now much more comfortable in people seeing me indoors without a mask, I mean, before the CDC made the recommendation change I didn't want to look like I was giving mixed signals," Fauci told ABC News.

"But being a fully vaccinated person the chances of my getting infected in an indoor setting is extremely low. And that's the reason why in indoor settings now I feel comfortable about not wearing a mask because I'm fully vaccinated."

Exactly two months ago, on March 18, Fauci told a different story to Sen. Paul during a hearing on the pandemic response. Paul had grilled Fauci on the absence of scientific evidence to suggest that vaccinated Americans needed to wear masks.

"You're telling everybody to wear a mask whether they've had an infection or a vaccine, what I'm saying is they have immunity and everybody agrees they have immunity," Paul said. "What studies do you have that people who have had the vaccine or have had the infection are spreading the infection?"

"If we're not spreading the infection, isn't it just theater?" he pressed.

At the time, Fauci told Paul "I totally disagree with you" and insisted that mask-wearing is not theater because of the risk that vaccines did not protect against COVID-19 variants.

Now, Fauci admits that he continued to wear a mask indoors even though he was vaccinated and knew he didn't need to because he didn't want to send "mixed signals" to the American people, which appears to be the very definition of "theater."

Sen. Paul has not yet commented publicly on Fauci's remarks but he did share the following social media post from the Republican Party of Kentucky: "Two months TO THE DAY after Dr. @RandPaul said Dr. Fauci was performing 'theater' and wearing two masks 'for show' despite being vaccinated, Dr. Fauci finally admits it was, indeed, for show."

Read more here:
Rand Paul wins: Dr. Fauci admits he wore a mask for show to avoid sending 'mixed signals' - TheBlaze

Anybody heard from the Trump-Derangement-Syndrome set about what a great job Joe Biden is doing for America. Im betting we wont its difficult for folks to acknowledge theyve been duped.

At the end of this month, my father will have been gone five years. Most people knew him by his middle name, Neal, or nickname, Jerk. The rather peculiar sobriquet, Jerk, was a handle bestowed upon him by his grandfather. In Chebanse, where he lived most his life, he was always Jerk.

Dad was self-made, creating a successful business that survives him. I believe he thought the Frank Sinatra song, My Way was written especially for him. It was his way or the highway, as he strictly followed his instincts. It enabled him to create a true rags-to-riches story.

My old man had a moral compass that couldnt be shaken. He could be outspoken about what he thought was right or wrong. With that in mind, I spend a lot of time thinking about what dad would think about the socialist era we are experiencing.

Dad didnt live long enough to see Trump elected but was one of the first to come out in his favor. It surprised me at the time, as I doubted Trump could win.

Dad would have been disillusioned at the way the media and Congress treated his candidate with pathetic childish rancor, Russian witch hunts and wasteful impeachments. He would have also been highly critical of those who supported such nonsense. And, he would have most assuredly been dismayed that this kind of political hose-hockey could be carried out in the America he grew up.

There is debate within the family how Dad would have handled the China bug fiasco. Due to chronic poor health, I believe he would have stayed home to avoid contact with people. Having said that, he would surely have agreed that Tony Fauci has continuously moved the goal posts in order to keep people scared, confused and compliant. He probably would have had a few choice words for Fauci.

Speaking of Fauci, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a doctor himself, has been critical of Fauci and the National Institute of Health of late. Fauci has directed the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases, a branch of the NIH, since 1984. They provided the funding, which Fauci signed off on, to the Wuhan Lab in China, where it is believed the virus was manufactured and subsequently escaped, rather than the original assertion it was borne from a wet market. Supposedly, 3.4 million people died worldwide of this bug, so its important for mankind to know where it originated and why. (Oddly, only 4,600 of those deceased souls were in China. Go figure.)

Other matters spawned by the bug, such as the absurd ongoing mask debate, PPP loans, forced business closures, and pandemic pay to the unemployed, are not as clear in my mind as to what Dad would have thought. I like to think I know, but sometimes he would surprisingly land on the other side of an issue as me.

Im confident though, Dad rolled over in his grave at the irrationality of other issues, such as:

My old man wasnt racist and would be upset with claims to the contrary. I could envision the look on his face when liberals claimed just the fact that he didnt consider himself a racist proved he was one. I saw that look on a few occasions growing up.

The list is endless in my mind, often frequenting my thoughts and writing. At times, given his health, I wonder if its better he had not lived to see what a sorry socialistic pickle weve gotten ourselves into. Ive overheard many elderly people say, Its a good time to be old.

The rest is here:
WEBBER: What my old man would have thought - Kankakee Daily Journal

DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)--HempFusion Wellness Inc. (TSX:CBD.U) (OTCQX:CBDHF) (FWB:8OO) (HempFusion or the Company), a leading health and wellness Company offering premium probiotic supplements and products containing CBD, commends the Hemp Access and Consumer Safety Act (the Act or Bill), filed by Senators Ron Wyden (D- Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) that aims to add hemp, hemp-derived cannabidiol, or a substance containing any other ingredient derived from hemp to the definition of dietary supplement according to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and would remove certain restrictions that have blocked the emergence of legal consumable hemp products in the United States.

HempFusion has been a longstanding member of the US Hemp Roundtable which is a major advocate for the Bill.

HempFusion is prepared for both GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) and NDIN (New Dietary Ingredient Notification) which separates us from the vast majority of CBD brands on the market today, stated Dr. Jason Mitchell, HempFusions Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. We proudly endorse and commend The Hemp Access and Consumer Safety Act and thank Senators Wyden, Paul and Merkley for their bipartisan support. A major component of our strategic business plan has been to prepare for this day and now we are finally at the door of what will open up the CBD industry for those brands that can properly adhere to FDAs requirements, continued Dr. Mitchell.

While the Senate bill is more comprehensive than the previously introduced House bill H.R. 841, passage of either will provide a vast and very important boost to the hemp industry, benefitting farmers, producers, manufacturers, small and large retailers and, most importantly, consumers, stated Ola Lessard, HempFusions Chief Marketing Officer. The lack of clear regulation for the past several years has had devastating economic impact across many sectors. Its also allowed fly-by-night companies to thrive, selling products that dont meet label claims, arent manufactured properly, and in some cases are actually dangerous to consumers, continued Lessard.

ABOUT HEMPFUSION

HempFusion is a leading health and wellness CBD company utilizing the power of whole-food hemp nutrition. HempFusion distributes its family of brands, including HempFusion, Probulin Probiotics, Biome Research, and HF Labs, to approximately 4,000 retail locations across all 50 states of the United States and select international locations. Built on a foundation of regulatory compliance and human safety, HempFusions diverse product portfolio comprises 48 SKUs including tinctures, proprietary FDA Drug Listed Over-The-Counter (OTC) Topicals, Doctor/Practitioner Lines and more. With a strong focus on research and development, HempFusion has an additional 30 products under development. HempFusion is a board member of the US Hemp Roundtable, and HempFusions wholly-owned subsidiary, Probulin Probiotics, is one of the fastest-growing probiotics companies in the United States, according to SPINs reported data. HempFusions CBD products are based on a proprietary Whole Food Hemp Complex and are available in-store or by visiting HempFusion online at http://www.hempfusion.com or http://www.probulin.com.

Follow HempFusion on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram and Probulin on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This news release contains forward-looking statements and forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation (collectively, forward-looking statements) that relate to HempFusions current expectations and views of future events. Any statements that express, or involve discussions as to, expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, through the use of words or phrases such as will likely result, are expected to, expects, will continue, is anticipated, anticipates, believes, estimated, intends, plans, forecast, projection, strategy, objective and outlook) are not historical facts and may be forward-looking statements and may involve estimates, assumptions and uncertainties which could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in such forward-looking statements. No assurance can be given that these expectations will prove to be correct and such forward-looking statements included in this news release should not be unduly relied upon. These statements speak only as of the date of this news release. In particular and without limitation, this news release contains forward-looking statements relating to the Companys strategic business plan and the Companys other plans, focus and objectives.

Forward-looking statements are based on a number of assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond HempFusions control, which could cause actual results and events to differ materially from those that are disclosed in or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the impact and progression of the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors set forth under Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors in the annual information form of the Company dated March 31, 2021 and available under the Companys profile on SEDAR at http://www.sedar.com. HempFusion undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by law. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for HempFusion to predict all of them or assess the impact of each such factor or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement. Any forward-looking statements contained in this news release are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement.

Neither the TSX nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Originally posted here:
HempFusion Commends the Proposed Hemp Access and Consumer Safety Act - Business Wire

The onslaught of voter suppression bills introduced by Republicans in state legislatures around the country has evoked intense opposition from the whole non-MAGA world. Protests have erupted, and lawsuits have been filed, often within minutes of passage, against these new restrictions.

Watching this, it is tempting to completely write off the possibility of any bipartisan work on voting and democracy issues. The savaging of Liz Cheney in the Republican conference produces that same feeling. But just as there are rumblings of Republican resistance to the Trumpist takeover, there are also Republicans in the elections realm willing to move democracy forward. So it is worth noting where bipartisan progress is actually being made.

One such place, surprisingly, is Kentucky, home of Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul. Democratic Gov. Andrew Beshear recently signed into law a voting expansion bill that passed the House, 91-3, and the Senate, 33-3. In signing, Beshear said: I want to start by talking about voting. About how, when much of the country has put in more restrictive laws, that Kentucky legislators, Kentucky leaders were able to come together to stand up for democracy and to expand the opportunity for people to vote.

More from Miles Rapoport | Cecily Hines

Whats the story behind this anomalous event, and what lessons does it suggest going forward?

Kentucky was one of the many states that moved to make access to voting easier in 2020, to protect citizens from the risk of voting in person. And they needed to. Prior to the pandemic, Kentucky had one of the most restrictive voting laws anywhere. There was no early voting, and access to absentee ballots was highly restricted. In 2018, 96 percent of Kentuckys voters voted in person on Election Day, and that clearly was not going to work in 2020.

The legislature empowered Democrat Beshear and Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams to develop temporary emergency procedures. They did, and the procedures (as in so many states) worked, producing dramatically increased turnout, with voters utilizing the multiple new opportunities they had to cast their ballots. Only 22 percent of voters cast their ballots in person on Election Day in November 2020.

Kentucky was one of the many states that moved to make access to voting easier in 2020, to protect citizens from the risk of voting in person.

Voters were glad to have the additional options, and local elections officials and county clerks were happy and relieved as well. Around the country, given how well the 2020 election actually workedthe most secure, with the highest turnout in decadesit has been astonishing and appalling to watch so many states race to the bottom in voting laws.

But in Kentucky, Republicans decided to do something different; they decided to try to keep moving forward in a bipartisan way. The leaders in the Republican House and Republican Senate reached out to Democrats, who were in a 25 percent minority, for input and discussion. State Rep. Jennifer Decker, a lead sponsor of the bill, made the point that election reform should not be partisan; majorities can change at any time, as they have in Kentuckys recent past.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

Decker, along with Josh Branscum, both first-termers in the legislature, and Rep. James Tipton, worked to come up with a bill that could actually be passed in the House and the Senate with the goals of increasing turnout and making elections more secure. Rep. Buddy Wheatley, chair of the House Elections Committee, pointed out in an interview with the authors that Adams, Beshear, and Republican and Democratic legislators were able to build on the cooperation they achieved working together during the pandemic.

Another key player in all of this was Jared Dearing, executive director of the Kentucky State Board of Elections. Dearing had put together a diverse and respected advisory group during 2020 in an effort to get the broadest buy-in possible for elections changes needed during the pandemic. Essentially this same group was reassembled in 2021 to advise on what changes should be made permanent.

They also reached out to experts like Josh Douglas, professor of law at the University of Kentucky, a national leader in efforts to expand voting opportunities. The deep expertise and experience in this group was invaluable in providing the legislators with critical data and input. Part of the story was the strong involvement of the county clerks, who brought their on-the-ground perspectives. Douglas told us that not only did Adams and the legislative leaders reach out to the county clerks; they actually listened to them, unlike the Florida legislature, which recently passed a voter suppression law, ignoring the opposition voices of the county clerks.

Given how well the 2020 election actually worked, it has been astonishing and appalling to watch so many states race to the bottom in voting laws.

This deep involvement of the clerks and local elections officials reveals one element of the secret sauce here, and that was the involvement of Trey Grayson, who represents the county clerks in the legislature as their lobbyist. Grayson, political history buffs may recall, was secretary of state of Kentucky from 2004 to 2011, and was Mitch McConnells strong choice to join him in the U.S. Senate in 2010. But he was primaried by one Rand Paul, who defeated him handily in the Tea Party wave. Grayson did a stint as the director of the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School, and has continued his leadership on election issues both in Kentucky and nationally. He was a key figure in the negotiations on the bill.

In an interview, he recalled the aha moment when a working group of Republican legislators, election administrators representing the secretary, the county clerks, and the Republican representative from the State Elections Board all found consensus on critical key points. These included voting centers, early voting, and a cure process for absentee ballots, all of which the county clerks had prioritized based on their experience in 2020.

Grayson pointed out that the Democrats contributed positively to this outcome as well. They could have publicly opposed the bill for not going far enough, which they certainly believed. But instead, they were pragmatic and recognized that getting the changes the Republicans were proposing would definitely be a significant improvement over the current law. They became team players, and the bill ultimately passed by the huge margins we noted.

Some voting rights advocates have criticized the Kentucky law for not being strong enough, for not addressing some key issues to enhance voter access, and for including restrictions that they would oppose, including the prohibition of third-party collection of absentee ballots and some easing of purging procedures. They point out that in some respects, like the provision of only three days of early voting, the new Kentucky law leaves the state with a more restrictive set of rules than those just enacted in Georgia. But most voting rights organizations in Kentucky, including the NAACP and the ACLU, have given the new law cautious support.

Specifically, the new law:

Kentucky is truly unique in making even this modest progress. It is the only GOP-controlled legislature in the country that worked with the minority Democrats to craft an improvement in voter access over the states existing law, which was admittedly one of the worst in the nation. While the parties are far apart on many issues, Wheatley says the key to compromise is building lasting trusting relationships with each other. And Dearing emphasizes that by making incremental steps, the changes will be more sustainable and less susceptible to extreme pendulum swings in the future.

But why is Kentucky so different from the norm?

It is important to note that Kentucky is by no means a swing state or a national battleground. Republicans had major successes in the November 2020 election, re-electing Mitch McConnell, delivering a strong win for Trump, and adding to Republican majorities in the state legislature. Republican voters as well as Democrats had enjoyed the broader options for voting, and there was no strong grassroots movement to curtail those improvements. The continuing Republican domination surely lessened the pressure from Trump and the national party to make big changes.

And the fact that there is a Democratic governor has made some levels of cooperation more the norm on many issues, and the cooperation in the 2020 elections was a highly relevant case in point. In addition (though this is true elsewhere), Republican voters as well as Democrats utilized the widened procedures, and were glad to have them in the pandemic. Finally, the bill had some elements of the Republican agenda of election security, such as the restriction on third parties being able to collect and turn in absentee ballots. So it was indeed a compromise piece of legislation.

Nevertheless, there is something to be noted here about leadership and even about the Republican Party. Underneath the MAGA madness, there are Republicans, like Michael Adams, Trey Grayson, and some of the Republican legislators who made this happen, who can be partners in legislating and in improving democratic procedures. At the moment, they are faint voices compared to the Trumpian noise machine. But they are there. Some Republican secretaries of state have done good work to broaden voting regulations. Many local elections officials, well beyond the few heroes who stood up to the Big Lie, are working to make elections run well. They should be recognized, and opportunities for those partnerships shouldnt be missed.

Follow this link:
A Kentucky Surprise: Bipartisan Reforms to Ease Voting - The American Prospect