Legal challenges to an extremely narrow vote are a fundamental part of democracy

por Mary Anastasia O’Grady

Shared from the Wall Street Journal

June 20, 2021 – During the Peruvian presidential campaign earlier this year, socialist candidate Pedro Castillo told voters that he would nationalize the assets of foreign investors. He did not say whether this would apply to Chinese corporations that own billions of dollars of Peruvian mining interests. But predicting that it won’t isn’t exactly going out on a limb.

Mr. Castillo is a rabid anticapitalist backed by Peru’s extreme left. He’s a perfect partner for Beijing, which doesn’t even pretend to care about corruption or human rights. China is eager to increase its political and economic influence in South America, and it made inroads into Peru when, in May 2019, then-President Martin Vizcarra —who was later impeached on corruption charges and removed from office—signed on to its Belt and Road Initiative.

The China card that Mr. Castillo is expected to play is one reason Peruvians, along with the U.S. and other democracies, have an interest in a transparent review of contested votes from the June 6 runoff presidential election. But it isn’t the only one.

The difference between vote totals for Mr. Castillo and his center-right rival, Keiko Fujimori, is extremely narrow. If Mr. Castillo is declared the winner he has threatened to use his slim majority as justification to tear up the country’s economically liberal constitution and replace it with something closer to Venezuela’s. It isn’t hyperbole to say that he believes that 50.1% of the vote entitles the winner to steamroll the rights of the other 49.9%.

This is no reason to deny Mr. Castillo a victory if he won fair and square. But it strengthens the case for maximum transparency, which can only be guaranteed by an impartial hearing for both sides. If Mr. Castillo can be taken at his word, Peruvian freedom is at stake.

On June 10, 17 former presidents from Latin America and Spain issued a declaration calling on both parties to exercise leadership by waiting for Peru’s electoral authorities to complete their oversight responsibilities.

Mr. Castillo’s camp says the outcome is already decided because he’s ahead by around 44,000 votes after some challenges have been resolved by electoral authorities. Ms. Fujimori says that some 200,000 more votes—the majority in favor of Mr. Castillo—ought to be nullified because of fraud. She says she can prove it if the electoral council releases the data and the tribunal agrees to hear the evidence.

Mr. Castillo’s supporters, claiming to love democracy, want to deny that possibility. Alberto Fernández, Argentina’s leftist president, tweeted congratulations to Mr. Castillo days after the election, adding some mumbo-jumbo about the country’s “institutional strength.”

But it’s too early to draw the conclusion that institutions have worked. First Peruvians must be permitted to challenge the election results, as is their right under Peruvian law.

Some not-very-bright opponents of Donald Trump had meltdowns last fall when I suggested that Trump challenges should be allowed to play out in court. They were wrong. By allowing judges—many of whom were named by Republicans—to review claims of massive fraud, the process played out legally.

Peruvians deserve equal treatment and transparency, and public trust in institutions requires as much. Petitions for access to the legal system not only are legitimate but would clarify the results.

It is likely that Mr. Castillo understands this better than most. In what appears to be an effort to close the matter quickly, he has withdrawn his appeals not yet heard by the national electoral tribunal.

That tribunal, which decides what appeals will be heard, is off to a rocky start. It has five seats but only four are filled. The president of the tribunal, whose sympathies with the left are well established, is by law the tie breaker.

The tribunal asks for challenges to be filed within three days of the election, with proof that lawyers have paid the required fee. Hundreds of challenges are hanging in limbo because the tribunal has not yet decided if failure to comply with such technicalities ought to render them invalid.

Lawyers for Ms. Fujimori argue that the court needs to consider her challenges on the merits rather than arbitrary deadlines. The tribunal seemed to have some empathy for that argument on Friday, June 11, when it ruled that it would accept late challenges. Later that same day it reversed its own decision, sparking speculation that it is under enormous pressure from the left to rush through a Castillo victory.

If Mr. Castillo cheated, with the help of political allies like Cuban-trained Vladimir Cerrón —who heads Mr. Castillo’s Peru Libre Party—then Peruvians deserve to know. If he didn’t cheat and the nation voted, however narrowly, for a candidate who has repeatedly promised to blow up the market economy, they deserve to know that too.

by Nigel Duara

California’s eviction moratorium is coming to an end June 30. Since the earliest days of the pandemic, housing analysts have worried about a tsunami of evictions whenever the state lifts protections for renters.

Will there be an eviction tsunami when the moratorium ends? Or a smaller wave? CalMatters asked Carolina Reid, associate professor of city and regional planning at the University of California, Berkeley. The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

A few months back, we discussed a potential eviction cliff. Are we still headed for that cliff?

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent announcement that California would cover 100% of rent owed by tenants is welcome news, and will help to mitigate the worst impacts of the pandemic on rental households. Depending on the timing of those payments, the ending of the eviction moratoria on June 30 may be less of a cliff than many believed.

But it is unclear whether a) the relief will get to all households that need it soon enough and b) the funds are sufficient to pay back owed rent.

There’s also the question of how long it will take to see jobs and wages back in full, and whether households took on other forms of unsustainable debt — for example, through credit cards or other higher cost products like payday loans — to make ends meet during the pandemic.

How many people are at risk in the eviction tsunami? How much will they owe?

Analysis by PolicyLink suggests that about 900,000 households in California are behind on rent, with an average of $4,600 in rental arrears.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s estimates of rental debt are higher – they estimate that nationally, the average amount of rental arrears (for those who are not paid up on their rent) is closer to $8,000.

In a new study we’re about to release next week, we look at the actual rental debt for households living in subsidized housing — so those who benefit from below-market rents. And even there, a small proportion of those who are behind on rental payments have accumulated more than $5,000 in rental debt. So I think these other estimates are reasonable averages, though of course some families may owe much more.

Our study also shows that families are also struggling with food costs, and may be struggling to pay rent because they’re also assisting family who may have more need. Even though things are starting to open back up, I think a lot of families are still really reeling from both the economic and emotional impact of this crisis.

What are you seeing in the Census Household Pulse Survey that has been conducted during the pandemic? What do the surveys suggest could happen when the moratorium lifts?

The Census Pulse Survey results have been quite consistent over time – there’s been some improvement in recent waves, and there is some volatility around the estimates because of small sample size, but in general, about 12% to 15% percent of renters in California report being behind on rent, and just over a third think they are very or somewhat likely to be evicted in the next two months.

What do we know about the demographics of the people at risk of eviction?

The risks of eviction, and homelessness, are significantly higher for Black, Hispanic, and indigenous households – across every measure and in every dataset, we see higher rates of vulnerability to eviction, including income losses and higher rates of rental delinquencies. In our new study, we also see the dramatic impact of this crisis on households with children, particularly single-parent households. More than three times as many single-parent households with children were behind on rent in comparison to households without children. This is deeply concerning, since we know that the impacts of housing instability, insecurity and homelessness have a significant negative impact on children’s health, educational outcomes and well-being.

What are the risks for families beyond the actual eviction process? What are some of the impacts of eviction?

Recent studies on eviction show how disruptive it is, not only in the short term in terms of loss of housing and housing instability, but also over the long term. It greatly increases the likelihood of homelessness, but it can also lead to a cycle of housing insecurity and instability.

It also increases negative health outcomes and increases health care costs. It lowers credit scores, so it can serve as a barrier to finding new housing or employment, and can raise the costs of borrowing for a car.

This article is part of the California Divide, a collaboration among newsrooms examining income inequality and economic survival in California.