Monday, May 18, 2020

No. 372: The Age 100 Problem—Another Update on the Lebbin Lawsuit Against Transamerica

As regular readers know, I have written extensively about what I call "the age 100 problem" in general, and in particular about the Lebbin lawsuit against Transamerica Life Insurance Company. The most recent update on the case is in No. 341 (November 15, 2019). Here I provide another update. (See Lebbin v. Transamerica, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:18-cv-80558.)

Background
Gary Lebbin was born in September 1917 in Germany, came to the U.S. in 1938 to escape Nazi persecution, and married in 1944. His wife died in 2015 at age 97. In 1990 he created the Lebbin-Spector Family Trust (Trust), whose trustees are his two children. At the time, the Trust bought two second-to-die universal life policies on Gary and his wife from Transamerica with a total face amount of $3.2 million. When his wife died, the policies became single-life policies on Gary.

In July 2017, when Gary was almost 100 years old, he and the Trust filed an individual lawsuit in federal court in Maryland against Transamerica. The complaint alleged the company had falsely represented the policies as "permanent insurance" for his "whole life," and had refused his request to extend the policies beyond their terminal age of 100. The complaint included a breach-of-contract count and several other counts. In October 2017, at Transamerica's request, the lawsuit was transferred to federal court in Florida, where the policies were originally sold and several potential witnesses were located.

Recent Developments
In February 2019, by which time Gary was afflicted with dementia, Transamerica settled with him for $10,000. The Trust then filed an amended complaint omitting Gary as a plaintiff, leaving the Trust as the only plaintiff. The amended complaint included several counts, including a breach-of-contract count.

In July 2019, the judge granted the Trust's claim for breach of contract. The other counts were denied by the judge or withdrawn by the Trust. The judge canceled the trial, which had been set for early August 2019. The parties said they had agreed to resolve the case, but had not agreed on the damages for the Trust's breach-of-contract claim. Those damages thus became the only remaining issue in the case. The judge set a briefing schedule on the issue of damages.

The Trust requested a return of all premiums paid to Transamerica—a total of $1,670,141 plus prejudgment interest. The prejudgment interest rates the Trust suggested were the Florida statutory rates at the time of each premium payment. The Trust said it would provide the interest figure prior to the entry of final judgment.

Transamerica strongly opposed the amount of the Trust's claim for damages. The Trust replied to Transamerica's opposition. The parties made several further filings, eventually ended their briefings, and awaited the judge's ruling on the damages.

The Judge's Ruling
On April 7, 2020, the judge issued a "Final Order on Damages." For the two policies combined, he awarded the Trust a total of $2,530,154, including interest. He described his reasoning, showed his calculations, and said "Final Judgment will be entered separately." On April 9, the judge issued a "Final Judgment." On April 10, he issued an "Order Closing Case." The three documents are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Appeal
On May 7, Transamerica filed a notice of appeal and posted a bond in the amount of $2,783,169. I think the difference between the amount of the bond and the amount of the judgment represents interest and costs of appeal. Transamerica's appellant brief is due June 17. Two court documents relating to the appeal are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post. (See Transamerica v. Lebbin, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 20-11756.)

 General Observations
I had hoped Transamerica would pay the amount awarded and end this three-year-old lawsuit. However, we now have to wait and see what happens in the appeal. I plan to report developments.

Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 14-page package consisting of the judge's final order on damages (7 pages), his final judgment (1 page), his order closing the case (1 page), and two court documents relating to the appeal (5 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the May 2020 package about Lebbin v. Transamerica.

===================================

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

No. 371: Long-Term Care Insurance—An Update on the Skochin Class Action Lawsuit Against Genworth

In No. 334 (September 26, 2019), I discussed a class action lawsuit against Genworth Financial, Inc. (Genworth) relating to premium increases on long-term care (LTC) insurance policies. Here I provide an update on the case. (See Skochin v. Genworth, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 3:19-cv-49.)

Developments Reported in No. 334
On January 18, 2019, three individuals filed a class action lawsuit against Genworth and Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC). The plaintiffs are Pennsylvania residents Jerome and Susan Skochin, and Maryland resident Larry Huber. They purchased their policies in 2003 and 2004 from General Electric Capital Assurance Company, a predecessor of Genworth and GLIC. The original complaint included four claims for relief: Count 1 for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Count 2 for fraudulent inducement, Count 3 for fraudulent omission, and Count 4 for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (CPL).

The lawsuit is one of many involving premium increases on LTC insurance policies. Unlike other cases, however, the plaintiffs do not challenge the increases. Rather, they allege the defendants failed to disclose material information to assist policyholders in making decisions about their policies. Thus Skochin may be thought of as a disclosure (or nondisclosure) case.

On March 12, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The judge denied the motion. On April 29, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that included four claims for relief: Count 1 for breach of contract, Count 2 for fraudulent inducement, Count 3 for fraudulent omission, and Count 4 for violation of the CPL.

On May 13, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 28, the judge ordered the defendants to complete production of documents by July 19. On July 3, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal of Genworth, leaving GLIC as the only defendant.

On August 7, the judge set November 14 for a class certification hearing, and March 3, 2020 for the jury trial to begin. On August 29, the judge granted GLIC's motion to dismiss Count 1 (breach of contract) in the amended complaint, and denied GLIC's motion to dismiss the other three counts. He ordered the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by September 20, and GLIC to file its answer by October 4. On September 20, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that included two claims for relief: Count 1 for fraudulent inducement by omission, and Count 2 for violation of the CPL.

Developments Subsequent to No. 334
On October 30, the plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. On November 1, the judge ordered the plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint, and stayed the defendant's answer pending approval of the settlement. He also ordered the plaintiffs to file a motion to notify the class and a proposed settlement agreement. On November 22, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On December 20, the plaintiffs filed a motion to notify the class and a proposed settlement agreement.

On January 15, 2020, the judge held a hearing, granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, directed that the class notice be mailed to class members, and set the final approval hearing for July 10. On March 31, in response to requests by Genworth, the judge granted an amendment to the preliminary approval, and directed that the notice be mailed to class members. The class notice is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Proposed Settlement
According to the proposed settlement and the class notice, policyholders will be offered certain options. Some policyholders will be offered options that include cash benefits. However, I found no estimate of the aggregate cash benefits to policyholders, other than a wide range of figures in the ambiguous paragraph (b) of the following description of the compensation of the plaintiffs' attorneys:
As part of the request for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel will file a request seeking to be paid the following:
(a) $2,000,000 relating to the injunctive relief that is in the form of the Disclosures.
(b) An additional contingent payment of 15% of certain amounts related to Special Election Options selected by the Settlement Class, which shall be no less than $10,000,000 and no greater than $24,500,000. None of the attorneys' fees will be deducted from payments made by Genworth to Settlement Class members.
The plaintiffs' attorneys will also request an award of litigation expenses of not more than $75,000. With regard to the three named class representatives, the plaintiffs' attorneys will request approval of service payments of up to $25,000 for each of them for the time, work, and risk they undertook. None of the service payments will be deducted from payments made by Genworth to class members.

The Indiana Motion to Intervene
On April 10, after the settlement administrator mailed the class notices, the Indiana Department of Insurance (IDOI) moved to intervene to seek a temporary stay. Here is the first sentence of the motion:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, the Indiana Department of Insurance moves to intervene for the purpose of seeking a temporary stay of the proceedings in this case due to the on-going national emergency resulting from the COVID-19 virus.
On the same day, IDOI moved for a temporary stay and filed briefs in support of both motions. On April 17, the plaintiffs opposed the IDOI motions. On April 23, IDOI responded to the opposition. The judge has not yet ruled on the matter. Court documents relating to the IDOI effort are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

Seven Policyholder Objections
Seven policyholders filed objections with the court. On April 20, a Florida policyholder objected. On April 22, a Colorado policyholder objected. On April 28, a Michigan couple objected. On May 1, a New York policyholder objected. On May 1, an Idaho policyholder objected. On May 5, a California policyholder objected. On May 5, a North Carolina couple objected. Court documents relating to the seven objections are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

Excerpt from Genworth 10-Q
On May 6, Genworth filed its 10-Q report for the quarter ended March 31, 2020. On page 63, the report describes the Skochin case. Here are the last two sentences of the description (the full description is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):
Based on the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement, we do not anticipate the outcome of this matter to have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position. If the court does not approve the final settlement, we intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.
General Observations
In other posts of mine about settlements of lawsuits involving premium increases on LTC insurance policies, there have sometimes been references to the size of a "settlement fund." Such a figure helps to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed compensation of the plaintiffs' attorneys. Without a "settlement fund" figure, an evaluation is difficult.

It seems strange that the plaintiffs' attorneys oppose the eminently reasonable IDOI request for a temporary stay due to the pandemic. I hope the judge will grant the IDOI motions and will order a temporary stay.

I am an Indiana resident. I am impressed by and grateful for my home state department's effort. At the same time, I an disappointed that no other state insurance regulators have sought a temporary stay—not even Genworth's home state of Virginia, where the case is being tried. Also, the Virginia commissioner chairs an LTC Insurance Task Force that was created by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and that hopes to get its arms around the problems of the LTC insurance business.

Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 81-page PDF consisting of the class notice (9 pages), court documents relating to IDOI's effort to obtain a temporary stay (54 pages), court documents relating to seven policyholder objections (17 pages), and the 10-Q description of the Skochin case (1 page). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the May 2020 package about the Skochin lawsuit against Genworth.

===================================

Friday, May 8, 2020

No. 370: UNUM's Long-Term Care Insurance Statutory Reserves Take a Hit

As readers of this blog site are aware, I have written often about long-term care (LTC) insurance policies. I have also written about premium increases and reserve deficiencies relating to those policies.

The Unum Disclosure
On May 4, 2020, Unum Group (NYSE: UNM) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) an 8-K (significant event) report. Unum disclosed an important aspect of an ongoing financial examination of Maine-domiciled Unum Life Insurance Company of America by the Maine Bureau of Insurance (MBOI). Here are the key disclosures:
MBOI has concluded that Unum America's long-term care statutory reserves are deficient by $2.1 billion as of December 31, 2018. As permitted by MBOI, Unum America will phase in the additional statutory reserves over seven years beginning with year-end 2020 and ending with year-end 2026. The 2020 phase-in amount is estimated to be between $200 million and $250 million. This strengthening will be accomplished by the Company's actuaries incorporating explicitly agreed upon margins into its existing assumptions for annual statutory reserve adequacy testing. These actions will add margins to Unum America's best estimate assumptions. The Company plans to fund the additional statutory reserves with expected cash flows. The Company's long-term care reserves and financial results reported under generally accepted accounting principles are not affected by the MBOI's examination conclusion.
The Company has suspended its current share purchase authorization and will not repurchase shares in 2020. Additionally, the Company intends to continue to pay its common stock dividend at the current rate.
General Observations
Language similar to that quoted above is in Unum's 10-Q report for the quarter ended March 31, 2020, as filed with the SEC on May 5, 2020. The MBOI examination of Unum is scheduled to close at the end of the second quarter of 2020. Therefore, the examination report is not yet publicly available. In the meantime, I felt that readers would be interested in this development relating to Unum's LTC insurance reserves.

Available Material
I am offering a complimentary three-page PDF containing Unum's 8-K report. Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the May 2020 package about the Unum 8-K report.

===================================

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

No. 369: Scott Witt's Views on Indexed Universal Life—A Follow-Up

Scott Witt, FSA, MAAA, is a fee-only insurance advisor and a Financial Services Affiliate member of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors. In No. 363 (April 8, 2020), I discussed briefly his views on indexed universal life policies and offered a complimentary copy of his seven-page article. Witt received many comments on his article, and decided to write a five-page follow-up. His original article and his follow-up are available here.

===================================

Friday, May 1, 2020

No. 368: Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania—The Proposed Plan of Rehabilitation

Background
Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP) has been running off the long-term care (LTC) insurance business of Conseco Senior Health Insurance Company (CSHI) since 2008. At that time, CSHI transferred the assets and liabilities of its LTC insurance business to create SHIP. CSHI had been running off its LTC insurance business (not selling any new LTC insurance policies) for five years prior to the transfer.

For many years after 2008, SHIP's financial condition worsened, often showing risk-based capital (RBC) levels calling for formal actions by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department (Department), SHIP's primary regulator. The Department took no formal regulatory actions.

In its statutory financial statement for the year ended December 31, 2018, SHIP reported a deficit (negative surplus). Its liabilities exceeded its assets by $447 million. Still the Department took no formal regulatory action. The deficit grew to $462 million at the end of the first quarter of 2019, to $477 million at the end of the second quarter, and to $524 million at the end of the third quarter. Still the Department took no formal regulatory action.

I believe that SHIP did not file a statutory financial statement for the year ended December 31, 2019. However, according to the preliminary plan of rehabilitation (Plan) discussed in this post, SHIP's deficit at the end of 2019 was $916 million.

The Application
On January 23, 2020, Jessica E. Altman, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner), applied to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania for an order placing SHIP in rehabilitation. Here, without citations, is part of the introduction to the application:
SHIP has committed one or more acts which constitute grounds for rehabilitation. Specifically, SHIP's most recent annual statement demonstrates that the company is statutorily insolvent. Additionally, SHIP's most recent risk-based capital ("RBC") report indicates that the company's total adjusted capital is substantially below its mandatory control level RBC, therefore triggering a "mandatory control level event." Finally, the Trustees of the Senior Health Care Oversight Trust [which oversees SHIP] and SHIP's directors have consented in a signed writing to the company being placed in rehabilitation and have waived a hearing.
The Order
On January 29, President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued an order approving the application because "rehabilitation has been requested by and consented to by SHIP's board of directors and the trustees of the Senior Health Care Oversight Trust." The judge appointed the Commissioner as rehabilitator, said the Commissioner may appoint a special deputy rehabilitator, and ordered the filing of a Plan on or before April 22, 2020. The Commissioner appointed Patrick H. Cantillo as special deputy rehabilitator, and engaged a group of consultants to develop the Plan. I wrote about these developments in No. 352 (January 29, 2020) and No. 354 (February 10, 2020). (IN RE: Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania In Rehabilitation, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1 SHIP 2020.)

The Plan
On April 22, Cantillo filed in court a single-spaced 108-page Plan. Here are the components of the Plan, with the number of pages shown in parentheses (the full Plan is in the complimentary May 2020 package offered at the end of this post):
Table of Contents (5)
How to Provide Comments and Objections (1)
Important Notice (3)
Basic Information about the Plan (6 pages)
General Plan Details (18)
Details of Phase One of the Plan (16)
Details of Phase Two of the Plan (22)
Phase Three (1)
Other Matters (22)
Glossary (14)
The "Basic Information about the Plan" includes a "Summary Description of the Plan." Here is the first paragraph of the description:
The following description of the Plan is intended to provide policyholders the basic information required for them to make the required election(s) if the Plan is implemented as proposed. To that extent, it should also enable policyholders to decide what if any comments or formal objections they may offer in response to the request for approval of the Plan. Much more detail about the Plan and related matters is provided in the sections that follow.
The Plan has three phases. In Phase One, policies not in nonforfeiture status will be evaluated and policyholders will be offered options. In Phase Two, policyholders may be offered additional options. In Phase Three, SHIP will complete the run-off of policies. Policyholders are divided into various active and disabled categories, and are offered various options. The Plan provides some illustrations, but each of them carries this warning language:
This illustration is provided solely for the purpose of demonstrating how premiums and benefits under each option in the proposed rehabilitation plan compare to each other. Every policy is different and produces different results.
General Observations
The Plan is incredibly complex. Cantillo and those working with him obviously poured an enormous amount of effort into its preparation.

The Plan involves options under which policyholders may choose to pay increased premiums and/or receive reduced benefits, and those already on claim may choose to receive reduced benefits. Some of those premium increases and benefit reductions are likely to be large.

I do not know how Judge Leavitt will handle the Plan. However, I think the Plan will fail. Premium-paying policyholders may drop out in droves when they see the magnitude of the premium increases and benefit reductions. I hope the judge will reject the Plan and order SHIP into liquidation. That action would bring the state guaranty associations into the picture, along with assessments paid by other insurance companies. In short, I think liquidation would make it possible to lower the size of the premium increases and lower the size of the benefit reductions.

The Pandemic
While the Plan was being prepared, the COVID-19 pandemic was and still is wreaking havoc on the United States and the rest of the world. Moreover, the pandemic is having its greatest impact on the elderly. Many of them are in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, homes for the aged, retirement communities, facilities for elderly veterans, and other facilities offering long-term care services.

A paragraph entitled "Timeline" appears on page 15 of the 108-page PDF of the Plan. The paragraph talks about affording policyholders and other interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Plan. In that paragraph is the following sentence, which alludes to the pandemic:
Because of the extraordinary circumstances facing our nation, the Rehabilitator will ask the Court to provide policyholders and others a prolonged period of time to review the Plan before such comments are due.
To my knowledge, that is the only comment in the Plan about the pandemic. However, it is possible that I missed other comments.

It is morbid to contemplate how the impact of surging numbers of deaths among the elderly may affect the LTC insurance business. Such a surge would eliminate many claim payments, and therefore might improve the financial condition of SHIP and other LTC insurance companies.

Available Material
In No. 352 I offered a 27-page complimentary January 2020 package about SHIP. In No. 354 I offered a 23-page complimentary February 2020 package about SHIP. Those packages remain available.

Now I am offering a 108-page complimentary May 2020 package containing the full Plan. Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the May 2020 package about the SHIP Rehabilitation Plan.

===================================

Monday, April 27, 2020

No. 367: The New York Department Comes Down on Athene, Lincoln, MassMutual, and Pacific Life

In April 2020, the New York State Department of Financial Services (Department) entered into four separate consent orders with Athene Annuity and Life Company and Athene Holding, Ltd. (together, Athene); Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (Lincoln); Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual); and Pacific Life & Annuity Company (Pacific Life). Here I briefly discuss the cases.

Athene
The Athene case involves the question of whether the company, in its pension risk transfer (PRT) business, was doing business in New York State without a license. In recent years many major employers have been seeking to shed some or all of their obligations to active and/or retired employees. To do so, they have entered into PRT arrangements. Much of the PRT activity involves major insurance companies such as The Prudential Insurance Company of America and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Problems at such companies sometimes arise in their PRT business. For two examples, see No. 293 and No. 301.

In January 2019, the Department began an investigation of Athene covering the period from 2017 to January 2019. The Department concluded that the company had been doing business in New York State without a license. The consent order with Athene explains the Department's findings, describes the injunctive relief, and mentions the imposition of a civil monetary penalty of $45 million. The consent order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

Lincoln, MassMutual, and Pacific Life
The other three cases involve the question of whether the companies violated New York regulations in the process of replacing deferred annuity contracts with immediate income annuity contracts. The Department conducted investigations of Lincoln, MassMutual, and Pacific Life. In separate consent orders, the Department found violations of the disclosure and suitability requirements in Regulations 60 and 187. The consent orders are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

In the Lincoln case, the investigation covered the period from January 1, 2011 to March 31, 2019. The Department imposed a civil monetary penalty of $510,000 and obtained injunctive relief in the form of remediation and restitution.

In the MassMutual case, the investigation covered the period from January 1, 2012 to May 31, 2018. The Department imposed a civil monetary penalty of $692,000 and obtained injunctive relief in the form of remediation and restitution.

In the Pacific Life case, the investigation covered the period from January 1, 2012 to April 30, 2018. The Department imposed a civil monetary penalty of $172,000 and obtained injunctive relief in the form of remediation and restitution.

General Observations
The PRT business involves the exchange of large amounts of long-term liabilities and large amounts of long-term assets. It is worrisome that Athene, part of a private equity organization interested in short-term rather than long-term profits, is involved in the PRT business. As for the other three companies discussed in this post, the consent orders involve violations of Department replacement regulations.

New York State Superintendent of Financial Services Linda A. Lacewell and her Department obviously have remained hard at work in spite of the COVID-19 pandemic. I for one am grateful to her and her staff for their efforts under very difficult circumstances.

Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 63-page PDF consisting of the consent order with Athene (15 pages), the consent order with Lincoln (16 pages), the consent order with MassMutual (16 pages), and the consent order with Pacific Life (16 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the April 2020 package relating to the New York consent orders.

===================================

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

No. 366: Voter Suppression by Wisconsin Republicans and the Conservative Majority of the U.S. Supreme Court

On April 7, 2020, Wisconsin held its primary election as scheduled in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. What happened was a dangerous, irresponsible case of voter suppression. Here I describe the incident.

The Wisconsin Primary
On the ballots were presidential preferences (Sanders withdrew after the primary), a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat held by a Republican whose reelection was supported by President Trump (the incumbent lost in the primary), an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution, many local referenda, more than 100 other judgeships, and thousands of county, city, village, town, school district, and other positions.

On April 2, a Wisconsin federal district court judge extended by six days the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots and relaxed certain other requirements relating to absentee ballots. Republicans immediately appealed to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which allowed the federal district court judge's ruling to stand.

On April 3, Democratic Governor Tony Evers called a special session of the legislature to act on legislation to allow Wisconsin voters to vote safely by mail. On April 4, the legislature, without acting on the legislation, and with no discussion or debate, adjourned within seconds after convening.

The Governor's Executive Order
On April 6, Governor Evers, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, issued Executive Order #74 suspending in-person voting until June 9. The order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The U.S. Supreme Court
After the Seventh Circuit allowed the federal district court judge's ruling to stand, the Republican National Committee asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the ruling. The Democratic National Committee opposed the stay. On April 6, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, granted the stay. The application for a stay went initially to Justice Kavanaugh because he is the justice designated to receive applications after rulings emanating from the Seventh Circuit.

The Majority Opinion
It is not known who wrote the majority opinion, because it was issued Per Curiam, or "for the Court." Here, without citations, are the first paragraph, the first three sentences of the second paragraph, and the next-to-last paragraph of the majority opinion (the full majority opinion is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):
The application for stay presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court is granted. The District Court's order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed to the extent it requires the State to count absentee ballots postmarked after April 7, 2020.
Wisconsin has decided to proceed with the elections scheduled for April 7, 2020. The wisdom of that decision is not the question before the Court. The question before the Court is a narrow, technical question about the absentee ballot process....
The Court's decision on the narrow question before the Court should not be viewed as expressing an opinion on the broader question of whether to hold the election, or whether other reforms or modifications in election procedures in light of COVID-19 are appropriate. That point cannot be stressed enough.
The Dissenting Opinion
The dissenting opinion, also on April 6, was written by Justice Ginsburg. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined in the dissent. Here, without citations, are the first and last paragraphs of the dissenting opinion (the full dissenting opinion is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):
The District Court, acting in view of the dramatically evolving COVID-19 pandemic, entered a preliminary injunction to safeguard the ability of absentee voting in Wisconsin's spring election. The Court now intervenes at the eleventh hour to prevent voters who have timely requested absentee ballots from casting their votes. I would not disturb the District Court's disposition, which the Seventh Circuit allowed to stand....
The majority of this Court declares that this case presents a "narrow, technical question." That is wrong. The question here is whether tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens can vote safely in the midst of a pandemic. Under the District Court's order, they would be able to do so. Even if they receive their absentee ballot in the days immediately following election day, they could return it. With the majority's stay in place, that will not be possible. Either they will have to brave the polls, endangering their own and others' safety. Or they will lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own. That is a matter of utmost importance—to the constitutional rights of Wisconsin's citizens, the integrity of the State's election process, and in this most extraordinary time, the health of the Nation.
A Bill Introduced in the U.S. Senate
On March 18, 2020, U.S. Senator Klobuchar (D-MN) issued a press release announcing she and U.S. Senator Wyden (D-OR) had that day introduced the "Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act" (NDEBA). The bill had 29 cosponsors—28 Democrats and one Independent (Sanders). The NDEBA was introduced amid confusion over whether the Ohio primary would be postponed, and over whether there would be delayed primaries in two other states. The introduction of the bill preceded the Wisconsin primary. The NDEBA would provide, among other things, expansion of early in-person voting and use of printable ballots currently available only to military and overseas voters. The press release is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

General Observations
Rocket science is not needed to estimate the probability that the NDEBA will pass in the Republican-controlled Senate. The probability is zero. President Trump has said mass voting by mail would mean no Republican would ever be elected. Therefore, a veto-proof majority in the Senate would be needed.

Our nation has always engaged in voter suppression. One need look no further than Thomas Jefferson's lofty words about all men being created equal and consider what it took for women, former slaves, and others to win the right to vote.

For many years it was southern Democrats and the Ku Klux Klan who fought to suppress voting by African Americans. It is not hard to imagine the shock when a southern Democratic President named Lyndon Johnson rammed through Congress the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Since then, conservatives have succeeded in many efforts to weaken the law.

In recent years it has been the Republicans who have embraced voter suppression on the theory that they are more likely to win elections when voter turnout is small. The Wisconsin fiasco, where voters had to stand in long waiting lines six feet apart for hours in on-and-off rain and sleet will not be forgotten any time soon.

The Wisconsin primary is a precursor of what may happen in the November 2020 presidential election. Wisconsin Republicans have demonstrated they are willing to force voters to risk exposure to serious illness and even death to exercise their right to vote. What we may witness in November will be a brazen and irresponsible example of voter suppression.

A Recent News Story
In the morning on April 21, NBC News reporter Alex Seitz-Wald ran a story about the Wisconsin primary. Here is the opening sentence:
Officials have identified seven people [six voters and one poll worker] who appear to have contracted the coronavirus through activities related to the April 7 election in Wisconsin, Milwaukee's health commissioner said, and advocates worry it could be just the "tip of the iceberg."
Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 18-page PDF consisting of the Wisconsin governor's executive order (4 pages), the majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court (4 pages), the dissenting opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court (6 pages), and the press release about the NDEBA (4 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the April 2020 package about the Wisconsin primary.

===================================

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)