Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s actions fly in the face of mandatory restrictions she instituted last year.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is declining to order state-wide lockdowns in response to her state experiencing the most severe Covid-19 outbreak in the country, opting instead to recommend that people take “personal responsibility” and “voluntarily” take a break from spaces where transmission is more likely.
The decision to refrain from instituting mandatory restrictions is a striking development for a Democratic governor who last year garnered national attention for swiftly instituting and standing by social distancing laws even in the face of militant right-wing protests and a kidnapping attempt against her. This time around, even as her state is experiencing a full-blown crisis, she’s taking a softer approach in what may be a political calculation about her reelection prospects next year.
Michigan has recently become the newest coronavirus epicenter of the US. Case rates have risen 375 percent since late February, and Michigan is home to 16 of the 20 metro areas with the nation’s highest recent number of cases. Sixteen Michigan hospitals are operating at over 90 percent capacity. Experts say that the surge is due to a combination of the enhanced contagiousness of the B.1.1.7 variant and relaxed restrictions.
But Whitmer has taken a decidedly incremental approach on reinstating distancing rules as her state is overwhelmed by new cases. At a press conference on Friday, she took a position that indicated a reluctance to reinstate full-blown lockdowns.
“We all have to step up our game for the next two weeks to bring down rising cases,” she said. “And that’s why I’m calling on high schools to voluntarily go remote for two weeks past spring break, I’m calling on youth sports to voluntarily suspend games and practices for two weeks, and I’m strongly encouraging all Michiganders to avoid dining indoors and avoid gathering with friends indoors for two weeks.”
“Policy alone won’t change the tide. We need everyone to step up and to take personal responsibility,” she said.
Whitmer emphasized that she wasn’t making restrictions mandatory, but didn’t rule out future restrictions.
Her actions in this situation stand in contrast to her use of state of emergency executive orders and stay-at-home orders last spring to bring down the rate of cases in her state — a response that was popular but also elicited vociferous push-back from conservative activists and the state’s Republican-controlled legislature.
Whitmer might be worried about pushback
A growing number of public health officials and experts are calling on Whitmer to take more aggressive action, and it is possible that she will do so at some point in the future. But for now, there are a few factors that could be playing a role in her resistance to issuing mandated actions.
One is the issue of efficacy. A great deal of polling data shows that fatigue with Covid-19 restrictions is a very real phenomenon, and that even many months ago people were reporting a decline in compliance with rules. Whitmer might be concerned that with the spread of the vaccine, better weather, the relaxation of restrictions in other states, and growing optimism, it could be difficult to achieve compliance with mandatory restrictions. There could be a concern that making rules required will make people resentful while not significantly improving health outcomes.
Another factor is political calculation. She may fear backlash and disapproval at a time when people are sick of restrictions, something of concern to her as she approaches reelection next year — in a state where Republicans control the legislature and have wasted no opportunities to paint her past Covid-19 restrictions as tyrannical.
Political observers believe Whitmer’s management of the pandemic will play a pivotal role in determining her reelection — and the reality is that perception of the virus is different now than it was a year ago.
But some public health experts say that trying to take what seems like a moderate position on social distancing during a crisis-level surge is a dangerous mistake.
“What it looks like happened is she tried to be fair and meet us in the middle,” Debra Furr-Holden, a Michigan State University epidemiologist whom Whitmer appointed to a coronavirus task force, told the New York Times. “And what I think we’ve learned — and I hope other states will get the message — is that there really isn’t a lot of middle ground here. We just have to tighten up and hold tight.”
Brexit and suspicions of favoritism are fueling a conflict that has been simmering for years despite peace accords.
Rioting in Northern Ireland continued on Friday night, with demonstrators using gas bombs against the police and setting a car on fire in the capital of Belfast.
The night of violence marked the eighth straight day of demonstrations and unrest in five towns and cities across Northern Ireland — a trend that has some experts worried about the possibility that the region could be seeing a sustained resurgence of sectarian violence. Saturday, April 10, is the 23rd anniversary of the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement that ended 30 years of such conflict, known as “the Troubles,” but unrest and violence has flared up from time to time ever since.
Over the past week, a double-decker bus has been hijacked and set on fire; masked youths have hurled homemade gas bombs at police; rival gangs have thrown bricks and fireworks at each other. So far there have been no deaths reported, but at least 74 police officers have been injured, and observers say that the period of turbulence marks the worst sectarian violence Northern Ireland has seen in eight years.
Most of the rioters are young people — some as young as 12, the Police Service of Northern Ireland told CNN. The violence has been concentrated in “unionist” communities, but conflict has also taken place in areas dividing unionist communities from “nationalist” neighborhoods. During the Troubles, unionists were largely Protestant and identified with loyalty to the United Kingdom, and nationalists were mostly Catholics, identified as Irish, and sought a united Ireland.
While conflict between the groups formally ended with the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, tensions and violence that hark back to the Troubles still resurface, and are often tied to concerns that one group holds undue influence or power over national affairs. The current set of clashes has become high-profile enough that the Biden administration released a brief statement expressing concern about rising violence.
Experts say that there is not one clear explanation for the recent clashes, but that there are a few different factors — which may be feeding off of each other. Brexit, and the sense in unionist communities that London is neglecting Northern Ireland by the terms of the agreement are one factor. Another issue is a recent decision by authorities to avoid prosecuting nationalist politicians for flouting Covid-19 protocols.
What is clear is that political observers see violence escalating at a worrying pace. “I think it’s very serious. It’s easy to see how things can escalate and hard to see how things can calm down,” Katy Hayward, a professor of political sociology at Queen’s University, Belfast, told the New York Times.
There are multiple factors driving the unrest in Northern Ireland
Conflict and violence between unionists and nationalists dates back decades. But the most recent spate of violence seems to be, at least in part, a response to a specific flashpoint in the relationship between the two communities.
A great deal of the initial violence came after state prosecutors decided last month they would not charge the leaders of nationalist party Sinn Fein for breaking Covid-19 regulations in June by attending the funeral for Bobby Storey. Storey was a former top member of the Irish Republican Army, the paramilitary group that waged a violent campaign against the British and for a reunified Ireland during the Troubles.
Many unionists perceived the decision to not prosecute the members of the party as a sign of political favoritism, given that unionists were told to cancel their traditional Twelfth of July parades last summer, and the loaded symbolism surrounding the funeral. The decision sparked outrage and protests.
“This is happening because of the PSNI [Police Service of Northern Ireland] and the judiciary system’s appeasement of republicans,” said Ian Edwards, a resident of the Shankill Road, a Protestant community, referring to the nationalists who favor a united Ireland.
Experts say another major factor fueling the anger and protests is the way that many in Northern Ireland feel betrayed by the terms of Brexit — the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union — which was completed at the beginning of this year. In this scenario, unionists feel blindsided by the British government, which they believe has left them in a lurch, as the New York Times reports:
Under an agreement in a protocol struck by [British Prime Minister Boris] Johnson, Northern Ireland was given a special economic status that leaves it straddling the United Kingdom and the European Union trade systems.
However, it also imposes some new checks, particularly on goods flowing from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland — something that is anathema to unionists who want equal treatment with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Despite the deal he signed up to, Mr. Johnson promised that there would be no new “border in the Irish Sea,” and, glossing over the looming difficulties, his government did little to prepare opinion in Northern Ireland for the changes.
Yet on Jan. 1, when the post-Brexit trade rules came into force, businesses faced new paperwork and some British companies stopped moving goods to Northern Ireland, causing some shortages on supermarket shelves. Amid rising tensions, checks on goods were halted temporarily after threats were made against customs staff.
In other words, Northern Ireland unionists feel they’ve been misled about the terms of Brexit and the economic impact it would have on them.
Another complicating factor is that the period around the Easter holiday often features “increased communal conflict,” Politico notes, because of Irish Republican Army commemorations among nationalists in Northern Ireland on the one side and unionist parades on the other.
Further complications may be coming from criminal groups who might be trying to add to the chaos and exploit tensions over Covid-19 restrictions in order to cause problems for law enforcement.
There’s a complex array of factors that could explain what’s contributing to the current chaos — and given that swirl, it could evolve further in the future.
The court rules that Bible study groups should be able to gather in private homes if commercial spaces are open.
The Supreme Court blocked California’s Covid-19 restrictions on religious gatherings in private homes in a late-night order on Friday, saying that the law infringes on constitutionally protected religious rights in a 5-4 vote.
The decision, in which Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the three dissenting liberal justices, marks the fifth time that the Supreme Court has sided with religious adherents protesting California’s laws designed to slow the spread of the coronavirus. And it underscores how Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s replacement of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in November has tilted the high court toward overruling state Covid-19 restrictions on religious services.
The unsigned majority opinion argued that California’s law — which limits both religious and non-religious gatherings in homes to no more than three households — treats religious gatherings unfairly in light of allowances for gatherings in commercial spaces. “California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts and indoor restaurants,” the opinion said.
But in her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, wrote that the majority opinion was making the wrong comparison between unlike activities: “The First Amendment requires that a state treat religious conduct as well as the state treats comparable secular conduct. Sometimes finding the right secular analogue may raise hard questions. But not today.”
The courts split on how California’s law treats commercial spaces differently than private homes
In her dissent, Kagan explained that California’s law doesn’t single out religious gatherings but simply treats all at-home gatherings differently than commercial spaces.
“California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the state also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the state does exactly that: It has adopted a blanket restriction on at-home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike,” she wrote.
The reason for the restrictions on households that don’t apply to commercial spaces, she wrote, is that gatherings in private homes are considered categorically riskier because of the more intimate way people gather in them.
That argument was in line with the majority opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the Supreme Court ultimately rejected.
In that opinion, judges Milan Smith Jr. and Bridget Bade wrote that it made sense for California law to treat commercial and non-commercial spaces differently: “The state reasonably concluded that when people gather in social settings, their interactions are likely to be longer than they would be in a commercial setting; that participants in a social gathering are more likely to be involved in prolonged conversations; that private houses are typically smaller and less ventilated than commercial establishments; and that social distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in private settings and enforcement is more difficult.”
The case that prompted the decision was brought by two Santa Clara County residents who said that Covid-19 restrictions violated their free speech rights by preventing their Bible study and prayer sessions with eight to 12 individuals.
Barrett has shifted the Supreme Court’s outlook on religious services
The Supreme Court’s decision in their favor is a reminder of how Barrett’s arrival has shifted the ideological makeup of the court, and its outlook on clashes between states and advocates for minimizing Covid-19 state restrictions on religious gatherings.
As legal analyst Adam Liptak notes at the New York Times, before Ginsburg’s death last year, the Supreme Court allowed California and Nevada to restrict religious service attendance, and Roberts, the chief justice, was siding with what was then a liberal contingent made up of four justices.
But that pattern shifted after Barrett’s arrival last fall, and the Supreme Court blocked New York’s restrictions on religious services.
Conservative activists rankled by Covid-19 restrictions hailed Friday’s Supreme Court ruling as a victory for the right and for freedom to worship.
That the state of California thinks it should be able to regulate who can pray together inside private homes is almost as appalling as the desire of all the brainwashed Fauci worshipping sheep for more arbitrary authoritarian COVID rules to keep them “safe” https://t.co/55fy62CyHc
— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) April 10, 2021