Elections

The action by federal tax officials is the latest sign of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s growing financial troubles.The I.R.S. has placed a lien on a Florida property owned by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and lawyer for Donald J. Trump, because he owes roughly $550,000 in income taxes, according to a court filing.The property, a lakeside condominium in Palm Beach, sits less than three miles from Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence. Mr. Giuliani and his ex-wife had tried to sell it for $3.3 million in 2019, but never found a buyer, according to The Palm Beach Daily News.The existence of the court filing in Palm Beach County was first reported by The Daily Mail.The action by federal officials over Mr. Giuliani’s 2021 income taxes is the latest sign of his growing financial troubles. He is entangled in numerous legal battles and has been racking up bills for his defense in criminal investigations, private lawsuits and legal disciplinary proceedings stemming from his bid to keep Mr. Trump in office after the 2020 election.He faces a racketeering charge, among others, in Georgia for his role in that effort, as well as a defamation case brought by two election workers in the state. In July, Mr. Giuliani put his Upper East Side apartment in New York City up for sale for $6.5 million. His lawyer, Adam Katz, said at the time that his client was “close to broke.” At one point in August, Mr. Giuliani was said to owe nearly $3 million in legal expenses. Robert J. Costello, once a protégé of Mr. Giuliani, is suing him for unpaid legal fees. And last week Hunter Biden sued Mr. Giuliani for his role in spreading personal information about Mr. Biden.Mr. Giuliani has repeatedly asked Mr. Trump to pay him millions of dollars he believes he is owed for his role in the effort to keep Mr. Trump in office. After entreaties from people close to Mr. Giuliani for a financial lifeline, Mr. Trump hosted a $100,000-per-person fund-raiser at his club in Bedminster, N.J., last month to aid the former mayor.Kirsten Noyes More

The two lawmakers sought support from members of their fractured party as the former president threatened to get involved in a potentially fierce struggle over who will lead the House.The two leading candidates to become the next Republican speaker of the House worked the phones and the halls of the Capitol on Thursday, vying for support from within their party’s fractured ranks as the chamber remained in a state of paralysis after the ouster of Representative Kevin McCarthy of California.Representatives Steve Scalise, the majority leader, and Jim Jordan, the Judiciary Committee chairman, had each landed more than a dozen endorsements by the afternoon as they raced toward a vote of Republicans tentatively scheduled for Tuesday. An election on the House floor could follow the next day, though the process could stretch much longer if no consensus can be reached.Far from the Capitol, former President Donald J. Trump, whose far-right acolytes in Congress helped lead the rebellion that has plunged the House into chaos, weighed in on what could become an epic struggle.Representative Troy Nehls of Texas wrote Thursday evening on X, formerly Twitter, that he had spoken with Mr. Trump, and that he had said he was endorsing Mr. Jordan. “I believe Congress should listen to the leader of our party,” Mr. Nehls said. “I fully support Jim Jordan for Speaker of the House.”Mr. Jordan picked up an important G.O.P. backer and cleared a potential challenger from the field with the endorsement of Representative Byron Donalds of Florida, who had previously been exploring his own run for speaker, according to a person familiar with his calls to lawmakers. Mr. Donalds said on the social media site X that Mr. Jordan “has my full support to become the next Speaker of the House!”Both Mr. Scalise and Mr. Jordan are faced with the difficult challenge of attempting to unite a fractious Republican conference that is reeling after Mr. McCarthy’s removal from the speakership.For Mr. Jordan, an Ohioan and co-founder of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, the task will be to convince more mainstream Republicans that he can govern and not simply tear things down. He met on Thursday with members of the Main Street Caucus, a group of business-minded Republicans.For Mr. Scalise, a Louisianian who has won conference elections before as majority leader, the challenge will be to stay one step ahead of Mr. Jordan, and make better inroads with the right wing of the party.Both men are considered further to the right than Mr. McCarthy, a point Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, who led the drive to oust Mr. McCarthy, has noted with a sense of satisfaction.“If it’s Speaker Jim Jordan or Speaker Steve Scalise, there will be very few conservatives in the country who don’t see that as a monumental upgrade over Speaker McCarthy,” Mr. Gaetz said on Newsmax.Casting a long shadow over the race is Mr. Trump, the G.O.P. presidential front-runner who holds heavy sway among congressional Republicans because of his strong standing with the party base, including many of their constituents.Some right-wing Republicans had been encouraging Mr. Trump to make a run for speaker himself, though the party’s current conference rules would block him from doing so because he is under multiple felony indictments and facing the possibility of significant prison time. Speaking Wednesday outside a Manhattan courthouse where he is facing a civil fraud case, Mr. Trump seemed to enjoy dangling the possibility of a run for speaker, telling reporters: “Lot of people have been calling me about speaker. All I can say is we’ll do whatever is best for the country and for the Republican Party.”“If I can help them during the process,” he added, “I’ll do it.”Back in the halls of the Congress, a serious race was taking shape.Mr. Scalise, who has been in leadership since 2014, has built relationships across the Republican conference. He has been quietly securing commitments through one-on-one calls with members.On such calls seeking support, Mr. Scalise has emphasized that he is second only to Mr. McCarthy in fund-raising prowess, and he has locked up a string of commitments from the south and the Midwest, according to a person familiar with his private calls, who described them on the condition of anonymity.“Not only is Steve a principled conservative, he has overcome adversity far beyond the infighting in our conference right now,” said Representative Ashley Hinson of Iowa, who endorsed Mr. Scalise after speaking with him.One clear point of contrast between Mr. Scalise and Mr. Jordan is their dueling positions on continued aid to Ukraine for its war against Russian aggression, which has become increasingly politicized and is now regarded by many Republicans as toxic.Mr. Jordan was one of 117 Republicans who voted last week against continuing a program to train and equip Ukrainian troops, while Mr. Scalise sided with 101 Republicans in supporting it.“Why should we be sending American tax dollars to Ukraine when we don’t even know what the goal is?” Mr. Jordan said Thursday on Fox News. “No one can tell me what the objective is.”Several Republicans said they were waiting to hear more from the candidates before deciding whom to support.Representative Marc Molinaro of New York said he had spoken with both Mr. Scalise and Mr. Jordan by phone.“There really wasn’t any one person in Congress who worked harder to help me get to Congress or to earn my support than Kevin McCarthy,” Mr. Molinaro said.“We now have individuals who have a week,” he added. “And so I’m going to observe, I’m going to listen, and I’m going to demand that members like me and the people we represent have a seat at the table, and then make a decision.”Robert Jimison More

The opposition party took back a parliamentary seat from the Scottish National Party, in a win that observers said showed a path to power in next year’s general election.Britain’s opposition Labour Party won back a parliamentary seat in Scotland on Friday by a thumping margin, after a closely watched race that had been viewed as a barometer of the party’s national appeal before a general election next year.In a dramatic swing of votes, Labour unseated the Scottish National Party from the Rutherglen and Hamilton West district, a cluster of towns outside Glasgow that had been held by the S.N.P. since 2019. Voters triggered the by-election by recalling the party’s representative, Margaret Ferrier, after she violated lockdown restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic.The result was striking evidence of a Labour revival in Scotland. But the broader significance is for the party’s looming national contest with the governing Conservative Party. Analysts said the victory suggested that Labour could make significant inroads against the Scottish National Party next year, which could give it the margin to amass a clear majority in Parliament over the Tories.Though a Labour victory was expected, its scale was not. The wide margin gives a welcome shot of momentum to the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, two days before his party gathers in Liverpool for its annual conference. It will add to the sense that Labour, with a nearly 20-point advantage over the Conservatives in national polls, is a government in waiting.It also dramatizes the collapsing fortunes of the Scottish nationalists, for many years a hugely powerful force in Scottish politics, led by the charismatic Nicola Sturgeon. Her sudden resignation in February plunged the party into division, and within months it was hit by a financial scandal that undermined voter confidence.Labour had been left with only a single seat in Scotland after its bruising defeat in the 2019 general election, while the surging S.N.P. picked up 48 seats. Even before Thursday’s vote, polls had suggested that Labour could grab back as many as half of those seats in the next election, which would give it a valuable cushion, even if its lead over the Conservatives narrows nationally.When all the votes were tallied early on Friday morning, the district elected the Labour candidate, Michael Shanks, over the Scottish nationalist candidate, Katy Loudon, by a margin of 9,446. The seat had traded hands between the parties several times since it was created in 2005; Ms. Ferrier had held a margin of only 5,230 people.Labour won 58.6 percent of the vote, an increase of 24.1 percentage points over its last election, while the S.N.P. drew 27.6 percent, a decline of 16.6 percentage points. The Conservatives won only 3.9 percent, a decline of 11.1 points, while 11 other candidates split the remainder of the vote.Speaking to cheering supporters, Mr. Shanks said the results sent an unmistakable message that “it’s time for change,” adding, “There’s not a part of this country where Labour can’t win.”Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, characterized it as a “seismic” victory in an interview with the BBC. “Scottish politics has fundamentally changed,” he said.If Labour were to perform as well in every constituency in Scotland as it did in Rutherglen, it could win more than 40 seats in a general election and re-establish itself as the dominant party in Scotland, John Curtice, a professor at the University of Strathclyde and a leading pollster, told the BBC.“This is a remarkably good result for the Labour Party,” he said.Turnout for by-elections is typically lower than in general elections, but the 37 percent turnout in this vote was a particularly steep decline from 2019. Analysts attributed that to a combination of heavy rain and a requirement for voter ID — a first in a Scottish election — which officials said may have resulted in some people being turned away from polling places.But the low turnout did not hamper Labour, which had poured resources into the race. Mr. Starmer and other Labour leaders campaigned aggressively in the district, emphasizing Mr. Shanks’s roots in the community, where he is a teacher.The result is a stinging setback for Humza Yousaf, who replaced Ms. Sturgeon as Scottish National Party leader and first minister of Scotland, and who campaigned energetically on behalf of Ms. Loudon, a former teacher and respected local council member.For all the euphoria among Labour officials, some observers said the result was as much a reflection of disgust with Ms. Ferrier’s behavior, and fatigue with the S.N.P. more broadly amid an ongoing cost of living crisis, as it was of excitement about Mr. Shanks and Labour.“The S.N.P. has brought Scotland to its knees,” Elizabeth Clark, 68, a retired nurse in Rutherglen, said last month.Still, as polls closed at 10 p.m. on Thursday, Jackie Baillie, the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party, was confident. “It is clear for all to see,” she said, “that Scottish Labour is once more a serious force in Scottish politics.” More

Arizona’s high-profile Senate race has not yet begun in earnest, but on Thursday, the Republican Kari Lake and Representative Ruben Gallego, a Democrat, were already trading barbs — in midair.Ms. Lake, the former news anchor who refused to concede her loss in the state’s governor’s race last year, and Mr. Gallego, a progressive congressman from the state’s capital, ended up on the same flight from Washington, D.C., to Phoenix, where they began wrangling over the border wall.The clash happened just days after Ms. Lake filed to run for the seat, which is now held by Kyrsten Sinema. Ms. Sinema, who left the party in December to become an independent, has not said whether she is running for re-election.Ms. Lake took a shot at Mr. Gallego on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, asking if he still believed that the border wall was “racist” and accusing him of “facilitating an invasion.”“Hey @KariLake we’re on the same plane! Just come back from first class to coach and we can chat,” responded Mr. Gallego, who was sitting just behind the divider for business class. “Happy to walk you through all my legislative work to deliver key resources to AZ’s border communities.”On the plane, Mr. Gallego posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, tagging Ms. Lake.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesOnce the plane had landed and Mr. Gallego was stepping off it, Ms. Lake ambushed him with questions, wearing a lapel mic while a phone camera recorded, according to people familiar with the exchange. Mr. Gallego announced his bid for the seat in January. In the Republican primary, Ms. Lake will face Mark Lamb, a right-wing sheriff and an ally of former President Donald J. Trump.Ms. Lake, a hard-right Republican, was in Washington this week meeting with several G.O.P. members of the Senate. She is scheduled to hold her first rally as a candidate next week. More

I’m not a historian, but as far as I know, America has never seen anything like the current political craziness. There have been bitter disputes within Congress — in 1856, Charles Sumner, an abolitionist senator, was attacked and severely injured by a pro-slavery representative. But these were conflicts between parties, and slavery was nothing if not a substantive issue.This time, however, the craziness is entirely within the Republican Party, which has just decapitated itself, and the insurgents don’t even seem to have any coherent demands. Many people have been calling the G.O.P. a “clown car,” and understandably so. This is a party that seems incapable of governing itself, let alone governing the nation.Yet Americans, by a wide margin, tell pollsters that Republicans would be better than Democrats at running the economy. Will they continue to believe that? The fate of the nation may depend on the answer.Regular readers know that I’ve been trying to make sense of negative public perceptions of the economy since the beginning of last year. At the time some of the economic news was bad: Inflation was high and wages were lagging behind prices, although job growth was very good. So it made sense for Americans to be somewhat down on the economy; but it didn’t seem to make sense for views of the economy to be as negative as they had been during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis or circa 1980, when America had both high inflation and high unemployment.Since then, however, the puzzle has become much deeper. The economic news in 2023 has been almost all good — indeed, almost surreally good. Inflation has come way down. Most measures that try to get at “underlying” inflation, extracting the signal from the noise, indicate that we may be getting close to 2 percent inflation, which is the Federal Reserve’s target. This suggests that the war on inflation has been largely won — and this victory has come without the large rise in unemployment some economists had insisted was necessary.Furthermore, wages are no longer lagging behind inflation. Most workers’ real wages — wages adjusted for inflation — are now significantly higher than they were before the pandemic. (Pandemic-era wage numbers were distorted by large layoffs of low-wage workers.)As a recent analysis in The Economist pointed out, given the historical relationship between economic fundamentals and sentiment, you would have expected Americans to be feeling pretty good about the economy right now. Instead, they’re feeling very gloomy — or at least telling pollsters that they feel gloomy. The Economist, not mincing words, says that “Americans’ opinions about the state of the economy have diverged from reality.” And voters appear to be more down on Democrats’ economic management than ever. Why?There are two main stories being used to explain bad feelings about an objectively good economy.One story is that we’re in a “vibecession,” in which people are buying into a negative narrative — to some extent purveyed by the news media — that is at odds not just with data but also with their own experience. Indeed, surveys show a huge gap between Americans’ view of their own financial situation, which is pretty good, and their views of the economy, that is, what they think is happening to other people. The notion that there’s a disconnect between perceptions of the economy and personal experience seems to be validated by the fact that consumer spending remains robust despite low economic confidence.I’ve been particularly struck by what people say about the news they’ve been hearing. We’ve gained 13 million jobs since Joe Biden took office, yet Americans consistently report hearing more negative than positive news about employment.That said, there’s another possible explanation for bad economic feelings: Americans may be upset that prices are high even though they’re not rising as fast as they were last year.Now, there has to be some statute of limitations on how far back people’s sense of “normal” prices reaches; I doubt that people are angry because you can no longer get a McDonald’s hamburger for 15 cents. But public perceptions of inflation may depend on the change in prices over several years rather than the one-year-or-less numbers economists usually emphasize. And if you measure inflation over, say, the past three years, it hasn’t come down yet (which is a contrast with 1984, the year of Morning in America, when short-term inflation was around 4 percent but three-year inflation was steadily falling).Which story is right? There’s probably some truth to both: Americans are upset about past inflation, but they also have false perceptions about the current state of the economy.The big question politically is whether these negative views will change in time for the 2024 election. Will people finally hear about the good news? Will they still be angry in November 2024 that prices aren’t what they were in 2020?Honestly, I have no idea. Objectively, the economy is doing well. But perceptions may not match that reality, and Americans may, as a result, vote to send in the clowns.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

Lawyers for Donald Trump have urged a federal judge to dismiss the criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, advancing a sweeping interpretation of executive power that contends that former presidents are immune from prosecution for conduct related to their duties while in office.The request to throw out the indictment, handed up earlier this year by a federal grand jury in Washington, amounts to the most consequential court filing in the case to date and is almost certain to precipitate a legal battle that could end up before the US supreme court.In their 52-page submission to the presiding US district judge, Tanya Chutkan, Trump’s lawyers essentially argued that Trump enjoyed absolute immunity from criminal prosecution because the charged conduct fell within the so-called “outer perimeter” of his duties as president.The filing contended that all of Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment, from pressuring his vice-president, Mike Pence, to stop the congressional certification to organizing fake slates of electors, were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.Whether Trump’s motion to dismiss succeeds remains uncertain: it raises novel legal issues, such as whether the outer perimeter test applies to criminal cases, and whether Trump’s charged conduct even falls within a president’s duties.Prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, could counter that Trump cannot make either argument. The outer perimeter test is widely seen as applying to only civil cases, for instance, and Trump is alleged as having acted not in his capacity as a president, but as a candidate.The Trump lawyers repeatedly suggested that the outer perimeter test – used by the supreme court in Nixon v Fitzgerald (1982) in which the justices found that presidents have absolute immunity from damages liability for acts related to their presidential duties – should apply to criminal cases.“To hold otherwise would be to allow the President’s political opponents to usurp his or her constitutional role, fundamentally impairing our system of government,” wrote Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche, John Lauro and Gregory Singer.But Trump faces an uphill struggle, given a federal judge in Washington last year ruled in a separate civil suit against Trump that not everything he did as president was covered by presidential immunity. That case, Blassingame v Trump, is now under appeal at the DC circuit.At the heart of the Trump legal team’s filing was the extraordinary contention that not only was Trump entitled to absolute presidential immunity, but the immunity applied regardless of Trump’s intent in engaging in the conduct described in the indictment.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“An allegedly improper purpose for an official act does not rob the act of its official character,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “A president’s purpose or motive is once again irrelevant to whether his acts fall under the outer perimeter of his responsibilities.”Trump’s lawyers argued that his attempts to seek investigations into supposed election fraud were protected because, as the head of the executive branch, he had an obligation to “take care” to enforce federal election laws through his tweets and directions to the justice department.The Trump lawyers also claimed that all of the conduct in the indictment was protected, notably including the fake electors plot, since it was related to him trying to get Pence to act in a “certain way” on 6 January 2023 – though omitting that “way” was to unlawfully stop the certification.Trump’s latest filing adds to the issues that the judge presiding in the case will have to decide in the coming weeks. Chutkan is scheduled to first hear oral arguments on 16 October about whether to issue a limited gag order against Trump to limit his public attacks against prosecutors. More

Donald Trump’s lawyers asked a judge to throw out charges that he conspired to overturn the 2020 election, arguing that a president could not be criminally prosecuted for official acts.Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump asked a judge on Thursday to throw out a federal indictment accusing him of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election and claimed that because the charges relate to actions he took as president, he should be “absolutely immune from prosecution.”The request to dismiss the election interference indictment, which came in a 52-page briefing filed in Federal District Court in Washington, was breathtaking in its scope. It argued that Mr. Trump could not be held accountable in court for any actions he took as president, even after a grand jury had returned criminal charges against him.While the Justice Department has long maintained a policy that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, Mr. Trump’s bid to claim total immunity from prosecution was a remarkable attempt to extend the protections afforded to the presidency in his favor.His motion to dismiss was certain to result in a pitched legal battle with prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, if only because the idea that a president cannot be prosecuted for actions undertaken in his official capacity as commander in chief has never before been tested.The motion, which will be considered by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, was also the first — but likely not the last — attempt by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to attack the charges in the election interference case directly.Until now, the lawyers have largely waged a series of unsuccessful procedural battles, seeking, and failing, to push back the trial until 2026 and to disqualify Judge Chutkan.In his filing, John F. Lauro, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, immediately sought to reframe the core of Mr. Smith’s case. He argued that the former president’s repeated lies that widespread fraud had marred the vote count and other steps he took to subvert the normal course of the democratic process were, in fact, “efforts to ensure election integrity.”Those efforts, Mr. Lauro argued, were “at the heart of” Mr. Trump’s “official responsibilities as president” and so should not be subject to criminal charges.“Here, 234 years of unbroken historical practice — from 1789 until 2023 — provide compelling evidence that the power to indict a former president for his official acts does not exist,” Mr. Lauro wrote. “No prosecutor, whether state, local or federal, has this authority; and none has sought to exercise it until now.”Over and over in his motion, Mr. Lauro sought to flip the story told by the indictment and portray the various steps that Mr. Trump took to subvert the election as official acts designed to protect its integrity.John F. Lauro, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, argued that the charges in a federal indictment were related to Mr. Trump’s actions while president, which should be “absolutely immune from prosecution.”Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via ShutterstockThe indictment detailed, for example, how Mr. Trump tried to enlist the Justice Department in validating his claims of fraud. It set out evidence of his pressuring state lawmakers to draft false slates of electors saying he had won states he actually lost. And it documented how he waged a campaign to persuade his own vice president, Mike Pence, to unilaterally declare him the victor in the race during a certification at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.But all of these actions, Mr. Lauro wrote, fell within the scope of Mr. Trump’s “official duties” as president and so were “immune from criminal prosecution.”Only a handful of precedents exist that could help guide Judge Chutkan in making a decision about such broad claims of immunity, and none are perfectly on point.In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 margin that former President Richard M. Nixon was absolutely immune from a civil suit arising from his official actions. But while Mr. Lauro cited that case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, extensively in his filing, the reasoning in its majority opinion did not address whether presidential actions could be prosecuted as crimes.Before he was appointed as Mr. Trump’s final attorney general, William P. Barr wrote an apparently unsolicited memo claiming that presidents could not be charged with crimes for abusing their official powers.The memo was ultimately given to the lawyers defending Mr. Trump in the investigation into Russian election interference led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. In it, Mr. Barr concluded that Mr. Mueller should not be permitted to investigate Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice.This summer, the Justice Department announced it would no longer argue that Mr. Trump’s derogatory statements about the writer E. Jean Carroll were made as part of his official duties as president. A few months earlier, Ms. Carroll had won $5 million in damages in a trial accusing Mr. Trump of sexual abuse and defamation over comments he made after he left the White House. She is now trying to push forward a separate lawsuit over comments that he made while president.Last month, a judge in Atlanta rejected an attempt by Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s former White House chief of staff, to move a case accusing him and others, including Mr. Trump, of tampering with the election in Georgia from state court to federal court.Mr. Meadows had also sought to claim immunity against the charges. But the judge overseeing the case ruled that the steps he took in helping Mr. Trump overturn the election were not part of his official White House duties, but were instead political efforts to help Mr. Trump get re-elected.Alan Rozenshtein, a former Justice Department official who teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School, said the key question facing Judge Chutkan would be whether to accept Mr. Trump’s attempt to reframe the accusations as presidential acts that were beyond the scope of prosecution.It was a shrewd legal gambit, Mr. Rozenshtein said, because it played off a legitimate presidential duty under the Constitution: to faithfully execute federal law.“He will lose,” Mr. Rozenshtein said. “But he is making the correct conceptual argument.” More

Cornel West, the left-wing academic and third-party presidential candidate, said on Thursday that he would not seek the Green Party’s nomination for president, running instead as an independent.The West campaign gave little explanation for the move, which appeared counterproductive to his goal of getting his name on ballots nationwide, but noted his desire not to be constrained by a party platform and the complexities of the Green Party’s nominating process.“The best way to challenge the entrenched system is by focusing 100 percent on the people, not on the intricacies of internal party dynamics,” his campaign said in a statement.In a text message, Mr. West added: “I am a jazz man in politics and the life of the mind who refuses to play only in a party band!”The decision is likely to be a welcome one for Democrats, who have in the past fought to keep Green Party candidates off state ballots. The Democratic Party is facing the prospect of a 2024 election in which multiple high-profile third-party candidates are on the ballot, and are likelier to sway voters away from Joseph R. Biden than from a Republican challenger.Although Mr. West remains a candidate, he will now have to navigate the complex and time-consuming project of qualifying for the ballot in individual states, without the support of the Green Party.Prominent Democrats such as David Axelrod, the former Obama strategist, and Jaime Harrison, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, have criticized Mr. West for running, warning that he risks enabling a Republican victory. Even some longtime allies on the left outside of the Democratic Party, like Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, have said that the stakes of the 2024 election have led them to support Mr. Biden.Mr. West, a best-selling author, would have been the highest-profile candidate the Green Party had fielded in a presidential election since Ralph Nader, whose candidacy many Democrats still blame for Vice President Al Gore’s loss to George W. Bush in 2000.The number of votes received by the party’s 2016 nominee, Jill Stein, in three battleground states would have been enough for Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in the election — although exit polls in one of the states, Michigan, found that only a quarter of Ms. Stein’s voters said they would otherwise have voted for Ms. Clinton.When Mr. West announced his candidacy in June, he said he intended to run for the nomination of the People’s Party, a minor party run by veterans of Mr. Sanders’s political organization. In an interview last week, Mr. West cited the Green Party’s superior ballot access as one reason for his switch.“The main thing is, they had assets in one state,” he said of the People’s Party. The Green Party was ultimately able to get on the ballot in 30 states in 2020, including three of the eight most competitive battleground states.In a statement released after Mr. West’s announcement, the Green Party’s steering committee said it was “surprised” by the decision. The committee thanked the West campaign for the “significant resources” it had invested in its ballot access campaigns.Those campaigns will continue, the committee said, along with the search for “prospective presidential candidates who can run strong campaigns that will underscore our uncompromising commitment to people, planet, and peace.”The process of qualifying for the ballot varies widely from state to state, but often requires gathering thousands of signatures. Legal challenges are common. The Green Party faced lawsuits in four states in 2020.Peter Daou, Mr. West’s campaign manager, said that the West campaign had weighed these likely complications against other factors, such as the Green Party’s highly decentralized nominating process.“You have to consider the pros and cons, and he did,” he said. “And he came down on the side of wanting to be 100 percent laser-focused on people as opposed to the party process.”In an interview before Mr. West’s announcement, Mr. Nader, who ran for president as an independent again in 2004 and 2008, said he was skeptical of the Green Party’s ability to adequately support a presidential candidacy. “The Green Party has a lot of organizing to do,” he said.But an independent candidacy, Mr. Nader said, came with far more hurdles. “The Green Party has an identity,” he said, noting that the party was also on numerous ballots already. “If you’re going to do it independent, you have to be an organizational genius as well as a great speechmaker. And you’ve got to raise a lot of money.” More