At least 71 individuals in the state of Wisconsin who voted in person or performed tasks as poll workers during the April 7 statewide election contracted coronavirus just a few weeks later, according to the state’s Department of Health Services.
Gov. Tony Evers had attempted to delay the spring election, first by asking the Republican-controlled state legislature to postpone the vote. When GOP lawmakers refused to cooperate, Evers took executive action on his own, but the state Supreme Court ruled his executive order as inappropriate on April 6. Later in the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled against an absentee ballot extension Evers had also imposed, which would give voters the chance to vote without having to go to the polls.
Both rulings meant that a number of state residents would have to vote in person during the spring election.
It’s unclear whether those 71 people who tested positive for the disease had contracted it at polling places that day or not — it’s possible, for example, that a number of them had been exposed to coronavirus in some other way. A new study, however, sheds some light on the subject, and suggests that having the polls open on that day likely led to a spread of the disease.
Economists conducting research at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and Ball State University say they’ve gathered data demonstrating counties across the state saw a higher rate of coronavirus cases if they also had higher in-person voting rates during the spring election.
While the researchers admitted their data was not complete, the correlation between voting in person and higher COVID-19 rates seemed apparent.
“Across all models, we see a large increase in COVID-19 cases in the weeks following the election in counties that had more in-person votes per voting location. Furthermore, we find a consistent negative relationship between absentee voting and the rate of positive COVID-19 tests,” the study’s authors wrote.
In other words, in counties with high absentee ballot rates (and low in-person voting numbers), incidents of coronavirus didn’t appear to rise as steadily as they did in counties with higher in-person voting numbers.
The study also found that, for every increase of 100 individuals within a county who cast in-person ballots on April 7, there was generally a consistent 3.4 percent uptick in coronavirus cases observed two to three weeks later. Conversely, greater use of absentee ballots saw less instances of coronavirus cases, though the observed decreases were less than 1 percent, on average, for every 10,000 absentee votes cast.
Last week, the state Supreme Court ruled against Evers yet again, finding his stay-at-home executive orders to be unconstitutional.
Their ruling effectively “reopened” the state, with the exception of a few pockets of local governments that instituted their own stay-at-home orders immediately after the decision was made. In response, many citizens across the state flocked to reopened bars and restaurants, often without wearing masks or observing other social distancing measures.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.