Elections

Three seats in Parliament recently occupied by Conservatives are up for grabs in an election that may show which way the political winds are blowing.One of the last things Britain’s prime minister, Rishi Sunak, needs right now, while he’s trailing in the opinion polls as the economy stalls, is a test of his electoral popularity.But on Thursday, he faces three contests, as voters in different parts of England select replacements for a trio of lawmakers from his Conservative Party who have quit Parliament, including former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.The votes, known as by-elections, happen when a seat in the House of Commons becomes vacant between general elections. In the British system, every elected lawmaker represents a district, so when they quit, those voters decide who will succeed them.Hanging over the contests is the poisoned legacy of Mr. Johnson, who angrily quit Parliament after lawmakers ruled that he had lied to them about Covid-lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street.Because the government will not change whatever the outcome, voters often use such by-elections to register unhappiness with their political leaders. And with inflation and interest rates high, labor unrest boiling and the health service struggling, Mr. Sunak’s Conservatives are braced for the possibility of losing all three contests.That would make Mr. Sunak the first prime minister to suffer a triple by-election defeat in one day since 1968. It would also stoke fears among Conservatives that, under his leadership, they are heading for defeat in a general election expected next year.But by-elections are unpredictable, so nothing is certain on this so-called super Thursday. And so low are expectations for the Conservatives that even winning one would be a welcome relief for Mr. Sunak.Here’s where voters are casting ballots:Uxbridge and South RuislipThis is the seat vacated by Mr. Johnson, and it lies on the fringes of London, the capital. Although the inner areas of the capital tilt to Labour, the main opposition party, outer London, with its suburbs and larger homes, is much better territory for the Conservatives. Mr. Johnson’s majority in the last general election was relatively modest at 7,210 votes, and the scandal-hit former prime minister is a divisive figure, so Labour hopes to win here.But the Conservatives see an opening in a plan to expand an ultralow-emissions program to areas including Uxbridge and South Ruislip. The expansion, pressed by London’s Labour mayor, Sadiq Khan, would cost those driving older, more polluting cars. Conservatives are campaigning against the expansion. The Labour candidate for the area has also said he is against the expansion, though Labour’s leader has not taken a stand.Parliamentary candidates onstage ahead of the by-election for the seat previously held by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in Uxbridge this month.Susannah Ireland/ReutersSelby and AinstyThe contest in Selby and Ainsty, in Yorkshire in the north of England, is another aftershock of recent political turbulence because the lawmaker who quit, Nigel Adams, was a close ally of Mr. Johnson’s. He resigned after not being awarded a seat in the House of Lords, as he had expected. This is a scenic part of northern England but also one with a mining history, and Labour will be hoping it can snatch the seat.That would send a powerful signal that the party is returning to popularity in the north and middle of England — areas it once dominated but where it lost out in the 2019 general election. Yet, it’s a tall order. If Labour can succeed in Selby and Ainsty, where the Conservative majority in 2019 was 20,137, that would set a record for the size of a majority overturned by Labour in a by-election. So victory for Labour here would suggest it is well on course for a general election victory.Somerton and FromeInstead of Labour, the smaller, centrist Liberal Democrats are seen as the main challengers to the Conservatives in Somerton and Frome, in the southwest of England.The vote follows the resignation of David Warburton, who quit after admitting that he had consumed cocaine. The Lib-Dems have a strong tradition of success in this attractive, mainly rural part of the country, and they held this electoral district until 2015.In the last election, the Conservatives won a big majority, 19,213. But since then, the they have suffered losses in some of their heartland areas in the south of England, the so-called blue wall, named after the party’s campaign colors.At the same time, the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats have been revived considerably. This year, they performed well in elections in local municipalities, and last year, they stormed to victory in a by-election in Tiverton and Honiton, also in the southwest. More

A choice between democracy and autocracy.That’s how Pedro Sánchez, Spain’s center-left prime minister, is framing the coming election on Sunday. When justifying his call for a snap election, Mr. Sánchez drew parallels between Spain and other countries whose recent votes were dominated by the specter of an illiberal regime from the right. “The coming election,” he declared, “will clarify if Spaniards want a government on the side of Joe Biden or Donald Trump, of Lula da Silva or Jair Bolsonaro.” Not to be outdone, Mr. Sánchez’s main opponent, Alberto Núñez Feijóo of the conservative Popular Party, has accused Mr. Sánchez and his leftist coalition partners of “acting totalitarian” and cozying up to Latin American autocracies.Both messages play into a larger story that sees the election as a contest between two polarized blocs, right and left, each housing extreme elements that will doom the country. Much of the angst centers on Vox, a far-right party that could enter government as a coalition partner of the Popular Party, potentially — in some accounts — imperiling Spanish democracy itself. But this narrative is wildly off the mark. Sunday’s election will determine the political direction of Spain in the coming years, not the fate of its democracy.For one thing, Mr. Sánchez is not running against a Trumpian candidate. Mr. Feijóo, a former president of the Galicia region, is an old-fashioned conservative politician best known for his calm and understated demeanor. Since taking control of the Popular Party last year, after the scandal-prone and right-wing leadership of Pablo Casado, he has steered the party toward the center while cultivating a reputation for being boring. “I am the serene alternative” is Mr. Feijóo’s unofficial campaign slogan.According to polls, Mr. Feijóo can wrestle power away from Mr. Sánchez only by entering into a coalition with Vox, the third force in the Spanish Parliament, which is polling at around 13 percent. It is the prospect of a Popular Party-Vox coalition that has set alarm bells ringing, and justifiably so: Vox opposes feminism, L.G.B.T.Q.+ rights and any attempt to revisit the human rights atrocities of the Spanish Civil War and Gen. Francisco Franco’s dictatorship. It also calls for erecting a wall around the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa to keep immigrants out. Ominously, it has proposed a national referendum to ban separatist parties.Vox’s bombastic rhetoric and toxic policies pose a serious threat to Spanish democracy — but not as existential a threat as many presume it to be. Joining a mainstream conservative government could normalize the party, for example. Even if this is wishful thinking, it helps to keep things in perspective. Vox entered the Spanish Parliament in 2019 and it first entered a regional government in 2022, in a coalition led by the Popular Party. These are important breakthroughs, especially because Spain previously had no far-right representation in the national legislature. But they testify to the inexperience of the party, which would occupy a junior position in a coalition.There’s a wider point. Vox’s emergence — however eye-catching — did not signal any significant shift for the Spanish right and politics in Spain. Contrary to common wisdom, the far right did not disappear with Franco’s death. During the democratic transition, from 1977 to 1982, it coalesced around Alianza Popular, a neo-Francoist party that won 16 parliamentary seats in the 1977 elections. Its ultra-Catholic and right-wing founders were known as the Magnificent Seven, because all seven were former Franco ministers, including Manuel Fraga, Franco’s information and tourism minister who, as a member of parliament, helped draft Spain’s 1978 Constitution.In the late 1980s, with the creation of the Popular Party, the far right folded itself into the new party and went on to influence future conservative governments — including pushing a humanities curriculum during José María Aznar’s administration that whitewashed conservatives’ role in the rise of the Franco dictatorship and encouraging the unsuccessful attempt by Mariano Rajoy to curb abortion rights. Lately, encouraged by the surge of right-wing, populist parties all over the world, Spain’s far right decided that it is safe to come out of hiding. But it was there all along.Most important, Spanish democracy is strong enough to withstand the involvement of a far-right party in a conservative government. Although no longer the exception in Europe when it comes to the far right, Spain remains different for another important reason: It is remarkably free of the dreaded political pathology known as democratic backsliding, or the erosion of democratic norms. The absence of such problems in Spain is reflected in Freedom House’s Freedom in the World Report, which ranks Spanish democracy among the most developed in the world. This is particularly striking given that Spain meets the two conditions most commonly found in backsliding countries: a short history as a democracy and extreme polarization. Yet Spanish democracy, served by steady leadership, social and economic advances and a lively multiparty political culture, has held firm.It is not impervious to threats, of course. A big unknown is what role separatism will play in the next government and, indeed, in the country’s future. All of the nation’s political forces exploit separatism for political gain. In recent years the right, including the Popular Party, has won elections by railing against the separatists, even at the expense of collapsing in Catalonia and the Basque Country, home to Spain’s leading separatist movements. The left in turn uses Vox as a boogeyman to raise the ghosts of Franco, especially in the separatist regions, in the hope of energizing its supporters. For their part, the separatists play the right against the left to advance their narrow objectives, while unfairly depicting Madrid as an oppressor to bolster their claims of victimization.None of this is good for democracy — in fact, it’s downright perilous. In 2017 Catalan separatists plunged Spain into its most serious political crisis since Franco’s death by holding an illegal referendum on independence. That the country managed to weather the crisis — largely thanks to Mr. Sánchez’s skilled leadership — showed the world that Spanish democracy, though fractured, can still more than function. But it also served as a warning that one of the greatest dangers in a democratic society, even one as successful as Spain, is to take democracy for granted.Omar G. Encarnación is a professor of politics at Bard College and the author of “Democracy Without Justice in Spain: The Politics of Forgetting,” among other books.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

Puy du Fou España has drawn visitors with spectacular shows about Spanish history. But part of its success lies in what goes unsaid.Moving through the darkened holds of a replica of Christopher Columbus’s ship, visitors on a recent afternoon marveled at the tangle of compasses, cordage and barrels. They stumbled as the ship swang and creaked with the swell of the sea. At last, a voice shouted “Land!” and the white sands of America appeared.“Our journey has changed the world. May it be for the greater glory of God,” Columbus was then heard telling Queen Isabella I of Castile. Referring to America’s Indigenous people, he added, “I apologize in advance if iniquities or injustices are committed.”And so ends one of the shows at Puy du Fou España, a historical theme park that is all the rage in Spain today, with over a million visitors expected this year.The popularity of the park has come as a surprise in a country that has long been shy about celebrating its history. Nationalist sentiments were largely taboo after the dictatorship of Gen. Francisco Franco, who died in the 1970s.But the time that has elapsed since Franco and the recent secessionist movement in Catalonia, which threatened to fracture the country, have helped spur a resurgent nationalism in Spain. It may now give a lift to conservatives and their far-right allies when Spaniards vote in a general election on Sunday.The theme park expects more than a million visitors this year.Samuel Aranda for The New York TimesThe park is filled with hallowed symbols like the cross and the flag, and most of the shows feature conquests and glorious battles to defend the country. The more questionable aspects of Spain’s past — from the bloody conquest of America that followed Columbus’s trip to Franco’s repressive rule — do not appear in more than 10 productions.“What we’re trying to do is present a history that’s not divisive,” said Erwan de la Villéon, the head of the park, noting that historical taboos continued to run through Spanish society.But the approach has raised concerns about the history that the park is highlighting instead — pageantry that emphasizes Spain’s Catholic identity and its unity against foreign invaders — and how it may shape visitors’ views.“This is a selective history,” said Gutmaro Gómez Bravo, a historian at Madrid’s Complutense University who has visited the park twice. “You can’t or shouldn’t teach that to people. History is not gratuitous — it carries major political weight.”The park was launched in 2019 after the founders of the original Puy du Fou in France, the country’s second most-visited theme park after Disneyland Paris, decided to take their concept abroad.Historians have long criticized the French park as promoting nationalist views. It similarly glosses over some of the most painful episodes in France’s past, such as its history of colonialism, and highlights the country’s Catholic identity.The founder of the French park, Philippe de Villiers, whom Mr. de la Villéon called “a mentor” and “a genius,” is a prominent far-right politician.Erwan de la Villéon, the head of Puy du Fou España, said he had sought to find unifying aspects of Spain’s history, and it was “too soon” to mention Franco’s dictatorship.Samuel Aranda for The New York TimesMr. de la Villéon denied that the Spanish park promoted any political line. But he called supporters of Catalan independence his “enemies” and railed against the former prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, a Socialist who passed a memory law to honor victims of the Civil War and Franco’s repressive rule.Spain, Mr. de la Villéon said, proved an ideal place for a new park because of the country’s “great historical trajectory” of invasions and conquests. He chose to build it in Toledo, he said, because the ancient city south of Madrid once stood at the crossroads of Europe’s kingdoms.There, some 200 million euros, about $220 million, have been invested to create an impressive complex of castles, farms and medieval villages filled with terra-cotta vases and whitewashed houses with exposed beams.But it is the historical stage productions, performed in large amphitheaters, that are the big draw.“The Last Song” takes place in a rotating auditorium and follows El Cid, a knight and warlord who became Spain’s greatest medieval hero, as he fights enemies appearing successively behind large panels that open onto the semicircular stage. In “Toledo’s Dream,” the flagship evening show retracing 15 centuries of Spanish history, Columbus’s life-size ship emerges from a lake on which characters were dancing moments before.Supporters of the far-right Vox party at rally in Barcelona, Spain, in July. The party is expected to increase its vote in Sunday’s general election.Samuel Aranda for The New York TimesBoth shows received the IAAPA Brass Ring award for “Best Theater Production,” considered one of the international entertainment industry’s most prestigious prizes. On a recent afternoon, visitors were ecstatic about the experience.“Great — it’s just great. I didn’t know that history could be so appealing,” said Vicente Vidal, 65, as he exited a show featuring Visigoths fighting Romans. In the park, children could be seen playing sword-fighting, shouting, “We’ll fight for our country!”Mr. de la Villéon, who is French, said the success of the park reflected a desire among Spanish people to reclaim their past. “People want to have roots, that’s the first need that the park’s success reveals,” he said. “You come here and you think, ‘Man, it’s cool to be Spanish.’”Modern Spain has an uneasy relationship with its history because of chapters such as the Inquisition and the colonization of the Americas, said Jesús Carrobles, head of Toledo’s Royal Academy of Fine Arts and Historical Sciences, who was consulted on the park project.The Cross of Burgundy, on prominent display at the park, is a longstanding symbol of the Spanish monarchy that has also been embraced by some on the far right.Samuel Aranda for The New York Times“The park allows you to reclaim an idea of your past that you can be proud of,” Mr. Carrobles said. “A beautiful past, a past that’s worth remembering.”But it has also proved to be a selective past.The shows depict Isabella I as a visionary and a merciful queen, making no mention of her order to expel Jews during the Inquisition. The Aztecs appear once in a dance scene, but their deadly fate at the hands of the conquistadors is omitted.Perhaps most telling is the park’s treatment of the Spanish Civil War, whose legacy continues to divide the country. The conflict is only vaguely mentioned at the end of “Toledo’s Dream,” when a woman mourns her brothers who “killed each other.” The scene lasts one minute, out of a 75-minute performance, and the show ends without mentioning the subsequent four-decade dictatorship of Franco.“Too soon to talk about it,” said Mr. de la Villéon, noting that memories of Francoist Spain were still raw.Some 200 million euros, or about $220 million, have been invested in creating a medieval atmosphere.Samuel Aranda for The New York Times“It’s a very consensual show, which has glossed over the questionable aspects of Spanish history,” said Jean Canavaggio, a French specialist in Cervantes who reviewed the script of “Toledo’s Dream.” He added that the park could not have succeeded had it taken a “critical look” at Spanish history, given how politically fraught that remains.Mr. de la Villéon said that he had looked for events illustrating Spain’s unity. In Puy du Fou España, they revolve around a central element: Catholicism.Nearly every show features clerics and soldiers dedicating their fights to God. In “The Mystery of Sorbaces,” a Visigoth king converts to Catholicism as his troops fall to their knees and a church rises from underground, to the sound of emotional music.Mr. de la Villéon — who makes no secret of his faith and had a small chapel set up in the park — argued that Catholicism was “the matrix” of Spanish history.A replica of Christopher Columbus’s caravel. Catholicism is central to the park’s shows.Samuel Aranda for The New York TimesMr. Gómez Bravo, the historian, who specializes in the Civil War and Franco, said the park presented the Catholic reconquest of Muslim-ruled Spain as the foundation of Spanish unity. “This a very politically charged idea because it was promoted above all by Franco’s regime,” he said.Still, many in the Spanish park seemed to embrace the park’s mission.“Spain is a great country!” said Conchita Tejero, a woman in her 60s, who was seated with three friends at a large wooden table in a medieval-style tavern adorned with imperial flags. “This park is a way to reclaim our history.”Her friend, Esteban Garces, a supporter of the far-right Vox party, said he saw the park as a counterpoint to the “other history” that portrayed Spain as needing to make amends for its past.Exiting the park after nightfall, Mr. Garces said he had been delighted with “Toledo’s Dream.”“The true history,” he said.The idea that Spanish unity was founded on the Catholic reconquest was “charged,” one historian said, because that was the narrative promoted under Franco.Samuel Aranda for The New York Times More

Federal prosecutors investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results have evidence to charge the former president with three crimes, including section 241 of the US legal code that makes it unlawful to conspire to violate civil rights, two people familiar with the matter said.The potential charges detailed in a target letter sent to Trump by prosecutors from the office of special counsel Jack Smith, who also charged Trump with retaining classified documents last month, was the clearest signal of an imminent indictment.Prosecutors appear to have evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the target letter, two statutes that the House select committee examining the January 6 Capitol attack issued criminal referrals for last year.The target letter to Trump identified a previously unconsidered third charge, the sources said. That is section 241 of title 18 of the US code, which makes it unlawful to conspire to threaten or intimidate a person in the “free exercise” of any right or privilege under the “Constitution or laws of the United States”.The statute, enacted to protect the civil rights of Black voters targeted by white supremacy groups after the US civil war, is unusual because it is typically used by prosecutors in law enforcement misconduct and hate crime prosecutions, though its use has expanded in recent years.What the potential charges means for Trump is unclear.Prosecutors have been examining various instances of Trump pressuring officials like his former vice-president Mike Pence, but Trump’s efforts to obstruct the transfer of power could also be construed as conspiring to defraud voters more generally.The other two statutes, meanwhile, suggest a core part of the case against Trump is focused on the so-called fake electors scheme and the former president’s efforts to use the fake slates in a conspiracy to stop the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election win on 6 January 2021.The target letter did not cite any seditious conspiracy, incitement of insurrection or deprivation of rights under color of law – other areas for which legal experts have suggested Trump could have legal risk.A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment about the contents of the target letter, though a senior adviser to Trump did not dispute that section 241 was listed when reached late on Tuesday night.The New York Times also reported the inclusion of the statute.Trump, who is facing unprecedented legal peril as he leads the pack of candidates for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, called the target letter “HORRIFYING NEWS” in a post on his Truth Social platform, where he first disclosed the development.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLast year, the House select committee that investigated the Capitol attack concluded that Trump committed multiple crimes in an attempt to reverse his 2020 defeat to Joe Biden, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding.The committee issued symbolic criminal referrals to the justice department, although at that point the justice department had since stepped up its criminal investigation with the addition of new prosecutors in spring 2022 before they were folded into the special counsel’s office.House investigators also concluded that there was evidence for prosecutors to charge Trump with conspiracy to defraud and obstruction of an official proceeding. They also issued referrals for incitement of insurrection, which was not listed in the target letter.Should prosecutors charge Trump in the federal January 6 investigation, the case could go to trial much more quickly than the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case – before the 2024 election – because pre-trial proceedings would not be delayed by rules governing national security materials.Trump was charged last month for retaining national security materials and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them. Trump and his co-defendant, his valet Walt Nauta, who was charged with conspiring to obstruct and making false statements to the FBI, have both pleaded not guilty.The target letter to Trump comes weeks before the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, is expected to charge Trump and his allies for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state of Georgia, the Guardian has previously reported. More

Senator Joe Manchin, behave.Perhaps you’ve heard the rumor that Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat who made his name by driving his party crazy on close votes, is now possibly running for president. Sort of.“If I get in a race, I’m going to win,” he predicted at an appearance in New Hampshire this week. “With that being said, I haven’t made a decision.”A crowd had packed the auditorium, straining to hear his every word. Really. A lot of them were undoubtedly drawn not so much by the promise of thrilling rhetoric as by rumors Manchin might announce he was going to be a third-party candidate in 2024.Didn’t happen. Although Manchin was certainly dropping hints. He appeared onstage with Jon Huntsman, the former Republican governor of Utah. The hosts included Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 2000. In order to stay on topic, we’ll refrain from digressing into a description of how Lieberman contributed to Al Gore’s very narrow defeat with a stupendously bad debate performance against … Dick Cheney.Lieberman is now one of the public faces of No Labels, a new would-be political party that’s all about being, um, against political parties. No Labels is busy qualifying for the presidential ballot in as many states as possible, and people are wondering if the party’s honchos are planning a Manchin-Huntsman ticket.“Most Americans still believe in the American promise … the political parties have not delivered,” Manchin said. Frankly, that was about as exciting as his New Hampshire moment got.So, OK, Manchin is not a hot orator. He wants you to think of him as a bipartisan voice of moderation, although most of his national fame comes from his willingness to demand favors in return for his vote on the Senate floor. Of course, there are approximately 100 senators who attempt to make deals like that, but Manchin is sort of special in the way he goes after major bills with very big, very public proposed trades. For a while, he put the brakes on Joe Biden’s biggest achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act, withholding his critical tiebreaking vote until he got an energy deal on the side.Now he’s threatened to vote with Republicans to repeal that whole package unless Biden cuts back on support for electric vehicles. When it comes to energy, Manchin really wants us to think coal. After all, he’s from West Virginia, which has become seriously Republican, and he could be up for a very tough re-election race next year.Pop quiz: Manchin not only represents a state that’s big for coal, he built his own considerable fortune on a very profitable coal business. What do you think was key to his success?A. A long history of getting up at dawn to go work in the mines.B. A Ph.D. thesis on energy efficiency.C. Trading political favors for business advantages.I know I’m supposed to tell you the answer here, but if you couldn’t figure it out, there’s really no point in our going on together.Manchin’s current political talents are all about working within the system, even when he’s threatening to take the system down. Does he really believe he could win election to the highest-profile political office on the globe?You’d like to think no — it’s always kind of depressing when politicians have a self-image totally out of sync with reality. (Recalling your career again here, Joe Lieberman.)But even if the whole effort was hopeless, as a third-party candidate Manchin would get a heck of a lot of attention. And running a losing campaign for president would certainly be a lot more exciting than running a losing campaign for re-election to the Senate.According to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 47 percent of registered voters would consider voting for a third-party candidate. That’s a huge number, although most of them would presumably change their minds when it actually came time to make a choice. They’re just expressing their dissatisfaction. Still, given the nutty way our electoral system is set up, a well-publicized third option might affect the results just enough in a few crucial states to change the outcome. The winner of a presidential race, remember, does not have to be the person who got the most votes. Just ask Hillary Clinton.That spoiler scenario is what’s driving Democrats crazy.If Manchin just wants to campaign and complain about his big issues, like deficit spending, why doesn’t he run in a Democratic primary? Could it possibly be because taking on the party’s sitting president would be so completely, obviously hopeless it’d just make him seem delusional? The biggest Democratic complaint about Joe Biden, after all, is the fact that he’s 80. Is that going to send voters racing over to 75-year-old Joe Manchin?Not gonna work. So he’s playing into the hands of Lieberman and the No Labels crowd instead. There he was at their event, dripping with both-sides-ism, claiming the current miserable state of American politics is coming from “the growing divide in our political parties and the toxic political rhetoric from our elected leaders.”Let’s stop here for a second and contemplate whether one particular party is actually responsible for this toxicity explosion.But either way, there are only three possible ways to fight it.A. Choose a party and work within it to nominate good candidates.B. Refuse to vote while whining about how terrible the choices are.C. Rally around a third party and feel quite principled, while helping to draw votes away from the candidate who’s the best real option.Yeah, Manchin seems to be flirting with C. Which could lead to Donald Trump’s return to the White House. And give the senator from West Virginia a label I can’t mention in a family newspaper.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

It looks as though Donald Trump will be indicted — again.Federal prosecutors have informed him that he’s a target of their investigation into the Jan. 6 riot and efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.This would be Trump’s third criminal indictment and counting. Prosecutors in Georgia are still considering charges.It should feel like the fulfillment of America’s commitment to justice that Trump is finally facing some accountability for his recklessness and ruthlessness, for his disavowal of constitutional concerns and apparent contempt for the law.So why does it feel so anticlimactic? Why does the feeling of foreboding remain? Why is there no sense of finality in the air?It feels that way because there’s no guarantee that we’re reaching the end of Trump’s era of menace. On the contrary, there’s every indication that he has no intention of bending or breaking — that he’d rather destroy our democracy than be accountable to it.America is undergoing an extreme stress test, and no one truly knows how it will emerge.There are the chronic optimists who hold to the hubristic view that America can defy history and not be subject to the well-recorded and almost universal rise and fall of empires. Not me: I recognize America’s precariousness. I see the soft, fleshy spots where a shiv could be plunged and do the most damage. And I’m not alone.For too many Americans, though, hearing someone say that our democracy is in danger sounds like a partisan exaggeration, a sky-is-falling attempt to sway public opinion. They doubt that Trump will fundamentally and permanently change what our country says that it stands for.But Trump keeps indicating that an unraveling democracy is precisely his plan. Just this week, The Times reported that should Trump be re-elected, he plans on “reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.”And many of the people who follow and support Trump either know this and enthusiastically support it or turn a blind eye to it. Either way, they’re all in.Some political observers naïvely believed that a critical mass of Trump’s supporters could be released from his spell when they were confronted with his corruption.They failed to recognize that Trump has infected his followers’ faith. They believe in nothing more than they believe in him. They wanted their biases confirmed rather than challenged, and Trump filled the need. He’s become a symbol, an inspiration and an aspiration. He’s become an idea, which is far more dangerous than an individual.Trump achieved this by capitalizing, to an almost unprecedented degree, on Americans’ addiction to celebrity culture. He’s not the first president to accrue and employ celebrity: John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did so, too.But each of those men married his celebrity to our politics; Trump has used his celebrity to pervert our politics. He sensed the fragility of our political system, its overreliance on precedent, norms and decorum and its inability to anticipate chaos — chaos that he was able to weaponize.Trump recognized that for many Americans, celebrity was more powerful than character or civics. That celebrity allowed for a curated reality, one that acknowledged the flower but hid the thorns.In this environment, some people’s desire to belong and be affirmed and validated transcended truth and reality. And in that space, he could be the captain of their team, the leader of their band and the minister of their church.For them, Trumpism became a form of identity entertainment, a carnival for the like-minded guided by an impresario who mixes amusement with anger, fear and grievance.In this environment, it’s also easy for Trump to fend off challengers who appeal more to the mind than to the soul.His closest rival for the Republican nomination is Ron DeSantis, whose campaign is struggling as Republicans continue to rally around Trump. DeSantis possesses no magic. Never has. He’s dull and boring, a beta male cosplaying bravado.DeSantis thought his provincial pettiness would scale to a national level without alteration or adjustment. He thought he could unseat the MAGA oracle with his state-level report card.But Trump needs the nomination more than DeSantis wants it. For Trump, re-election would be the most effective protection from prosecution and possible imprisonment.Trump understands that the political calendar and the legal one can be played against each other.Unless the country denies Trump re-election — an outcome still too early to predict — the country courts its own undoing.Trump has three things working for him: the fact that America’s systems of accountability still haven’t adjusted to his novelty, a die-hard flock of supporters and time.Time may prove to be the most important of the three because time is the thing that the country itself is running out of.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 and Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

A target letter sent by the special counsel investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to reverse his election loss cited three statutes that could be the basis for a prosecution.Federal prosecutors have introduced a new twist in the Jan. 6 investigation by suggesting in a target letter that they could charge former President Donald J. Trump with violating a civil rights statute that dates back to the post-Civil War Reconstruction era, according to three people familiar with the matter.The letter to Mr. Trump from the special counsel, Jack Smith, referred to three criminal statutes as part of the grand jury investigation into Mr. Trump’s efforts to reverse his 2020 election loss, according to two people with knowledge of its contents. Two of the statutes were familiar from the criminal referral by the House Jan. 6 committee and months of discussion by legal experts: conspiracy to defraud the government and obstruction of an official proceeding.But the third criminal law cited in the letter was a surprise: Section 241 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which makes it a crime for people to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in the “free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”Congress enacted that statute after the Civil War to provide a tool for federal agents to go after Southern whites, including Ku Klux Klan members, who engaged in terrorism to prevent formerly enslaved African Americans from voting. But in the modern era, it has been used more broadly, including in cases of voting fraud conspiracies.A Justice Department spokesman declined to discuss the target letter and Mr. Smith’s theory for bringing the Section 241 statute into the Jan. 6 investigation. But the modern usage of the law raised the possibility that Mr. Trump, who baselessly declared the election he lost to have been rigged, could face prosecution on accusations of trying to rig the election himself.A series of 20th-century cases upheld application of the law in cases involving alleged tampering with ballot boxes by casting false votes or falsely tabulating votes after the election was over, even if no specific voter could be considered the victim.In a 1950 opinion by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, for example, Judge Charles C. Simons wrote of applying Section 241 in a ballot box-stuffing case that the right to an honest count “is a right possessed by each voting elector, and to the extent that the importance of his vote is nullified, wholly or in part, he has been injured in the free exercise of a right or privilege secured to him by the laws and Constitution of the United States.”In a 1974 Supreme Court opinion upholding the use of Section 241 to charge West Virginians who cast fake votes on a voting machine, Justice Thurgood Marshall cited Judge Simons and added that every voter “has a right under the Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes.”The line of 20th-century cases raised the prospect that Mr. Smith and his team could be weighing using that law to cover efforts by Mr. Trump and his associates to flip the outcome of states he lost. Those efforts included the recorded phone conversation in which Mr. Trump tried to bully Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” enough additional votes to overcome Mr. Biden’s win in that state and promoting a plan to use so-called fake electors — self-appointed slates of pro-Trump electors from states won by Mr. Biden — to help block or delay congressional certification of Mr. Trump’s defeat.“It seems like under 241 there’s at least a right to an honest counting of the votes,” said Norman Eisen, who worked for the House Judiciary Committee during Mr. Trump’s first impeachment. “Submitting an alternate electoral certificate to Congress (as opposed to casting false votes or counting wrong) is a novel scenario, but it seems like it would violate this right.”The prospect of charging Mr. Trump under the other two statutes cited in the target letter is less novel, if not without hurdles. Among other things, in its final report last year, the House committee that investigated the events that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol had recommended that the Justice Department charge the former president under both of them.One, Section 371 of Title 18, makes it a crime to conspire to defraud the United States. The other, Section 1512, includes a provision that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding.A spokesman for Mr. Trump declined requests to clarify what was in the letter.Citing the statutes in the letter, which Mr. Trump has said he received on Sunday, does not necessarily mean that any charges brought by Mr. Smith would have to be based on them. But the letter’s contents provide a road map to investigators’ thinking.The conspiracy to defraud the United States statute, if used, raises the question of who Mr. Trump’s co-conspirators would be.Some of those who worked most closely with Mr. Trump in promoting the lie that Mr. Trump had been robbed of a victory by widespread fraud, including lawyers like Rudolph W. Giuliani and John Eastman, had not received target letters, their lawyers said on Tuesday.The corrupt obstruction of a proceeding charge has been used against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters and has served as the Justice Department’s go-to count in describing the central event that day: the disruption of the Electoral College certification process that was taking place inside the Capitol during a joint session of Congress.The law was originally passed as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a measure meant to curb corporate malfeasance. Defense lawyers for several rioters have challenged its use against their client, saying it was meant to stop crimes like witness tampering or document destruction and had been unfairly stretched to include the chaos at the Capitol.But in April, a federal appeals court upheld the viability of applying that charge to participants in the Capitol attack. Still, unlike ordinary rioters, Mr. Trump did not physically participate in the storming of the Capitol, although he had summoned supporters to Washington that day and railed about the unwillingness of Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the proceedings in Congress, to stop them.A second attempt to invalidate the obstruction count in the federal appeals court in Washington has focused specifically on a provision of the law dictating that defendants must act “corruptly” in committing the obstructive act.Defense lawyers have argued that this provision does not apply to many ordinary Jan. 6 rioters who did not act corruptly because they stood to gain nothing personally by entering the Capitol. It could, however, be applied more easily to Mr. Trump, who stood to gain an election victory by obstructing the certification process.William K. Rashbaum More

The decision by Mr. Sununu, a moderate Republican, sets up a competitive race next year to lead a battleground state, and Democrats will be eager to take advantage.Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, a Republican, said on Wednesday that he would not run for re-election in 2024, opening up a seat in a battleground state that Democrats will be eager to take.Mr. Sununu made the announcement in an email to supporters.“This was no easy decision as I truly love serving as governor,” he wrote. “Public service should never be a career, and the time is right for another Republican to lead our great state.”Almost immediately, Chuck Morse, a Republican who served as president of the New Hampshire Senate and lost a primary for U.S. Senate last year, announced that he would run for the Republican nomination to fill the seat — praising Mr. Sununu’s economic policies and saying he was running “to build on those successes.” Another Republican, former Senator Kelly Ayotte, also hinted that she might jump into the race.Two Democrats — Cinde Warmington, a member of the New Hampshire Executive Council, and Joyce Craig, the mayor of Manchester — had already begun campaigns before Mr. Sununu bowed out.The vacancy will be a big opportunity for the Democratic Party, which has won the last five presidential elections in New Hampshire and holds both of the state’s Senate seats.Like some other Northeastern states, New Hampshire has often voted for Republicans for state offices despite leaning blue in national elections. But Democrats flipped two such governorships last year — in Maryland and Massachusetts — after popular, moderate Republicans in the same mold as Mr. Sununu retired.“No matter which MAGA candidate becomes the nominee, the D.G.A. is eager to hold them accountable to flip this seat and elect a new Democratic governor who will at long last fix the biggest issues impacting working families,” the Democratic Governors Association said in a statement.Mr. Sununu, 48, is serving his fourth two-year term as governor, having been re-elected last year by more than 15 percentage points. He recently decided against two opportunities to run for higher office: He declined to run in last year’s Senate race, and for president in 2024. His next steps are unclear. More