Editorial Roundup: West Virginia

Recent editorials from West Virginia newspapers:

___

Sept. 28

The Charleston Gazette-Mail on West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice facing questions about the state’s coronavirus map:

Gov. Jim Justice sighed, voiced some folksy phrases of frustration, and dived into the answer again.

Trust him, he said. The one thing about him is that he’ll always tell the truth, he said. He can’t understand where all this skepticism is coming from.

Justice was asked a barrage of questions during his Monday coronavirus briefing about inconsistencies between the color-coded map system the state is using to determine whether schools can operate in-person and can participate in extra-curricular activities - such as high school football - and state COVID-19 case numbers. He was questioned about the stark difference between the state’s map, which has almost all schools back to in-person operations, and the Harvard Global map it was based on, which shows a much more alarming picture of the virus in the Mountain State.

It’s true that Gov. Justice or one of his administrators have explained a lot of these differences many times. The primary reason he’s had to go over it exhaustively is because Justice kept changing the criteria for the color codes (green, yellow, gold - added later - orange and red). It was evident from all of the questions Monday that the repeated tweaking - allowing different metrics, counting some cases individually while counting mass outbreaks at certain places as only one case, etc. - has undermined public confidence in the information coming from his administration and his handling of this crisis. Cases are going up, but threat levels are going down.

It’s confusing.

And the state made it that way. One COVID-19 case should be one COVID-19 case. Having the Department of Health and Human Resources go back and condense outbreaks at nursing homes, jails and universities into one case makes little sense, and ends up creating uncertainty. West Virginians can be viewing the wrong data for schools, depending on which state agency map they’re consulting and when they’re consulting it.

We don’t believe the Justice administration is deliberately trying to mislead people about outbreaks across the state, as one question Monday suggested. But the constant bending of criteria does make room for those types of questions.

Meanwhile, the governor insisted the state is turning a corner and is emerging from the threat. He readily admitted this was not based on any data, but a “feeling.” Then, later, he said residents should be scared - to a healthy degree - and continue to take the threat seriously. The governor’s messaging is all over the place, as is his administration’s official indicator for outbreaks across the state.

When inconsistency is the only thing that’s consistent, especially regarding something as serious as a pandemic, it’s natural for West Virginians to be skeptical. Unfortunately, Justice can’t go back and undo all the chaos he’s sown since the dance of the maps began a month ago. The best thing he can do is try to provide steady, reliable leadership going forward.

Online: https://www.wvgazettemail.com

___

Sept. 26

The Journal on distribution plans for a possible coronavirus vaccine:

Though there is some dispute over how soon a COVID-19 vaccine will be available to the general public, it appears a few million doses may be ready before the end of this year. There is general agreement they should go to the most vulnerable among us.

That is older people with pre-existing medical conditions. We know that. But if there is any agreement on vaccine rationing - and what will happen will be just that - it ends there.

Clearly, specific guidelines for distribution will have to be developed. They ought to be in the form of guidelines at the federal level, with concrete rules left to the states. Leaders in state capitals are far more qualified to understand the needs of their people.

That sad, it is obvious nursing home residents should be at the top of the priority list. Roughly 40% of the deaths from COVID-19 have been of people living in long-term care facilities. In some states, the percentage is much higher.

And, while older people should be the priority, nursing home personnel should be given priority. Even though many of them may be at low risk personally, they are the carriers who take the virus into long-term care facilities. Keeping their virus out of their systems is vital.

Other health care professionals, ranging from ambulance staffers to doctors, nurses and support personnel at hospitals, should get the vaccine, too.

Rest assured that there will be enormous controversy over vaccine distribution, especially if steps such as protecting younger people such as nursing home employees are taken. Availability of any vaccine is weeks, perhaps months, away. Getting distribution plans in place as soon as possible - so they can be explained, debated and perhaps refined - is vital.

Online: https://www.journal-news.net

___

Sept. 26

The Register-Herald on the process to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court:

President Trump introduced Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday as his nominee to the Supreme Court, calling her “one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds.” And while that may be true, now – with just five weeks before a national election in which the president could be denied a second term and control of the Senate could flip to the Democrats – is no time to be filling a vacancy on the high court.

Certainly, elections have consequences as the Democrats were reminded when the president made good on his word to appoint conservative jurists to the bench. Trump’s appointment and the Senate’s approval of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh solidified the philosophical bearing of the court on the right. If Barrett, who subscribes to the same kind of conservative judicial philosophy as her onetime mentor Justice Antonin Scalia, were to be seated, she would be taking the seat formerly occupied by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon appointed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. The bench would then tilt dramatically to the hard philosophical right with a 6-3 majority.

Certainly, that is not where our country is philosophically.

Barrett, a judge on the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, has attracted praise from social conservatives for her religious faith as well as her strict interpretation of the Constitution. On the federal bench, where she has served two years, she has issued conservative decisions in cases involving immigration and the Second Amendment. But her views on abortion are likely to get the most attention during her confirmation process – especially during an election year.

For the record as to where the country is on the issue, Gallup polling in May showed 50 percent of those polled believe abortions should be legal under certain conditions with another 29 percent of those polled believing abortions should be legal under any condition.

The same poll found 20 percent of those polled oppose abortions under any circumstance.

Beyond a review of her judicial rulings as a judge, there is much personally to like about Barrett. She is, in her own words, “a room parent, car pool driver and birthday party planner” who adopted two children from Haiti and in recent months has had to learn the hurdles to online education just like so many other parents during the coronavirus pandemic that has closed schools.

But this is not about her. It is about a nation that is looking for new leadership in the White House and legislatively, a country leaning toward electing a new president. Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, leads in a vast majority of the polling – nationally and in swing states.

Likewise, the Republicans’ hold on power in the Senate – again, based on recent polling – is tenuous at best.

Given the rancor that currently infests the political beehive in D.C. and across the nation, it would not be healthy for our democracy if a lame duck president and an outgoing Senate were responsible for putting its heavy thumbs on the scales of justice.

To confirm Barrett – or any nominee, for that matter – before the Nov. 3 election would require a 38-day dash through a process that, in modern history, has typically taken twice as long.

Besides, polls show that most Americans say that the winner of the Nov. 3 election should fill the seat rather than President Trump rushing through an appointment before then.

Quite simply, an appointment of this magnitude must be made by the president inaugurated in January and then confirmed by the new Senate – whoever they may be.

Elections do have consequences. And the one that is underway with early voting should have the final and deciding voice.

Besides, if we waited nine months in 2016 as we did for an election to determine who would make the appointment, we can wait five weeks for this one.

Online: https://www.register-herald.com