Elections

The government’s move to annul the election of a candidate to challenge President Nicolás Maduro raises questions about its commitment to a free election.It seemed like a small glimmer of hope for supporters of democracy, after years of authoritarian rule.The election of an opposition candidate to challenge Venezuela’s president, which followed on a commitment from the government to hold free and fair elections next year, led to cautious optimism among Venezuelans and international observers about the possibility of establishing a path back to democracy.But now the government of President Nicolás Maduro is taking aim at the opposition election held this month, raising concerns that Mr. Maduro will resist any serious challenge to his 10-year hold on power even as his country continues to suffer under international sanctions.The opposition primary in Venezuela, a South American nation of roughly 28 million people, took place with no official government support. Instead, the vote was organized by civil society, with polling stations in homes, parks and the offices of opposition parties.More than 2.4 million Venezuelans cast ballots, an impressive number that suggests how engaged voters could be in the general election that is supposed to take place in 2024.But in the days that followed, the president of the Maduro-controlled legislature has claimed that the voter turnout was inflated and called the organizers “thieves” and “scammers,” and the election a “farce.”“The primaries sent a clear message that the Venezuelan people are, in essence, profoundly democratic,” said Tamara Taraciuk Broner, who researches Venezuela for the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research organization. “And if they have the option to vote, they will express themselves through the vote. And that is a huge challenge to those in power.”Venezuela’s attorney general’s office announced last week that it was investigating 17 members of the national and regional commissions that oversaw the balloting, based on allegations of violating electoral functions, identity theft, money laundering and criminal association.If the attorney general files criminal charges, the defendants would face a trial and possible imprisonment.And on Monday, the country’s supreme court issued a ruling effectively annulling the primary. But since the government played no role in the election, it is not clear what the practical effect will be or what the ruling will mean going forward.President Nicolás Maduro’s government has taken aim at organizers of the opposition election won by Ms. Machado.Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters“All effects of the different phases of the electoral process conducted by the National Primary Commission are suspended,” the ruling said.Juan Manuel Rafalli, a constitutional lawyer in Venezuela, said the attorney general’s office will likely ask the primary’s organizers to hand over documents that it will use to try to invalidate the election results or to call for a new one.“They have unleashed all the judicial apparatus that they control to try to annul what happened,” Mr. Rafalli said. “Don’t look for a legal explanation for this because you won’t find one.”Mr. Maduro assumed power in 2013, following the death of Hugo Chávez, who had led a socialist-inspired revolution in the late 1990s. Under Mr. Maduro, Venezuela, whose vast oil reserves made it one of Latin America’ wealthiest nations, has been in an economic free fall, which has set off a humanitarian crisis. About seven million Venezuelans — one quarter of the population — have left the country.The Maduro government and the opposition signed an agreement last month that was intended to move the country toward free and fair elections, including allowing the opposition to choose a candidate for next year’s presidential contest.María Corina Machado, a center-right candidate and former member of Venezuela’s legislature, won with 93 percent of the vote, in a 10-candidate race.But Mr. Maduro’s government has barred her from running for office for 15 years, claiming that she did not complete her declaration of assets and income when she was a legislator. It is a tactic commonly used by Mr. Maduro to keep strong competitors off the ballot.Ms. Machado is a veteran politician, nicknamed “the Iron Lady” to reflect her adversarial relationships with the governments of Mr. Maduro and Mr. Chávez. If Ms. Machado were allowed to run, some analysts say, she could likely defeat Mr. Maduro.But her hard-line positions and insistence on holding members of the Maduro administration criminally responsible for human rights abuses could also make it less likely that the government would allow her to assume power.“It is a contradiction to sign an agreement and then, in the days that follow, they proceed to violate the first points of the agreement,” she said in a speech on Thursday, referring to the investigations of the organizers of the primary.Ms. Machado has been barred from running for office by the Maduro government. Some analysts believe that if she were allowed to run, she would easily beat Mr. Maduro.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York TimesThe Biden administration has lifted some sanctions on Venezuela’s crucial oil industry in response to some of Mr. Maduro’s recent overtures, which have included accepting Venezuelans that have been deported from the United States and releasing a handful of political prisoners.But the administration also expects Venezuela to reinstate candidates prohibited from participating in the national election or face the restoration of sanctions.The U.S. State Department said it was aware of the Venezuelan high court’s decision regarding the opposition primary and urged the Maduro government to abide by its agreement to hold a credible election next year.“The United States and the international community are closely following implementation of the electoral road map, and the U.S. government will take action if Maduro and his representatives do not meet their commitments,” the statement read.Two other members of the national commission that organized the opposition election, and who are not under investigation, criticized the legitimacy of the Maduro government’s move.“They were not aware of the level of participation that was going to happen and I think it caught them and us by surprise,” said Víctor Márquez, a commission member. “It is clear that the current government has no chance of winning the elections.”Pedro Benítez, a Venezuelan political analyst, said the Maduro government was following a familiar playbook in trying to squelch threats to its power.“What they are trying to do is up the ante to prevent her from being chosen as a candidate,” Mr. Benítez said, referring to Ms. Machado. “The objective is to discourage the opposition, to divide the opposition, to create conflicts in the opposition, to demoralize its base.”“That is the first phase,” he added. “Then the next phase will come, which will be the direct offensive against the process.” More

Representative Jamaal Bowman’s calls for Israel to stand down on Gaza may fuel a perilous primary challenge for one of the left’s brightest stars.Representative Jamaal Bowman was already facing blowback from Jewish leaders in his district and a growing primary threat for bucking his party’s stance on Israel.But on Friday, he did not show any hesitation as he grabbed the megaphone at a cease-fire rally back home in the New York City suburbs to demand what only a dozen other members of Congress have: that both Israel and Hamas lay down their arms.He condemned Hamas’s brutal murder of 1,400 Israelis. He condemned the governments of the United States and Israel for facilitating what he called the “erasure” of Palestinian lives. And with Palestinian flags waving, Mr. Bowman said, “I am ashamed, quite ashamed to be a member of Congress at times when Congress doesn’t value every single life.”Forget about retreating to safer political ground. In the weeks since Hamas’s assault, Mr. Bowman, an iconoclastic former middle-school principal with scant foreign policy experience, has repeatedly inserted himself into the center of a major fight fracturing his party’s left between uncompromising pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian factions.Mr. Bowman frames his actions as a moral imperative, but they are already courting political peril. Local Jewish leaders have denounced his approach as blaming both sides for the gravest attack against their people since the Holocaust. A potentially formidable primary challenger, George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, has begun taking steps toward entering the race.Even some Jewish supporters publicly defending Mr. Bowman have grown wary. When a group of constituents who call themselves “Jews for Jamaal” held a private call with the congressman last week, they warned him he should be prepared to pay a political price if he does not support a multibillion-dollar military aid package for Israel now pending before Congress, according to three people on the call.Similar coalitions are lining up primary fights across the country against other members of Democrats’ left-wing “Squad” over their views on Israel, including Representatives Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Cori Bush of Missouri and Summer Lee of Pennsylvania.But perhaps no race promises to be so explosive, expensive or symbolically charged a test of the Democratic Party’s direction as a potential matchup between Mr. Bowman and Mr. Latimer.Mr. Bowman won his seat three years ago by defeating the staunchly pro-Israel chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot L. Engel, in a primary. And the district he represents is home both to one of the best-organized Jewish communities in the country and a nonwhite majority who sees him as a paragon of progressive Black leadership.The anger toward Mr. Bowman could scarcely have come at a worse time for him. Just last Thursday, he pleaded guilty to setting off a false fire alarm in a House office building as he raced to a vote last month. To avoid jail time, he agreed to pay a $1,000 fine and apologize.Mr. Bowman’s allies — including many Jewish ones — insist his position on the Israel-Hamas war will be vindicated. They argue that he is speaking for many of the district’s Black and Latino voters who identify with the plight of Palestinians, and that he is voicing the conflicting views of many American Jews.“He is not ‘anti-Israel,’ and to refer to him that way is to deliberately distort his record, which includes many votes in favor of military and economic aid to Israel,” 40 members of the Jews for Jamaal group wrote in a recent letter warning Mr. Latimer that a primary would be “needlessly wasteful and terribly divisive.”On the call with the group earlier this month, Mr. Bowman framed his position as a matter of personal conviction. He said he would never be Representative Ritchie Torres, a staunchly pro-Israel Democrat who represents a neighboring district. But he also said it was unfair to lump him together with lawmakers like Ms. Tlaib or Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who have taken far more antagonistic stances toward Israel.Unlike them, Mr. Bowman has voted in the past to help fund Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. In late 2021, he traveled to Israel on a trip organized by J Street, a mainstream liberal pro-Israel advocacy group that still backs him. Both actions drew sharp blowback from allies on the left and prompted Mr. Bowman to quit the Democratic Socialists of America.In a statement, Mr. Bowman said that he would “always stand with the Jewish community” but also would work to bridge differences among his constituents, the majority of whom remain more focused on issues like health care and gun safety.The district, which includes more than half of Westchester County, is about 50 percent Black and Latino, according to census data; studies suggest around 10 percent of residents are Jewish, though Jews probably make up two to three times that share of the Democratic primary electorate.“True security for everyone in the region begins with the de-escalation of violence, which means the immediate release of hostages taken by Hamas, a cease-fire, humanitarian aid to Israel and Gaza,” and avoiding military escalation, Mr. Bowman said.Since Hamas’s attack, though, some Jewish leaders in Westchester said Mr. Bowman has been too quick to move past the carnage overseas and growing fears about antisemitism closer to home. They took particular offense last week when he was one of just 10 House lawmakers to vote against a bipartisan resolution standing with Israel.The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby that has spent millions of dollars targeting Mr. Bowman’s left-leaning allies in recent cycles, has privately offered its support to Mr. Latimer. So have local business leaders who detest Mr. Bowman’s critiques of capitalism and his vote against President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill.And two dozen local rabbis have condemned his calls for a cease-fire as “a position of appeasement toward Hamas’s terror regime.”“Since being elected, Bowman has led the effort to erode support for Israel on Capitol Hill and within the Democratic Party,” they wrote in a recent letter urging Mr. Latimer to run.George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, has been encouraged by a pro-Israel group to challenge Mr. Bowman.Jonah Markowitz for The New York TimesIn an interview, Mr. Latimer, 69, said he would wait until mid November to announce his plans. But he described watching with growing alarm as protesters shaking college campuses cleave his party and, in his view, abandon Jewish Americans.“There are people in my county who are solid progressive Democrats,” said Mr. Latimer, who is Catholic. “But they also support the State of Israel, and they are frustrated that there is an element of the left that doesn’t see the historic oppression of the Jewish people in the same light as we’ve seen oppression of other groups.”Hours after Mr. Bowman spoke on Friday at the rally — organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, a Jewish anti-Zionist group — Mr. Latimer stood at the bimah of Kol Ami in White Plains to offer his unequivocal support to the Jewish congregation. He did not mention Mr. Bowman but drew subtle distinctions.“It was not some event that happened because of years of something else,” he said of Hamas’s attack. “It was the express hatred of Hamas toward Jewish people because they do not want Jewish people to live.”Mr. Bowman, for his part, has yet to visit a synagogue since the attack. His office indicated it is planning a series of meetings focused on strategies to combat hate.Mr. Latimer appears to have picked up at least one influential Democratic supporter even before entering the race.In an interview, Mr. Engel said he had resisted publicly criticizing Mr. Bowman since his defeat so as not to look bitter. But he said his successor had been an “embarrassment” who was “particularly awful” on Israel.“George is a class act; he works hard and he would really attempt to represent the people,” he said. “Whereas Bowman is more comfortable demonstrating, picketing and pulling fire alarms.” More

With a substantial personal fortune, the North Dakota governor is insistent on spreading his message despite calls to drop out.Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota knows that many people, including powerful voices in his own party, think he should quit the Republican presidential primary, abandoning his quixotic bid so that momentum can gather behind a challenger to Donald J. Trump, and ultimately President Biden.“This seems like they’re trying to do the job of the voters,” he said in an interview on Saturday. But Mr. Burgum is committed to staying on the ballot in Iowa and New Hampshire, where he says he regularly meets people who are eager to vote for him. “They are the ones that are going to decide how the field gets narrowed, not some other group,” he said.Mr. Burgum, 67, was sitting in a stately conference room, somewhere in the carpeted labyrinth of a convention center in Las Vegas, which was hosting a major gathering of Jewish donors. Less than an hour earlier, in a ballroom upstairs, former Vice President Mike Pence had dropped out of the race, yielding to the reality that he was short on votes and running out of money.Mr. Burgum’s reality is different in at least one critical respect: Though he is barely cracking 1 percent in Iowa polls, his net worth is in the hundreds of millions. He has largely self-financed his campaign, lending it more than $12 million — a further $3 million has come in from donations, according to the campaign’s most recent filing.He can afford to be quixotic. As of the end of September, his campaign had spent $12.9 million — more than the campaigns of Nikki Haley, Chris Christie and Mr. Pence combined. About a third of that was spent on television advertising time.He is a testament to the power of private wealth to sustain a campaign, and to elevate a largely unknown, business-minded conservative from a largely rural U.S. state to the national stage — or, at least, the edge of the stage.“I think he does bring perspective and experience that resonate with a lot of voters,” said Miles D. White, the former chairman and chief executive of Abbott Laboratories and a longtime friend of Mr. Burgum. “I think the early process doesn’t give a lot of opportunity to demonstrate that.”Mr. White, who gave $2 million to a super PAC backing Mr. Burgum, said Mr. Burgum’s financial resources meant he could stay in and raise awareness of himself as a potential alternative to Mr. Trump, outside the confines of the debate stage.“His biggest challenge is being known, nationwide, and getting known, which takes a lot of time, a lot of ads, which in turn takes a lot of funding,” Mr. White said.Mike Murphy, a longtime Republican strategist, said that most candidates, at this point, were merely helping Mr. Trump. On Monday, in an editorial in The Bulwark, he called for all of them except Ms. Haley, the former United Nations ambassador and South Carolina governor, to drop out.“I like Burgum,” Mr. Murphy said in an interview. “He is in a desperate battle with the margin of error in the polling. Because the stakes with Trump are so high, he’s got to step back.”He added, “When your argument is, ‘Let me flame out in Iowa, where I’ll do collateral damage to others,’ you don’t have an argument.”Mr. Burgum said he first sought the governor’s seat in 2015 because he felt he could have more of an impact on North Dakota from Bismarck than he could from his perch of private enterprise. The same thing motivated him to seek the presidency — but first he had to persuade his 25-year-old son, he said, who was concerned about the attention it might bring to his family.Finally, his son told him, “You should run, because my friends would have somebody they can vote for, instead of voting against.” Telling the story, Mr. Burgum began to cry.Friends from the business community have also jumped in with support. The super PAC backing him, called Best of America, had taken in more than $11 million as of the end of June from about two dozen wealthy supporters, including people with links to his business world.“Anybody who’s donated significantly so far is someone who’s known us for a long time,” Mr. Burgum said. “Because they’re like, OK, this is the real deal.”Mr. Burgum entered the race in June on a platform that focused on his economic acumen and business record as a software executive, as well as his conservative record as governor.“People are yearning for leadership, and leadership to them does not mean a life spent as a career politician in North Dakota,” he said. “It means someone who’s got the characteristics of integrity and honesty. Someone you can trust and someone who’s willing to take risks, someone who can take a leap and not know where they’re going to land.”He added, of his competitors, “Just factually, I’ve created more jobs than everybody else on that stage combined, in the private sector.”Since entering the race, Mr. Burgum has spent heavily to introduce himself to voters and to draw support.In the early nominating states, Mr. Burgum’s business bona fides, horseback skills and distinctive eyebrows have been fixtures on television, set against the scenic backdrop of North Dakota — he said he saw his campaign in part as an opportunity to introduce his state to the rest of the country.(As for the eyebrows, Mr. Burgum credits them to his mother’s side of the family, and acknowledges the uncanny likeness to the comedian Eugene Levy. Along with his flowing mane of hair, they get a lot of attention on the campaign trail: “If the only people voting were women over 75 or 80 years old, then we’d have a lock on it,” he said.)Mr. Burgum’s campaign has bought $4.3 million of local and national advertising time, according to an analysis by AdImpact, a media-tracking firm. Since July, the super PAC backing him has bought nearly $13 million in ad time.The PAC’s ads describe him as “the only conservative business leader running for president,” promising that he can bring “small-town common sense back in Washington, D.C.”Advertising spending by the super PAC is the fifth-highest in the race, according to the AdImpact analysis, which also includes outlays for ads in the coming weeks. Never Back Down, a super PAC backing Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, has spent $35.6 million. A super PAC for Mr. Trump has spent $27.6 million; one for Ms. Haley, $22.8 million; and one for Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, $19.8 million.Before the first debate, in late August, Mr. Burgum’s campaign offered $20 gift cards to anyone who donated a dollar to his campaign so that he could meet the threshold of 40,000 individual donors to earn a spot onstage.The gambit worked. Then, the day of the debate, he ruptured his Achilles’ tendon in a game of pickup basketball with his aides. He showed up anyway. Two months later, he still uses a knee scooter to move around.A major hurdle lies ahead: While Mr. Burgum’s campaign has the requisite number of donors, it has not yet met the Republican National Committee’s polling threshold for the third G.O.P. debate, next week in Miami.He described the threshold as an arbitrary bar set by the party leadership. “It might achieve a winnowing, but it may not produce what Iowa or New Hampshire would produce, where people are actually investing time,” he said. More

President Biden’s support for autoworkers helped them make big wage gains, and labor organizers are looking to bring about similar gains elsewhere as carmakers transition to electric vehicles.The United Automobile Workers’ big wins with Detroit’s Big Three automakers could also prove to be a significant political victory for President Biden, who openly sided with striking workers to pressure the companies, General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, to produce generous concessions.But the U.A.W.’s turn now toward nonunionized automakers like Tesla, Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes will test whether Mr. Biden’s support, as well as measures that he signed into law, will produce the expansion of organized labor that he has long promised.For unionized autoworkers, many of them in the swing state of Michigan, the tentative contracts, which are awaiting rank-and-file ratification, would bring substantial wage gains, “another piece of good economic news,” Mr. Biden said on Monday. The tentative contracts would lift the top U.A.W. wage to more than $40 per hour over four and a half years, from $32 an hour. Stellantis, maker of Chryslers, Jeeps and Ram trucks, agreed to reopen its assembly plant in Belvidere, Ill., near the border of Wisconsin, another crucial swing state.“The impact of Biden’s public support can’t be overstated,” said Steve Smith, a spokesman for the umbrella A.F.L.-C.I.O., which includes the autoworkers’ union. “There’s a lot of upside here for Biden. The contracts set a new standard for the industry that clearly show the benefit of collective bargaining.”Beyond that, G.M. agreed to bring its electric vehicle battery joint venture, Ultium, under the national contract, a boon for Ultium workers but also a pressure point for unions as they seek to organize battery plants sprouting up around the country. Such plants are using generous subsidies from Mr. Biden’s signature legislative achievements — especially the climate change provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act — as the administration pushes to speed the country’s transition to electric vehicles.“This historic contract is a testament to the power of unions and collective bargaining to build strong middle-class jobs while helping our most iconic American companies thrive,” Mr. Biden said Monday evening.Jason Walsh, the executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, which has brought together labor and environmental groups to marshal support for the clean energy transition, said the contracts, if ratified by U.A.W. workers, would be a watershed moment for the economy — and possibly the planet.“The legislative intent behind the industrial policy in the Inflation Reduction Act was an implicit deal: We as a nation are going to invest in the sectors of the economy that are important to the country and the planet in the long run, but in return we want the companies that receive those benefits to maximize returns to workers, communities and the environment,” Mr. Walsh said. To that end, the contract settlement is “huge,” he added. “It highlights the lie peddled by Donald Trump and at times the Big Three that the E.V. transition means lower-quality jobs in a nonunion work force.”The U.A.W. actions took on strikingly political meaning. In May, the autoworkers’ union opted to withhold an endorsement of Mr. Biden’s re-election, openly expressing “our concerns with the electric vehicle transition” that the president was pushing through legislation and regulation.Last month, Mr. Biden became the first sitting U.S. president to join a picket line. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, castigated striking workers, saying “they want more money working fewer hours. They want more benefits working fewer days.”Mr. Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, visited a nonunion parts plant in Michigan to rail against electric vehicles and to demand that Shawn Fain, the new and aggressive U.A.W. president, endorse him for another term in the White House.Mr. Fain said he would never do that, and supporters of the president pointed to provisions in federal laws championed by Mr. Biden that may have helped secure the deals. Subsidies for electric vehicle production will go only to domestic manufacturing plants, meaning Detroit management could not credibly threaten to move new auto plants overseas in search of cheaper labor.But union officials did not say on Monday what their intentions were for a presidential endorsement. Mr. Fain did make clear over the weekend that he was not resting on his laurels with the gains achieved with its escalating wave of strikes against the Big Three. The union plans to target Tesla, the nonunion automaker that dominates the domestic electric vehicle market, as well as foreign automakers with factories in the Southeast, where unions have struggled to gain a foothold. Some of the biggest new plants are under construction in Georgia, a critical swing state for 2024, including a Hyundai electric vehicle plant that will be the state’s biggest economic development project ever.Organizers will be able to lean on provisions of the three big laws that Mr. Biden signed — a $1 trillion infrastructure bill, a $280 billion measure to rekindle a domestic semiconductor industry and the Inflation Reduction Act, which included $370 billion for clean energy to combat climate change — to push their case.Tucked into all of those laws were measures to give unions the power to effectively tell employers that accept rich federal tax incentives this: You must pay union-scale wages and use union apprenticeship and training programs, so you might as well hire union workers.How electric vehicle and battery makers respond to the U.A.W.’s next push will go a long way toward determining whether Mr. Biden can make good on his promise that his effort to curtail climate change and wean the nation off fossil fuels will indeed produce “good union jobs.” More

While some prominent constitutional experts argue that a clause in the amendment applies to former President Donald J. Trump after Jan. 6, that view is far from universal among legal scholars.A courtroom in Denver will host, starting Monday morning, something the nation has never seen: a trial to determine whether a major party’s likely presidential nominee is eligible to be president at all.The lawsuit, filed in September by six Colorado voters with the help of a watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues that former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That section disqualifies anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution after having taken an oath to support it.The plaintiffs say that Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election — including his actions before and while his supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to try to stop the certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory — meet the disqualification criteria.Sarah B. Wallace, the state district court judge presiding over the case, rejected multiple requests from Mr. Trump and from the Colorado Republican State Central Committee in recent weeks to dismiss the case without a trial.Judge Wallace has laid out nine topics to be addressed at the trial, which is scheduled to last all week. They include whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to presidents; what “engaged” and “insurrection” mean under that section; whether Mr. Trump’s actions fit those definitions; and whether the amendment is “self-executing” — in other words, whether it can be applied without specific action by Congress identifying whom to apply it to.These questions have been debated since the Jan. 6 attack, especially since Mr. Trump announced that he was running for president again, but there is little precedent to help answer them. The 14th Amendment was ratified shortly after the Civil War, and the disqualification clause was originally applied to people who had fought for the Confederacy. The courts have rarely had occasion to assess its modern application, and never in a case of this magnitude.Some prominent constitutional experts — including the conservative law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen in an academic article, and the conservative former judge J. Michael Luttig and the liberal law professor Laurence H. Tribe in The Atlantic — have argued that the clause applies to Mr. Trump.But that view is far from universal among legal scholars, and several have told The New York Times over the past few months that the questions are complicated.The court’s list of topics also calls for discussion of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, which governs what happens if a new president and vice president have not “qualified” by the time they are supposed to take office.The section says, in part, that “Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified.”Mr. Trump’s lawyers say this means that only Congress can enforce constitutional qualifications for the presidency. Lawyers for the plaintiffs rejected that argument in a brief last week, saying the “plain language” of the amendment — which refers to the “president-elect” — applies only to a person whom has already been elected and has nothing to do with states’ ability to adjudicate candidates’ qualifications.The Colorado lawsuit is one of several efforts around the country to remove Mr. Trump from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Oral arguments in a case in Minnesota are scheduled to begin Thursday, and lawsuits have also been filed in New Hampshire and Michigan. Separately, Democratic legislators in California asked their state’s attorney general last month to seek a court opinion on Mr. Trump’s eligibility.Whatever verdicts come in these cases will not be final. They will almost certainly be appealed by the losing side, and the Supreme Court — which has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Mr. Trump — is likely to have the final say. More

Donald Trump, 77, has relentlessly attacked President Biden, 80, as too old for office. But the former president himself has had a series of gaffes that go beyond his usual freewheeling style.One of Donald J. Trump’s new comedic bits at his rallies features him impersonating the current commander in chief with an over-the-top caricature mocking President Biden’s age.With droopy eyelids and mouth agape, Mr. Trump stammers and mumbles. He squints. His arms flap. He shuffles his feet and wanders laggardly across the stage. A burst of laughter and applause erupts from the crowd as he feigns confusion by turning and pointing to invisible supporters, as if he does not realize his back is to them.But his recent campaign events have also featured less deliberate stumbles. Mr. Trump has had a string of unforced gaffes, garble and general disjointedness that go beyond his usual discursive nature, and that his Republican rivals are pointing to as signs of his declining performance.On Sunday in Sioux City, Iowa, Mr. Trump wrongly thanked supporters of Sioux Falls, a South Dakota town about 75 miles away, correcting himself only after being pulled aside onstage and informed of the error.It was strikingly similar to a fictional scene that Mr. Trump acted out earlier this month, pretending to be Mr. Biden mistaking Iowa for Idaho and needing an aide to straighten him out.In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has also told supporters not to vote, and claimed to have defeated President Barack Obama in an election. He has praised the collective intellect of an Iranian-backed militant group that has long been an enemy of both Israel and the United States, and repeatedly mispronounced the name of the armed group that rules Gaza.“This is a different Donald Trump than 2015 and ’16 — lost the zip on his fastball,” Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida told reporters last week while campaigning in New Hampshire.“In 2016, he was freewheeling, he’s out there barnstorming the country,” Mr. DeSantis added. “Now, it’s just a different guy. And it’s sad to see.”It is unclear if Mr. Trump’s recent slips are connected to his age. He has long relied on an unorthodox speaking style that has served as one of his chief political assets, establishing him, improbably, among the most effective communicators in American politics.But as the 2024 race for the White House heats up, Mr. Trump’s increased verbal blunders threaten to undermine one of Republicans’ most potent avenues of attack, and the entire point of his onstage pantomime: the argument that Mr. Biden is too old to be president.Mr. Biden, a grandfather of seven, is 80. Mr. Trump, who has 10 grandchildren, is 77.Even though only a few years separate the two men in their golden years, voters view their vigor differently. Recent polls have found that roughly two out of three voters say Mr. Biden is too old to serve another four-year term, while only about half say the same about Mr. Trump.If that gap starts to narrow, it’s Mr. Trump who has far more to lose in a general-election matchup.Mr. Trump and President Biden are the front-runners for each party’s nomination, setting up the likelihood of a 2020 rematch. Michelle Gustafson for The New York TimesAccording to a previously unreported finding in an August survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 43 percent of U.S. voters said both men were “too old to effectively serve another four-year term as president.” Among those voters, 61 percent said they planned to vote for Mr. Biden, compared with 13 percent who said the same about Mr. Trump.Last week, similar findings emerged in a Franklin & Marshall College poll of registered voters in Pennsylvania, one of the most closely watched 2024 battlegrounds.According to the poll, 43 percent of Pennsylvanians said both men were “too old to serve another term.” An analysis of that data for The New York Times showed that Mr. Biden led Mr. Trump among those voters by 66 percent to 11 percent. Among all voters in the state, the two men were in a statistical tie.Berwood Yost, the director of the Franklin & Marshall poll, said that Mr. Biden’s wide lead among voters who were worried about both candidates’ ages could be explained partly by the fact that Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to identify age as a problem for their party’s leader. “The age issue is one that if Trump gets tarred with the same brush as Biden, it really hurts him,” Mr. Yost said.Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, noted that the former president maintained a commanding lead in Republican primary polls and that in the general election, several recent polls had shown Mr. Trump with slight leads over Mr. Biden.“None of these false narratives has changed the dynamics of the race at all — President Trump still dominates, because people know he’s the strongest candidate,” Mr. Cheung said. “The contrast is that Biden is falling onstage, mumbling his way through a speech, being confused on where to walk, and tripping on the steps of Air Force One. There’s no correcting that, and that will be seared into voter’s minds.”Mr. Trump’s rhetorical skills have long relied on a mix of brute force and a seemingly preternatural instinct for the imprecise. That beguiling combination — honed from a lifetime of real estate negotiations, New York tabloid backbiting and prime-time reality TV stardom — often means that voters hear what they want to hear from him.Mr. Trump’s speaking style has often meant that his supporters, or voters who are open to backing him, hear what they want to hear from him. Jordan Gale for The New York TimesTrump supporters leave his speeches energized. Undecided voters who are open to his message can find what they’re looking for in his pitch. Opponents are riled, and when they furiously accuse him of something they heard but that he didn’t quite precisely say, Mr. Trump turns the criticism into a data point that he’s unfairly persecuted — and the entire cycle begins anew.But Mr. Trump’s latest missteps aren’t easily classified as calculated vagueness.During a Sept. 15 speech in Washington, a moment after declaring Mr. Biden “cognitively impaired, in no condition to lead,” the former president warned that America was on the verge of World War II, which ended in 1945.In the same speech, he boasted about presidential polls showing him leading Mr. Obama, who is not, in fact, running for an illegal third term in office. He erroneously referred to Mr. Obama again during an anecdote about winning the 2016 presidential race.“We did it with Obama,” Mr. Trump said. “We won an election that everybody said couldn’t be won, we beat …” He paused for a beat as he seemed to realize his mistake. “Hillary Clinton.”At a Florida rally on Oct. 11, days after a brutal terrorist attack that killed hundreds of Israelis, Mr. Trump criticized the country for being unprepared, lashing out at its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Trump appears to have soured on Mr. Netanyahu, once a close ally, after the Israeli leader congratulated Mr. Biden for winning the 2020 election.In the same speech, Mr. Trump relied on an inaccurate timeline of events in the Middle East to criticize Mr. Biden’s handling of foreign affairs and, in the process, drew headlines for praising Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group.Last week, while speaking to supporters at a rally in New Hampshire, Mr. Trump praised Viktor Orban, the strongman prime minister of Hungary, but referred to him as “the leader of Turkey,” a country hundreds of miles away. He quickly corrected himself.At another point in the same speech, Mr. Trump jumped into a confusing riff that ended with him telling supporters, “You don’t have to vote — don’t worry about voting,” adding, “We’ve got plenty of votes.”Mr. Cheung, the Trump campaign spokesman, said the former president was “clearly talking about election integrity and making sure only legal votes are counted.”Under Mr. Trump, the Republican Party has been dealt a series of electoral defeats since 2016. Doug Mills/The New York TimesIn a speech on Saturday, Mr. Trump sounded as if he were talking about hummus when he mispronounced Hamas (huh-maas), the Islamist group that governs the Gaza Strip and carried out one of the largest attacks on Israel in decades on Oct. 7.The former president’s pronunciation drew the attention of the Biden campaign, which posted the video clip on social media, noting that Mr. Trump sounded “confused.”But even Republican rivals have sensed an opening on the age issue against Mr. Trump, who has maintained an unshakable hold on the party despite a political record that would in years past have compelled conservatives to consider another standard-bearer. Mr. Trump lost control of Congress as president; was voted out of the White House; failed to help deliver a “red wave” of victories in the midterm elections last year; and, this year, drew 91 felony charges over four criminal cases.Nikki Haley, the 51-year-old former governor of South Carolina, opened her presidential bid this year by calling for candidates 75 or older to pass mental competency tests, a push she has renewed in recent weeks.On Saturday, Ms. Haley attacked Mr. Trump over his comments about Mr. Netanyahu and Hezbollah, suggesting in a speech to Jewish donors in Las Vegas that the former president did not have the faculties to return to the White House.“Let me remind you,” she added with a small smile. “With all due respect, I don’t get confused.”Jazmine Ulloa More

Nicolás Maduro lleva 10 años en el poder en Venezuela. En esa década, ha supervisado un periodo de colapso económico, corrupción, un aumento importante de la pobreza, la destrucción medioambiental y la represión estatal de los disidentes y la prensa. Esto ha provocado un éxodo de más de 7 millones de venezolanos.Ahora Venezuela se encuentra en una encrucijada que definirá su próxima década y tendrá consecuencias cruciales para el mundo. Venezuela celebrará sus elecciones presidenciales en 2024, unas elecciones que Maduro podría perder, siempre que la oposición participe unida, la comunidad internacional siga implicada y los ciudadanos se sientan inspirados para movilizarse.Recientemente, dos acontecimientos importantes revelaron una oportunidad única de cara a las elecciones: primero, la participación masiva en las primarias de la oposición del 22 de octubre, que otorgaron a María Corina Machado, exdiputada de Venezuela, un sólido primer lugar como la candidata unitaria. Segundo, el régimen no impidió judicialmente ni con violencia que se celebraran estas elecciones. Fue una de las concesiones que hizo en un acuerdo con Washington y la oposición a cambio de que Estados Unidos suavizara las sanciones impuestas durante el mandato de Trump a las industrias del petróleo y el gas.El éxito de las primarias de la oposición podría haber sorprendido a Maduro, y estamos siendo testigos de un mayor hostigamiento contra los organizadores de las elecciones y declaraciones de funcionarios que niegan la posibilidad de levantar la inhabilitación impuesta a varios líderes políticos de la oposición, incluida Machado, de presentarse a las elecciones del próximo año.A pesar de la alentadora participación en las primarias y los avances en las negociaciones, hay una narrativa pesimista —tanto en el extranjero como en Venezuela— de que Maduro se aferrará inevitablemente al poder. He visto y he experimentado lo equivocado que es ese punto de vista. En realidad, las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año brindan la mejor oportunidad hasta la fecha para derrotar al chavismo —el movimiento de inspiración socialista iniciado por Hugo Chávez en el que milita Maduro— desde que llegó al poder hace más de dos décadas.Llevo desde 2013 trabajando como organizador comunitario en los barrios en sectores populares de Venezuela, antes bastiones del chavismo. He trabajado con líderes de la comunidad, la mayoría de los cuales eran chavistas cuando empezamos. He visto con mis propios ojos que, en lugares donde Chávez obtenía antes el 90 por ciento de los votos en las elecciones nacionales, ahora la inmensa mayoría desea un cambio. Hace poco, una exintegrante de la estructura política del partido gobernante, cuyo nombre no desea revelar por temor a las repercusiones, me dijo que Maduro y sus secuaces ya no son una opción para muchos venezolanos: “Ya no quiero nada con ellos ni la comunidad tampoco”. Añadió que “mientras ellos comen como unos reyes”, en los barrios comían muy mal.Para aprovechar esta oportunidad inusual, tienen que ocurrir tres elementos. El primero es que la oposición debe mantenerse unida en las urnas y en defender los votos. El segundo es que la comunidad internacional debe seguir presionando por mejores condiciones electorales y exigir respeto a los derechos humanos en Venezuela. También deben contribuir a bajar los costos de una posible salida de Maduro y su estructura. Y la tercera es que los políticos y los líderes de toda Venezuela deben volver a centrar el discurso en un mensaje lleno de esperanza, en vez de ceder a la tentación de alimentar aún más la polarización.El régimen de Maduro es consciente del riesgo que corre en las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año. Su objetivo es convencer a la gente de que el cambio es imposible, y de que a los venezolanos les irá mejor si se quedan en casa en lugar de ir a votar. La oposición de Venezuela debe contrarrestar esas tácticas con un firme llamado a la participación.También debe enfrentarse a un dilema más fundamental que es común a todos los sistemas electorales autoritarios: participar en unas elecciones que no serán libres y limpias, o boicotearlas.En las últimas elecciones presidenciales, en 2018, parte de la oposición, incluida Machado, boicoteó las elecciones. Como miembro de un partido político de la oposición —Primero Justicia—, yo también decidí no votar. Pero, ahora, tras casi seis años más de consolidación autoritaria, creo que nuestra estrategia fue errada. Pedirle a la gente que se quede en casa en lugar de movilizarse es caer en la trampa de Maduro.Para ser claros, las elecciones presidenciales de 2024 no serán un momento de celebración de la democracia; aún no se dan las condiciones para unas elecciones libres y limpias, y, francamente, puede que nunca se den. No obstante, si la oposición participa y los venezolanos votan en masa, Maduro puede perder.Algunos se preguntan si el régimen permitirá siquiera que se cuenten los votos el año que viene. Mi respuesta es que Maduro necesita hacerlo. Enfrentada a una monumental crisis social y económica, la élite chavista tiene que ofrecerles a los venezolanos un relato que les otorgue legitimidad interna, y eso, en Venezuela, solo puede venir de unas elecciones. Al igual que otros regímenes autoritarios del mundo, su mayor gancho publicitario es afirmar que cuentan con el respaldo del pueblo. Pero lo cierto es que su base sigue menguando drásticamente: hoy, el índice de aprobación de Maduro es del 29 por ciento, según una investigación de Consultores 21, con sede en Caracas.Una victoria arrolladora de la oposición es la mejor protección contra las trampas. Hay un ejemplo reciente de ello en Venezuela. Hace un año, en unas elecciones regionales en Barinas, el estado en el que nació Chávez, el partido gobernante perdió con un margen considerable, a pesar de utilizar toda su artillería de trampas. Aunque se trató de unas elecciones regionales y no estaba en juego el poder presidencial, la experiencia en el estado, unida a los acontecimientos del 22 de octubre, dan una lección sobre lo que debemos hacer para recuperar la democracia en 2024.El punto de partida es que la oposición debe adoptar una estrategia realista, que sea consciente de la desigualdad de condiciones en un sistema autoritario, y que ponga en primer plano la participación del pueblo venezolano. En Barinas, el partido en el poder intentó empujar a la oposición a boicotear las elecciones invalidando ilegalmente los resultados y prohibiendo a varios candidatos que se presentaran. Sin embargo, la oposición permaneció unida y mantuvo su compromiso de participar, a pesar de las injusticias.Para reforzar la unidad ahora, los partidos de la oposición deben priorizar el desarrollo de un mecanismo para tomar decisiones en conjunto que permita alcanzar consensos en una coalición diversa. Los dos pilares de esa unidad deberían ser la lucha por los derechos políticos de todos los líderes —sobre todo los de Machado tras su victoria— y el compromiso firme de participar en las elecciones del año que viene. En el mejor escenario, el gobierno de Maduro levantaría todas las inhabilitaciones antes de las elecciones como parte de las negociaciones. Pero, aunque eso no sucediera, participar y lograr una victoria aplastante en unas elecciones viciadas es el mejor camino que tenemos para avanzar en la democratización.La oposición también necesita un compromiso más firme de otros países latinoamericanos, de Estados Unidos y de Europa con las negociaciones. El régimen de Maduro ha demostrado que hará concesiones en materia de elecciones y derechos humanos si recibe los incentivos adecuados. Necesitamos líderes demócratas con disposición a asumir riesgos y a predicar con el ejemplo en su defensa de la democracia, que exijan la libertad de todos los presos políticos, y mejoras en las condiciones para las elecciones del año que viene. Además, necesitamos que la comunidad internacional acelere la entrega de las ayudas que tanto necesitan los más vulnerables de la sociedad. La oposición y el partido en el poder llegaron a un acuerdo hace un año para que los fondos públicos congelados en el extranjero a causa de las sanciones se transfieran a la ONU con fines humanitarios. Hasta la fecha, esos fondos no han sido implementados.Por último, la oposición tiene que ofrecer una verdadera alternativa a la división promovida por el establishment de Maduro. Inspirar a la gente a participar requiere unir al país en torno a un nuevo relato. El mensaje tradicional de la oposición, entre la polarización con el chavismo y la nostalgia de un pasado que no volverá, está condenado al fracaso.Un nuevo relato para Venezuela debería inspirar a los jóvenes, centrarse en ayudar a las personas en sus dificultades diarias (con servicios públicos, educación y acceso a anticonceptivos) y desarrollar una economía más diversificada que genere empleos bien remunerados para reducir la desigualdad. El nuevo mensaje debería aspirar también a sanar una de nuestras heridas más profundas: la separación de las familias debido a la migración masiva. La reunificación de nuestro país puede convertirse en una motivación personal y emocional para que cada venezolano participe y obre el cambio. Reunir a la familia venezolana es algo por lo que vale la pena luchar.Roberto Patiño, activista venezolano y antiguo dirigente del movimiento estudiantil, es fundador de Alimenta la Solidaridad y Mi Convive, que trabajan en las comunidades vulnerables de Venezuela, y miembro de la junta directiva del partido político Primero Justicia. More

A multi-pronged effort to keep Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot as an insurrectionist resumes in earnest, beginning with a court case in Colorado on Monday, the first of two states that will hear legal arguments this week.Those seeking to have the former president ruled ineligible are relying on a civil war-era provision of the 14th amendment to the US constitution that states no person can hold public office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.They argue that Trump’s incitement of the deadly 6 January attack on the US Capitol, in which his supporters attempted to block Congress certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory, perfectly encapsulates the clause that has yet to be seriously tested in a courtroom.In Denver on Monday, and in Minnesota’s supreme court on Thursday, hearings will commence in cases that could ultimately end up in the US supreme court, regardless of which side wins in the lower court. The rulings are likely to be swiftly appealed, dragging the cases out with next year’s general election only 12 months away.“We’ve had hearings with presidential candidates debating their eligibility before – Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, John McCain,” said Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, listing candidates challenged on whether they met the constitutional requirement of being a “natural-born citizen”.But the arguments against Trump, he said, rely on an obscure clause of the constitution with an “incendiary” bar against insurrection. “Those legal questions are very heavy ones,” he said, noting that even if they are seen as long shots, they raise important issues and have a plausible legal path to success.Among those who support the argument for Trump’s removal from the ballot are the Virginia senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 running mate, who told ABC last month that the “language is specific” in the 14th amendment clause.“In my view, the attack on the Capitol that day was designed for a particular purpose at a particular moment and that was to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power as is laid out in the constitution,” he said.“So I think there is a powerful argument to be made.”Dozens of cases citing the amendment have been filed in recent months, but the ones in Colorado and Minnesota seem the most important, according to legal experts. They were filed by two liberal groups with significant resources, and in states with a clear, swift process for challenges to candidates’ ballot qualifications.That means the Colorado and Minnesota cases are taking a more legally sound route to get courts to force election officials to disqualify Trump, in contrast to other lawsuits that seek a sweeping ruling from federal judges that Trump is no longer eligible for the presidency.The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) watchdog group filed the Colorado lawsuit. “By instigating this unprecedented assault on the American constitutional order, Trump violated his oath and disqualified himself under the 14th Amendment from holding public office, including the office of the president,” its filing states.Trump’s lawyers say the provision has not been used in 150 years, and the plaintiffs are interpreting it incorrectly. They contend it was never meant to apply to the office of president, which is not mentioned in the text, unlike “senator or representative in Congress” and “elector of president and vice-president”.They also insist Trump never “engaged in insurrection” and was simply exercising his free speech rights to warn about election results he did not believe were legitimate.The then president was impeached for a historic second time in 2021 for inciting the attack on the Capitol, though he was acquitted by the US Senate.Trump has been predictably dismissive. “This is like a banana republic,” he told the conservative radio host Dan Bongino last month. “And what they’re doing is, it’s called election interference. Now the 14th amendment is just a continuation of that. It’s nonsense.”The arguments in Colorado could feature testimony from witnesses to the 6 January 2021 attack, and other moves by Trump to overturn his 2020 election defeat. He is already facing charges in a federal case in Washington DC and a state case being heard in Fulton county, Georgia, over those efforts.Associated Press contributed reporting More