Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

Publishing since January 2024. 

4 key domestic stories for the week:

1)  Harris, Trump, and Medical Policy Roshan Shivnani

Much importance has been placed on the upcoming election, with some even saying it will determine the health of America as a nation. What is certain, however, is that it will change our approach to healthcare across the country. Despite only achieving moderate media attention, the issue will play a significant role in the election with nearly 8 in 10 registered voters saying health care was either an extremely or very important voting issue this presidential election; 86% of voters ages 65 years and older held that view. This has left many wondering how the candidates differ on such a policy.

One of the most significant issues in health care is the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA.) During his presidency, Donald Trump sought to dismantle the ACA. To achieve this, he took numerous actions, including eliminating the individual mandate, which required individuals to have health insurance or face a penalty. Conversely, Kamala Harris has been a strong proponent of the ACA, advocating for its expansion rather than its repeal. She publicly announced policy approval when she stated we could “make affordable healthcare a right, not a privilege by expanding and strengthening the Affordable Care Act.” As a result, Harris’ idea of expanding healthcare accessibility would rely on improving the ACA, not dismembering it.

Another crucial issue is the rising cost of prescription drugs. Trump attempted to address this by promoting initiatives to allow the importation of cheaper drugs from other countries and by advocating for price transparency among pharmaceutical companies, believing these measures would foster competition and lower prices for consumers. On the other hand, Harris has emphasized the need for comprehensive reforms to tackle drug prices like price caps. For instance, she helped put them in place for insulin currently set at $35 a month for seniors as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Under a new administration, what matters more than how we live is whether we live. As a result, medical policy is perhaps one of the biggest cornerstones for any presidency. As a whole, both Harris and Trump prioritize some similar issues in their policy. Despite this, both candidates have implemented and stated very different policies to help solve these critical issues. 

Read more here: 

• Jeffrey Jones, Gallup

• Sahil Kapur, CNBC

• Nathaniel Weixel, The Hill

• Center for Medicaid

• White House Briefing Room

2) The Chaos at Polling Stations Robert Zhang

You have probably seen the shocking videos of arson attacks on ballot boxes going viral on the Internet this past week and been appalled by them. Unfortunately, while being one of the most obvious examples of lawlessness targeting this year’s election, they are just one example of the intimidation and violence that has plagued election officials, poll workers, and voters in the leadup to Election Day. From the secretaries of state of Oklahoma and Wyoming being sent envelopes of white powder to election workers in Georgia being equipped with “panic buttons,” the 2024 general election will go down in history as being the most disordered in history.

While it has intensified in recent months and weeks, election-related intimidation began well before election season itself. In late June, the Republican National Convention announced the creation of its so-called “Protect the Vote” initiative, which sought to assemble a force of 100,000 volunteer poll watchers. Ordinarily, poll watching is nothing out of the ordinary and is practiced by both major parties. However, a goal of Protect the Vote is to deploy suburban poll watchers to major urban areas, particularly major cities with large non-white populations like Detroit and Milwaukee that Trump and his allies erroneously claimed were the target of election fraud. This is problematic for various reasons: the racial and geographic dynamics could intimidate voters into leaving polling stations; excess out-of-town poll watchers could clog lines; and Black and other non-White poll workers could be accused of wrongdoing without evidence, which occurred in the 2020 election.

As Election Day grew closer, threats surged, and at times, escalated into actual violence. In September and October, Arizona’s Democratic Party office was shot at three times, forcing them to close down. 

Read more here:

• Julia Mueller, The Hill

• Jim Salter and Isabella Volmert, Associated Press

• Dafydd Townley, The Conversation

• Adam Edelman, NBC News

3) Louisiana’s Losing on Voting Rights Boyana Nikolova

Election day is just around the corner and gerrymandering - right under our noses. Although most cases of this kind have been resolved, dozens of redistricting battles across the country have been continuing into this year. This doesn’t just present a risk to national voting integrity, but depending on the number and size of the disputed districts, could potentially influence election results. Thankfully, a landmark court case in Louisiana has the opportunity to pave the way for more equitable district mapping in future elections. Either that, or it may very well crush the voting power of racial minorities for decades to come.

The dispute revolves around 2 of Louisiana’s districts that are made up of majority black voters. The background of how they came about is long-winded, however. Following the 2020 census, Republican policymakers in the state drew up the first controversial map of many. Although about a third of Louisiana’s voters are black, the map they drew concentrated most of those black voters into a mere single district. Eventually, disagreements over the boundaries pushed this issue into the judicial system as even with discussions in Congress, the dispute remained.

For 2 years, Democrat lawmakers defended their opposition to the map in lower state courts. In 2022, they finally succeeded with their mission and got a court to rule that the current map was in violation of the Voting Rights Act, a blockbuster law from the past century protecting the voting rights and opportunities of racial minorities. With this ruling, the map was redrawn and rather than 1, 2 majority black districts were delineated. Surprisingly, the new map has discrepancies of its own and the people of Louisiana have made their concerns known.

This year, yet another lower state court decided to weigh in on the gerrymandering issue. It ruled that the new map still didn’t eliminate the problem with voter distribution: black voters were deemed too concentrated into specific districts and the 2 majority black districts weren’t enough to strengthen black voting power. There isn’t exactly a consensus on whether they’re right, however. After the ruling was made public, advocacy groups requested an appeal from the Supreme Court, so that the map could be kept. With most Supreme Court judges currently being conservative, it was a shot in the dark for civil rights groups. However, in a shocking decision, the court permitted the map to stay. More unexpectedly, all three of the liberal-leaning judges nay-said the appeal, saying that it was being done too early. In contrast, the right-leaning judges argued that if the new map was rejected and another one would have to be drawn, it could interfere with the 2024 election results.

Even now, this decision is subject to change. In January, the court will be back in session, debating whether or not to keep the new map for beyond 2024. Whatever the court decides then will undoubtedly shape future elections in Louisiana and the state of the Voting Rights Act for the entire nation. 

Read more here:

• Zach Montellar, Josh Gerstein, POLITICO 

• American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana

• Crystal Hill, Democracy Docket 

• Nina Totenberg, NPR

• Brennan Center for Justice

4) Brainrot Turned Policy-Rot Ruhaan Sood

I think everyone can feel what it’s like to doom scroll, spending hours on end scrolling through either TikTok or Instagram Reels. Mind, endlessly being numbed as you lose brain cells from how stupid some of the content is that you see on those platforms. Every now and often though, you’ll be exposed to political ads, whether it’s a heartfelt message about ending school shootings or a violent rant against a political opponent. Social media is now becoming the best new platform for politicians to turn their voices against each other.

As politics moves increasingly online, social media creates opportunities for more diverse voices to participate in public discussions. Political candidates can target different demographics through various channels, allowing them to shape messages that resonate with specific groups. Social media’s direct and cost-effective nature gives politicians a broader reach, yet also adds risks, as statements online are permanently accessible and can resurface at any time, potentially impacting reputations such as when North Carolina's GOP governor candidate Mark Robinson unleashed a fury of words on a chat forum.

While social media amplifies political voices, it also presents challenges, including the spread of misinformation and increased polarization. Meta, the parent company of platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, announced they would be ending support for political ads on their platforms due to the rampant spread of disinformation which they believed was harming the reputation and credibility of their software.

The rapid, viral nature of social media enables misinformation to spread widely before corrections can be made, which can shape public perception before the facts are clarified. Algorithms on these platforms may also create echo chambers, where users primarily see content that aligns with their views, reinforcing their existing beliefs and widening ideological divides.

In light of these dynamics, experts emphasize the importance of media literacy to help users critically assess the information they encounter. By consulting multiple news sources, individuals can gain a broader perspective, helping counteract misinformation and fostering more balanced public discourse.

Read more here:

• Report, The Pew Research Center

• Brian Fung, CNN

• Oremus and Thadani, The Washington Post

• Judy Woodruff, PBS

The Red Folder is brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the News Brief Team:

• Paul Robinson

• Boyana Nikolova

• Sasha Morel

• Roshan Shivnani

• Rowan Seipp

• Anthony Babu

• Daniel Song

• Rohan Dash

• Charlie Hui

• Justin Palazzolo

• Ruhaan Sood

• Evelyn Ding

• Robert Zhang

• Sahana Srikanth

• Meera Menon

• Andy Choy

• Max Guo

• Christina Yang

Interested in becoming a contributor? You can apply to join our staff team here.