Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 125 Shares89 Views

    in Elections

    After Mamdani Mania, the Next Democratic Test Comes to Tucson

    Adelita Grijalva remains heavily favored to win the House seat of her late father, Raúl Grijalva, but youthful challengers and tired voters are asking why change is so hard for Democrats.Beatrice Torres is tired of voting for Grijalvas.Year after year, Ms. Torres, 70, dutifully volunteered and cast her ballot for Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a staunch Arizona progressive who was battling lung cancer when he was elected to his 12th term in November. He succumbed in March, the second of three House Democrats to die this year, bolstering the Republicans’ oh-so-slender majority.Now, Mr. Grijalva’s oldest daughter, Adelita, has been asking Ms. Torres to vote for her in the Democratic primary on July 15, another Grijalva to take up her father’s seat. Several challengers are trying to block her, saying that Arizona needs a fresh voice and new ideas, not another Grijalva. And Ms. Torres agrees.“Nobody is listening,” Ms. Torres said, clearly frustrated one scorching morning last week as she sat in her living room on Tucson’s working-class south side, shades drawn against the sun.Ms. Grijalva is still likely to prevail in the heavily Democratic district — dozens of powerful Democrats have endorsed her, including the state’s two Democratic senators. But with two weeks to go, the special election in Arizona’s Seventh District is brewing into the next contest to question what the Democratic Party wants after its defeats of 2024 — experience versus generational change, left versus center, old versus new.And beneath it all is simmering anger over the reluctance of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other aging, ailing Democrats, like Mr. Grijalva, who died at 77, to leave office when their time had come.“We need change,” Ms. Torres said.Ms. Grijalva, 54, is a longtime elected official in Tucson, but to some frustrated voters, she is also the embodiment of their sclerotic party.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares143 Views

    in Elections

    Don’t Let Shark Panic Spoil Your Fourth of July

    Yes, the shark population has increased. But the threat is minimal and, in truth, sharks have always been swimming around us, experts say.Good morning. It’s Thursday. Today we’ll look at how concerned about sharks you should be if your plans for the long Fourth of July weekend include going to the beach. We’ll also get details on the continuing war of words between President Trump and Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor.Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesIt’s a safe bet that more cameras will be trained on the beaches off Long Island over the Fourth of July weekend than Steven Spielberg used in making “Jaws.” State agencies have 28 camera-equipped drones they can send up, including one that can drop life jackets as needed. Local governments have their own aerial equipment.If the heart-pounding theme from that movie is not already running through your head, this is when it might start. But shark experts maintain that the chance of a close encounter with a shark is unlikely, even though a 20-year-old woman apparently had one at Jones Beach last week. She sustained a bite on one foot and a gash on one leg, officials said.“I tell people, have fun — the threat is minimal,” said John Sparks, a curator in the department of ichthyology at the American Museum of Natural History. “You’re always swimming around sharks. You always have been. My bottom line: You shouldn’t be any more worried than you’ve ever been.”Nothing unusual happened on Monday when the Nassau County executive, Bruce Blakeman, went for a swim not far from where the woman was bitten. But Blakeman, and any creatures circling in the water at the same time, were being watched by a marine patrol boat and a helicopter. And on Wednesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul said that New York State was “continuing to strengthen our shark surveillance capabilities.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 175 Shares107 Views

    in Elections

    She Spent Nearly $600,000 on Her Council Race and Lost. Was It Worth It?

    If nothing else, Elizabeth Lewinsohn’s failed bid for a New York City Council seat highlights two great needs: housing and idealistic candidates.Last December, Elizabeth Lewinsohn, a longtime TriBeCa resident, entered the Democratic race to represent her district in New York’s City Council, eventually raising and spending far more money than any of the other 216 people running for the Council. Of the $568,665 her campaign put toward securing the Democratic nomination in a district that covers the bottom tip of Manhattan, $522,000 came from a source with whom she was intimately acquainted: Elizabeth Lewinsohn.The return on investment did not inspire; she effectively spent $72 per vote and lost by 20 points to the incumbent, Chris Marte.City Council races typically generate little civic interest or remarkable dispersions of cash, one of the reasons that the race, which could be seen as a referendum on development, wound up on the radar of people who might have ignored it. Over the past 25 years, only one other campaign, to elect a Stanford-educated lawyer named Kevin Kim, spent more money on a Council bid. Running for a seat in Queens in 2009, he won the primary and then lost to a Republican in the general election.But the scale of Ms. Lewinsohn’s self-financing seems unprecedented in a contest of this kind. She opted out of the city’s matching funds program, which would have limited her spending. The prospect of a political novice beating an incumbent seemed daunting to the point of impossible, she told me, had she kept within the constraints of public financing, which cap spending for primary campaigns to $228,000.To put her gambit in perspective, the former hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson donated just under $15,000 toward his own failed bid to become mayor. Out of four candidates in the Democratic primary for the First District, Ms. Lewinsohn ranked second, despite outspending Mr. Marte, the son of a bodega owner, by nearly $400,000 — roughly the tab she would have run up had she taken the 7,905 people who cast ballots for her to the Odeon for a plate of steak tartare and a glass of Bordeaux.While the paperwork she filed with the city’s Campaign Finance Board identifies her as a “homemaker” (she is married to Jonathan Lewinsohn, an investment manager), Ms. Lewinsohn is, in fact, a quietly accomplished public servant, a graduate of Yale Law School, a former director of policy for the Police Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau, a member of her local community board for 12 years now and a co-founder of Gotham Park, a revived public space under the Brooklyn Bridge.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares116 Views

    in Elections

    C.I.A. Says Its Leaders Rushed Report on Russia Interference in 2016 Vote

    But the new review of the earlier assessment does not dispute the conclusion that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump.A C.I.A. review of its assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election criticized the agency’s leadership at the time for rushing the effort but did not dispute the conclusion that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump.The review also criticized John O. Brennan, who was the C.I.A. director when the assessment was written, for his oversight of the project and for too tightly controlling access to sensitive intelligence that formed the basis of the work.The original intelligence review, which was undertaken in the aftermath of the November 2016 vote, came amid concerns about Russian ties to Mr. Trump’s campaign and efforts by the Kremlin to sow dissent during the election.Before the vote, the Obama administration issued warnings about Russian cyberoperations, and the C.I.A. and F.B.I. intensified their scrutiny of Russian activity after the election.Early on, the intelligence assessment, an unclassified version of which was released in January 2017, came under criticism from Republican supporters of Mr. Trump. The criticism continued through his first term, though a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed the judgment of the assessment.John H. Durham, a Justice Department special counsel in the first Trump administration, looked at the C.I.A.’s and other intelligence agencies’ work on the assessment, but made no substantive mention of it in his final report.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares89 Views

    in Elections

    Mamdani Says Trump Is Attacking Him to Divert Focus From G.O.P. Agenda

    Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, has been targeted by the president and other Republicans since his success in the primary.Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, forcefully denounced President Trump on Wednesday for threatening to arrest him and repeating baseless claims that he immigrated to the United States illegally.Speaking after a labor union rally in Manhattan, Mr. Mamdani said that he was running to make New York City a bulwark against “authoritarianism” in Washington. But he also argued that Mr. Trump was targeting him as a way of diverting attention from Republican plans to slash taxes for the rich and social safety net programs for the neediest.“I fight for working people,” Mr. Mamdani said. “Ultimately, it is easier for him to fan the flames of division than to acknowledge he has betrayed those working-class Americans.”The remarks, Mr. Mamdani’s first public comments since clinching his party’s nomination this week, offered an early glimpse at how the New York Democrat may try to blunt Mr. Trump’s extraordinary attacks and use them for his own purposes.The victory by Mr. Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, over former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and other Democratic rivals has illustrated and even deepened the divisions in American politics, not always along party lines. But few responses have been as ugly or sustained as Mr. Trump’s.“A lot of people are saying he’s here illegally,” Mr. Trump said on Tuesday. “We’re going to look at everything.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares143 Views

    in Elections

    10 Ways of Making Sense of Zohran Mamdani’s Win

    Four years ago, when Eric Adams was elected mayor, New Yorkers were told that it marked the end of a progressive wave that had shaped national Democratic politics at least since the shock election of Donald Trump in 2016. Just five months ago, as Democrats reckoned with the meaning of a second loss to Trump, the refrain was similar: The party had been pulled too far left by its activist flank, which it needed to not just discipline but also perhaps disavow. At the time, Zohran Mamdani was registering just 1 percent support.Now he has won a decisive primary victory by bringing a remarkably novel electorate to the polls. And a lesson of his shock victory is one we probably should have learned several times over the past decade: Politics are fluid, even quicksilver, and the just-so stories we tell ourselves about what is possible and what is not are almost always simplistic and in many cases just plain wrong.New York is only one city, exceptional in many ways, and last week’s was just one election — a primary at that, featuring a front-runner burdened by laziness and a toxic past. And there are obvious reasons to think that the Mamdani playbook now being debated so furiously both by its admirers and by its detractors would not work in other parts of the country — at least, not in all of them. But Mamdani’s triumph is nevertheless, as I wrote a few weeks ago in anticipation, an extremely big deal, elevating an avowed leftist closer to a more consequential executive office than any has held in generations. And though Mamdani’s ascension comes with meaningful risks, it also throws open a whole new horizon of political possibility. Mamdani’s supporters are exhilarated by the fresh air. But the oxygen spent on him by his haters over the past week shows that they, too, think Mamdani’s win is a major national event.Last month, I asked what stories we might tell about a Mamdani victory — for the left, for the city and indeed for the whole country. But election night delivered enough of an earthquake that a number of new and important story lines have emerged since — too many, I think, to organize in any way but as a grab bag of observations. Here are 10.1. The American left has a new face, and New York City is now an extremely high-stakes progressive experiment.These days, with American politics more and more nationalized, every candidate everywhere is, to some extent, required to participate in national debates and be subjected to national scrutiny (on cable news and social media as well as offline). Perhaps in another era or another city an election like this could be cauterized from the national landscape, allowing an experiment in one city to play out on its own terms. Not now.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares107 Views

    in Elections

    Justice Dept. Explores Using Criminal Charges Against Election Officials

    Such a path could drastically raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, bringing the department and the threat of criminalization into the election system.Senior Justice Department officials are exploring whether they can bring criminal charges against state or local election officials if the Trump administration determines they have not sufficiently safeguarded their computer systems, according to people familiar with the discussions.The department’s effort, which is still in its early stages, is not based on new evidence, data or legal authority, according to the people, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. Instead, it is driven by the unsubstantiated argument made by many in the Trump administration that American elections are easy prey to voter fraud and foreign manipulation, these people said.Such a path could significantly raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, thrusting the Justice Department and the threat of criminalization into the election system in a way that has never been done before.Federal voting laws place some mandates on how elections are conducted and ballots counted. But that work has historically been managed by state and local officials, with limited involvement or oversight from Washington.In recent days, senior officials have directed Justice Department lawyers to examine the ways in which a hypothetical failure by state or local officials to follow security standards for electronic voting could be charged as a crime, appearing to assume a kind of criminally negligent mismanagement of election systems. Already, the department has started to contact election officials across the country, asking for information on voting in the state.Ballots from the 2024 general election locked in a secure warehouse area of the Ada County Elections Office in Boise, Idaho, last November.Natalie Behring for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares170 Views

    in Elections

    The Streets Are Safer This Year for Drivers, Cyclists and Pedestrians

    There have been 87 traffic deaths in the city so far this year, the lowest number since 2018. Officials credit the Vision Zero program and congestion pricing.Good morning. It’s Wednesday. Today we’ll look at street fatalities in the first six months of 2025, which fell to a number not seen since 2018. We’ll also get details on Zohran Mamdani’s win in the Democratic primary, which is now official.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesTo city transportation officials, 2025 looks a lot like 2018. So far, anyway.In the first half of this year, 87 traffic deaths were recorded on New York City streets. That was the same number as in the first six months of 2018, which went on to become the safest year since the city began keeping records on traffic fatalities 115 years ago, with 206 deaths on city streets.As that total suggests, the statistics may look different by the end of the year. Crashes and collisions typically rise in the summer, and the second half of a year usually outpaces the first.But for now, city officials are encouraged, with Ydanis Rodriguez, the transportation commissioner, saying in a statement that the city’s streets are “are safer than ever” for everyone on them — pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. The 87 deaths from January through June compared with the 128 reported in the first six months of last year, which ended with 251 fatalities in all.Of the 87:51 were pedestrians, compared with 63 in the first half of last year.15 were drivers or passengers in cars or S.U.V.s, down from 29 in the first six months of 2024.20 were people on what the city calls “motorized two-wheelers,” a category that includes e-bikes, scooters, mopeds and motorcycles. That was down from 33 from January to June a year ago.So far in 2025, one cyclist on a conventional, nonelectric bike has been killed. There were three such deaths in the first half of 2024, six in the comparable months of 2023 and 11 from January to June 2019.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More