What You Need to Know: Friday, March 1
South Carolina and Michigan hold primaries, SCOTUS weighs social media law, and taking a look at curbside voting
The Civic Listening Corps was formed in January 2022 to give communities across the country the tools and training needed to identify and fight the misinformation we see online every day. Our goal is to use the knowledge we gather together to prevent further attempts to undermine our civic discourse.
By subscribing to our reports, sharing this post, or directing your friends and family to civiclistening.org, YOU can make a difference against the spread of online misinformation.
What happened in South Carolina and Michigan?
What were the results in Michigan? Michigan’s Democratic and Republican primary elections took place on Tuesday night. Joe Biden won, securing 81.8% of the vote. The current president was trailed by “uncommitted,” an option 13.2% of voters marked on their ballots. Trump secured 68.1% of the vote, gaining 12 delegates for the Republican National Convention. Nikki Haley gained 26.6% of the vote, earning her four delegates and second place.
“Uncommitted”? Why would someone vote that way? Tuesday’s results indicated that roughly one in eight Democratic voters chose uncommitted on the ballot, a choice in “protest of the Biden administration’s policies toward Israel and the war in Gaza.” The Michigan Department of State writes in their election frequently asked questions that a vote of uncommitted implies voters “are exercising a ‘party vote’ but are not committed to any of the candidates listed on the ballot,” indicating dissatisfaction with the options available. It is not unheard of for primary voters to choose uncommitted as an option. In 2012, 11% of Michigan Democrats participating in the primary chose uncommitted over incumbent Pres. Barak Obama.
Michigan is home to the largest Arab American population in the United States. Three out of four Democratic voters in the Arab American community in Michigan opted to vote as “uncommitted,” reflecting their deep concern over the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. Many feel disillusioned by what they view as the Biden administration’s ineffectiveness in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) – the only Palestinian American in Congress – encouraged her constituents to vote “uncommitted,” stating, “When 74 percent of Democrats in Michigan support a cease-fire, yet President Biden is not hearing us, this is the way we can use our democracy to say ‘listen.’ Listen to Michigan.” Dearborn, Michigan Mayor Abdullah Hammoud stated on Wednesday, “Yesterday was a resounding victory. It’s my hope, Mr. President, that you listen to us, that you choose democracy over tyranny.”
What does this mean for Biden? Political analysts suggest it is impossible to know if an “uncommitted” vote in the primary translates into a vote for the Republican candidate in the general election, or simply staying home. However, Michigan’s primary is indicative that Biden, who fares well among typical Democratic primary voters (who tend to be older, white, and repeat Democratic voters), could have an issue among other voters. This is not the first election where constituents have engaged in protest voting. In 1940, Irish Americans voted Republican to oppose “Franklin D. Roosevelt administration’s hostility to the Axis powers and support for Britain.” After 9/11, the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, many Arab and Muslim Americans opted to vote for Democrats. Although the Arab American population comprises 2% of the population of Michigan, Michigan is a crucial battleground state and is expected to be a tight race in the 2024 election.
What were the results in South Carolina? In the South Carolina primary election, Donald Trump secured 59.8% of the vote, securing 47 delegates. Nikki Haley came in second, securing 39.5% of the vote and gaining three delegates. Biden won the Democratic primary, which took place ahead of the Republican primary, on February 3, garnering 96.2% of the vote.
What happens now? Trump’s decisive victory in South Carolina strengthened his trajectory toward the GOP nomination. Nikki Haley, who was hopeful she would emerge victorious in her home state, where she served as governor from 2011 to 2017, is facing pressure to drop out of the race. However, Haley has fiercely contended that she intends to remain in the race. In an interview last week, Haley stated both Trump and Biden are “mentally diminished” and drew attention to Trump’s multiple indictments. Political analysts look ahead to March 5, Super Tuesday, where 16 states and territories will hold primaries, deciding one-third of the delegates for the Republican National Convention held in early July.
Why are people voting from their cars?
What is curbside voting, and where is it practiced? Curbside voting allows voters who are physically unable (e.g., due to a mobility-limiting disability) or over 65 to vote in person from an accessible location, typically their vehicle. Currently, 27 states and Washington, D.C. require or allow curbside voting for voters with disabilities. According to the Movement Advancement Project, 44% of individuals with disabilities who are voting age do not have access to an accessible polling place. In states that permit the practice, poll workers must verify the voter’s registration status, ensure that at least two election workers accompany the election materials when accommodating a curbside voter, and maintain the voter's privacy. A 2020 report from the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia surveyed claims of voter fraud in the 2016 election, finding no “instances of voter fraud associated with curbside voting.”
Why am I hearing about this now? On February 24, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), posted images taken at what she claimed to be a drive-through voting location, writing, “Drive-through voting needs to stop. I witnessed a man rolling a voting machine around to cars so SC voters could vote from their cars outside the polling location and the man leaning over with his hand doing something while the voter was voting.” Several users responded to the post, sharing false and misleading claims about the legality and security of curbside voting. The images Greene shared don’t evidence misuse of curbside voting.
Why is SCOTUS hearing a case on social media law?
What’s going on? On Monday, the Supreme Court heard opening arguments in a case challenging proposed laws in Texas and Florida that would allow the states to ban online platforms from removing content that expresses opinions, such as political viewpoints. The states claim that the “laws are necessary to keep the social media platforms from discriminating against conservatives,” claiming platforms unfairly censor conservatives currently. Social media platforms argue that they don’t exclusively censor conservative content; rather, they take action on content that does not comply with their terms of service and community guidelines. Opponents of the laws, including NetChoice (the party suing to block the laws from going into effect), argue that by moderating content, social media companies are acting within the rights defined by the First Amendment and can make editorial choices about what content to allow on their platform.
How are social media companies viewed under the law? Currently, platforms themselves determine what accounts and content can remain on their sites. A 1997 Supreme Court decision determined the law unconstitutional, believing that while the government is responsible for enforcing decency standards on television and radio, the internet is a different medium. Florida and Texas argue that tech platforms should be treated as “common carriers” or private or public entities required to provide a service to anyone willing to pay a fee, such as television and radio companies. If viewed as common carriers, tech companies would be required to allow anyone who subscribes the right to use their platform unrestricted.
The case also indirectly challenges Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields technology platforms from legal responsibility over most user content posted to their sites. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in favor of the tech companies on Monday, claiming Section 230 “shows that Congress wanted the platforms to have legal protections for their editorial role, not to be thought of as passive common carriers.” This statement refutes the idea introduced by Texas and Florida that technology companies should not have exclusive content moderation control.
What are the basic arguments against the laws? In favor? Those in favor of the laws claim that there is a danger to society when social media companies, which can influence public opinion, are allowed to ban and allow users on their own accord. Proponents believe current nondiscrimination acts intended to prevent this behavior fall short. Others support Texas and Florida's claim that continuing to protect all moderation done by platforms under the First Amendment allows platforms unrestricted control “to censor their political opponents if they so choose.” Those who favor striking down the legislation claim that legally requiring social media companies to host all content on their platforms leaves them unable to monitor mis/disinformation, violence, and other content that violates their terms of service and/or community guidelines.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by June.