April 2020 – Page 3 – Public Policy Institute of California

Displaced by COVID-19: Moving Out of College Housing

With college students already taking courses online in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many are also faced with moving out of campus housing. It’s a necessary disruption to help keep the virus from spreading, but one that can place students far from academic support and other services precisely when they need support and services most.

While the disruption is temporary, the benefits of being on or near campus go beyond proximity to classes. Campus housing gives students better access to tutoring, counseling, health, and academic services. For these and other reasons, students who live in university housing have higher persistence and graduation rates.

Nearly all colleges are urging students to move out, and the vast majority of university-housed students will likely leave—or have left—campus. Some colleges have allowed students to stay in housing if they choose, while others require students to leave unless they qualify for an exemption, such as for international students, for health and safety concerns, or if they do not have a home to return to.

Prior to the pandemic, about 24% of all undergraduate students, at least 177,000, lived in university owned or operated housing at California public and private nonprofit colleges, most commonly in dormitories. Most students living in college housing are at the University of California (UC) and private nonprofit universities, even though the California State University (CSU) system enrolls far more undergraduates. CSU students are much more likely to commute from home or an off-campus apartment. Community colleges, which educate the largest number of college students in the state, rarely own and operate their own housing.

Freshmen are especially likely to live in university housing, making up a slight majority (51%) of the total. About 90% of freshmen at UC and private nonprofits live in college-operated housing. If the pandemic continues to displace students into the fall semester, those colleges will have to grapple with how to help new students adapt to college without living on campus.

The consequences of this large-scale early departure from campus are uncertain. As students move off campus, schools are working to find ways to provide essential student supports and potentially offer new ones, such as laptops and internet access, to limit the disruption in learning.

One effort by the California College Student Emergency Support Fund offered $500 hardship grants for low-income students to help pay for housing, technology, and other expenses. Within 90 minutes of the launch of the application, 1,000 students had applied. Within 24 hours, demand had far surpassed resources, and 65,000 students were placed on a waiting list, suggesting that a significant unmet need remains.

Unemployment Benefits in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Today, the US Department of Labor revealed that 925,450 Californians filed initial unemployment insurance claims during the week ending April 4. This makes for a record-breaking three-week period during which nearly two million claims were filed in California, representing roughly 10% of the labor force. What kind of benefits can these millions of newly unemployed workers receive?

Typically, Californians who qualify for unemployment receive a maximum of $450 per week as long as they are actively looking for work, and that assistance can last for up to 26 weeks. (Notably, benefits in California are less generous than those in most other states: in 2019, its average weekly benefit of $345 ranked 29th.) However, federal policymakers are responding to unprecedented circumstances; so far, they have expanded both eligibility and benefits.

Federal legislation temporarily expands eligibility. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act makes self-employed Californians—including gig workers and other independent contractors—who are unable to work or have had hours reduced by COVID-19 eligible to receive benefits. Also, laid-off workers who expect to return to their current jobs are not required to be searching for work.

The new law also supplements and extends benefits. The CARES Act provides $600 per week on top of typical benefits for up to four months. This represents a dramatic boost for most unemployed Californians. The legislation also covers the cost of a 13-week extension of benefits, so that laid-off workers can now receive unemployment for up to 39 weeks.

Unemployed Californians who earn less than $4,000/month would normally qualify for a benefit that replaces roughly half of their earnings, and the benefit covers a smaller and smaller share of earnings above $3,894/month. The $600 federal supplement is higher than California’s maximum benefit and more than covers prior earnings for many unemployed Californians.

It is likely that workers in the state’s hardest-hit sectors make up a large share of early applicants for unemployment benefits. In the accommodation and food service industry—one of the hardest-hit sectors—the average monthly wage is roughly $2,000; an unemployed worker could receive up to $3,700 per month. The average worker in transportation and warehousing, another impacted industry, earns more than twice as much ($5,000/month), but unemployment benefits for this worker would be only slightly higher: up to $4,550 per month.

These expanded benefits will help millions of newly unemployed Californians, but the state and its workers face important limitations and challenges. Given the massive surge in applications, workers may have to wait several weeks—or months—to receive benefits. Moreover, laid-off immigrants who are unauthorized to work in the US will have to rely on other support.

More generally, California’s unemployment insurance fund reserves are inadequate to weather even a mild recession, although the federal government steps in to loan the funds when needed. In the longer term, policymakers should seriously consider reforms to the unemployment system, so that it can respond quickly and comprehensively in the next economic crisis.

Online Medical Care during COVID-19

California policymakers have recently taken bold steps to ease the strain on the health care infrastructure during the COVID-19 global pandemic. California was the first to enact a statewide shelter-in-place order to reduce community transmission. It has also implemented measures to lower the rate of transmission in health care settings—including policies that encourage the use of telehealth, especially online doctor visits. To make online healthcare truly accessible, however, the state will need to address its digital divide.

The California Department of Managed Health Care has required that all health plans allow people to obtain health care via telehealth and reimburse telehealth consultations at the same rate as in-person visits, without increasing patient costs. This mandate covers Medi-Cal managed-care plans, which serve about 85% of the low-income Californians enrolled in the program. The California Department of Health Care Services had already given providers more flexibility in billing Medi-Cal for telehealth services in 2019; in late March, it further expanded the range of telehealth services that safety net providers can provide.

A recent survey found that a small percentage of Californians use telehealth services, and national estimates (based on Medicare and private health claims data) suggest that telehealth accounts for less than 0.25% of medical services provided. Policy barriers, such as restrictive requirements and privacy concerns, contribute to low usage. Recent state and local efforts to lower these barriers could help boost usage, but not all Californians will be able to access medical care through telehealth due to the state’s digital divide.

Among low-income Californians, those with private health insurance are most likely to have computers in their household (82%), while those covered by Medicare (mostly seniors over 65) least likely to have computers (59%)—indeed, these low-income Californians are less connected than those who are uninsured. About 75% of Californians covered by Medi-Cal have access to a computer at home and about 60% report that they have high-speed internet connectivity.

Some of the policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis could narrow the state’s digital divide. For example, the governor recently announced a plan to distribute computers and provide high-speed internet access to support distance learning for California’s K–12 students while schools are closed. This could help many low-income families gain access to telehealth and other online resources. However, one-third of low-income households do not include school-aged children.

As the public health crisis continues to unfold, it will be important to assess trends in telehealth use and to understand and address disparities. Currently, the state has limited resources for this type of analysis, but the comprehensive health payment database that is currently being developed could help policymakers examine these and other issues.

COVID-19 Will Make California Elections Challenging but Doable

California’s November 3 general election could come in the midst of a new viral surge. This poses tremendous risks to voters and poll workers at in-person voting sites. Even if we wanted to have the same number of polling places, it might be difficult to find volunteers willing to staff them.

The good news is that the transition to a safer approach, while challenging, is more manageable in California than in most states.

One option is off the table: postponing the fall election. Many states have postponed their primaries, but postponing a general election would require congressional approval and would run up against deadlines hardwired into the U.S. Constitution.

Instead, we must get as many voters to cast ballots by mail as possible. In most states, such a switch would be complicated, but California has long been friendly to vote by mail (VBM). California’s VBM rate is very high and growing. Almost two-thirds of ballots in the 2018 general election were either mailed in or dropped off at a polling place.

Fourteen counties have rapidly increased their VBM capacity already by sending every registered voter a VBM ballot by default. They have also replaced polling places with a smaller number of “vote centers” that are open to any voter in the county and for early voting before Election Day. Almost a quarter of registered voters are now covered by this system, up from 7% in the fall of 2018.

Five of these 14 counties switched to this new model in 2018 and saw the share of ballots cast by mail increase an average of 20% from the 2016 general election. Preliminary evidence also suggests the reform slightly increased turnout without negatively impacting underrepresented groups like Latinos, Asian Americans, and young people.

COVID-19 will move elections across the state closer to this model. Governor Newsom has mandated something like this for the special elections coming in April and May. Though this is a realistic path forward, it is not without obstacles. Preparation time is short. And the risk of infection will alter the siting and staffing of in-person options, even in experienced counties.

Furthermore, initial positive experiences in vote center counties may not translate to the rest of the state. A chaotic transition could create unforeseen problems that prompt some to throw up their hands and not vote at all. Young people and voters of color are more likely to use in-person voting, so great care must be taken to ensure they receive news of the change, trust that the change is being done fairly, and have options besides VBM if they want them.

Fortunately, California is well positioned here, too. Organizations like the Future of California Elections have helped make the state a national model for robust communication between election administrators and stakeholders.

The task is daunting, but we have little choice. Our best hope for a safe and fair election is to expand vote from home options as much as possible. The question is not whether to do it, but to recognize the challenges and work to mitigate them as much as possible.

COVID-19 and Crime in Major California Cities

Public safety is one of many areas of life being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Now that most Californians are staying home in response to the statewide shelter-in-place order, the overall number of reported crimes is declining in four of the state’s largest cities. But there is also evidence of an uptick in some types of crime.

We examined the daily reported crime numbers for two large Southern California cities and two Bay Area cities: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland. It is important to note that while these cities make their data quickly available for analysis, the numbers are preliminary: law enforcement agencies update and review the data before submitting them to DOJ as official statistics. Also, we do not yet have data on other cities or rural areas across the state. And, finally, it is possible that our highly unusual circumstances are affecting the extent to which crime is reported.

Comparing the average weekly number of reported crimes in February to the number reported for the last week in March shows an overall drop from about 6,150 to 3,620—a decrease of 41%. Declines have been particularly large in the two Bay Area cities: about 69% in Oakland and around 55% in San Francisco. Crime reports began to fall in all four cities a few weeks before shelter-in-place orders were issued for the Bay Area (March 16) and the state (March 19)—after employers started urging their workers to stay home.

Property crime accounts for roughly 80% of the overall decrease: reports fell from a weekly average of 4,270 in February to 2,270 in the last week of March (a drop of about 47%). This trend was driven by a decline in larceny reports, particularly car break-ins. The drop in larcenies, which are most striking in the Bay Area, could quite possibly be largely attributable to the absence of tourists.

Overall reports of violent crime dropped from a weekly average of about 1,880 in February to about 1,360 in the last week of March—a 28% decrease. Oakland experienced the most dramatic drop—from about 200 to 70. The number of reported assaults dropped from 1,430 to around 1,100 (22%). The overall decrease in robberies—from about 350 to 260—was driven largely by the Bay Area.

There are some notable exceptions to this downward trend. While reports of domestic violence are down overall for the four cities, Los Angeles saw an uptick in the last two weeks of March, and the weekly number of reported robberies in San Diego were also up somewhat. More broadly, a slight increase in reported commercial burglaries across all four cities suggests that burglars may be shifting from residential to commercial targets now that so many people are at home at all times of day.

It is too soon to draw firm conclusions about recent trends, but it will be important to track and monitor crime data so that we can identify vulnerabilities in our communities and determine whether new approaches are needed to maintain public safety in these challenging times.

Groundwater Sustainability Planning Undeterred by COVID-19

COVID-19 has forced many of us to find creative ways of working together while sheltering in place. For California’s new groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), that means bringing together diverse groups of stakeholders in virtual forums to develop and implement state-mandated groundwater sustainability plans. We talked to Dave Ceppos—who, as managing senior mediator at Sacramento State’s Consensus and Collaboration Program, is working with many GSAs—about how the pandemic is affecting the complex public outreach process required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

PPIC: Talk about how the pandemic lockdown is affecting the groundwater sustainability planning process.

DAVE CEPPOS: Unlike other public engagement laws and regulations, SGMA requires a dialogue between a GSA’s leadership and affected stakeholders. Planning and decision making need to take into account not only technical information about local groundwater basins, but also social information about water uses and needs. The GSAs have to show they’ve gotten input from water users, and that they’ve considered the impacts of their decisions on the local community. These conversations are hard and nuanced—basically, the GSAs are new regulatory agencies, the groundwater gods for their local area, and that’s a big change. Sheltering in place has made these complex conversations harder. I think GSAs are just getting their heads around the magnitude of the work they have to do under these new conditions, but they are rising rapidly to the challenge.

PPIC: How is the GSA community responding to limitations on public gatherings?

DC: In the past three weeks we’ve seen a pause in some places—the postponement of meetings that were coming up too fast to reconfigure to an online format, for example. But generally, work is continuing, and they’re taking it very seriously. My staff has already done probably six virtual SGMA public meetings. In the basins where plans are still under development, there is an outlying question about a possible need for an extension beyond the January 2022 deadline if the lockdown continues for a significant period of time, but for now it’s business as usual.

The governor’s recent executive orders relaxing some rules about how public meetings are held have been extraordinarily helpful—without them our work would be almost impossible. Meetings are continuing virtually. The agencies we’re working with are fully committed on publicizing meetings and putting out public messaging, but they’re not being hamstrung by Brown Act requirements about having to hold meetings in public places.

PPIC: SGMA involves many players from diverse groups, living in rural areas that may not have adequate online infrastructure for virtual participation. What’s being done to ensure that public participation is inclusive and fair?

DC: Every GSA that I know of is doing their best in terms of their obligation and their commitment to actively engage with the public. That said, not everyone has access to the internet. Not everyone can get information online, or can print agenda packets, which can be mammoth. We have farmers who attend midday meetings by calling in from their trucks—they can’t toggle through those packages or watch an online Powerpoint presentation from their phones. This is a daunting process involving a lot of complex information.

The reality is that even before this current crisis, our society had moved to a digital world that has left some people behind. In conversations we’re having with agencies, there’s typically an immediate rush to the online tools with the most bells and whistles. But for a facilitator, the first question we ask is, “what do we need to accomplish in a particular meeting?” Then we try to find the tools and methods to do that. To facilitate SGMA dialogues, we know that some people call in and can’t use online resources. We seek to create equity in virtual discussions by toggling back and forth between people in the virtual room and those sitting in trucks and kitchens who need to weigh in over the phone. When it comes to fostering inclusive dialogue, it’s not the bells and whistles that do it—it’s structuring meetings and using facilitation methods to make sure equity is maintained.

This is a challenging time, but we will get through it. Facilitators call it “change management,” which is all about helping people through a new condition by setting new expectations and behaviors. The good news is we humans are excellent at this, and we’re doing it already. Whether we need to manage this change for six weeks or six months, we’ll prevail and continue with this important work.

Note: On April 8, Dave Ceppos will lead a webinar by the Groundwater Resources Association of California, “How to Engage in a Socially Distanced World.”

What’s the Plan to End Groundwater Overdraft in the San Joaquin Valley?

In the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, work on managing groundwater for long-term sustainability continues, as required by California’s landmark Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). In January, water users in 21 critically overdrafted basins delivered their groundwater sustainability plans to the state Department of Water Resources. In this series, we examine the 36 plans submitted for 11 critically overdrafted basins in the San Joaquin Valley—California’s largest farming region. PPIC has done extensive work on what SGMA means for this region, where excess pumping is a major challenge. This post examines how the plans propose to end overdraft.

What are the options for ending overdraft?
SGMA requires water users to bring their groundwater basins into long-term balance over the next two decades. Although there are no easy solutions, the math is simple: bringing these basins into balance will require expanding water supplies, reducing water demands, or a combination of these two approaches.

Our in-depth study of water solutions for the San Joaquin Valley found that about a quarter of the region’s 1.8 million acre-feet (maf) of annual overdraft could be filled with new supplies at a cost that local water users can afford. Among supply options, by far the most promising approach is expanding groundwater recharge: storing more of the runoff from large storms in underground aquifers. Filling the remaining three-quarters of the gap will likely require demand reductions. Since agriculture is the predominant water user, this will entail taking some farmland—at least 500,000 acres—out of production. Giving farmers the flexibility to trade water—so it can be used on the most productive lands—can reduce the costs of ending overdraft by two-thirds.

What do the new groundwater sustainability plans propose to do?
As the figure below shows, the plans consider a range of projects on both the supply and demand sides. Together, these projects would yield roughly 2.2 maf per year—in principle, enough to end regional overdraft. However, the plans invert our estimates: they assume that new supplies will account for more than three-quarters of the total, while demand management will save less than one-quarter. In line with our analysis, the single biggest new supply is recharging groundwater basins with more floodwater: the plans target roughly 1 million acre-feet annually, primarily through many small, local projects. Big infrastructure investments—such as new surface reservoirs and regional aqueducts and canals—are largely left out.

Are the goals for expanding supplies realistic?
Probably not. When it comes to recharge, water users will be competing for floodwater that can be feasibly captured—likely a much smaller volume than the total envisaged by the plans. Although that total might be physically available for recharge, there are serious capacity constraints to getting it underground. A central challenge is moving very large volumes of water to storage sites quickly. Addressing this challenge is likely to require regional investments in conveyance, and greater efforts to coordinate the management of surface and groundwater storage infrastructure in order to expand their combined impact. Even then, it is probably not feasible to capture all available water in very wet years.

There are also limitations for the other supply options. Most surface storage and surface water treatment projects will be looking to capture the same high flow water as recharge projects—heightening the competition for these supplies. And most surface water trading and recycled water projects will shift available supplies from some water users to others within the region, rather than causing an overall increase in regional supplies.

What about the plans for reducing demand?
For the most part, the plans fall short on their analysis of demand management. Since reducing water use in this region largely means reducing the amount of irrigated cropland, there’s been reluctance to seriously consider the demand side at this early stage of SGMA implementation. But it’s encouraging that at least some plans are starting to look at such options. Several plans propose tools for managing demand flexibly—for example, groundwater trading, fees tied to volumes pumped, and monetary incentives for land fallowing.

What’s next?
These new plans are an early step on the path toward groundwater sustainability. As implementation gets under way, early actions—such as piloting new approaches to manage demand flexibly and coordinating on smart and affordable supply investments—can lay the foundation for long-term success.

Note: The underlying data and additional notes on supply and demand options identified in these plans can be found in Data Set: PPIC San Joaquin Valley GSP Supply and Demand Projects.

Challenging Times for California

This is a time of global crisis. We are all living through a fast-moving, large-scale disaster that is having extraordinary public health and economic consequences. Here in California, public leaders and private industries took early action to mitigate the effects of COVID-19, putting policies in place to flatten the curve sooner than any other state. And while the full extent of the pandemic has yet to be realized, Californians should feel proud of our state’s ability to assess and respond rapidly to counteract this generational challenge.

The pandemic is touching every aspect of life today. Students, agricultural workers, health care practitioners—all Californians are struggling to adjust to enormous changes in their responsibilities and daily routines. At PPIC, we are thinking about the effects on our state’s most vulnerable populations: seniors living in areas with sparse medical care, children receiving free or reduced price lunches, essential workers struggling to stay above the poverty line.

We are also deeply concerned with what lies ahead. How will our economy—just recently in the longest growth cycle ever recorded—respond in the long term? How can the state improve opportunities for those hardest hit by this crisis? What can we observe, measure, and propose that will help California to rebuild itself efficiently, effectively, and equitably?

PPIC will be delving into these questions as this crisis plays out. For now, in these fluid and rapidly changing times, we are focused on bringing critical facts and information to the table—assessing the state’s economy, people, communities, and environment. Our blog series on COVID-19 provides wide-ranging analyses across key policy areas, from education to health care, from criminal justice to water policy. And the PPIC Statewide Survey will be offering perspectives on the pandemic and the economy from Californians across the state.

For 25 years, PPIC has worked hard to inform and improve public policy in California. 2020 may be one of our most challenging years yet, but we are ready and able to meet that challenge.

⇒ For PPIC’s full series on the coronavirus and California, visit our COVID-19 page.

How COVID-19 Closures May Disrupt Student Learning

All but one of California’s K–12 schools have closed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, causing massive disruptions for the state’s 6.2 million students. This week, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that closures are expected to continue through the end of the school year, although the final decision rests with local officials.

School is technically still in session, but distance learning is unlikely to fully compensate for lost time. Assuming schools remain closed through the school year, how detrimental will this be to student learning?

First, learning time matters. In studies measuring how students performed based on differences in when they took exams, even a few days can have a large impact. We also know that missing school reduces academic performance and that chronic absenteeism is particularly damaging, tied to a variety of outcomes such as achievement, socio-emotional development, and dropout. However, the impact of missing school under normal, predictable conditions is less relevant to our current situation.

Disruption from weather-related closures may be a better gauge for how COVID-19 closures could impact students. Roughly 1.2 million K-12 students in California were affected by emergency closures last year, mainly due to wildfires and other weather-related events. According to data from Maryland, schools fare worse on state exams in years with more weather-related closures, despite these closures accounting for only a week of instruction on average.

However, when we consider the impact of individual student absences versus school-wide closures, the effects of closures are negligible. Educators may find it easier to compensate for school-wide closures by adjusting or delaying lesson plans. While this suggests a reason for optimism, mitigating entire months of lost instructional time will require more than reorganizing lesson plans.

Additional insights come from the long documented phenomenon known as “summer learning loss”: the typical student loses about one month’s worth of learning over the course of a summer. Importantly, summer losses tend to be larger for disadvantaged students who have access to fewer resources and learning opportunities while away from school.

This means that achievement gaps tend to grow during the summer, reversing gains achieved during the year. This is worrisome: if schools remain closed for the remainder of the school year, we may face an even larger “spring and summer” loss.

Notably, these effects would be on top of any effects from having fewer instructional days. Distance learning may help mitigate losses, but the state’s most disadvantaged students may fall even further behind because of inequities in access to computer equipment and internet connectivity.

Continued support for distance learning programs will be crucial as closures continue, as will efforts to give students better access to better online learning. Google’s plan to provide free Wi-Fi and laptops to thousands of students is a step in the right direction.

Policymakers could also consider options to recover lost time over the summer or in the following year, as evidence shows programs that offer more learning time—during the school year or the summer—can benefit students. While this strategy would be difficult and costly to achieve, the severity of the COVID-19 disruption to student learning may justify extraordinary options.

Counting Californians and Holding Elections in a Pandemic

Today is Census Day, the day to count everyone living in the country in 2020. It’s not the deadline for responses—you have until August 14 to complete your census form—just the “anchor day” for counting those living in your household. We talked to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla about the challenges the COVID-19 pandemic brings to counting Californians—and for holding elections in November.

PPIC: What challenges does the pandemic bring to conducting the census?

ALEX PADILLA: Ensuring a fair and accurate count is tough under normal circumstances, and it’s made more challenging by this global health pandemic. A lot of the state and local strategies for engaging the public on the census have had to be modified or replaced with ones that are more effective when people are staying at home. The good news is, this is the first time it’s been possible to do the census online, as well as by phone or paper. We’re seeing people get more creative at staying in touch while keeping their distance, whether through video chats with their coworkers or using teleconferencing to stay in touch with family and friends. We can also use these methods to remind everyone to do the census.

It’s really important to remember that participation in the census is how we ensure our communities receive their fair share of federal dollars for critical needs such as public health, education, public safety, housing, and infrastructure. This message is really striking a chord right now.

PPIC: As they shelter in place, what can Californians do to help ensure an accurate census count?

AP: Every Californian should participate in the census, but also remind people they’re in touch with to do so. Assuring a complete and fair count depends on everyone doing the census. It’s not just a count of adults or voters or citizens; it’s for everybody living here.

California has an especially high number of hard-to-count populations—for example, communities of color, young people, and immigrant families and communities. More than 70% of Californians fit into a hard-to-count category. It already takes extra effort to ensure participation by these groups. The pandemic is not making the job any easier—at a time when the job is more important than ever for ensuring the state gets its share of federal funding for critical needs over the next decade.

Based on the prior census 10 years ago, California’s most undercounted population were kids under five years old. My youngest just turned five, and especially now with all the kids at home, it’s hard to imagine forgetting to include him as he’s the loudest member of our household! Today, kids who weren’t counted in 2010 are now teens who’ve been in school for years, but their schools haven’t been getting their full share of federal education dollars. It’s a very tangible way to think about it, and it shows the importance of the census for our quality of life.

There are many options for participating in the census. Go online or call in today. Once you’ve submitted your information, help us by spreading the word with neighbors you’re checking in on and friends and family.

PPIC: Talk about the administration of the upcoming election.

AP: To put it in context, we should recognize that throughout the nation’s history, Americans have gone to the polls—in times of war, during the Great Depression, and even during the deadly 1918 flu pandemic. So it’s not a matter of if or when we’ll hold the election. We have a date: it’s Tuesday, November 3. It’s a matter of how we hold the election in a way that is accessible, secure, and healthy for everyone—voters, elections personnel, poll workers. Many things California has championed to get more people voting really make a lot of sense in an era of public distancing. You can register to vote online. Voting by mail and in-person early voting are good ways to avoid crowds. We’re diligently working on expanding those opportunities.