# data[].attributes.headline
How Covid-19 Changed Baseball. (Article 1)

# data[].attributes.subject
How Covid-19 Changed Baseball. (Article 1)

# data[].attributes.body
I picked  this article because when we were assigned the reading logs people were just starting to be allowed to be into baseball stadiums to watch the MLB playoffs. I found this very interesting . I wondered what guidelines the MLB had in place to keep the fans safe. I also wondered if the players were able to interact with the fans and sign autographs and other things. This article was very interesting and told me a lot about playoff baseball during COVID-19.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit... Nitashia Johnson for The New York Times

The National League Championship Series gave fans their first chance to watch M.L.B. action in person, but it wasn't a typical stadium outing.

Credit... Nitashia Johnson for The New York Times

ARLINGTON, Texas - For 54 consecutive years Mike Amodei attended at least one Dodgers game a season, beginning with a Sandy Koufax start in 1966. Nothing would ever stop him from keeping his streak alive, he thought - until a once-in-a-century pandemic put it in jeopardy.

Though Major League Baseball has managed to carry out a 60-game regular season and an expanded postseason, fans were not permitted to attend games for months because of the coronavirus.

"I thought it was over," Amodei said from the lower concourse at the Texas Rangers' Globe Life Field. "And then this happened."

"This," to clarify, is the National League Championship Series, the first games that fans have been allowed to attend since spring training, before the pandemic struck. Amodei, 63, seized the opportunity.

A book editor from South Bend, Ind., who grew up in Southern California, he bought a ticket online, jumped on a plane and arrived in Texas in time for Game 3 on Wednesday, when he witnessed the Dodgers' historic 15-3 beatdown of the Atlanta Braves.

"I'll spend the night in long-term parking, and I'll be back at work tomorrow," Amodei said before the game. "But I kept the streak alive."

So, too, did M.L.B., which has allowed about 10,000 paying customers into the N.L.C.S. games at Globe Life Field, where the audience replaced the cardboard replicas of fans that have dotted seats in ballparks all season.

Because of the pandemic, baseball opted to use four neutral sites for the final three rounds of the postseason, minimizing travel and its attendant risks while creating something of a protective bubble for the teams that kept playing deep into October. The World Series next week will also be held at Globe Life Field, and will also have real people in the seats watching baseball, cheering for their team and buying beer and merchandise.

But the lack of a true home team is one more quirk in the unusual fan experience at these playoffs. While a few N.F.L. teams, NASCAR and some college football teams have allowed fans back into their familiar stadiums - including the Dallas Cowboys' domed stadium just down the road, which has hosted more than 20,000 people in each of the team's three home games - M.L.B. invited the regular followers of postseason teams to irregular locations.

Image

Because the Dodgers and Braves were playing at a neutral site, the stands included a more diverse array of jerseys than would appear at a normal playoff game. Credit... Nitashia Johnson for The New York Times

For Game 1, fans eschewed social distancing to get to the front rows in hopes of catching a ball, but those areas were blocked for later games. Credit... Kevin Jairaj/USA Today Sports, via Reuters

"It's got a kind of Super Bowl-ish feel to it," said Chris Harkey, a Braves fan from Asheboro, N.C., who flew in with his wife, Lauren Breedlove, to watch Game 3. "It's exciting with the mix of different fans."

Throughout the N.L.C.S., fans in a variety of team colors entered the stadium, which opened this year with a capacity of 40,000 spectators but has yet to be filled. Tickets were sold in blocks of four, spaced apart from other blocks. The unavailable seats had plastic straps attached to them, and the first several rows were blocked off.

During batting practice at the first game of the series, fans charged to those front rows trying to retrieve balls hit over the fence, clustering in proximity to one another. For later games, tarps were placed over those seats, and yellow caution tape limited access for ball-seeking fans.

Fans generally wore masks and often maintained distance from one another. But as each game wore on and the beer flowed, some masks fell down around necks as the shouting increased.

After Game 4, a 10-2 Atlanta victory, bands of seemingly drunken Braves fans, bombinating their droning tomahawk chant, roamed the area around the stadium as if it were 2019, and a nearby hotel lobby was dotted with groups of unmasked fans in their reverie.

A 2020 souvenir: a masked selfie with a Rangers statue at a Dodgers-Braves game. Credit... Jerome Miron/USA Today Sports, via Reuters

As the games progressed, some masks dropped and cheering got louder. Credit... Tannen Maury/EPA, via Shutterstock

Texas, which reported about 32,000 new cases of the coronavirus over the seven days before Friday's Game 5, has 111 cases per 100,000 people, placing it roughly in the middle of the pack compared with other states. But like other parts of the country, Texas has seen a recent uptick in cases.

Among more than two dozen people interviewed over two days at the stadium, no one seemed overly concerned about the spread of the coronavirus. Several stadium employees, who declined to give a full interview, said they were comfortable with the precautions and appreciated having the work.

Tracy Springstead brought her three children to Game 3. They are Dodgers fans from California, who recently settled in the Dallas area, and they said they felt the regulations in place were sufficient.

"We're pretty careful, and it seems like they are doing it the right way," Springstead said. "But we weren't going to miss this."

The majority of fans at the park seemed to be supporting the Braves, with a slightly smaller contingent rooting for the Dodgers. The third-largest group consisted of those wearing Texas Rangers jerseys and caps, acting as both hosts and mostly neutral observers. After all, this airplane hangar of a building was made for them.

"It's kind of weird," said Bruce Pittard, a rancher from Novice, Texas, who is a Rangers season ticket holder. "Where did these Braves and Dodgers fans come from?"

Some came from Atlanta, roughly 800 miles to the east, and others from Southern California, about 1,200 miles in the opposite direction. Some arrived from North Carolina, Florida, New Jersey, Indiana or Louisiana. Most, though, were displaced Braves and Dodgers fans living in the Dallas area, brimming with excitement over their unexpected good fortune after the announcement last month that tickets would be sold to these games.

"The Dodgers came to me," said Stephanie Gonzalez, who attended Game 3 with her friend Maria Torres, both wearing Dodgers jerseys. "I moved here from California nine years ago. This is like a dream come true."

Stephanie Gonzalez, right, moved to Texas from California years ago and attended Game 3 with her friend Maria Torres. Credit... Nitashia Johnson for The New York Times

Some fans donned jerseys of other M.L.B. teams, too. The Mariners, Astros, Angels, Orioles, Rockies, Brewers and even the old Montreal Expos were all represented at the N.L.C.S.

Pittard, the rancher from Novice, and his brother, Mark Pittard, wore Cubs jerseys in honor of their favorite team. Mark Pittard noted how strange it was that the first game they attended at the Rangers' new American League park was a playoff matchup between National League teams.

The souvenir stores were open, but the Dodgers and Braves fans looked more like museum goers as they dispassionately scanned all the Rangers gear for sale. The available Dodgers and Braves merchandise amounted to two small racks of what looked like hastily produced, generic items - balls and T-shirts that said, "Globe Life Field, NLCS, 2020, Arlington Texas," and "World Series, Arlington Texas" - neutral gray shirts in a neutral building with a massive gray roof.

"It looks like Petco Park and a big mall had a baby," said Will Hicks, 41, an investor from San Diego, who wore a Padres mask, Padres jersey and Padres cap, while his brother Sam, 35, an Astros fan, munched on a two-foot hot dog. They own season tickets to the Padres at the elegant Petco Park in San Diego, the A.L.C.S. site.

"How weird is all of this?" Will Hicks said. "We're at a game in Texas with our dad, who is a Dodgers fan, and Sam is listening to the Astros game back at Petco. Only in 2020."

The atmosphere inside was similar to that of a Mets game in April, circa 2011 - about a quarter filled, with only die-hards in attendance. But after a long season without fans, the people in the real uniforms were delighted to have paying customers wearing any shirt at all.

"It's filled me with a sense of excitement, especially in such a difficult time," Braves third baseman Johan Camargo said through an interpreter. "It's like a jolt of energy, and we are eternally grateful for that."

And Harkey and Breedlove, the couple from North Carolina, were happy to provide vocal support to their team. They had to buy four tickets to Game 3, but they did not give away or sell the other two.

"You don't want some stranger sitting there coughing all over you," Harkey said. "But if the Braves make the World Series, I'm definitely coming back."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'How Weird Is All of This?' Fans Return to a Warped Ballpark Experience

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National League Championship Series gave fans their first chance to watch M.L.B. action in person, but it wasn't a typical stadium outing. Credit... Nitashia Johnson for The New York Times ARLINGTON, Texas - For 54 consecutive years Mike Amodei attended at least one Dodgers game a season, beginning with a Sandy Koufax start in 1966.

# data[].attributes.body
I picked this article because I wanted to know more information about  the  Corona virus after I read my first article . This article is connected to the first article because they both discuss the Corona Virus. The first article discussed baseball and the Corona virus, While this article discussed the pure facts about the virus and how we could have responded better to the virus. In the second article the author believed that America was defeated by the virus and should have responded better and treated it more seriously as it spread through Europe . In the first article it discussed how the MLB responded to the virus in order to have fans in the stands. Both articles discuss the virus and their response to slow the spread of the virus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A virus has brought the world’s most powerful country to its knees.

# data[].attributes.body
I picked this article because I was curious about how people would vote during a horrible pandemic. This article relates with the last one because they both talk about problems with Corona virus. The previous article talks about how America could have been better responding to Corona Virus. This article discussed how Corona virus affected voting for presidential  election. This year had one of the most mail in voting ever. Mail in voting played a huge part in this years election and is very important. Mail in voting is just as important as the response to Corona virus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Special Section: How to Vote

Voters are facing a deluge of misinformation about voting by mail, some prompted by the president. Here's a guide to those false claims.

Credit... Lennard Kok

If you are among the tens of millions of Americans who intend to vote by mail this year, you're facing a deluge of misinformation about the integrity of that voting method.

Much of it is coming from President Trump, who has repeatedly attacked state efforts to expand voting by mail. He uses language meant to discourage it, mischaracterizing mail-in ballots as "dangerous," "unconstitutional," "a scam" or rife with "fraud."

His comments are not true. There have been numerous independent studies and government reviews finding voter fraud extremely rare in all forms, including mail-in voting. The president is making these claims to lay the groundwork for possibly not accepting the voting results, going so far as refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses.

Here's a fact check to help debunk some of the common misperceptions and falsehoods.

Mr. Trump, in explaining why he favored mail ballots in one state and not in another, has claimed that states like Florida - where he himself has voted by mail - are more secure because they use " absentee ballots" rather than mail-in ballots. (The state itself refers to them as " vote-by-mail ballots. ")

There have also been viral Twitter posts claiming that mail-in ballots cannot be "verified," pose a greater threat to election integrity than "absentee ballots" or are not handled through a " chain of custody," meaning they are not properly tracked.

Despite these claims, which sound consequential, there is no meaningful difference between "absentee ballots" and "vote-by-mail ballots." The terms are often used interchangeably. Moreover, they are both secure forms of voting.

In terms of security, both mail-in and absentee ballots are paper ballots hand-marked by the voter, which the National Conference of State Legislatures considers the "gold standard of election security." Forty-four states have signature verification protocols for mail ballots.

Because some states will automatically send mail-in ballots to registered voters, Mr. Trump sought to draw another misleading distinction. He claimed Democrats were "cheating" by mailing what he called "unsolicited ballots," tweeting: "Sending out 80 MILLION BALLOTS to people who aren't even asking for a ballot is unfair and a total fraud in the making."

In August, some of Mr. Trump's supporters and family members began circulating misleading claims that " 846 dead people tried to vote in Michigan's primary," pointing to a news release by Michigan's secretary of state to suggest that there had been a scheme by voters to cast ballots on behalf of the deceased. But the release itself did not say this, and had only pointed out that there were 846 "voters who died after casting their absentee ballot but before Election Day."

Similarly, a Facebook post that has since amassed over 100,000 shares, likes and comments - and has been repeated by the president - falsely claimed "500,000 mail in ballots found in Virginia and 200,000 in Nevada￼ with dead peoples names and pets￼."

What had occurred was that a nonprofit in Virginia sent out 500,000 ballot applications with a wrong address on the return envelopes. In a story about the mistake, a local radio station quoted the leader of another civic organization as saying "one person stated that a dead person received one and a pet received one." Similarly, a conservative legal group found that during primary elections in June, two counties in Nevada sent out more than 250,000 ballots that were undeliverable because of outdated or wrong addresses.

In buttressing his claim that mail ballots are not secure, Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that a friend in Westchester County, N.Y., received a ballot for his deceased son. This is improbable as New York is one of seven states that require voters to have a reason to request and vote by an absentee ballot; it is not mailing out ballots to voters unprompted.

As for pets voting? A database of proven election fraud cases maintained by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, includes just one example of a woman requesting and then casting an absentee ballot for her dog. That database also notes that since 1991, there have been only 11 cases where someone filled out an absentee ballot on behalf of a dead person.

Image

Miami-Dade County elections workers processing mail-in ballots for Florida's primary in August. Credit... Scott McIntyre for The New York Times

Numerous studies have found little evidence that mail-in ballots help one party over another. Of the 16 states where more than half of voters voted by mail in the last presidential election, Mr. Trump won nine. Several Republican states like Iowa, Missouri and Alabama have expanded mail-in ballots this year.

And yet, Mr. Trump continues to claim, without evidence, that "Democrats are also trying to rig the election by sending out tens of millions of mail-in ballots" or that "they're not sending them to Republican neighborhoods."

Nevada and its election system, in particular, has become a target, particularly after Gov. Steve Sisolak blocked plans for the Trump campaign to hold an outdoor rally in the state. Mr. Trump has falsely claimed 14 times that Nevada officials "don't even want verification of the signature" ( they do) and seven times that Mr. Sisolak was "in charge of ballots" and therefore "can rig the election" (the Republican secretary of state supervises elections, and local officials handle the ballots).

The president's unfounded suspicions that mail-in voting harms Republicans have been further amplified online with viral posts claiming that a "Trump Landslide Will Be Flipped By Mail-In Votes Emerging A Week After Election Day." These claims were based on misconstruing the findings of a Democratic data and analytics firm. The firm's chief executive had simply warned that in-person voting by Republicans would create a "mirage" of Mr. Trump leading on election night, but that results could change once "every legitimate vote is tallied."

With election officials running thousands of local, state and national elections, mistakes are bound to happen. These isolated incidents, however, are not evidence of widespread wrongdoing. But they can be taken out of context.

Last week, for example, Mr. Trump and others highlighted ballot printing and mailing errors that affected fewer than 1,000 ballots.

In Michigan, more than 400 ballots listed the wrong person as Mr. Trump's running mate. The issue was fixed and alerted within two hours, and officials said the state would still accept any affected ballots that were returned. There is no evidence that the misprint was widespread or that the Democratic secretary of state had "purposely" printed the wrong name, as Mr. Trump claimed.

In another instance of error, Mecklenburg County, N.C., accidentally sent roughly 500 voters two ballots. Election officials said the mistake was unlikely to lead to double voting, as the ballots contained specific codes for each individual voter.

Even in the rare example where there was malfeasance, as there was during a May special election for seats on the City Council in Paterson, N.J., where four men were charged with fraud, Mr. Trump has exaggerated the situation nonetheless.

"In New Jersey, 20 percent of the ballots were defective, fraudulent, 20 percent," he said at a rally in Pennsylvania in August. "And that's because they did a good job. OK? So this is just a way they're trying to steal the election and everybody knows that."

The local board of elections in fact rejected 3,200 ballots or 19 percent - but not 23 percent, 30 percent or 40 percent, as Mr. Trump has gone on to claim. And those in both parties told The Washington Post that not all were fraudulent. Ballots can be disqualified for mismatched signatures or for other user errors.

Curious about the accuracy of a claim? Email factcheck@nytimes.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fact-Checking Falsehoods on Mail-In Voting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Special Section: How to Vote Voters are facing a deluge of misinformation about voting by mail, some prompted by the president. Here's a guide to those false claims. If you are among the tens of millions of Americans who intend to vote by mail this year, you're facing a deluge of misinformation about the integrity of that voting method.

# data[].attributes.headline
Could recounts result in a Trump Victory (Article 4)

# data[].attributes.subject
Could recounts result in a Trump Victory (Article 4)

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this article because I was curious about how recounts could affect the 2020 election.  This article relates to article 3 because they both involve mail in voting in the 2020 Presidential election.  This article fact checks if recounting mail in voting and regular votes could overturn a Biden victory just like article 3 fact checks mail in voting and what is true about mail in voting. This article connects to article 3 because they both discuss voting and fact checking it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Donald Trump and his campaign insist the election is not over, calling for recounts and claiming -- without providing solid evidence -- that there has been extensive fraud in states he would need to win but where he is considerably behind.

Voting experts say Joe Biden is so far ahead that recounts almost surely wouldn't change who won those states, and election officials and courts across the country have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud that, even if true, would make enough of a difference to reverse the final outcome.

The Trump campaign has asked for "patience" while it attempts to substantiate their claims with a barrage of lawsuits, while the Biden team has deemed them "theater."

"There is no conceivable path by which the president's lawsuits and recount efforts could yield him enough votes to change the result of the election," said Kate Shaw, a Cardozo law professor and ABC News legal analyst.

"The effort is not only futile but becoming more dangerous by the day, as the continued refusal to acknowledge the election's results stokes public doubts about the legitimacy of our electoral system, without any basis whatsoever," she added. "Prolonging the process is also causing material harm to President-elect Biden's ability to begin a full transition, which could severely compromise our national security."

Even if Trump were to win some legal challenges over allegedly "illegal" ballots, there are too few disputed and outstanding ballots for him to ever come out on top.

Here's a reality check.
Outstanding votes can't catch up
President-elect Biden has well-eclipsed the necessary 270 electoral votes and is currently leading Trump by more than 5 million votes nationally, with votes still left to be counted.

Only three states have yet to be projected by ABC News: Georgia and Arizona -- where Biden is leading, and North Carolina.

Trump has said Biden is "rushing to falsely pose as the winner"-- even after falsely declaring victory twice for himself -- and has criticized media organizations for calling the election before all votes were certified.

But network decision desks make projections every election and every year hold off on projecting a winner until they can determine that, even with the outstanding ballots left to count, the candidate behind has no path to catch up.

"We haven't seen flip flopping from the media this year," said Deb Otis, senior research analyst at Fair Vote, a nonpartisan nonprofit on election reform, explaining why 2020 is no 2000. "The networks were conservative when determining when to call races, which is why it took many days, something they warned of. And I think their confidence in the vote can give us confidence as well."

Notably, Trump had no issue with the news media projecting his win in 2016 before key states had certified their votes, which can take days or even weeks after an election.

Officially, election results are certified once every vote is counted and all outstanding legal issues are sorted out. The deadline for this varies by state with most by the end of November, so Electoral College electors can meet on Dec. 14.

There are still a few hundred thousand ballots to be counted, but there aren't enough for Trump to overtake Biden's lead in an election which saw a record-shattering turnout.
Recounts are highly unlikely to change election outcomes
It is rare for an election recount to change the outcome.

According to a report from Fair Vote including data on 20 years of recounts, there have been 31 recounts in 5000 statewide elections since 2000, and only three of them resulted in election reversals. In those three, the original margin of victory was less than .05%.

"Given the unlikelihood of recounts to change election outcomes and the margins by Biden is leading right now, it's an extreme long shot for the Trump campaign," said Otis. "The margins have to be very slim in order for a change in outcome to even be plausible," she added. "That's not the case in 2020."

In each state Biden won or leads in, his advantage is more than 10,000 votes according to counts so far -- a heavy burden for Trump to overcome.

But he's aiming to try.

The Trump campaign has vowed to pay the $3 million filing fee for a recount in Wisconsin, where Biden leads Trump by roughly 20,000 (just under the 23,000 votes that allowed Trump to topple Hillary Clinton in the state in 2016).

A recount in Wisconsin in 2016, paid for by Jill Stein's campaign, resulted in a net gain of just 131 votes for Trump.

As the Trump campaign has hinted at more recount requests to follow, Otis noted that Biden is leading in most of those battleground states by tens of thousands of votes with a lead in Michigan at nearly 150,000 votes.

"Based on our findings, it would be an extreme long shot for the recount to change the outcome in any one of these races, let alone in multiple states," she said, adding the largest shift they've recorded in two decades from a recount changed the margin by roughly 2,000 votes.

The most memorable presidential election recount happened in 2000, Bush v. Gore. That recount shifted the margin by 1,247 votes -- significant in a race decided by one state and just 537 votes more votes for Bush -- but still not enough to flip the outcome.
Barrage of lawsuits lacking merit
While the Trump campaign wages legal battles in multiple battleground states as the presidency slips from Trump's grips, it has been unable to provide widespread evidence of voter fraud that would be needed to overturn the election results.

"Look, what we are asking for here is patience," said White House press secretary and Trump campaign spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany at a press conference Monday, telling reporters to give them time to substantiate their claims.

"Is it going to be enough? No. It's going to take time," said Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel before correcting herself. "Is it going to be enough? We don't know. Is it going to take time? Yes."

While they've raised some anecdotal claims, the Trump campaign has failed to present widespread allegations of voter fraud, legal experts say. Several who reviewed the lawsuits filed by last week said they saw no evidence of fraud. And many told ABC News they puzzled over the ultimate objective of cases because they did not seem destined to find the president significant numbers of votes or change the election's outcome.

"I don't see any real legal strategy here," said Wendy Weiser, who directs the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. "They look more like public relation stunts meant to create a false impression that the election is filled with improprieties and fraud."

Republican Secretary of State of Georgia Brad Raffensperger has also said even if there is evidence of illegal voting in his state, it's unlikely to change the outcome, though his state is moving forward with a risk-limiting audit that will involve hand counting every one of the nearly 5 million ballots cast in the presidential race.

"Was there illegal voting? I am sure there was. And my office is investigating all of it. Does it rise to the numbers or margin necessary to change the outcome to where President Trump is given Georgia's electoral votes? That is unlikely," Raffensperger said in a statement Monday.

In interviews with ABC News, three current and former Trump advisers said privately that the strategy, if there is one, appears aimed more at influencing public opinion. None would agree to be identified for fear of running afoul of the president, but all of them told ABC News they found the legal approach misguided and disorganized, and found it notable that neither the campaign's general counsel nor veterans of the president's Washington legal team -- other than Giuliani -- have participated in the bulk of the cases.

The campaign appeared to be headed for a serious dispute that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court over a case in Pennsylvania that argued ballots arriving by mail should not be counted if they arrived after Election Day. Republicans argued that a move to grant mail-in voters a three-day grace period for their ballots to arrive would need to come from the state legislature -- as prescribed in the Constitution.

But the Pennsylvania Department of State announced Tuesday evening that "approximately 10,000 mail ballots" were received the extension, rendering them moot in the presidential contest given Biden's current 45,000 vote advantage over Trump.

The campaign's legal strategy is now largely focused on smaller skirmishes over ballot-counting observers -- but they have not so far presented enough evidence that would overturn results in a state.

Judges have tossed out suits in Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and Pennsylvania already, saying the filings have little to no evidence backing up their claims.

Even Republicans such as Sen. Roy Blunt have advised Trump to bring forward the concrete evidence now.

"It's time for the president's lawyers to present the facts and it's time for those facts to speak for themselves," GOP Sen. Blunt said on ABC's "This Week."

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, an ABC News Contributor also said Sunday that he's been friends with Trump for years "but friendship doesn't mean that you're blind."

"If they don't come forward with the proof, then it's time to move on," Christie said.
ABC News Kendall Karson, Quinn Scanlan, Meg Cunningham, Katherine Faulders, Matthew Mosk and John Santucci contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Could recounts and lawsuits help Trump flip the election?: Reality check

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump and his campaign insist the election is not over, calling for recounts and claiming -- without providing solid evidence -- that there has been extensive fraud in states he would need to win but where he is considerably behind.

# data[].attributes.body
All 4 of these articles relate relate in some way. All of these articles tie into corona virus and the presidential election.  The election relates to the Corona virus because if it did not happen we would not have the issues we have today with the presidential elections. All four of these articles connect and help teach people about how Corona virus affected mail in voting.