More stories

  • in

    Kari Lake Sues Arizona’s Largest County, Seeking to Overturn Her Defeat

    Ms. Lake, who fueled the false claims that the 2020 election had been stolen from Donald Trump, lost the Arizona governor’s race by 17,000 votes.Kari Lake, the losing Republican candidate for governor of Arizona, filed a lawsuit Friday contesting the results of an election that was certified by the state this week.Ms. Lake’s lawsuit came after she had spent weeks making a series of public statements and social media posts aimed at sowing doubt in the outcome of a contest she lost by more than 17,000 votes to her Democratic opponent, Katie Hobbs. That loss was certified in documents signed on Monday by Ms. Hobbs, who currently serves as secretary of state.A former news anchor, Ms. Lake centered her candidacy on false conspiratorial claims that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from Donald J. Trump, who had endorsed her. For the past month, Ms. Lake, her campaign and other allies have been soliciting Election Day accounts from voters on social media and at rallies.“If the process was illegitimate, then so are the results,” Ms. Lake said on Twitter on Friday evening after announcing her lawsuit. “Stay tuned, folks.”Ms. Hobbs called Ms. Lake’s suit “baseless” in a post of her own on Twitter, describing it as the “latest desperate attempt to undermine our democracy and throw out the will of the voters.”The Aftermath of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6A moment of reflection. More

  • in

    Sinema Adds Intrigue and Democratic Fury to Arizona’s 2024 Senate Race

    Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s announcement that she would become an independent left Democrats in her state, many of whom have long wanted to defeat her in a primary, facing a new political calculus.The one constant in Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s political career, from her start as a left-wing rabble rouser and Ralph Nader aide to her announcement on Friday that she was leaving the Democratic Party to become an independent, is her boundless ability to draw attention to herself.Less than 72 hours after Democrats celebrated winning Georgia’s Senate race and the presumed 51st vote in the chamber, Ms. Sinema yanked the focus of the political world in Washington and Arizona back to her.This time, it was not another agenda-stymieing disagreement with the party that spent millions electing her to office, but instead a declaration that she was breaking with Democrats entirely, at least in name.“I’m going to be the same person I’ve always been. That’s who I am,” Ms. Sinema said in a two-minute video on Twitter on Friday morning, adding, “Nothing is going to change for me.”Democrats believe — or hope — that little will change in Congress, where Ms. Sinema will keep her Democratic committee assignments and where her defection will not change her former party’s control of the Senate.But in Arizona’s Democratic circles, distaste for the senator runs deep, and her announcement immediately shifted the spotlight to the 2024 race for her Senate seat.Democrats in the state have long presumed that she would run for re-election and that she was all but certain to face a difficult primary challenge, possibly from Representative Ruben Gallego, who has regularly criticized her over the past two years, or from Representative Greg Stanton, who signaled his interest on Friday. Ms. Sinema, however, left her potential rivals guessing, batting away questions about future bids for office.Hannah Hurley, a spokeswoman for Ms. Sinema, suggested that the senator had long promised to be an independent voice for the state, citing an ad from her 2018 campaign that emphasized a “fiercely independent record” and a “reputation for working across the aisle.”“Independent, just like Arizona,” the spot said.“She is not focused at all on campaign politics,” Ms. Hurley said of Ms. Sinema, who declined an interview on Friday afternoon.Democrats in Arizona signaled on Friday that they still planned to support a candidate against Ms. Sinema, whether it ends up being Mr. Gallego, Mr. Stanton or someone else. National Democratic leaders were cagey on Friday about how they would approach the 2024 race or a potential independent Sinema campaign. One main worry for Democrats is that running a strong candidate against Ms. Sinema in the general election might inadvertently help elect a Republican.Representatives for Senate Democrats’ campaign arm and for Senate Majority PAC, the leading Democratic super PAC devoted to Senate races, declined to comment on Friday afternoon about Ms. Sinema’s move. Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and majority leader, said that Ms. Sinema would keep her committee positions. “Kyrsten is independent,” he said in a statement. “That’s how she’s always been.”And the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said in a statement that President Biden expected to “continue to work successfully” with Ms. Sinema but did not address her 2024 prospects.Ms. Sinema was elected to the Senate in 2018, filling the seat of another party apostate, Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican who declined to seek re-election after breaking with President Donald J. Trump. He is now Mr. Biden’s ambassador to Turkey.The working assumption in Arizona political circles has long been that progressive anger at Ms. Sinema was concentrated among Democratic political activists, and that she could survive a primary from her left. But recent polling suggests that she has lost the confidence of many Arizona voters outside the center-right Chamber of Commerce types whom she has cultivated with the latest iteration of her political identity.A Civiqs survey conducted shortly before Election Day found she had an approval rating of just 7 percent among the state’s Democrats, 27 percent among Republicans and 29 percent among independents.Moderate Republicans uncomfortable with Mr. Trump’s politics have turned Arizona from a red state into a political battleground, swinging to Mr. Biden in 2020 and helping Democrats triumph in statewide elections last month against a Trump-backed slate of candidates. Ms. Sinema’s calculation in leaving the Democratic Party is that those voters can lift her to victory on their own.The Trumpian makeover of the Arizona Republican Party has also alarmed Democrats who want their candidates to be a forceful opposition — not present themselves as ideologically ambiguous.“Everything she’s done has been in the service of Kyrsten Sinema,” said Ian Danley, a progressive political consultant in Phoenix. “There’s really no other way to describe the decisions she makes. She cares about attention. She cares about setting herself up for the next thing.”The Democratic grumbling has Mr. Gallego and Mr. Stanton leaving little pretense about their ambitions to challenge Ms. Sinema in 2024. Mr. Gallego, a Harvard graduate and Marine veteran, has been a regular presence on cable news whenever Ms. Sinema alienates the party base, and his lively and occasionally profane Twitter feed often criticizes her. On Friday, he called her decision a “betrayal” of volunteers who knocked on doors in triple-digit heat to elect her as a Democrat.Ms. Sinema won election with the help of left-leaning groups in Arizona, but many of them quickly soured on her.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesMr. Stanton, a former Phoenix mayor who holds Ms. Sinema’s old House seat, on Friday tweeted what appeared to be a snapshot of a poll showing him leading Ms. Sinema by 40 percentage points in a hypothetical matchup.Her decision, he wrote, “isn’t about a post-partisan epiphany. It’s about political preservation.”Arizona’s progressive organizations and officials were already wary of Ms. Sinema during her 2018 run for Senate, but at the time no Democrat in the state had won election to the chamber in three decades. They collectively held their noses to turn out the vote for her in hopes that she would reciprocate their support once in office.Once Ms. Sinema became the linchpin of Senate Democrats’ narrow governing majority in 2021, those groups began publicly fuming at Ms. Sinema, whom they accused of abandoning her promises on immigration, health care and the environment. Ms. Sinema dismissed their complaints, echoing her general practice of dodging journalists in Washington and Arizona.When she theatrically turned a thumbs-down on a Senate vote in March 2021 to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour, it was the last straw for her party’s base. When she skipped votes to participate in Ironman triathlons or spent weeks as an intern at a Sonoma County winery, it served only to cement her reputation among progressives that she had removed herself from the concerns of working-class Arizonans.In the fall of 2021, activists from LUCHA, one of the groups that worked to elect Ms. Sinema, confronted her at Arizona State University. Activists followed Ms. Sinema into a bathroom and demanded that she explain why she had not done more to push for a pathway to citizenship for about eight million undocumented immigrants. The protesters said they had taken the drastic action only because Ms. Sinema did not hold town-hall meetings or answer calls from constituents. Protesters have also chased her through airports and followed her into a high-priced fund-raising event at an upscale resort.“We are not surprised that she would once again center herself,” said Alejandra Gomez, the executive director of LUCHA. “This is another unfortunate, selfish act. It is yet another betrayal — there have been a slew of betrayals, but this is one of the ultimates, because voters elected her as Democrat, and she turned her back on those voters.”But some of Ms. Sinema’s allies argue that she has been consistently clear about having an independent streak.“I love that she’s going to be even freer now to just do the right thing,” said Tammy Caputi, a Scottsdale City Council member who is herself a political independent, adding that Ms. Sinema had long been leery of being “straitjacketed by partisan politics.”She went on, “I’m hoping that Kyrsten’s decision to become an independent will spark other people to think long and hard about being overly attached to one party.”But for many Arizonans and Ms. Sinema’s fellow senators, the big question is whether or not she will run again in 2024, which she neglected to clarify in her video announcement, an op-ed article in The Arizona Republic or news media interviews that were released on Friday morning. Because she keeps a tight political circle of advisers and speaks little to the news media, there has long been far more speculation than explanation about her motivations.“Anybody that underestimates Senator Sinema is being foolish,” said Representative Raúl Grijalva, a liberal Arizona Democrat who said he planned to support Mr. Gallego if he ran. “She’s going to be formidable if she decides to run.”Ms. Sinema and a bipartisan group of senators discussing infrastructure legislation last year. She does not hold town-hall meetings with constituents, and rarely speaks with the news media.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesA person familiar with Mr. Stanton’s deliberations confirmed that he was considering running for Senate in Arizona in 2024 as a Democrat. The person confirmed that the image from a poll that Mr. Stanton tweeted on Friday was from a statewide survey in which he had tested his potential candidacy for Senate.In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gallego said Ms. Sinema’s rush to announce her party switch soon after the outcome of the Georgia race fit neatly into her career trajectory.“I wish she would have waited for the Democrats at least to enjoy a couple more days after the victory,” he said. “But, you know, she’s not known really for thinking of others.”Mr. Gallego said he would make a decision about what office to seek in 2024 in the new year. He had just gotten off the phone with his mother, who was catching up on the news.“She said: ‘I heard Sinema is not running. Make sure to talk to me before you do anything,’” Mr. Gallego said. More

  • in

    Sununu on Trump: ‘He’s Not Scaring Anyone Out of the Race’

    In a wide-ranging interview, Chris Sununu, the New Hampshire governor, called the Republican presidential primary a tossup. As for Trump? “He’s not clearing the field.”Confident and even brash, Chris Sununu is one of the most popular governors in America. In a year when many Republicans struggled, he was re-elected in New Hampshire by more than 15 percentage points. The way to win, he says, is not “ranting and raving” about cultural topics but the old-fashioned way: listening carefully to voters and talking about solutions to their most pressing problems.Sununu thinks Republicans need to relearn the “basic tenets of politics.” He’s no fan of Donald Trump, and he thinks the former president will be eminently beatable in the Republican primary. He also says it’s “insulting” of Democrats to demand that New Hampshire give up its traditional place in the presidential calendar to suit the “personal whims” of President Biden, who he predicts will eventually be pushed aside by Democratic power brokers in Washington or bow out on his own.The New Hampshire governor, who is often discussed as a possible presidential contender in 2024, had a lot to say over the course of a 40-minute interview. Here’s a transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity:Let’s talk about what happened in the midterm elections. A lot of people are blaming Donald Trump for choosing candidates in primaries who struggled in November. Is it that simple?No, no, no, no. Look, there’s a lot of different pieces here. It’s not just about former President Trump. It’s about the candidates themselves. They were bad candidates because they had a bad message, right? Often they made Trump a part of their message. And that just isn’t what voters wanted.A lot of candidates forgot the most basic tenets of politics: I need more votes than the other side. And it isn’t just about catering to a base or firing up your base. You need to listen to independents. You need to listen to all of the voting constituencies to see what the issues are for voters.There was also a little bit of manipulation of the primary process by Democrats. We saw it right here in New Hampshire with our U.S. Senate race. You effectively had the opposing party trying to pick your party’s candidate. Democrats were good at defining our candidates for us.Some Republicans say that candidates were too focused on hot-button cultural topics like transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, or books in school libraries. Do you agree with that critique?Yes. I agree that candidates focused on the wrong issues. I don’t mind addressing cultural issues; of course we need to. But it’s how you as a candidate stand up for it — not just ranting and raving, but hopefully inspiring folks to really believe in you as the person who can be a positive agent of change for those issues.Democrats talk about how abortion was a really powerful issue for them. You supported a 24-week ban, right?Yeah, I signed that. The Legislature put it in the budget. I’m pro-choice, but it’s a provision that I think most Americans would support. It’s very late — the third trimester.The Aftermath of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6A moment of reflection. More

  • in

    Netanyahu Cabinet Choice Has Criminal Convictions, Delaying a Government

    Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc won Israel’s general election last month. But several issues, including his cabinet choices, have complicated the forming of his government.JERUSALEM — Benjamin Netanyahu, struggling for more than a month to form a coalition government, on Friday was granted another 10 days to do so. But his hopes rest on a contentious quest: shepherding in a new law that would allow convicted criminals who have suspended jail terms to serve in his cabinet.The latest development shows the precariousness of the task ahead for the former Israeli prime minister — who himself faces prosecution. The proposed new law would allow Aryeh Deri — a key Netanyahu ally recently convicted of tax fraud — to hold three ministerial positions, including the important position of interior minister. That would pave the way for Mr. Netanyahu to finally form the government.With a Sunday deadline to form a new government drawing closer, Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, agreed to Mr. Netanyahu’s request for extra time to complete his coalition negotiations.Analysts still reckon Mr. Netanyahu is almost certain to return to power: He has sealed initial agreements with most of the far-right and ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties in his bloc, edging him closer to forming the most right-wing government in Israeli history.But the standoff illustrates why Mr. Netanyahu’s critics construe his return as a threat to Israel’s rule of law. His political partners have announced plans to weaken Israel’s system of checks and balances and to derail Mr. Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trial.Mr. Netanyahu is set to miss a deadline on Sunday to form his new government.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesMr. Netanyahu has repeatedly pledged to restrain his partners and denied any plans to disrupt his prosecution in a long-running corruption case. But the context to the extension to the negotiating period, coupled with the appointments he has already made, have exacerbated fears over his attitude to the judiciary and legal norms.The extra 10 days he has been given to complete a coalition are expected to give Mr. Netanyahu’s allies enough to time to install a new speaker of Parliament — a move that would let Mr. Netanyahu control the parliamentary process without formally leading the government.This would allow his bloc to overturn legislation that makes it difficult for Mr. Deri — whom Mr. Netanyahu has agreed to appoint concurrently to the interior and health ministries, as well as to the finance ministry in two years’ time — to enter ministerial office given his criminal record.Mr. Deri, a veteran ultra-Orthodox lawmaker who has previously served in the cabinet, was recently given a suspended prison sentence for failing to declare all his income. According to a recent interpretation of the law by Israel’s attorney general, that prevents Mr. Deri from serving as a minister without special dispensation from the elections authority. He also served nearly two years in prison in the early 2000s after being convicted on charges of taking bribes during his time as interior minister, but that no longer officially disqualifies him from office.What to Know About Israel’s Latest ElectionThe country held its fifth election in less than four years on Nov. 1.Netanyahu’s Return: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s opposition leader, is set to return to power with a new, far-right coalition that will once again make him prime minister.The Far Right’s Rise: To win the election, Mr. Netanyahu and his far-right allies harnessed perceived threats to Israel’s Jewish identity.What’s Next for the Left?: After a near wipeout, the leaders of Israel’s left-leaning parties say they need to change — but disagree on how.Worries Among Palestinians: To some Palestinians, the rise of Israel’s far right can scarcely make things worse. But many fear a surge of violence.To exempt Mr. Deri, his party has drafted legislation to remove that restriction. On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu’s bloc is expected to install a right-wing speaker who could help smooth the legislation’s passage through Parliament — alarming Mr. Netanyahu’s critics.“The goal of this entire move is to help an elected official to escape justice,” Gilad Kariv, a center-left lawmaker from the departing governing coalition, said in Parliament this week. “The future coalition is a coalition of liars who don’t believe one another,” Mr. Kariv added.Such talk has enraged Mr. Netanyahu’s allies.Mr. Netanyahu has offered so many positions to rival party leaders that he also needs more time to find suitable roles for allies in his own party, Likud. Ronen Zvulun/Reuters“These are venomous statements,” replied Yoav Kisch, a lawmaker from Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing party, Likud. The planned legislation is not aimed at any politician in particular and is instead a fair attempt “to rectify the current reality of lack of legal clarity in the appointment of ministers,” Mr. Kisch added.Before a government can be formed, the new speaker will also need to facilitate a parliamentary vote that would give another ministerial nominee greater control over Israel’s security apparatus.Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right extremist convicted of support for a terrorist group and incitement to racism, has agreed to join Mr. Netanyahu’s government on condition of being made minister for national security — a new role created specifically for Mr. Ben-Gvir that would give him expanded oversight over the police.Though Mr. Ben-Gvir also has a history of criminal convictions, his appointment does not require any change to the legislation that governs ministerial appointments because, unlike Mr. Deri, his convictions occurred more than seven years ago. Instead, the powers he seeks over the police force are so wide-ranging that his role must be ratified by Parliament before Mr. Netanyahu can complete his coalition.The far-right lawmaker Itamar Ben-Gvir after elections in November.Oren Ziv/Associated PressMr. Netanyahu has offered so many positions to rival party leaders that he also needs more time to find suitable roles for allies in his own party, Likud. Analysts say that much of the next 10 days will also be spent scrambling to stem internal dissent among senior Likud figures, some of whom are set to miss out on appointments to the remaining cabinet posts.Mr. Netanyahu’s negotiations have also been slowed by a dispute with another far-right leader, Bezalel Smotrich.A pro-settlement leader who seeks to annex the West Bank to Israel, Mr. Smotrich initially sought to head the defense ministry, a powerful role that would have given him control of the West Bank occupation. After veiled discomfort was voiced by U.S. officials, who feared such an appointment would mark a final death knell for the concept of a Palestinian state, Mr. Netanyahu declined Mr. Smotrich’s request.But following days of negotiations, Mr. Netanyahu did give Mr. Smotrich’s party control over a defense ministry department that oversees aspects of the occupation, like the process by which Israel issues work permits to Palestinians, and created a job-share mechanism in the interior and finance ministries to allow Mr. Smotrich to take on both roles in tandem with Mr. Deri.The far-right lawmaker Bezalel Smotrich during a rally with supporters in the southern Israeli city of Sderot.Gil Cohen-Magen/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Netanyahu’s willingness to slice up ministries in this way, either by creating job-shares or moving departments from one ministry to another, has prompted concerns that his government, though more ideologically homogeneous than most Israeli governments, will struggle to function coherently.“The education ministry, which is far more important than the foreign ministry, was broken down into four or five different components,” Ben Caspit, a prominent columnist, wrote in Ma’ariv, an Israeli broadsheet, on Friday.“The health ministry was given to Aryeh Deri as a side job,” Mr. Caspit said. “Several powers and sensitive positions have been wrested from the defense ministry for the first time in history. Two ministers who are diametrically opposed to one another will alternate as finance minister.”“Good luck to all of us,” Mr. Caspit added.The departing prime minister, Yair Lapid, wrote in a Facebook post on Friday that Mr. Netanyahu’s recent decisions had left him “weak, squeezed by younger and more determined partners.”Yair Lapid, the departing prime minister, said that Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right bloc is creating a “structure that will be impossible to govern.”Pool photo by Menahem KahanaMr. Lapid added: “They are creating an administrative structure that will be impossible to govern. Likud has become a junior partner in its own government, Netanyahu is at the peak of his weakness, and the extremists are pushing the system into delusional places.”Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly batted away similar criticism in recent weeks, promising that he will personally act as a moderating force on any extreme elements in his coalition.“The main policy or the overriding policy of the government is determined by the Likud and frankly, by me,” Mr. Netanyahu said in an interview last month with Bari Weiss, an American podcaster and commentator.During his previous spells in power, critics often made “these doom projections, but none of them materialized,” he added.“I maintained Israel’s democratic nature,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “I maintained Israel’s traditions.”Jonathan Rosen and Hiba Yazbek contributed reporting. More

  • in

    After Brazil’s Shocking Defeat, Take a Close Look at What the Team Has Become

    By No IdeasSÃO PAULO, Brazil — When the moment came, Neymar was nowhere to be seen. With Brazil needing to score a penalty on Friday to stay in the World Cup, he was stood on the halfway line, eyes shut. When his teammate missed, sending Brazil out of the tournament at the quarterfinal stage, he sank to the ground in despair. The team’s talisman, the undisputed star of Brazilian football, had succumbed to defeat. News of the failure was already flashing around the globe.At least Neymar is used to making headlines. A boy wonder who became the most expensive player in the world, he had been elevated to the status of footballing icon by his louche style, dazzling skills and striking appearance. But lately, he’s become noted for something else — as an avatar of the union between the national side and the far-right politics of Jair Bolsonaro, the departing Brazilian president.Neymar hasn’t been shy about his stance. For the presidential election in October, he posted a video expressing his support for Mr. Bolsonaro and underlined it later, saying, “The values that the president carries are very similar to me.” For all his maverick energy, Neymar is very much following a trend. In 2018, several top names in Brazilian football, the legends Ronaldinho and Rivaldo among them, announced their endorsement of Mr. Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro supporters, for their part, have taken to wearing the national team’s bright yellow jersey at demonstrations, laying claim to one of the nation’s most significant symbols.Progressives have sought to rescue the shirt from Bolsonarist appropriation, wearing it at their own rallies. But the damage has been done: One in five Brazilians, according to a recent study, would not wear the shirt today for political reasons. Once the pride of the nation, the football team has become an emblem of polarization. After the side’s surprise exit in the quarterfinals, at the hands of Croatia, the chance for the country to come together as it has done before — in joy over a championship — has been missed.It’s not the first time the football team has been taken up by politics, particularly of the right. In the 1930s, for example, the dictator Getúlio Vargas built monumental stadiums to house both soccer matches and mass rallies. The two were seen as two sides of the same coin, means to draw the masses into supporting the regime.Decades later, the military dictatorship that ruled from 1964 to 1985 tried to do something similar. When the military launched its coup, Brazil’s team was one of the world’s best. Led by stars such as Pelé and Garrincha, it had won the last two World Cups, playing scintillating, dynamic football. The military spared no effort in linking itself with the squad — opening new stadiums with players and military authorities side by side, for example — in the hope that the widespread reverence in which the team was held would rub off on the regime.It meddled, too. In the run-up to the 1970 World Cup, the president reportedly secured the ouster of the coach, a leftist who had spoken openly about the political imprisonments, torture and killings carried out by the regime. That didn’t stop the side from winning the competition in Mexico that year. The triumph was a major public relations victory for the government: Pictures of the president celebrating with the players flooded the country, as did sympathetic statements from the jubilant team. The side’s success was presented as evidence that the path taken by the regime was the right one. In this atmosphere of euphoria, even left-wing militants rooted for the side.That was the high-water mark of the dictatorship’s use of the national team. In the ’80s, the country’s gradual democratization was accompanied by a transformation of the profile of the team, which included a left-leaning players such as Sócrates and Zico. With the end of the dictatorship in 1985 — followed by a new Constitution in 1988 and general elections the year after — the team was no longer reflective of the military regime, or of the political right more generally. The 1994 and 2002 World Cup victories were widely celebrated by the population. Football belonged to everyone.In 2013, though, that started to change. As popular uprisings erupted, right-wing groups sought to differentiate themselves from leftist demonstrators by draping themselves in the Brazilian flag and wearing the national team’s jersey. The “green and yellows,” as they became known, mostly protested corruption and targeted the center-left Workers Party, to which the president, Dilma Rousseff, belonged. At the Confederations Cup that year, hosted by Brazil, thousands of fans booed Ms. Rousseff.That was a sign of things to come. In the demonstrations that led to Ms. Rousseff’s impeachment and removal from office in 2016, protesters clad in the yellow jersey called for military intervention and took selfies with military police officers. By the time Mr. Bolsonaro began his campaign for president in 2018, the football team was firmly associated with a right-wing agenda.During his tenure, the two became inseparable as supporters took to the streets to demand the closure of the Supreme Court, the lifting of pandemic restrictions and the end of electronic voting. In these gatherings, the national jersey shared space with symbols of the extreme right such as neo-Nazi flags, banners bearing antidemocratic slogans and even tiki torches.What about the side itself? While a number of players actively welcomed Mr. Bolsonaro to the presidency, it wasn’t clear where the team stood politically. The Copa América in 2021 — controversially hosted by Brazil after Colombia and Argentina had refused, citing concerns about the pandemic — appeared to set things straight. After a meeting, the team decided to go ahead with the competition, stressing that it was not a “political” decision. For many, this acquiescence seemed to prove that the national team had largely fallen under Mr. Bolsonaro’s sway.That’s not entirely fair. Throughout the four years of Mr. Bolsonaro’s government, explicit support for the president from within the squad was rare. A few players, such as the Tottenham striker Richarlison, spoke out against the politicization of the team. Paulinho, a promising young forward, even declared his support for Mr. Bolsonaro’s election rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The majority of the players, of course, prefer to keep their heads down.But a national team, as everyone knows, is much more than the sum of the individual players involved — it is a symbol. In Brazil, the entanglement of sport and politics has produced something strange: a national side almost entirely associated with a divisive political project and now, after Mr. Lula’s narrow victory in October, a defeated politician.Things might not stay that way. In Qatar, it was Richarlison who provided the most memorable moment, with his astounding goal against Serbia; Neymar, after missing two games through injury, was unable to lift the side to triumph. At home, feelings are mixed. The team’s performance, oscillating between sublime and stodgy, flattered to deceive.In the aftermath of stinging defeat, the question of what Brazil’s team is — and who it is for — remains vexingly open.Micael Zaramella is a historian of Brazilian football and the author of a book on Palmeiras, a club in São Paulo.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

  • in

    The Prisoner Exchange That Freed Brittney Griner

    More from our inbox:Selective Prosecution of TrumpTwo Views of BidenDiversity in Tech JobsA ‘Friend’ for Solo EldersA still from a video distributed by Russian state media shows Brittney Griner, in red, and Viktor Bout, holding a yellow envelope, on the tarmac at the Abu Dhabi International Airport on Thursday.To the Editor: Re “Griner Is Freed; Leaves Russia After a Trade” (front page, Dec. 9):On Thursday, the American basketball star Brittney Griner was freed from a Russian prison. This is indisputably joyous news, but it is bittersweet. To secure her release, President Biden had to agree to release a notorious Russian arms dealer whose weapon sales have supported death and misery around the world.It is great news, of course, for Ms. Griner and her family. Sadly, Paul Whelan, another American, remains in Russian custody, where he has been illegitimately detained for the past four years. The great news about Ms. Griner is blemished by the continued imprisonment of Mr. Whelan.President Biden has shown perseverance and dedication to securing the freedom of unjustly imprisoned Americans. But let us not forget that these deals come at a cost. Freeing Brittney Griner required that the U.S. release a soulless man who might now resume his arms dealing.Geopolitics sometimes requires painful compromise, and this moment clearly illustrates this point.Ken DerowSwarthmore, Pa.To the Editor:The exchange of a basketball player for a convicted arms dealer, leaving a former U.S. Marine in Russian custody, is a disgrace, patently wrong, unbalanced by any sense of equity and an affront to American values. President Biden should be ashamed.Richard M. FrauenglassHuntington, N.Y.To the Editor:While it is to be celebrated that Brittney Griner is coming home, my heart breaks for the family of Paul Whelan and for the families of other unjustly detained Americans all over the world.Ms. Griner’s release underscores the power of celebrity to drive more vigorous action. No doubt the advocacy of LeBron James and Stephen Curry, for example, on behalf of Ms. Griner played a significant role in pressuring the White House to get a deal done to bring her home, while Mr. Whelan and countless others continue to languish behind bars.Mark GodesChelsea, Mass.To the Editor:Viktor Bout, the Russian arms dealer, would have been out in seven years, back in business (maybe). So should we have let Brittney Griner stay in prison?Good for President Biden and our persistent officials. I travel internationally to dangerous places, and it’s good to know the U.S. has my back.Norbert HirschhornMinneapolisSelective Prosecution of TrumpProsecutors told jurors that Donald J. Trump personally paid for some perks and approved a crucial aspect of the scheme. Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “In a Blow to Trump, a Jury Finds His Business Guilty of Tax Fraud” (front page, Dec. 7):It is possible to view Donald Trump as deserving of accountability, retribution, even loathing, while recognizing that this tax fraud prosecution was selective.The money at stake is not worth the costs to pursue the case, and the nature of the crime seems unexceptional, especially in a private business. It is not a case prosecutors would ordinarily pursue.It may be noble in a larger or proportionate sense, but that can be respected while questioning the claims of prosecutors that it shows how everyone is equally subject to the law.Edward AbahoonieSparkill, N.Y.Two Views of Biden Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor: The other day I discovered a book by Joe Biden from 2017, “Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship and Purpose,” which focuses on his late son Beau’s battle with brain cancer. I was moved to discover that the book reveals not just his memories of his beloved son, but also his role as a husband, devoted father and seasoned politician familiar with the vicissitudes of dealing with bigwigs, foreign and domestic.What strikes one in reading Mr. Biden’s own heartfelt words is the sheer faith he has in the human ties he cherishes. Despite the tragedies he has suffered, he has held fast to his best qualities — compassion and faith.In short, he is a man of great trustworthiness, patience and forbearance, whose comparison to any probable rival in 2024 of either party clearly renders him, yet again, the best candidate for president.Richard OrlandoWestmount, QuebecTo the Editor:Re “America Deserves Better Than Donald Trump” (editorial, Nov. 20):Your editorial should have been titled “America Deserves Better Than Joe Biden.”The Biden administration has wrecked our economy with out-of-control inflation and government spending, has allowed undocumented immigrants to flood our southern border, and has destroyed our credibility as an international leader with our disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.There has been a large rise in crime and lawlessness, and many of us feel that the current administration is using the Justice Department, the F.B.I. and intelligence agencies against its political enemies and those who do not support its far-left and green agenda.Yes, we deserve better! Because we are a country where the words “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” have real meaning to our citizens.Sam TaylorColorado SpringsDiversity in Tech JobsAnnalice Ni, 22, was disappointed when Meta laid her off from her job as a software engineer last month. Now she is using the opportunity to expand her career horizons.Jason Henry for The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “Future in Big Tech Dims for Computing Students” (Business, Dec. 8):The article makes an important argument for students to seek jobs outside Big Tech, and look to start-ups and nontechnical industries that are hungry for fresh talent. However, it’s imperative for us to also address ways to support the most marginalized students, who are often left behind when the job market makes a significant shift.Today, only 26 percent of computer scientists are women, and only 8 percent are Black. Organizations like mine are working to correct this imbalance, but the onus remains on hiring managers to consider a wider range of qualified talent for technical roles.This could mean looking beyond Ivy League institutions and four-year universities, or placing less importance on technical interviews — which disproportionately benefit those with industry connections. Standards for computer science jobs should remain high, but we must be more nimble in how we measure a strong candidate.In moments of economic strain, we can’t forget that a diverse work force is critical for both equity and long-term success. All students, no matter their background, deserve access to the tech jobs they’ve worked so hard to secure.Tarika BarrettNew YorkThe writer is C.E.O. of Girls Who Code.A ‘Friend’ for Solo EldersJoan DelFattore, a retired English professor, objects to the perception that older people without immediate family are somehow needy.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesTo the Editor:A critical issue that wasn’t addressed in “Who Will Care for the Kinless Seniors?,” by Paula Span (The New Old Age, Dec. 6), is the absence of someone who could serve as a health care proxy in the event that a senior is not capable of making their own medical decision.There has been some research over the last several years about the increasing number of older people in that situation (sometimes called the “unbefriended”) and the programs that might provide a way to identify existing proxies or to develop new relationships in part to serve that function.Community organizations, together with the medical community, need to create joint initiatives, funded by the public and private sectors, to enable these seniors to have a “friend.”Alice YakerNew YorkThe writer served as a health care consultant on this issue with the New York Legal Assistance Group. More

  • in

    Bangladesh Arrests Opposition Leaders as Crackdown Intensifies

    Tensions boiled over this week as opposition supporters descended on the capital ahead of a major demonstration against the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.DHAKA, Bangladesh — The authorities in Bangladesh arrested two senior opposition leaders early on Friday, capping off a week of political tensions, including a major clash between the police and opposition supporters that left at least one demonstrator dead, dozens wounded and hundreds arrested.Human rights groups say Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has intensified a crackdown against her opponents as the South Asian nation with a population of 165 million prepares for general elections next year. She has been in power for more than a decade, a tenure marked by authoritarian control and impressive economic growth that appears to be waning in the wake of the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and Mirza Abbas, senior members of the opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, were arrested by plainclothes security personnel in a predawn raid, the wives of both men said. With Khaleda Zia, the former prime minister and leader of the B.N.P. under house arrest and barred from politics, Mr. Alamgir, the general secretary, has been the de facto leader of the opposition since Ms. Zia’s arrest in 2018.“Four men came to the apartment we live in and said they are taking him with them,” said Rahat Ara Begum, Mr. Alamgir’s wife. “When they were asked why they were doing it, they said they were ordered to detain him by the higher authority. But they did not say who the higher authority was.”The police in Dhaka, the capital, said they had taken both leaders in for questioning regarding clashes earlier in the week outside the B.N.P.’s main headquarters. Faruk Hossain, the deputy commissioner of Dhaka Metropolitan Police, said 47 police officers were wounded in those clashes when they tried to disperse a large crowd of supporters gathered outside the headquarters ahead of a rally planned by the party for Saturday.“They led their supporters, instigated them to fight against the police,” Mr. Hossain said of the arrests.The B.N.P., in return, has accused the police of “organized violence” to sabotage their rally, which they say will be a culmination of several large rallies they have held in recent weeks and is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of supporters.Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina speaking at the United Nations Headquarters in New York in September. Ms. Hasina’s government has taken a hard line against critics, arresting journalists, activists and opposition leaders.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesMs. Hasina, the daughter of Bangladesh’s founding leader after the country split from Pakistan in the 1970s, has continued Bangladesh’s long history of often brutal winner-takes-all politics, deploying the laws and law-enforcement against opponents and activists. Under her rule, Bangladesh’s special forces, the Rapid Action Battalion, have been accused of turning into a death squad. While the force’s reputation for brutality precedes Ms. Hasina taking office in 2009, it was sanctioned by the United States government during her watch, with some of its current and former leaders being accused of hundreds of extrajudicial killings.In recent years, Ms. Hasina’s government has employed a digital security law to arrest journalists, activists and opposition members, some for minor offenses such as making critical comments about her handling of Covid on Facebook. In the past two years, more than 2,000 people have been detained under the law, which the United Nations says “imposes draconian punishments for a wide range of vaguely defined acts.”As she targeted her critics, Ms. Hasina tried to emphasize her country’s economic success, with Bangladesh touted by the World Bank as an “inspiring story of growth” for managing to slash poverty and grow its G.D.P. per capita larger than neighboring India’s.But just as the economy was beginning to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, the blowback of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine kicked in. Rising prices around the world have reduced the demand for exports, while the increase in food and oil prices have hurt citizens at home. The reduction in exports has resulted in a fall in foreign reserves, forcing Bangladesh to reach out to the International Monetary Fund for $4.5 billion in assistance.Since July, the opposition has tried to mobilize around the economic stress, organizing nearly a dozen large rallies in different parts of the country. Maruf Mallick, a lecturer and analyst of Bangladesh politics based in Germany, said the economic stress and the fact that the opposition has been able to rally large numbers of people despite government resistance has Ms. Hasina and her officials worried.“The government feels that if this situation continues, they may be in danger,” Mr. Mallick said. “And to cover this weak situation they are trying to attack political opponents.”As clashes intensify, human rights groups say Ms. Hasina’s government has responded in a one-sided manner, protecting her supporters while implicating the opposition in myriad cases where the police lists hundreds of “unidentified” people as suspects — a tactic that, rights activists say, is then used as a free hand in targeting political opponents.“Law enforcement officers have used these open cases as warrants to raid the homes of political opposition members in what appears to be overt political harassment and intimidation,” Human Rights Watch said.A street food vendor in Dhaka, Bangladesh’s capital. Rising food prices have taken a heavy toll on citizens of the South Asian country after the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.Monirul Alam/EPA, via ShutterstockThe recent tensions came to a boil on Wednesday, when thousands of B.N.P. supporters gathered outside the party’s main office in Dhaka as the government and the party remained locked in disagreement over the venue for Saturday’s rally. In the afternoon, heavily armed police officers raided the area, saying B.N.P. supporters were causing public disruption and hindering traffic.The police accused the supporters of “vandalism and obstruction of police work” and carrying Molotov cocktails, rounding up about 300 of them and calling them “terrorists.”“We gathered there like we generally do. The police suddenly came and started to beat our supporters. They exploded sound grenades, they used guns. They barred me from entering the party office and arrested our people,” Mr. Alamgir, the B.N.P.’s de facto leader told local news media before his arrest. “No doubt they are plotting something against us. I don’t know what they are doing inside our office.”Over the past week, 15 foreign embassies in Dhaka put out a joint statement emphasizing the right to peaceful protest.“As Bangladesh is coming closer to its national election next year, we remind Bangladesh of its commitments, as a U.N. member state, to free expression, media freedom, and peaceful assembly among others written in the Declaration,” said Gwyn Lewis, the U.N. resident coordinator in Bangladesh.After the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesch, Peter D. Haas, urged an investigation into the political violence this week and called for the protection of “the fundamental freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly,” a senior aide to Ms. Hasnia fired back, pointing at election disputes and gun violence in the United States.“Sheikh Hasina will not bow down to anyone’s order or interference,” Obaidul Quader, a cabinet minister and the ruling party’s general secretary, told a meeting of party leaders. “She does not fear anyone except Allah.”Saif Hasnat More

  • in

    This Case Should Never Have Made It to the Supreme Court

    “The most important case for American democracy” in the nation’s history — that’s how the former appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig described Moore v. Harper, an extraordinary lawsuit that the Supreme Court considered in oral arguments Wednesday morning. Judge Luttig, a conservative and a widely respected legal thinker, is not one for overstatement. Yet most Americans aren’t paying attention to the case because it involves some confusing terminology and an arcane legal theory. It is essential that people understand just how dangerous this case is to the fundamental structure of American government, and that enough justices see the legal fallacies and protect our democracy.First, the back story on the case: In 2021, North Carolina lawmakers redrew their congressional maps. The state had 13 districts at the time, and its voters were more or less evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. But the Republicans who are in control of North Carolina’s legislature didn’t want fair maps; they wanted power. In one of the most egregious gerrymanders in the nation, they drew 10 seats intended to favor themselves.The North Carolina courts were not amused. A panel of three trial judges found that the 2021 maps were “intentionally and carefully designed to maximize Republican advantage” — so much so that Republicans could win legislative majorities even when Democrats won more votes statewide. The State Supreme Court struck down the maps, finding they violated the North Carolina Constitution’s guarantees of free elections, free speech, free assembly and equal protection.That should have been the end of it: A state court applying the state Constitution to strike down a state law. But North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers appealed, arguing that the U.S. Constitution does not give state courts authority to rule on their congressional maps — even though the legislature had passed a law authorizing the courts to review redistricting plans like these. Instead, the lawmakers are relying on an untested theory that asserts that state legislatures enjoy nearly unlimited power to set and change rules for federal elections.In 2000 the chief justice at the time, William H. Rehnquist, proposed the idea in his concurring opinion on Bush v. Gore, and the independent state legislature theory has been floating around the fringes of right-wing legal circles ever since.To be clear, this is a political power grab in the guise of a legal theory. Republicans are trying to see if they can turn state legislatures — 30 of which are controlled by Republicans — into omnipotent, unaccountable election bosses with the help of the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. The theory has no basis in law, history or precedent. The idea that state lawmakers exist free of any constraints imposed by their constitution and state courts makes a mockery of the separation of powers, which is foundational to the American system of government. By the North Carolina lawmakers’ logic, they possess infinite power to gerrymander districts and otherwise control federal elections. It is a Constitution-free zone where no one else in the state — not the governor, not the courts, not the voters through ballot initiatives — has any say.On Wednesday morning, Justice Elena Kagan rejected the theory out of hand, saying it “gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country. And you might think that it gets rid of all those checks and balances at exactly the time when they are needed most.”In practice, the theory that the petitioners in the case are seeking to use would turn hundreds of state constitutional provisions into dead letters in federal elections. For instance, 48 states affirmatively guarantee a right to vote in their constitutions. (The federal Constitution still does not.) Most state constitutions guarantee free, fair, equal or open elections. Even the secret ballot — so fundamental to American democracy — is a creature of state constitutions. If the justices accept the most aggressive version of the independent state legislature theory that the petitioners want them to and even if they accept a weaker version, provisions like these could become invalid overnight, because the theory holds that state constitutions have no authority to impose any regulations on federal elections. (The Constitution and federal law remain supreme, so challenges to state legislative actions could still be brought in federal courts.)Some of the justices insist that they don’t — they can’t — pay attention to the real-world outcomes of their rulings. They’re just interpreting law. By that logic, this case should be rejected on its merits.First, the theory is based on bad legal interpretation. The Constitution uses the word “legislature” in describing who has the power to regulate federal elections. Because of this word, the theory’s supporters claim, state legislatures have nearly unlimited power in that realm. But as Judge Luttig has noted, the theory has “literally no support” in the Constitution. To the contrary, the framers who wrote the Constitution were concerned that state legislatures had too much power, not too little. The text they wrote makes many references to the powers of those legislatures and of Congress, but it never says or implies that they are immune to review by the judicial branch.Second, the theory is based on bad history. The best evidence its supporters offer is a two-century-old document that has long been known to be fraudulent. Written in 1818 by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, a founding father, it is purported to be a replica of the plan for government that he introduced three decades earlier at the Constitutional Convention. But what he submitted in 1818 was not the real deal. James Madison suspected this immediately, as have virtually all historians to examine it in the years since.When the theory’s supporters sought to claim that the practices of early state legislatures proved that their side should win, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded, “Yes. If you rewrite history, it’s very easy to do.”Third, if the Supreme Court accepts this theory, it will create a logistical nightmare in states across the country. That’s because the theory applies only to federal elections, not state elections, in which state courts unquestionably have a role to play. As a result, there would be two sets of rules operating at the same time, one for federal elections and one for state elections. Chaos and confusion would reign.Most important, the Supreme Court has already implicitly rejected the theory many times over. In precedents stretching back decades, the court has made clear that state courts have the power to set limits on what lawmakers can do when it comes to federal elections. As recently as 2019, the court rejected a plea for it to stop the extreme partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and other states. In doing so, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that this is exactly the role that state courts should play. “Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply,” he wrote.At Wednesday’s argument, Justice Samuel Alito appeared to reject that premise. He accused elected state court judges, like those in North Carolina, of being political actors themselves. “There’s been a lot of talk about the impact of this decision on democracy,” said Justice Alito, who has given openly partisan speeches to outside groups and voted consistently in alignment with Republican policy priorities. “Do you think that it furthers democracy to transfer the political controversy about districting from the legislature to elected supreme courts where the candidates are permitted by state law to campaign on the issue of districting?”Another way to appreciate the absurdity of the theory is to consider who has come out for and against it. On one side, a large and bipartisan group of judges, government officials, former lawmakers, leading historians and constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum have rejected it. These include a co-founder of the right-wing legal group the Federalist Society, the chief justices of all 50 states, multiple Republican former governors and secretaries of state and civil rights organizations.On the other side, you will find a far smaller and less bipartisan cast of characters — among them, the Republican National Committee, a group of Republican state attorneys general and John Eastman, a former law professor last seen helping Donald Trump plan an illegal and unconstitutional coup to stay in office (an act that has exposed Mr. Eastman to a real risk of criminal prosecution).That so many justices would take the theory seriously is bad enough. Three of them — Justices Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — appear to favor the independent state legislature theory, as they suggested in an opinion in an earlier stage of the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has also indicated his openness to it. It’s worse when the public trust in and approval of the court have fallen to historic lows, thanks largely to aggressively partisan recent opinions, as this board has argued.There’s an old saying that only close cases make it to the Supreme Court. If they weren’t close, they would have been resolved in the lower courts. But Moore v. Harper isn’t a remotely close case. A ruling for the North Carolina lawmakers would flood the federal courts with election litigation that normally plays out in the states, upending the balance of federalism that defines American government. That’s not a conservative result; it’s a dangerously radical one.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