We obtained more than 2,000 pages of documents from the early months of the pandemic. For this #FOIAFriday, here’s what the documents show about the CDC’s struggles to create and implement reliable Covid testing. americanoversight.org/new-documents-…
On Feb. 4, 2020, the FDA granted emergency use authorization to the CDC’s Covid-19 test, which was the first coronavirus test authorized in the U.S. The test was created by a team headed by Stephen Lindstrom, who had helped create earlier flu tests.
The test’s N1 and N2 components focused on identifying SARS-CoV-2. Its N3 component was meant to identify a wider variety of coronaviruses. The documents we obtained echo earlier reporting from the @washingtonpost that this last component had problems. washingtonpost.com/investigations…
In a Feb. 8 email, Lindstrom encouraged states to begin testing for possible Covid-19 cases. But that same day an official from the California Department of Public Health sent an email about potential issues with the tests.
The official wrote, “We are hearing from some local PHLs [public health laboratories] that they are picking up hits with the N3 target.” documentcloud.org/documents/2068…
The next day, a CDC senior adviser for laboratory science said that she had “heard from a few that they are having trouble with the test” and expressed concern about whether the CDC was addressing these complaints. documentcloud.org/documents/2068…
As the Post reported, the CDC tried to fix problems with the N3 component. On Feb. 11, Lindstrom circulated an email with a draft message for U.S. laboratories. He wrote, “FDA gave concurrence yesterday evening to allow CDC to distribute a new N3 assay component as a resolution.”
But according to the Post, by Feb. 14, more than three dozen laboratories had experienced problems with the CDC’s test. That week, the CDC acknowledged that the test kits it had sent to states were flawed.
On Feb. 16, FDA officials asked for more info about the tests. Lindstrom acknowledged that the CDC had received “reports regarding sporadic aberrant reactivity resulting in false positive results.”
He wrote that the “reactivity is more often reported with the N3 assay component of the test.”
We recently launched an investigation into efforts to undermine direct democracy and sabotage abortion access ballot measures, which will be considered by voters in ten states this November. #FoiaFriday americanoversight.org/investigation/…
Since 2022, 7 states have protected abortion rights through ballot initiatives.
In November, 10 states will have initiatives related to abortion rights on their ballots: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota.
In addition to a litany of lawsuits from conservative activists challenging the qualifying status of abortion-related ballot measures, legislators in many states have proposed laws that would change the requirements for ballot initiatives to make passage more difficult.
Records we obtained from Missouri show how state Sen. Mike Moon — a staunchly anti-abortion rights legislator — has sought to subvert the state’s measure related to abortion rights by trying to amend the ballot initiative process. americanoversight.org/document/recor…
Earlier this year, 380,000 Missourians signed a petition to put an abortion rights constitutional amendment on the ballot. In response, conservatives in the state pushed a bill that would have made it much harder to pass any constitutional amendment via a ballot initiative.
The documents show that Moon’s policy director directly tied Moon’s support for adding a concurrent majority measure to initiative petitions to his desire to defeat the measure. His chief of staff suggested collaborating with an anti-abortion rights group to defeat the amendment.
Floridians will vote in November on a ballot measure that would overturn the state’s six-week abortion ban.
Conservative lawmakers and interest groups have been working to make it harder for the measure and citizen initiatives like it to pass. americanoversight.org/investigation/…
Republican officials drafted a financial statement to accompany the measure. The statement argues that the measure’s passage would lead to fewer births, which would hurt the state’s growth and revenue over time. nbcmiami.com/news/local/fin…
The financial statement speculates that the measure’s passage would result in expensive litigation.
Abortion rights groups have filed lawsuits to prevent this language from appearing on the ballot.
LITIGATION UPDATE: We reached a settlement in our lawsuit against Ohio Sec. of State Frank LaRose for records related to the 2023 decision to withdraw Ohio from the Electronic Registration Information Center, a nonpartisan voter-roll maintenance tool. americanoversight.org/american-overs…
ERIC was a non-controversial nonprofit that quietly helped states clean up their voter rolls by securely comparing voter data. A cascade of misinformation coordinated by anti-democratic activists, eventually led several states to withdraw.
Our investigation and the documents obtained as part of it show how election officials defended ERIC behind the scenes while publicly caving to a pressure campaign led by some of the same people who sought to keep former President Trump in power in 2020. americanoversight.org/the-campaign-t…
NEW: Today, the Georgia State Election Board withdrew rules it approved in a recent illegal meeting, which was held without proper notice of a quorum. We’d sued the Board for violating the state’s Open Meetings Act. americanoversight.org/georgia-electi…
We’re pleased that our lawsuit, along with pressure from partner organizations on the ground in Georgia, has prompted the Board to withdraw the illegally approved rules from its sham July 12 meeting.
The board also announced plans to reconsider the rules at its Aug. 6 meeting. We remain deeply concerned by the Board’s decision to promptly revisit these problematic measures that serve to intimidate election workers and grant partisan advantage to preferred candidates.
NEW: We sued the Georgia State Election Board for violating the state’s Open Meetings Act after it held a meeting on July 12 — in which it pushed forward controversial new election rules — without legally required public notice or a quorum. americanoversight.org/american-overs…
Georgia’s Open Meetings Act and others like it are vital to a functioning democracy by helping ensure official actions are conducted in full view of the public. Attempts to maneuver around it to advance changes to Georgia’s election rules are a clear violation of this law.
Any proposals voted upon during this meeting are null and void, and we ask the court to prevent them from moving ahead with the proposed rules and to declare their actions at last week’s meeting invalid.