In the last week, our partner station KQED has been reporting on a potential conflict of interest by a lawyer in the PG&E Bankruptcy case. With 16,000 Northern California fire victims as clients, an attorney named Mikal Watts represents more fire survivors than any other attorney in the case.

(Image: The Coffey Park neighborhood was one of the hardest hit by 2017 Tubbs Fire. Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Benjamin Cosse.)

It turns out his lawsuits have been financed by Wall Street firms negotiating against survivors in the case. Lily Jamali is the co-host of KQED’s California Report, she spoke with KRCB's Adia White about the details of the case. 

Read Lily Jamali's full story at KQED.org.

By Barbara Feder Ostrov, CalMatters

They dressed in scrubs. They sounded scientific. And last week’s message from two Bakersfield doctors was exactly what many stuck-at-home Americans wanted to hear: COVID-19 is no worse than influenza, its death rates are low and we should all go back to work and school. 

Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, who own urgent care centers in the region, had called a press conference to release their conclusions about the results of 5,213 COVID-19 tests they had conducted at their centers and testing site. They claimed the results showed that the virus had spread further in the area, undetected, and thus wasn’t all that dangerous.

But public health experts were quick to debunk the doctors’ findings as misguided and riddled with statistical errors — and an example of the kind of misleading information they are forced to waste precious time disputing.

The doctors should never have assumed that the patients they tested — who came for walk-in COVID-19 tests or who sought urgent care for symptoms they experienced in the middle of a pandemic — are representative of the general population, said Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling. He likened their extrapolations to “estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court.” And most credible studies of COVID-19 death rates in reality are far higher than the ones the doctors presented. 

“They’ve used methods that are ludicrous to get results that are completely implausible,” Bergstrom said. 

Still, the early media coverage went viral. A local television report on the Bakersfield doctors’ press conference garnered more than 4.3 million views on YouTube. Elon Musk, the Tesla founder who wants to reopen his Fremont manufacturing plant this week, praised the doctors to his 33 million-plus Twitter followers. Tonight, the doctors are to get a conservative national audience for their views on Fox News, appearing on Laura Ingraham’s show.

In a rare statement late Monday, the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine declared they “emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Messihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.”

The doctors had set up Bakersfield’s only private walk-in COVID-19 testing site and performed about half of all tests conducted in the area. They did not respond to a CalMatters request for comment Monday.

Misinformation thrives in a pandemic, and public health officials in California and elsewhere just can’t keep up.

“This pandemic has been so severely politicized in this country that evidence, no matter how poor, gets amplified enormously if it benefits one side or another,” said Bergstrom, who also was one of the first experts to critique the doctors’ study on Twitter. “We always hoped this crisis wouldn’t come, but that if it did we’d all be in this together. That’s been a huge surprise for all of us doing infectious disease epidemiology. It’s amazing to have to deal with this misinformation that’s being spread around for political purposes and the ways that interferes with adequate public health response.”

California Democratic state Sen. Richard Pan, a pediatrician who chairs the Senate Health Committee, said lawmakers who favor reopening the state had not yet cited the Bakersfield doctors’ conclusions as a justification to do so. But if they did, they’d “be on pretty weak ground,” he said. 

The doctors “basically hyped a bunch of data and weren’t transparent about their methods. And they really played on the fact that they’re physicians. I think it’s quite disingenuous of them.” Pan said. “Then we have to push back on any media that promotes this information. They’re really doing this as a way to fish for attention.” 

A Kern County public health spokeswoman told reporters that officials did not support the doctors’ call to reopen the region. Other epidemiologists echoed that sentiment.

But already the Bakersfield doctors  — who tout their support of President Donald Trump and refuse to wear masks in public — had become heroes on social platforms and conservative media outlets, with some commenters calling them “brave.” Others who support continuing to shelter-in-place described the doctors as self-promoters whose chain of urgent care centers would benefit from reopening. Non-COVID medical visits have plummeted during the pandemic, endangering the practices of many doctors.

“As struggling business owners, their economic frustration is understandable. But it can’t be mistaken for science. People trust doctors,” Michigan emergency room doctor Rob Davidson wrote on Twitter. “When they tell Fox viewers to ignore recommendations from real experts, many will believe them…The impact of rejecting science-proven recommendations in exchange for these erroneous ideas would overwhelm health systems and cost lives. While re-opening the economy might be good for their Urgent Care Centers (sic), it would kill medical personnel on the actual front lines.”

Other highly-publicized studies of antibody test results by Stanford and USC researchers were similarly criticized for sampling bias and for the poor reliability of the tests it used. Researchers had suggested that COVID-19’s true spread in the community was much higher than expected and resulting death rates were low. But again, politicians and media who favor reopening states right away cited them as supporting evidence. 

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

By Ben Christopher, CalMatters

This coming November, every one of California’s more than 20 million registered voters may receive a ballot in the mail — whether they ask for one or not. In fact, many election administrators and advocates say it’s inevitable.

“It’s not a question of ‘if,’ said Kim Alexander, the president of the California Voter Foundation. “But ‘how.’”

California is already ahead of the curve when it comes to voting from home. In the March primary election, 75% of voters got a ballot in their mailbox. But the exigencies of social distancing are putting pressure on state lawmakers to round that up to 100%, ensuring that every registered voter has the option to cast a ballot without having to physically crowd into a polling place.    

A bill from Palo Alto Democratic Assemblyman Marc Berman would ensure just that. But with most state legislators sheltering in place until at least early May, all eyes are on the governor who, with an executive order, could make the upcoming election an all-mail affair. 

Earlier this month, Joe Holland, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials and top election official in Santa Barbara County, sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a letter requesting that he ink a new edict, declaring the November contest an “all-mail ballot election.” 

Even if mass gatherings are permitted in November — something Newsom says is unlikely — county election officials say time is of the essence. Ballots have to be ordered, voter rolls assembled, polling places secured. 

“The consensus for November 2020 is that California is going to go all vote-by-mail — and we should. We don’t want to have a Wisconsin debacle,” Holland said, referring to the April 7 presidential primary where some voters reported waiting in line for five hours. Since then at least three dozen voters and polling workers in Wisconsin have tested positive for COVID-19.

(Image: Sean Freese / Flickr)

The governor’s press office has not responded to a request for comment about prospects for a California all vote-by-mail election. 

Even an “all-mail” election in California isn’t quite what it sounds like — it wouldn’t really be without a brick-and-mortar option. For those who need some extra help exercising their right to vote, state law requires counties to set up a certain number of in-person polling places.

Through Holland, the association also asked Newsom to grant them the authority to radically scale back that requirement. And therein lies the current rub.

Some advocates warn that an insufficient number of drop-off sites and vote centers could leave many voters — particularly those from underrepresented demographic groups — either unable to vote or stuck in long lines at the few remaining in-person locations.

“Waiving the state’s in-person voting standards will potentially disenfranchise tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of California voters,” union president Bob Schoonover, whose chapter of the Service Employees International Union represents tens of thousands of public sector workers across Southern California, wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Alex Padilla earlier this month.

Like so many debates of the COVID-era, it’s a disagreement that pits constitutional rights once thought to be non-negotiable against the prescriptions of public health. 

“We’re trying to find the right balance of response that gives voters as much choice as possible, but also keeps them safe, and frankly, which is also implementable in the short number of months that the counties have to gear up,” said California Common Cause interim director Kathay Feng.

The coronavirus pandemic has injected new urgency into the national conversation about voting by mail, with some states now making it easier for voters to cast their ballots while self-isolating at home — and others not, and getting sued for it. 

Despite evidence that making it easier to vote remotely does not benefit one party over another, the debate has taken on a partisan bent. 

Weighing in earlier this month, President Trump urged Republicans to fight “very hard” against the expansion of vote-by-mail opportunities, claiming without evidence that such a system has “tremendous potential for voter fraud” and that “for whatever reason” such systems don’t “work out well for Republicans.” 

The president’s views notwithstanding, recent polling has found strong majorities of Americans believe voters ought to be able to cast their ballots by mail without an excuse — though results are split on whether a majority of Republicans feel the same way. 

But in California, there is little debate in policy-making circles about the merits of vote-by-mail elections.

Throughout April, Secretary of State Padilla — the administrator in chief of the state election system and, like Gov. Newsom, a Democrat — convened roughly 80 election officials, experts and advocates. They met, remotely, of course, in daily conference calls to game out how California might hold a statewide election during a full-blown pandemic.

Subgroups splintered off to hammer out every last logistical detail. Would registration deadlines be changed? How will each voter’s language preference be determined? Self-adhering envelopes that risk gumming up ballot-counting machines versus those sealed by pathogen-packed spit — how should counties decide?

Jonathan Stein, a program manager for the Asian Law Caucus’ voting rights program, was part of that task force. He said there was unanimity on at least one issue.

“There seemed to be almost universal agreement that we need to send every single voter a vote-by-mail ballot,” he said.

The question is, what other options will be available too?

Election rights advocates say in-person polling places offer a vital service to voters who don’t speak English, who experience some kind of disability, who don’t have a fixed address, who recently moved or who simply don’t feel comfortable with or do not understand the vote-by-mail process. 

“There are a lot of communities that depend on polling places and polling centers,” said Mike Young, political director at the California League of Conservation Voters. In California, in-person voters skew poorer, younger and less white than the average voter. 

An insufficient number of polling places could jeopardize public health even further, Young added. Like Holland, he pointed to Wisconsin as a cautionary tale. “People are anticipating that this is going to be an insanely high-turnout election.”

California voting rights advocates seem to have at least the tacit support of the state’s top election official.

“I think people who need or prefer an in-person option deserve it,” Padilla told KQED earlier this month. “And so we’re going to have to work really hard with counties to ensure we maintain as much in-person voting as we can.”

But county registrars argue that such requirements may put voters and poll workers at unnecessary risk. 

“Quite frankly if we had an election tomorrow I wouldn’t be within a hundred feet of a polling place,” said Holland in Santa Barbara.

There are also practical questions about space and staffing, both of which are severely limited by the pandemic. Polling places are often hosted in schools, senior centers, and the garages of private homes —  most of which are likely off the table now. The typical poll worker is a retiree, a cohort particularly at risk of severe COVID-19 complications. 

Santa Barbara County is preparing to reduce the number of in-person locations from the 86 that were open in March to around five. Holland’s office may use the registrar’s three offices and then try to secure a handful of additional sites and the necessary poll workers.

“I don’t know if I can find three other facilities,” he said. “I have 15 staff and that’s when they’re here and healthy and right now three or four are out sick.”

Assemblyman Berman’s bill said his bill does not yet address in-person polling site requirements, but that the “first move shouldn’t be to weaken existing in-person voting requirements.” He urged state and county officials to be “creative” in finding locations and staff. 

In the meantime, he said, some additional guidance from the governor could be helpful.

Newsom has already issued an executive order mandating that all voters in two upcoming special elections receive ballots in the mail. Though the order “encouraged” counties “to make in-person voting opportunities available,” they were given the freedom to do so “in a manner consistent with public health and safety.”

The two elections, a Senate race in Riverside County and a congressional contest north of Los Angeles, is showcasing how counties may differ in how they administer elections during a pandemic. In the congressional race, split between Los Angeles and Ventura counties, there will be at least a dozen locations where voters can drop off ballots in-person. 

In Riverside County, home to the special Senate district, there will be only two physical drop-off points and no polling places or vote centers where voters can have their questions answered or their errors corrected. 

“That’s a perfect illustration of what will happen if we give election officials full discretion,” said Stein.

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.