Elections

A federal judge on Friday declined to ban an activist group from gathering near ballot boxes in Arizona, arguing that the members’ actions did not appear to constitute a “true threat” or intimidation and that their right to assemble in public spaces is constitutionally protected.In his 14-page ruling, Judge Michael T. Liburdi found that while “many voters are legitimately alarmed by the observers filming” at ballot boxes in Maricopa County, there was no proof that the group, Clean Elections USA, had encouraged acts of violence or posted personal or identifying information online.“While this case certainly presents serious questions,” Judge Liburdi wrote, “the court cannot craft an injunction without violating the First Amendment.”In denying the request, the judge said he would keep the case open and agreed to hear new evidence that the group has “engaged in unlawful voter intimidation.”Clean Elections USA, whose founder is a purveyor of election and QAnon theories, has said it is trying to prevent voter fraud by organizing activists across the country to station themselves near drop boxes set up to receive mail ballots. The aim, the organizers say, is to observe voters and document possible instances of voter fraud or misconduct.An individual watches a drop box from across a parking lot in Mesa, Ariz., on Monday.Bastien Inzaurralde/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA lawsuit filed on Monday by two nonprofit organizations, the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino, alleged that the group’s intent was to dissuade people from voting through harassment and threats.The complaint, which asked for an injunction and restraining order against Clean Elections USA, identified several incidents in which voters in Maricopa County were followed, photographed and accused of being “ballot mules” — a term borrowed from a conspiracy theory about voters fraudulently casting dozens of ballots at once. In several cases, the activists carried firearms and wore military-style protective gear and masks.Judge Liburdi’s ruling, which is limited to Arizona, comes 11 days before a midterm election that has been riddled with false claims and specious theories about misconduct in voting, and as former President Donald J. Trump continues to spread the falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Many right-wing groups have mobilized to work the polls, challenge ballots and station observers at counting centers in search of wrongdoing.Ballot drop boxes have become an early flash point. Since early voting began in Arizona on Oct. 12, Arizona’s secretary of state has referred at least six complaints of voter intimidation to the U.S. Department of Justice and the state’s attorney general for investigation. All of the incidents took place at outdoor ballot boxes in Phoenix and Mesa, a suburb.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Bracing for a Red Wave: Republicans were already favored to flip the House. Now they are looking to run up the score by vying for seats in deep-blue states.Pennsylvania Senate Race: The debate performance by Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is still recovering from a stroke, has thrust questions of health to the center of the pivotal race and raised Democratic anxieties.G.O.P. Inflation Plans: Republicans are riding a wave of anger over inflation as they seek to recapture Congress, but few economists expect their proposals to bring down rising prices.Polling Analysis: If these poll results keep up, everything from a Democratic hold in the Senate and a narrow House majority to a total G.O.P. rout becomes imaginable, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.“Voter intimidation is illegal, and no voter should feel threatened or intimidated when trying to vote,” Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat who is running for Arizona’s governor, said in a statement this week. “Anyone attempting to interfere with that right should be reported.”At a hearing on Wednesday, Veronica Lucero, a lawyer for Melody Jennings, the founder of Clean Elections USA, argued that there “there is no connection” between the activists cited in the complaints in Maricopa County and Clean Elections USA. Ms. Jennings “has simply advocated that people need to follow the law,” Ms. Lucero said.Ms. Jennings has described the ballot box monitors as “my people” and “our box watchers” in social media posts. On Friday, she praised the judge’s ruling in a post on Truth Social, the social media platform founded by Mr. Trump.“The Constitution won today,” Ms. Jennings wrote. “This battle is not over, but today was a step for freedom and for your 1st amendment rights being preserved.”In a statement, the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans called the ruling “truly disappointing,” adding that “American citizens should be able to cast a ballot without fear of personal injury or other harm to their safety and security.”Marc Elias, a Democratic elections lawyer whose law firm represents the plaintiffs in the suit, wrote on Twitter on Friday that he planned to appeal.Ms. Jennings, who is from Tulsa, Okla., and has described herself as a Christian pastor and counselor, has fast become a leading voice in the election-denial movement. She first proposed sending observers to ballot boxes this spring, just weeks after joining Truth Social.“I have an idea,” she wrote on April 19. “In those states where they do not outlaw drop boxes, I think we have no less than 10 patriots standing around every one of those 24/7 for the duration of the voting period.”In podcast interviews, Ms. Jennings said she was inspired by a trailer for the film, “2000 Mules,” released in May. The film, directed and produced by the right-wing pundit Dinesh D’Souza, relied heavily on debunked research from True the Vote, a group focused on voter fraud. The film asserts that “mules” paid by the Democratic Party ferried illegal votes to ballot boxes, often in the dead of night. It was shown in more than 400 theaters and brought in some $1.4 million at the box office.Ms. Jennings’ ideas spread quickly as her posts were shared by election deniers with large numbers of followers, including Mr. Trump and his former attorney, Sidney Powell. Ms. Jennings launched a website in May and, this summer, frequently promoted her plans on right-wing podcasts. She urged people not only to gather around ballot boxes, but to photograph voters and reveal their identities online.“I am FULLY STOKED that ballot trafficking mules are about to be completely doxxed and put on blast at every drop box across America VERY SOON,” Ms. Jennings posted on Truth Social on Sept. 8.Ms. Jennings’s following on the platform has grown from barely 100 in April to more than 35,000.Internal membership rolls show that roughly 4,500 people in 48 states have registered with Clean Elections USA, according to a report in Votebeat, a nonprofit news outlet. The group tells volunteers that the information they collect will be shared with True the Vote, which in turn works with Protect America Now, a group of sheriffs who have pledged to investigate election fraud, the report found.It is unclear if Ms. Jennings has significant financial support. A fund-raiser she set up online in August had raised $3,600 as of Friday.Over the summer, several Republican officeholders and candidates in Arizona encouraged the effort and Ms. Jennings organized what she called a “dry run” during the state’s Aug. 2 primary elections.A second organization, the Lions of Liberty, began organizing ballot box surveillance in Yavapai County, north of Phoenix. The group is an offshoot of a third organization: a local chapter of the Oath Keepers called the Yavapai County Preparedness Team.In an interview, Jim Arroyo, an Oath Keeper and member of the Lions of Liberty board of directors, said the intent of what his group called “Operation Drop Box” was to “watch for people stuffing more than 30, 40, 50 ballots in the box and to photograph it and send that to law enforcement.”There is no evidence of a widespread ballot-stuffing operation in the 2020 election. William P. Barr, who served as Attorney General under Mr. Trump, described the evidence presented in “2000 Mules” as “singularly unimpressive” in an interview with the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.Most states with early voting allow individuals to return other peoples’ ballots to boxes although rules vary significantly by state. In Arizona, family and household members, as well as caregivers, are legally permitted to do so. The laws are designed to make it easier for older, ill or disabled voters to cast ballots.Arizona does not permit observers to remain within 75 feet of ballot boxes or polling places, and even outside that perimeter they are prohibited from making “any attempt to intimidate, coerce, or threaten a person to vote or not vote,” according to the secretary of state. That behavior includes “aggressive or ostentatious display of weapons” or “directly confronting or questioning voters in a harassing or intimidating manner.”Voto Latino and Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, represented by the voting rights firm Elias Law Group, claimed Clean Election USA was violating federal law, citing the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both of which prohibit voter intimidation.In his decision on Friday, Judge Liburdi dismissed Voto Latino from the suit, saying that it did not have standing because it had not demonstrated a financial impact from the problems it identified in the complaint. Judge Liburdi, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Mr. Trump in 2019, will have an opportunity to weigh in on the matter again. The League of Women Voters filed on Tuesday a second federal suit naming Clean Elections USA, and Ms. Jennings, adding the Lions of Liberty and the Yavapai County Preparedness Team as defendants. That lawsuit, citing the same federal laws, noted that “Congress passed both statutes to prevent the very kinds of vigilante-led voter intimidation defendants are now deploying.”That complaint was prepared by the Protect Democracy Project, which this week also filed a defamation claim against Mr. D’Souza and True the Vote, among others, over “2000 Mules.” Mr. D’Souza and Catherine Engelbrecht, the founder of True the Vote, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.“Melody Jennings is not operating in an absolute vacuum,” said Orion Danjuma, an attorney at Protect Democracy Project who worked on the Arizona case. More

Workers at a Trader Joe’s store in Brooklyn have voted against unionizing, handing a union its first loss at the company after two victories this year.The workers voted 94 to 66 against joining Trader Joe’s United, an independent union that represents employees at stores in Western Massachusetts and Minneapolis. Workers at a Trader Joe’s in Colorado filed for an election this summer but withdrew their petition shortly before a scheduled vote.“We are grateful that our crew members trust us to continue to do the work of listening and responding to their needs, as we always have,” Nakia Rohde, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement after the National Labor Relations Board announced the result on Thursday.The result raises questions about whether the uptick in union activity over the past year, in which unions won elections at several previously nonunion companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Apple, may be slowing.Union supporters recently lost an election at an Amazon warehouse near Albany, N.Y., and the pace of unionization at Starbucks has dropped in recent months, though the union has won elections at over 250 of the company’s 9,000 corporate-owned U.S. stores so far.Workers at a second Apple store recently won an election in Oklahoma City, however, and unions have upcoming votes at a Home Depot in Philadelphia and a studio owned by the video game maker Activision Blizzard in upstate New York.As of June, Trader Joe’s had more than 500 locations and 50,000 employees across the country and was not unionized. Early in the pandemic, the company’s chief executive sent a letter to employees complaining of a “current barrage of union activity that has been directed at Trader Joe’s” and arguing that union supporters “clearly believe that now is a moment when they can create some sort of wedge in our company.”The company has said it is prepared to negotiate contracts at its unionized stores. An employee involved in the union, Maeg Yosef, said the two sides were settling on bargaining dates.Union supporters at the Brooklyn store had said they were seeking an increase in wages, improved health care benefits and paid sick leave as well as changes that would make the company’s disciplinary process more fair.Before union supporters had a chance to talk with all their colleagues, management became aware of the campaign and announced it in a note posted in the store’s break room in late September. The company also fired a prominent union supporter a day or two later.Amy Wilson, a leader of the union campaign in the store, said organizing had become more difficult after the firing and the note from management.“The last core of people hadn’t been spoken to directly by their co-workers, and we lost them instantly,” she said, referring to the note. “It undermined the trust, the relationship. They felt excluded and offended.”Ms. Rohde, the Trader Joe’s spokeswoman, did not respond to a question about why management posted the break room note. She said that while she couldn’t comment on the firing of the union supporter, “we have never and would never fire a crew member for organizing.”Trader Joe’s is known for providing relatively good wages and benefits for the industry, though workers have complained that the company has made its health care and retirement benefits less generous over the past decade. More

Tres de cada cuatro partidarios del presidente de Brasil confían poco o nada en el sistema de votación. Muchos dijeron que estaban preocupados por un posible fraude y advirtieron estar preparados para protestar.DUQUE DE CAXIAS, Brasil — Para muchos simpatizantes del presidente Jair Bolsonaro, las elecciones presidenciales de Brasil que se realizarán el domingo solo pueden tener dos resultados posibles: celebrar o tomar las calles. Eso se debe, según dicen, a que una derrota de Bolsonaro solo puede significar que la votación fue manipulada.“Hay mucho fraude”, dijo Kátia de Lima, de 47 años, empleada de una tienda, en un mitin de Bolsonaro este mes. “Está comprobado”.En el mismo mitin que se realizó al norte de Río de Janeiro, Paulo Roberto, de 55 años, trabajador del gobierno, comentó: “Cualquiera que vote por Bolsonaro está preocupado por las máquinas de votación”.Y Fabrício Frieber, un abogado del estado de Bahía, agregó: “Bolsonaro nos viene advirtiendo”.En el transcurso de su presidencia, Bolsonaro ha cuestionado y criticado la seguridad del sistema de votación electrónica de Brasil, a pesar de la falta de evidencia creíble de que exista un problema en el mismo. Ahora, al final de su primer mandato, está claro que sus ataques han tenido un efecto: gran parte del electorado de Brasil ha perdido la fe en la integridad de las elecciones de su nación.Tres de cada cuatro partidarios de Bolsonaro confían poco o nada en el sistema de votación de Brasil, según varias encuestas de los últimos meses, incluida una realizada la semana pasada. Y en entrevistas con más de 40 de los partidarios de Bolsonaro en los últimos meses, casi todos dijeron que estaban preocupados por el fraude electoral y que estaban preparados para protestar si este pierde.Esas dudas han socavado una de las democracias más grandes del mundo y es probable que terminen por ser uno de los legados más perniciosos de Bolsonaro, parte de una tendencia mundial de mentiras y teorías de conspiración, a menudo alimentadas por líderes populistas y amplificadas por el internet, que están amenazando las normas democráticas en Estados Unidos y en todo el mundo.Los inspectores del tribunal electoral de Brasil prueban las máquinas de votación en São Paulo. Las máquinas no están conectadas a internet, lo que reduce significativamente la posibilidad de un ataque cibernético.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesAhora, el domingo, Brasil podría ver hasta dónde llegan esas dudas sobre sus elecciones.Las encuestas muestran que la contienda entre Bolsonaro, el actual presidente de extrema derecha, y Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, expresidente de izquierda, está reñida. Sin embargo, Bolsonaro ha insinuado que, si pierde, es posible que no acepte los resultados.“¿Elecciones que no puedes auditar? Eso no es una elección. Es fraude”, declaró Bolsonaro a los periodistas en julio, al mencionar un reclamo común sobre el sistema electoral de Brasil. “Entregaré el poder, en unas elecciones limpias”.Si Bolsonaro es derrotado y busca aferrarse al poder, parece que las instituciones democráticas de Brasil están preparadas para resistir. Pero también parece que algunos de sus seguidores están preparados para luchar.“Si nuestro presidente no es elegido, todos vamos a Brasilia”, dijo Rogério Ramos, de 40 años, dueño de una tienda de electrónica automotriz, refiriéndose a la capital del país. “Cerramos el Congreso, como en el 64”.En 1964, un golpe militar condujo a 21 años de una dictadura violenta en Brasil.Rogério Ramos en su coche autónomo con otros simpatizantes de Bolsonaro luego de un mitin en Río de Janeiro.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York TimesMuchas de estas advertencias son probablemente comentarios improvisados y no planes organizados de violencia. Las autoridades del orden público no han advertido sobre ninguna amenaza por parte de alguno de los grupos en caso de que Bolsonaro sea derrotado.Pero el Supremo Tribunal Federal y el Tribunal Superior Electoral de Brasil aumentaron la seguridad, y el ejército se está preparando en caso de que haya descontento después de las elecciones, según dos altos oficiales militares que hablaron bajo condición de anonimato para comentar planes privados. El presidente o los tribunales podrían convocar a los militares para tratar de controlar a las multitudes violentas.Funcionarios gubernamentales, jueces, periodistas y gran parte de la ciudadanía brasileña están preocupados por un escenario similar al del 6 de enero de 2021, cuando miles de personas irrumpieron en el Capitolio de Estados Unidos, en un intento por anular los resultados de las elecciones después de que el expresidente Donald Trump negara repetidamente su derrota.Tanto Trump como Bolsonaro pasaron gran parte de sus gobiernos advirtiendo que el sistema estaba conspirando contra ellos. Trump criticó el “Estado profundo”, mientras que Bolsonaro acusó a algunos de los jueces que supervisan el Supremo Tribunal Federal de Brasil y al Tribunal Superior Electoral del país de intentar manipular las elecciones.Los seguidores de Bolsonaro enfocan su atención en una serie de aparentes anormalidades en el proceso de votación y los resultados, así como muchas teorías de conspiración.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York TimesBolsonaro también ha cuestionado la seguridad de las máquinas de votación electrónica de Brasil desde 2015, luego de que un candidato presidencial de centroderecha disputó una estrecha derrota. Bolsonaro, por entonces diputado, comenzó una cruzada apoyada en la afirmación de que las máquinas de votación eran vulnerables al fraude porque no están respaldadas por boletas de papel.Bolsonaro tiene razón al decir que el sistema de votación de Brasil es singular. Es el único país del mundo que utiliza un sistema totalmente digital, sin copias de seguridad en papel.Los expertos en seguridad informática que estudian el sistema dicen que su diseño en efecto dificulta la auditoría de una elección. Pero también dicen que el sistema tiene numerosas capas de seguridad para evitar fraudes o errores, entre estas están los lectores de huellas dactilares, pruebas de cientos de máquinas el día de las elecciones, inspección del código fuente por parte de expertos externos y el hecho de que las máquinas no se conectan a la red de internet, lo que reduce significativamente las posibilidades de un hackeo.Desde que Brasil comenzó a usar máquinas de votación electrónica en 1996, no ha habido evidencia de que hayan sido utilizadas para fraude. En cambio, las máquinas ayudaron a eliminar el fraude que alguna vez afectó las elecciones de Brasil en la era de las boletas de papel.Pero esa realidad no le ha importado mucho a Bolsonaro ni a muchos de los más de 50 millones de brasileños que votaron por él en la primera ronda electoral. En entrevistas, los partidarios de Bolsonaro en cambio centraron su atención en una serie anecdótica de aparentes anomalías en el proceso y los resultados de la votación, así como en muchas teorías de conspiración: las máquinas roban votos de Bolsonaro; las máquinas vienen precargadas con votos; algunas máquinas son falsificaciones plantadas; los funcionarios manipulan los recuentos de votos; y los resultados de la votación muestran patrones sospechosos.En elecciones pasadas, los seguidores de Bolsonaro han ido a las casillas en busca de alguna irregularidad que grabar para compartir como mayor prueba de fraude.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York TimesUn hombre entrevistado por The New York Times reprodujo un video que recibió a través de WhatsApp que decía que Bolsonaro había visitado Rusia este año para obtener la ayuda del presidente Vladimir Putin con el fin de luchar contra los planes de la izquierda brasileña de robar las elecciones del domingo.Al igual que en Estados Unidos y en otros lugares, las redes sociales han ayudado a polarizar a la población y han permitido que se difundan las dudas sobre las elecciones.La mayor parte del público brasileño solía reunirse alrededor de un solo canal de televisión, TV Globo. Ahora, los brasileños están dispersos en el interminable paisaje de medios de internet, a menudo en burbujas con personas de ideas afines que afianzan puntos de vista preexistentes, explicó Francisco Brito Cruz, director de InternetLab, un instituto de investigación en São Paulo.El público incluso se ha convertido en parte de los propios medios, al crear y compartir memes y videos, incluso sobre las máquinas de votación. En elecciones pasadas, los partidarios de Bolsonaro acudieron a las urnas en busca de alguna irregularidad que pudieran filmar y difundir como una prueba más del fraude.“Están en una misión imposible, tratando de encontrar dónde el trabajador electoral está manipulando las cosas, dónde están teniendo problemas”, dijo Brito Cruz. “Se han convencido a sí mismos, ¿no es cierto?”.La mayoría de los partidarios de Bolsonaro dijeron en entrevistas que no confían en los principales medios de comunicación, a los que Bolsonaro ha catalogado de deshonestos, y en cambio confían en noticias provenientes de una amplia variedad de fuentes en sus teléfonos, incluidas publicaciones en redes sociales y mensajes que reciben en grupos de WhatsApp y Telegram.“Miro las cosas que quiero ver y evito mirar lo que me quieren mostrar”, dijo José Luiz Chaves Fonseca, ingeniero de turbinas para plataformas petroleras en alta mar que este mes asistió disfrazado como Bolsonaro al mitin al norte de Río de Janeiro. “Si todos pensaran así, no serían engañados”.“Miro las cosas que quiero ver y evito mirar lo que me quieren mostrar”, dijo José Luiz Chaves Fonseca, quien acudió a un mitin caracterizado como Bolsonaro.Maria Magdalena Arrellaga para The New York TimesMuchas de las dudas sobre el sistema electoral tienen sus raíces en hechos reales, pero se tergiversan y enmarcan como prueba de que algo anda mal. Da Silva, por ejemplo, fue condenado por cargos de corrupción, que luego fueron anulados, por lo que Bolsonaro y sus seguidores lo caracterizan como un ladrón preparado para robar el voto.En 2018, piratas informáticos se infiltraron en la red informática de la agencia electoral de Brasil, y Bolsonaro y sus partidarios citan con frecuencia ese incidente como prueba de fraude. “Si dicen que las máquinas son tan impenetrables, entonces ¿por qué alguien está en la cárcel por forzar una máquina de votación?”, preguntó Alessandra Stoll Ranzni, diseñadora de São Paulo, durante la versión brasileña de CPAC, la conferencia política conservadora, a principios de este año.Una investigación mostró que los piratas informáticos no podían acceder a las máquinas de votación ni cambiar los totales de los votos.No todos los partidarios de Bolsonaro son tan escépticos. Vinícius Ramos, de 32 años, trabajador del gobierno al norte de Río de Janeiro, refirió que cuenta con un título en seguridad de redes y que no pensaba igual que muchas de las personas que lo rodeaban en un mitin reciente.“El sistema de votación nacional brasileño es uno de los más seguros del mundo”, dijo. “El hecho de que vote por él no significa que esté de acuerdo con todo lo que dice”.André Spigariol More

The question is most urgent in Arizona, where two of the former president’s loyalists may well become governor and secretary of state.It’s a nightmare scenario for American democracy: The officials in charge of certifying an election refuse to do so, setting off a blizzard of litigation and possibly a constitutional crisis.And there are worrying signs that the fears of independent scholars, Democrats and a few anti-Trump Republicans could become a reality. We could soon be in legal terra incognita, they said — like the days when medieval cartographers would write “Here Be Dragons” along the unexplored edges of world maps.“It would be completely unprecedented,” said Nathaniel Persily, an elections expert at Stanford University. “I hate to be apocalyptic,” he added, but the United States could be headed for the kind of electoral chaos that “our system is incapable of handling.”In Arizona, Kari Lake, a charismatic former television anchor, and Mark Finchem, a state lawmaker, have a very good chance of becoming governor and secretary of state. Both are ardent supporters of Donald Trump and his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.On Friday, a group sponsored by Representative Liz Cheney, the vice chairwoman of the House committee investigating the Capitol assault, put $500,000 behind a television and digital ad that underscores the alarm some anti-Trump Republicans share about Lake and Finchem.“If you care about the survival of our republic, we cannot give people power who will not honor elections,” Cheney says in the ad. “We must have elected officials who honor that responsibility.”Another reason for the worries about Arizona in particular: Unlike in other states where Trump has promoted election-denying candidates, several of the politicians who pushed back on his calls to overturn the 2020 results will be gone.Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican who resisted Trump’s efforts in 2020, is leaving office after his term is up, as is Attorney General Mark Brnovich, an ally in that opposition. Rusty Bowers, who as the Republican speaker of the State House stood with Ducey and Brnovich, lost his primary this year for a State Senate seat. And even Brnovich, who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate against another election denier, Blake Masters, has shifted his tone about the 2020 election.“Ducey was a little bit of a moderating factor,” said Marc Elias, the Democratic Party’s leading election lawyer. But Ducey was also “willing to tolerate a lot of crazy,” Elias added.The governor is backing Lake, as is the Republican Governors Association, actions that Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist whose group is spending at least $3 million in Arizona opposing Lake and Finchem, called “despicable.” Longwell said that Lake was especially dangerous because of her ability to “talk normal to the normies and crazy to the crazies.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Bracing for a Red Wave: Republicans were already favored to flip the House. Now they are looking to run up the score by vying for seats in deep-blue states.Pennsylvania Senate Race: The debate performance by Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is still recovering from a stroke, has thrust questions of health to the center of the pivotal race and raised Democratic anxieties.G.O.P. Inflation Plans: Republicans are riding a wave of anger over inflation as they seek to recapture Congress, but few economists expect their proposals to bring down rising prices.Polling Analysis: If these poll results keep up, everything from a Democratic hold in the Senate and a narrow House majority to a total G.O.P. rout becomes imaginable, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.What could happen if Lake and Finchem win?The most worrisome scenario, several nonpartisan experts said, is that Finchem and Lake might refuse to fulfill the traditionally ceremonial act of “canvassing” the results of a presidential election under Arizona law, or that the governor could refuse to sign the required “certificate of ascertainment” that is then sent to Washington.Elias’s firm, which has grown to nearly 80 lawyers, would then have to decide whether to sue in state or federal court, or perhaps both, depending on which path was more relevant. But he acknowledged some uncertainty about how that litigation might play out.One new factor in 2024 may be an overhauled Electoral Count Act, which is expected to pass Congress after the midterms. It would create a new panel of three federal judges who would rule on election-related lawsuits, with appeals going directly to the Supreme Court. Proponents say the new panel would allow disputes to be adjudicated more quickly.“It’s not actually all that easy to anoint the loser of an election the winner,” cautioned David Becker, the director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonpartisan group.“The one exception to that is the presidential election,” Becker said, in which there’s an opportunity for a “corrupt individual” to send a slate of electors to Washington that does not reflect the will of voters. If the national Electoral College results were close, a protracted dispute in Arizona could hamper Congress from rapidly determining the overall winner.But Becker said he was more worried about the prospect for political violence fueled by uncertainty than he was about the integrity of the legal system.Neither Lake nor Finchem responded to questions. Finchem has said he would certify the next election “as long as all lawful votes are counted and all votes cast are under the law,” while failing to specify what he means by “lawful.” Finchem has also said that he couldn’t imagine President Biden winning.Employees sorting newly printed mail-in ballots in Phoenix. Republicans in several states have increasingly opposed mail voting and called for a return to hand-counting ballots.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesThe power of a secretary of stateSecretaries of state also have enormous power over elections, though it’s county officials that actually run them.To take just one recent example: Finchem and Lake both support a return to hand-counting ballots, which election experts say would introduce more errors and uncertainty into the process.One rural Arizona county controlled by Republicans, Cochise County, initially planned to count every vote in the midterms by hand — only to back down when Katie Hobbs, the Democratic secretary of state who is running for governor against Lake, threatened to sue.In neighboring Nevada, another G.O.P.-controlled county’s plan to count ballots by hand is on hold after the State Supreme Court ruled the process illegal. The Republican secretary of state, Barbara Cegavske, then ordered the hand-counting process to “cease immediately.” Her possible successor, the Trump-backed Jim Marchant, might have acted differently.One of the Arizona secretary of state’s chief tasks is assembling the elections procedures manual that, once approved by the governor and the attorney general, is distributed to county and local officials. Brnovich refused to accept the 2021 manual proposed by Hobbs, so the state has been using the 2019 edition.The manual is limited to the confines of Arizona election law. But Finchem could tinker with the rules regarding the approval of voter registration, or ballot drop boxes, in ways that subtly favor Republicans, said Jim Barton, an election lawyer in Arizona. He could also adjust the certification procedure for presidential elections.“You can imagine a lot of mischief with all the nitty-gritty stuff that nobody pays attention to,” said Richard Hasen, an elections expert at the University of California, Los Angeles.Looming over all this is a Supreme Court case on elections that is heading to oral arguments this fall.The justices are expected to rule on a previously obscure legal theory called the independent state legislature doctrine. Conservatives argue that the Constitution granted state legislatures, rather than secretaries of state or courts, the full authority to determine how federal elections are carried out; liberals and many legal scholars say that’s nonsense.If the court adopts the most aggressive version of the legal theory, Persily noted, it could raise questions about the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act, adding a new wrinkle of uncertainty.“My hair is on fire” to an even greater degree than it was in 2020, said Hasen, who published a prescient book that year called “Election Meltdown.”What to readNancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, was hospitalized after he was assaulted by someone who broke into the couple’s residence in San Francisco looking for the House speaker. Follow live updates.Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin spends a staggering amount of time on talk radio. And, Reid Epstein writes, it’s paying off in his vital race this year.In Pennsylvania, Dr. Mehmet Oz is struggling in his efforts to win over Black voters, Trip Gabriel reports.In the 24 hours before Elon Musk closed his deal for Twitter, some far-right accounts on Twitter have had a surge in new followers, researchers say.viewfinderThe Philly Cuts barbershop in Philadelphia.Ruth Fremson/The New York TimesA barbershop campaign stopPhilly Cuts is more than a barbershop. It is a community gathering place for exchanging gossip, catching up on the news — and, sometimes, hosting campaign events.Last Saturday, the Democratic nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, stopped in. Before he got there, I saw the barber Damor Cannon, 46, turn to put the finishing touches on the beard of his customer, Michael Woodward.The word “VOTE” was printed on the back of his T-shirt, and the phrase “Philly Cuts for Shapiro” was on the cape draped around Woodward. On either side of the mirror were framed photos of civil rights leaders. The mirror created a third image, reflecting the present alongside the past.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at [email protected]. More

Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, and his Republican rival, Joe O’Dea, will square off in a final debate on Friday night as they both try to win over remaining undecided voters with Election Day just over a week away.The debate, which is taking place at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, follows one on Tuesday night in which the two had a fairly reserved exchange that did not even touch on abortion rights — one of the chief points of contention in the campaign so far. Friday’s showdown is expected to be more aggressive, with a much larger audience. It will begin at 9 p.m. Eastern time and be streamed live.“This is one of our best and last opportunities to show undecided voters who we are and what we stand for: like freedom of choice, protecting public lands, and an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top,” Mr. Bennet said in a fund-raising email sent Friday.Mr. O’Dea, a construction company owner making his first run for public office, has stepped up his criticism of Mr. Bennet, who is seeking a third full term, and the Biden administration, blaming them for rising crime and lax security at the border with Mexico. “There’s a humanitarian crisis at the border,” he said recently on a Fox News radio program, pointing to migrant deaths as well as the smuggling of fentanyl, which he said has killed 1,900 Coloradans, along with other drugs. “We’ve got to put an end to it. Bennet and Biden, they will not treat it like a crisis. I will.”Mr. O’Dea has sought to present himself as a more moderate Republican, and broke with former President Donald J. Trump, a move which brought him a rebuke. Mr. Bennet has emphasized his record on Colorado issues, including obtaining funding for river and conservation projects.The race is not in the top tier of Republican pickup opportunities. But national Republicans say they believe Mr. O’Dea could still have a chance as the party’s candidates have gained momentum in recent weeks, though polls have kept Mr. Bennet in the front throughout the campaign. More

Justin Giboney is a lawyer and political strategist in Atlanta who grew up in the Black church. He says his theological foundation came from his grandfather, who was a bishop in a Black Pentecostal denomination. Giboney is also the president and a co-founder of the AND Campaign, a Christian civic organization meant to represent people of faith who do not fit neatly into either political party.I’ve written before about how I’m intrigued by people and movements that defy our prescribed ideological categories. The AND Campaign, which is based in Atlanta and has 15 chapters across the United States, is one of those. Led almost entirely by young professionals, artists, pastors and community leaders of color, the group advocates voting rights and police reform, leads what it calls a “whole life project” dedicated to reducing abortion and supporting mothers, endorses a “livable wage” and champions other issues that break left and right, in turn.As we approach the midterms, Giboney graciously agreed to speak with me about the state of our politics from the perspective of a person of faith who is also a person of color — what it’s like to embrace traditional Christian theology while also opposing the political stances of many white evangelicals, and what it’s like to be committed to social justice in ways that differ from those of many secular progressives. This interview has been edited for clarity and concision.How do voices of faith that are also voices of color fit into the American political conversation now? Do you feel represented?I don’t feel fully represented. In part, that’s because the culture war has set a framework in which progressivism and conservatism, as defined in white majority spaces, are billed as the only two legitimate options. That framework has been so effective that a lot of people can’t even discuss politics outside of this “progressive versus conservative” framework.But that’s not, historically speaking, how many Black Christians have engaged. Our view of social justice is often different than the secular progressive view. It’s not about individual expression. It’s about liberation through civil rights, equity, full citizenship and making sure that we have an impartial system. That’s not to say there’s no overlap. But, on the whole, the roots of the secular progressive view are in your 1970s counterculture movement, whereas ours come from an Exodus motif of liberation.There’s no better example than Georgia’s senatorial race.You have Herschel Walker, who I think is completely missing the social justice component found in the Black church.And then Raphael Warnock, who has endorsed the secular progressive kind-of -donor-class view of social issues. These values deal primarily with expressive individualism, such as far-left positions regarding gender identity, abortion and pushback on parental consent. Jonathan Haidt has described them as WEIRD (White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) values. He says, “they hold that people are, first and foremost, autonomous individuals with wants, needs and preferences” that should be supported unless they directly hurt others. These cultures largely focus on an ethic of autonomy. This is counter to an ethic of community.In my opinion, Warnock is far more qualified than Walker. But neither of them truly represents the constituency in the way we would hope.When I was running campaigns, it became very clear to me that there was this false dichotomy in politics. If you cared about social justice, you went all the way to the left. And if you were a Christian, that meant you left some of your convictions aside.If you cared about what we would say is “moral order,” then you would go all the way to the right. And we know that when you look at the Moral Majority and things like that, compassion just was not there.Looking at the Black church historically, it touched on both those things, but very differently. Why are social justice and moral order separate? Why is our conception of love and truth completely separate? Because when I look in the Gospels, they’re not separate. They’re interdependent. They’re not mutually exclusive.As parties become more polarized, are we leaving behind voices of color?I think voices of color are being left behind. The two extremes on both sides — devoted conservatives and progressive activists — are like 6 percent and 8 percent of the population, but they’re both white and wealthy. And they control the dialogue.On the Democratic side, you could say, “We have all these conversations about inclusion and representation,” but Democrats don’t just welcome all Black people with open arms. You have to be willing to fit into this secular, progressive mold.While people like to use civil rights and Black church symbolism and rhetoric, they don’t want the faith and the precepts that are attached to it. So I think it’s up to us to kind of step up and say: “No, here we are. We are a force to be reckoned with.”What would it look like for parties to do a better job of including people of faith who are people of color? What would you say to white conservatives and white liberals?On the right, you have to stop harboring and pandering to racists. I think there’s a group in the Republican Party — you saw this in the Trump campaign, you saw this with what Senator Tuberville recently said — who feel like they need these votes. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like the Southern strategy has ever completely died.You cannot continue to use race to motivate people who are bigoted. And when you don’t speak up against that, racism will remain in your party.On the left, I think it’s about not demanding ideological purity. As long as everyone has to fit these donor class values, then you’re not going to let in people who have nuanced views. You’re only going to allow people to rise up to high office and party leadership that already fit what you want. Which kind of makes the representation and inclusion rhetoric disingenuous, right? True pluralism and true inclusion are more than just accepting different flavors of progressivism.When you really appreciate Black people, that means you don’t just tolerate the Black people who say exactly what you would have them say on social issues or on any other issue. You can use identity politics to say, “Here, that’s your representation.” But that’s not my representation if that person had to jump through your hoops and contort herself to fit a framework that doesn’t fit her community.Do you feel like Black people of faith are politically homeless today?I absolutely do. I mean, you look at somebody like Fannie Lou Hamer or William Augustus Jones. These are activists who fought hard, but because of their beliefs on some social issues, they wouldn’t be accepted into leadership or given exposure within the Democratic Party today. Fannie Lou Hamer was pro-life and William Augustus Jones promoted a Christian sexual ethic and family values in general. These are civil rights legends who in today’s iteration of the party would not be accepted based on their more moderate or traditional values on social issues.Do you understand yourself to be a moderate?We’re not trying to find some squishy middle. We’re just not going to say we’re always with progressives or always with conservatives. If that makes me a moderate, because I’m not always on one side, then so be it. But I’m going to evaluate issues based on my own framework and beliefs.The conservative and progressive approaches are not the only way to approach politics. Everything that doesn’t fit isn’t illegitimate. Once we realize those aren’t the only two approaches, then we open up space for people of color, people of faith and others who are politically homeless to really have a voice and help heal something that’s been broken and won’t be fixed by either of those two sides.What is your hope for politics?My biggest hope is that people of faith who want to engage in politics faithfully would find the AND Campaign to be a place where they can find resources to do that and have on-ramps to getting engaged in that way. And that we would — even though we’re coming from this Black church context — be able to bring the church together, to work together and put partisanship aside.And lastly, that we would be able to promote a sort of civic pluralism. To say: “Hey, it’s not just about Christians winning. It’s about human flourishing in general.” How can we work with others while maintaining our convictions? How can we work with others to do democracy better?Tish Harrison Warren (@Tish_H_Warren) is a priest in the Anglican Church in North America and the author of “Prayer in the Night: For Those Who Work or Watch or Weep.” More

PHILADELPHIA — Back in July, Dr. Mehmet Oz paid a campaign visit to Mike Monroe’s barbershop in West Philadelphia.“Shop has been empty ever since,” Mr. Monroe joked the other day, as he buzzed the head of a customer in a gold-painted chair in his spacious business, ESPM Hair Zone.Dr. Oz’s visit was part of the Republican’s attempt to reach Black voters in Pennsylvania’s most Democratic city as he runs for the Senate. The issues that he invariably highlights during his campaign stops in Philadelphia — the fentanyl epidemic, a grim homicide toll and street crime — are also top worries for Mr. Monroe, who enlists other barbers to mentor young Black men to stop gun violence.But Mr. Monroe said he would most likely vote for Dr. Oz’s Democratic opponent, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman. “I think everybody around here will vote for Fetterman,” he said.Philadelphia’s Black voters, who are historically deeply loyal to Democrats, are increasingly crucial to the Fetterman campaign, as polls show the Senate race in a statistical tie, and following Tuesday’s debate between the two candidates. Mr. Fetterman, who is recovering from a stroke, often struggled in the debate to express himself clearly, injecting unpredictability into the race and raising the stakes for Mr. Fetterman to turn out core Democrats.Despite Dr. Oz’s multiple campaign visits to Philadelphia — and millions of dollars in Republican TV ads attacking Mr. Fetterman as soft on crime — interviews with Black voters in Philadelphia, as well as Black elected Democratic officials and strategists, suggested support for Dr. Oz among African Americans remained small.Nor has a Republican attack ad about a 2013 episode in which Mr. Fetterman, as the mayor of Braddock, Pa., stopped a Black jogger using a shotgun, seemed to have landed with many Philadelphia voters. Few Black voters interviewed were aware of the episode. In the debate, Mr. Fetterman said he made “a split-second decision” as “the chief law enforcement officer” of Braddock.“We see this every cycle, folks who clearly don’t have policy interests in the Black community, like Oz, will come in to show up and try to siphon” off voters, said State Senator Vincent Hughes, a Democrat who represents West Philadelphia. “They’re trying to get a point here, a point there, and cut into a base of votes that historically has been solidly Democratic — for good reasons.”Nonetheless, the Fetterman campaign faces the challenge of motivating Black voters to turn out in an election climate when inflation is squeezing Americans and when many Black voters, especially young people, feel that the Biden administration has not delivered on its promises.“I think everybody around here will vote for Fetterman,” said Mike Monroe, cutting hair recently at his Philadelphia barbershop.Hannah Beier for The New York TimesCassandra McIntosh, 27, voted for Mr. Biden in 2020. But she said “he’s not doing enough,” and plans to skip this year’s election. The mother of a 5-year-old and an 8-year-old, Ms. McIntosh was shopping recently on 52nd Street, a West Philadelphia commercial corridor.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Bracing for a Red Wave: Republicans were already favored to flip the House. Now they are looking to run up the score by vying for seats in deep-blue states.Pennsylvania Senate Race: The debate performance by Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is still recovering from a stroke, has thrust questions of health to the center of the pivotal race and raised Democratic anxieties.G.O.P. Inflation Plans: Republicans are riding a wave of anger over inflation as they seek to recapture Congress, but few economists expect their proposals to bring down rising prices.Polling Analysis: If these poll results keep up, everything from a Democratic hold in the Senate and a narrow House majority to a total G.O.P. rout becomes imaginable, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.She mentioned Mr. Fetterman “letting prisoners out of jail,” a reference to his chairmanship of the state Board of Pardons, a ubiquitous target in Republican attack ads. Of Dr. Oz, she added, “I don’t want to vote for him either too much.”In 2020, President Biden’s support in some majority-Black wards in Philadelphia was as high as 97 percent, exceeding the 92 percent of Black votes he won nationally. But a hoped-for turnout surge by African Americans in the city did not materialize. Mr. Biden’s narrow victory in Pennsylvania largely relied on his blowout margins in the suburbs, where former President Donald J. Trump was toxic for many voters.Mr. Fetterman faces a related challenge in 2022.If Dr. Oz can improve on Mr. Trump’s suburban margins — a possibility without the former president on the ballot — Mr. Fetterman will have to compensate by drawing an even higher turnout than usual for a midterm, both in Philadelphia and in rural counties.“It’s absolutely critical,” Joe Pierce, Mr. Fetterman’s statewide political director, said of Philadelphia’s Black vote. “We need Black voter turnout. We need it in high numbers.”State Representative Malcolm Kenyatta, a Democrat from the city, said he had three words for the Fetterman campaign: “‘Philadelphia’ and ‘Black voters.’”“These are voters who are not voting for Dr. Oz, let me be very clear,” Mr. Kenyatta said on a liberal podcast, The Wilderness. “But the question is, are they going to stay home just because they’re frustrated? And I hear that frustration every single day.”In interviews, he and other Democratic officials and strategists said Dr. Oz’s regular refrain about violent crime in Philadelphia — where homicides are on track to exceed 2021’s record 561 killings — ring hollow with Black voters, because he has failed to support meaningful solutions. Democrats favor stronger gun safety laws, public investments in schools and housing, and a higher minimum wage..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Last week, Dr. Oz released an anti-crime plan that includes stiffer penalties for carjacking and illegal guns, maintaining cash bail and securing “every inch” of the Southwest border.A Black G.O.P. leader in Philadelphia, Calvin Tucker, predicted that Dr. Oz would do well in the city. “He’s going into barbershops,” he said. “He’s walked some of the commercial business corridors in the African American community — I believe he’s touching people at the local level.”Democrats said the real audience for Dr. Oz’s highlighting of crime in Philadelphia — including a stroll with TV cameras through a notorious neighborhood of open opioid use — were voters outside the city.“It’s about how to get certain suburban white women to be so scared of the boogeyman that they vote for the Republican,” said Kellan White, a Democratic strategist in Philadelphia, who is African American. “I don’t think my grandmother is motivated by this.”Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, campaigning last week in Harmony, Pa.Jared Wickerham for The New York TimesDr. Oz’s outreach to Black Philadelphians comes with a made-for-TV polish, reminiscent of the long-running “Dr. Oz Show” he hosted. At an anti-crime event in South Philadelphia, billed as a “community discussion,” he called on speakers from among an invited audience of 30. The audience surrounded the candidate on three sides and faced a media contingent as numerous as the guests.A Black pastor said it was easier to buy fentanyl than baby formula on many blocks. A white woman from outside the city said her husband “gave me one rule: Do not go to Philadelphia by yourself.” Dr. Oz lamented an epidemic of “crime and drugs that are creating lawlessness in the southeast of Pennsylvania.”Several of the Black speakers had participated in a similar forum a month earlier in Northwest Philadelphia. That event included a poignant account by a woman recalling a brother and a nephew who had been gunned down in the city, eliciting a hug from Dr. Oz. But the woman turned out to be a paid campaign employee, a detail that was not disclosed at the time.Media outlets reported how Dr. Oz asked the woman, Sheila Armstrong, “How do you cope?” Her identity was later flagged by the Fetterman campaign and reported by The Intercept.Earlier this year, the Republican National Committee opened with fanfare a field office in Northwest Philadelphia to reach Black voters. On the day Dr. Oz was in South Philadelphia, the center was locked tight and unoccupied. Workers at a pizzeria and a hair salon across the street said they had not seen any activity there in weeks. Republican National Committee officials did not respond to several requests for comment asking about the office.The day after Dr. Oz’s latest foray to the city, Glorice Bervine, 72, who was shopping on 52nd Street, said she does not usually vote in midterms but will this year. “I don’t want to see those two turkeys in office,” she said, referring to both Dr. Oz and Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor.Ms. Bervine, who works in retailing, lives in Kensington, the neighborhood that Dr. Oz had visited to witness open drug use, picking a needle off the ground to show to TV cameras.“Excuse me, coming down when you’re running for office does not equate you being there for the people,” Ms. Bervine said. “He’s not going to do a damn thing about it — what he wants is votes.”Dr. Oz at a discussion this month on crime and policing in Philadelphia.Hannah Beier for The New York TimesNor was Ms. Bervine swayed by attack ads aimed at Mr. Fetterman’s advocacy for clemency for long-incarcerated men. “I know enough to know that there are a lot of men that are in prison that shouldn’t be in prison,” she said.That was a common point of view on 52nd Street, a formerly grand corridor of Black entertainment and commerce that has struggled in recent years. Some businesses were damaged during unrest in 2020 over police shootings of Black people nationally. Banners fixed to lamp posts urge, “Never Lose Hope.”On the sidewalk outside a secondhand appliance store, Barry Williams, 67, was cleaning a stove with steel wool.A homeowner, he was concerned about rising costs — “the food taxes, the property tax, gas — first it went down, then it went right back up again.”But Mr. Williams, who said he was a Democrat who voted regularly, pushed back on the Republican message that inflation was tied to Democratic policies in Washington. “I think it’s everybody’s fault,” he said. “I can’t blame it on the Democrats.”Desean Prosser was registering voters on the street, clipboard in hand. He was the only person interviewed who brought up the episode in which Mr. Fetterman stopped the Black jogger in 2013, shotgun in hand. Mr. Fetterman has said he acted spontaneously after hearing gunshots; the jogger turned out to be unarmed.“It should be” an issue, Mr. Prosser said. “It would be for me.”“Oz has got a shot because he’s not a politician,” Mr. Prosser said. “Just like Donald Trump, we’re willing to give somebody who’s not a politician a chance.”Yasmin Jones, who wore a crystal-beaded face mask, said she was a straight-ticket Democratic voter and planned to cast a ballot this year. “Maybe my vote might make a difference,” she said.Ms. Jones did not know a lot about either candidate. “What is Dr. Oz going for?” she asked. Told it was the Senate, she replied, making a reference to his career as a TV doctor: “He shouldn’t try to do that. He should stay in his lane.” More

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is transferring a fresh infusion of cash to the campaign of Representative Tom Malinowski, he confirmed in a text message.Committee officials who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the committee’s strategy described the money only as a six-figure investment, but Mr. Malinowski, the most vulnerable Democrat in New Jersey’s congressional delegation, said he welcomed the help.The transfer would allow Mr. Malinowski to purchase television advertising at cheaper rates than the group could secure on its own. It comes after a New Jersey political tipsheet claimed that the committee had left Mr. Malinowski to “largely fend for himself” — which he said was false. The committee previously assisted Mr. Malinowski with $95,000 worth of advertising.Mr. Malinowski, who was first elected in 2018 and won re-election two years later by a few thousand votes, is in a tight rematch against Thomas Kean, Jr., the son of a popular former Republican governor. His district, an upscale suburban area of the state, grew slightly more friendly to Republicans after New Jersey Democrats redrew the state’s congressional map this year.Mr. Kean’s allies have hammered Mr. Malinowski with ads citing an investigation by the House Ethics Committee into claims that he failed to properly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock trades, an error he has taken responsibility for and said resulted from carelessness.A former State Department official and human rights expert, Mr. Malinowski is one of the more conservative House Democrats. He has raised more than $7.5 million in this campaign cycle, according to federal campaign finance data, but has been heavily outspent overall.The House Majority PAC, a group close to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has supported Mr. Malinowski with nearly $1.5 million in television advertising, while its Republican counterpart and other allied groups have spent at least $10 million so far, according to AdImpact.In a text message, Mr. Malinowski acknowledged that the committee’s transfer was “not huge,” but said that with the PAC’s help and “my own solid fund-raising, we’re holding our own.” More