Elections

Some experts link Liz Truss’s downfall to the ripple effect of Britain’s departure from the European Union and the bitter, ideologically opposed factions it created in her party.LONDON — When Prime Minister Liz Truss of Britain resigned on Thursday after only 44 days in office, she spoke almost wistfully about how the collapse of her economic plans meant she would never achieve her goal of creating a “low-tax, high-growth economy that would take advantage of the freedoms of Brexit.”Her nostalgia for Britain’s exit from the European Union might be misplaced, at least when it comes to her Conservative Party. Brexit is the fault line that runs through Ms. Truss’s ill-fated attempt to transform Britain’s economy, just as it ran through Prime Minister Theresa May’s doomed government, and David Cameron’s before hers.Except for Boris Johnson, who was forced out because of scandals related to his personal conduct, the forces unleashed by Brexit have undone every Conservative prime minister since 2016. They have also severely divided the party, creating bitter, ideologically opposed factions seemingly more interested in warring with each other than in governing a country with the world’s sixth-largest economy.Ms. Truss’s calamitous tenure, critics said, is the most extreme example of post-Brexit politics that have now brought the Conservatives to crisis. In the process, it has damaged Britain’s economic standing, its credibility in the markets, and its reputation with the public, which is watching a leadership contest that may return Mr. Johnson to the helm of a party that tossed him out only three months ago.Prime Minister Liz Truss after announcing her resignation on Thursday at Downing Street in London.Daniel Leal/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“The Conservatives are never going to recover the coherence that will make for good governance,” said Timothy Garton Ash, a professor of European studies at Oxford University. “This is a party that is tearing itself apart.”He traced the party’s unraveling from the 2016 referendum, called by Mr. Cameron, through Mrs. May’s futile efforts to craft a softer form of Brexit, to the uncompromising “hard Brexit” of Mr. Johnson, and finally to Ms. Truss’s experiment in trickle-down economics, which he said bore all of the hallmarks of Brexit thinking, from the derision of expert opinion to the disregard of Britain’s neighbors and the market.“It’s taking the logic of Brexit to the absurd,” said Professor Garton Ash, who has long lamented the vote to leave.Ms. Truss’s tax cuts made Britain an outlier among Western countries, but the factionalism of post-Brexit Britain plagues other European countries, from Italy to Germany, as well as the United States, where some may view the potential return of Mr. Johnson as a harbinger for another restless populist, Donald J. Trump.In announcing her trickle-down policies, Ms. Truss was an evangelist for a particular model of Brexit, an agile, fast-growing, lightly regulated Britain that its backers once branded Singapore-on-Thames. Whether that is a viable economic construct was never tested. Her policies were swiftly rejected by the markets because they were judged to be reckless at a time of double-digit inflation.More on the Situation in BritainA Rapid Downfall: Liz Truss is about to become the shortest-serving prime minister in British history. How did she get there?Lifelong Allowance: The departing prime minister is eligible for a taxpayer-funded annual payout for the rest of her life. Some say she shouldn’t be allowed to receive it.Staging a Comeback?: When Boris Johnson left his role as prime minister in September, he hinted he might return. He is now being mentioned as a successor to Ms. Truss.But Ms. Truss faced equally hostile forces within her own cabinet, which are fueled by the same nationalistic passions that drove Brexit.Suella Braverman, the home secretary whom Ms. Truss fired last week ostensibly for violating security rules, attacked Ms. Truss for abandoning the party’s promise to cut down immigration numbers. The prime minister talks tough about illegal immigrants, too, but her policies were shaping up to be more moderate because she believes new arrivals are needed to accelerate Britain’s growth.The clash between Ms. Truss and Ms. Braverman was part of a bigger clash between rival camps in the party — a free-market, libertarian wing, exemplified by the prime minister, and a hard-line anti-immigration wing, represented by Ms. Braverman. Those views, Ms. Braverman argues, are critical to retaining the loyalty of working-class voters in the north of England, who used to back the Labour Party but who propelled the Conservatives to a landslide general election victory in 2019.Suella Braverman, a Conservative Party hard-liner on immigration.Tolga Akmen/EPA, via ShutterstockThe party also has a centrist faction — personified by Ms. Truss’s chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt — which embraces small-government, business-friendly policies that predate Brexit. The centrists regained some influence after the market’s repudiation of Ms. Truss, when she was forced to hand over the Treasury to Mr. Hunt and the home office to one of his allies, Grant Shapps.Some major party figures, like Rishi Sunak, who served as chancellor under Mr. Johnson and is expected to run in next week’s leadership contest, do not fit neatly into a single group. He voted in favor of Brexit but opposed Ms. Truss’s tax cuts, warning that they would cause havoc in the markets.Quarrels over Britain’s relationship with Europe date back decades in the Conservative Party, of course. Mr. Cameron had little choice but to resign after failing to persuade voters to reject a motion to leave in his referendum. Mrs. May was forced out by her party’s lawmakers after trying to strike compromises with the European Union that made her look, to some, as too conciliatory.With Mr. Johnson having led Britain out of the European Union in 2020, the battles are now over how to shape its post-Brexit society. But they still revolve to a great degree around Europe-related issues, like the flow of asylum seekers across the English Channel or trade rules in Northern Ireland. Pressure from the party’s hard-liners forced Mr. Johnson and Ms. Truss to toughen their approach to Northern Ireland, for example.“The factions are on display in this leadership campaign,” said Tony Travers, a professor of politics at the London School of Economics. “But this is now on a bigger scale and profoundly affects what was once the incredible adherence of the Conservative Party to common-sense and pragmatism.”It also helps explain why Mr. Johnson, who only six weeks ago left Downing Street under a wreath of scandal that prompted a wholesale mutiny of Conservative lawmakers and a mass walkout of his ministers, suddenly finds himself a plausible candidate to retake control of the party. He returned on Saturday from a vacation in the Dominican Republic to lobby lawmakers for votes.Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson is one of three top contenders to replace Ms. Truss as prime minister.Alberto Pezzali/Associated PressMany Conservative lawmakers, fearful of losing their seats in the next general election, yearn for the political magic of “Get Brexit Done,” the upbeat slogan that Mr. Johnson used to unite the party’s affluent southeastern suburbanites with the so-called red wall voters in the Midlands and north. They are willing to accept Mr. Johnson, even with his ethical flaws, for the big-tent appeal he once commanded.“The advantage that Boris has is that he’s not interested in these factions,” Professor Travers said. “He’s not interested in ideology but in power. And the reason the members want him back is because they think he can help them stay in power.”As prime minister, Mr. Johnson did not hesitate to exploit populist passions. His government began the practice of putting asylum seekers on flights to Rwanda, drawing condemnation from human-rights lawyers and activists.But Mr. Johnson also oversaw a costly state intervention in the economy to insulate people from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. And his signature program involved spending hundreds of billions of pounds on high-speed trains and other projects to “level up” corroded cities in the north with more prosperous London.Ms. Truss said comparatively little about leveling up. One of the first moves made by her first choice as chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, was to scrap a limit on bonuses paid to bankers, a move intended to appease London’s financial district.The problem for Mr. Johnson, if he were to run and win, is that he would have far fewer financial resources this time around to govern as a big-state Conservative. Mr. Hunt has warned that the government will have to make “eye-wateringly difficult” decisions about which programs to cut. Britain’s need to rebuild its shattered credibility with investors will require strict fiscal discipline.Jeremy Hunt represents a centrist faction of the Conservative Party.Henry Nicholls/ReutersBritain’s economic troubles, experts say, cannot be blamed wholly or even mainly on Brexit. While its departure from the European Union has tightened the labor market and hampered trade, Britain’s growth never recovered after the financial crisis of 2008. Its depleted public services are a legacy of the austerity of Mr. Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne, which predated Brexit.Still, the often-ruthless tactics of the “Vote Leave” campaign, critics say, planted the seeds for the Truss government’s mishandling of economic policy. Campaigners for Brexit famously argued that the country should ignore experts who warned that leaving the European Union would exact a high cost. They brandished spurious figures about the cost for Britain of remaining in the bloc.This experts-be-damned philosophy was the underpinning of Ms. Truss’s economic plan. When Mr. Kwarteng announced the tax cuts, he refused to submit them to scrutiny by the government’s independent watchdog. He fired the most senior civil servant at the Treasury, Tom Scholar, a sign of his disdain for economic orthodoxy.“It wasn’t so much the fact of Brexit, or even the referendum itself, but the dishonesty of the referendum campaign,” said Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London. “They took a lesson from that, which was that dishonesty and trashing institutions was a way to success.” More

More than 5.5 million people have cast ballots in person or by mail. Experts predict high turnout in the midterm elections.Days into early voting in the 2022 midterm elections, states across the country have seen a surge of voters casting ballots at in-person voting sites and by mail, the latest sign that the 2020 election ushered in a transformation in the way Americans vote.Through the first five days of early voting in Georgia, in-person turnout is up 70 percent compared with turnout in the 2018 midterm elections, according to the secretary of state’s office. In North Carolina, absentee ballot requests are up 114 percent compared with requests in 2018, according to the board of elections. And in Florida, the total early vote is up 50 percent compared with the early vote in 2018.Election experts say the signs suggest overall turnout will be strong. But they are quick to caution that it is still early in the voting calendar — many states are less than a week in and some have not started. With voters’ behaviors so clearly changed by pandemic-era rules, it is unclear whether this rush to vote will lead to record-breaking totals after Election Day on Nov. 8.Still, one significant shift in how American elections are conducted has become clear: Election Day has become, and will most likely always be, election month.“There has been a sea change of voter attitudes that has not abated,” said John Couvillon, a pollster who has worked with Republican candidates. “When you do a culture shift like that, you never go 100 percent back to the way things were for the simple reason that people, who out of habit may have been happy voting on Election Day, said, ‘Wait a minute, I can vote from the convenience of my kitchen table? This is so much simpler.’”States across the country have seen a surge in both early in-person voting and absentee voting this midterm election season.Hannah Beier, Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesNationally, 5.5 million voters had cast ballots as of Thursday, according to Mr. Couvillon’s count. Democrats make up 51 percent of those voters and Republicans 30 percent. Mr. Couvillon and other analysts did not have data to compare those numbers to 2018. But he noted it was a slight dip from Democrats’ advantage at this point in 2020 — a presidential election year, which always draws a much higher turnout. Then, 17.3 million votes had been cast and the partisan split was 55 percent Democrat and 26 percent Republican. Some states, such as Arizona, were following a similar trend, he said.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.But the tailing off for Democrats is only marginal, and many election experts view the energy in both parties as another sign of a high-turnout election.“We’re seeing both sides being really energized this time around, which is pretty unique to a midterm cycle,” said Patrick Ruffini, a Republican pollster. “Normally, the out party is just far more energized and enthused about voting.” More

If the ex-president turns down the drama of testifying, his legal team could mount several constitutional and procedural arguments in court.WASHINGTON — If former President Donald J. Trump decides to fight the subpoena issued to him on Friday by the House committee investigating his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, his lawyers are likely to muster a battery of constitutional and procedural arguments for why a court should allow him not to testify.In the most basic sense, any legal arguments seeking to get Mr. Trump off the hook would merely need to be weighty enough to produce two and a half months of litigation. If Republicans pick up enough seats in the midterm elections to take over the House in January, as polls suggest is likely, they are virtually certain to shut down the Jan. 6 committee, a move that would invalidate the subpoena.The issues raised by the extraordinary subpoena, which the panel announced at a hearing last week, are too complex to be definitively resolved before a potential change of power in the House, said Mark J. Rozell, a George Mason University professor and author of “Executive Privilege: Presidential Power, Secrecy and Accountability.”“We are in a constitutional gray area here where there is no clear guidance as to exactly what should happen,” Mr. Rozell said. “That gives the former president some leeway to put forward various creative legal arguments and ultimately delay the process until it doesn’t matter anymore.”Several former presidents have voluntarily testified before Congress, including Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Harry S. Truman and Gerald Ford. But there is no Supreme Court precedent that says whether Congress has the power to compel former presidents to testify against their will about their actions in office.There are two historical precedents, but neither generated court rulings. In 1846, the House subpoenaed two former presidents, John Quincy Adams and John Tyler, for an investigation into allegations of misspending by a secretary of state. According to a Congressional Research Service report, Tyler testified and Adams submitted a deposition.A subpoena of testimony from Harry S. Truman was eventually dropped by the House after he refused to honor it.The New York TimesAnd in 1953, the House Committee on Un-American Activities subpoenaed Truman. But while he later voluntarily testified before Congress on other topics, Truman refused to honor the committee’s subpoena, claiming that as a former chief executive he was immune from compelled testimony by the legislative branch. The House let the matter drop.One open question, then, is whether Truman was right. Should Mr. Trump’s legal team choose to argue that he was, one Supreme Court precedent could prove relevant: In 1982, the court ruled that former presidents are immune from being sued for damages over official decisions they made while in office.In that case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the majority reasoned that presidents must be able to perform their constitutional duties without being inhibited by the fear that a decision could risk making them liable to pay civil damages after they leave office. The question in Mr. Trump’s case would be whether a president could be similarly hindered by a fear of being forced to testify in front of Congress.Mr. Trump’s legal team could also invoke executive privilege in an attempt to ward off the subpoena. In another case involving Richard Nixon, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in 1974 that a Senate committee investigating the Watergate scandal could not force Nixon, then the sitting president, to turn over tapes of his Oval Office conversations.The appeals court ruled that the Senate’s need for the tapes was not enough to overcome the presumption of confidentiality guarding the presidential decision-making process. That general confidentiality is important, courts decided, so that presidents can receive candid advice from their aides about how best to carry out their constitutional functions.(More famously, about three months later, the Supreme Court upheld a subpoena by the Watergate prosecutor for the tapes, citing the greater need for them in a criminal proceeding. Soon after, Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached.)Unlike Nixon in 1974, however, Mr. Trump is now a former — not a sitting — president, and his claims to executive privilege would be weaker. The current officeholder, President Biden, who has greater authority to invoke or withhold executive privilege, might not support him..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.Notably, Mr. Biden declined to support an earlier attempt by Mr. Trump to invoke executive privilege to keep the Jan. 6 committee from subpoenaing the National Archives for White House records. The Supreme Court, ruling against Mr. Trump, declined to block the subpoena, although it did so in a way that left unresolved the scope of an ex-president’s powers under executive privilege.Still, courts might view forcing a former president to show up at the Capitol and testify under oath differently than obtaining documents. Mr. Biden might also be more reluctant to establish a precedent that could help a Republican-controlled Congress subpoena him for testimony.Mr. Trump could also try to mount a procedural argument that the subpoena is invalid.That tactic has been used by nearly 30 people — among them, former aides to Mr. Trump — who have filed lawsuits seeking to quash subpoenas from the Jan. 6 committee. Many of these witnesses have argued the panel was improperly constituted and the subpoenas are insufficiently connected to writing laws.The first argument goes like this: The House resolution authorizing the committee envisioned that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would appoint 13 members, including five in consultation with Republican leadership. But the panel has only nine members, and neither of its two Republicans — Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — were endorsed by the minority leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, who boycotted the process after Ms. Pelosi rejected several of his choices.As for the second, lawyers for the witnesses have argued that the subpoenas were not sent with the goal of assisting Congress in its role in drafting laws, but rather as a politically motivated fishing expedition for embarrassing information about Mr. Trump.In 1974, a Senate committee investigating the Watergate scandal could not force Richard Nixon, then the sitting president, to turn over tapes of his Oval Office conversations.Eddie Hausner/The New York TimesMost of the lawsuits challenging the subpoenas on these — and other — grounds are still working their way through the courts. But in May, a federal judge in Washington dismissed both of the arguments claiming the subpoenas were invalid in a case the Republican National Committee brought against the panel.That ruling, however, was vacated several months later by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after the committee dropped its subpoena for the Republican National Committee.A Federal District Court judge also rejected claims that the committee’s subpoenas were invalid in the criminal prosecution of Stephen K. Bannon, a former adviser to Mr. Trump, who was sentenced to four months in prison on Friday for defying a subpoena from the House panel.In a ruling in the case, Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointee, noted that the full House had voted to hold Mr. Bannon and others who defied subpoenas in contempt, indicating that the body viewed the committee’s subpoena as valid. Judge Nichols said courts must defer to the House’s interpretation of its own rules, so he “cannot conclude as a matter of law that the committee was invalidly constituted.”Still, rulings by district court judges are not definitive precedents, leaving much to litigate.It also remains unclear which route to court a fight over the Trump subpoena could take. Mr. Trump might file his own suit asking a judge to quash it. Or he could wait for the House to try to enforce its subpoena.One way for that to happen would be for the full chamber to vote on whether to hold him in contempt and to refer the matter to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution, as it did for Mr. Bannon.It would then be up to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to decide whether to bring a criminal charge. The Jan. 6 committee could also file its own lawsuit against Mr. Trump seeking a judicial order that he comply. In August 2019, for example, the House Judiciary Committee sued Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, who at Mr. Trump’s direction defied its subpoena seeking his testimony about Mr. Trump’s obstruction of the Russia investigation.The lawsuit set off a series of convoluted legal fights over constitutional issues and was still pending even when Mr. Biden became president in January 2021. That underscores the lack of time for extended litigation in Mr. Trump’s case.Aides to Mr. Trump have said that he has weighed whether to testify, but only under the condition that it be live and on television. That would deprive the committee of controlling what gets seen or from releasing only selected excerpts.Mr. Rozell said that was not surprising.“If Trump is going to go out there and make himself vulnerable, he’s going to do it in a public way,” he said. “It’s going to be a Trump show, and he’ll be playing to his own crowd. At that point, legal argument and nuances would be out the window.” More

The states are asking voters whether to amend constitutions that have exceptions to slavery bans. Some hope that the changes could allow prisoners to challenge the practice of being forced into labor for little or no pay.Voters in five U.S. states where slavery or involuntary servitude remains legal as a punishment for people who are convicted of crimes will vote next month on whether to ban the practices outright.If passed, the measures in Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont could open a door for prisoners there to challenge forced prison labor, for which most are paid pennies per hour and in some cases not at all.Legal experts cautioned that the ballot measures would not likely have any immediate legal effects if they passed, but prisoners and their advocates say the measures would send an instant message that Americans’ freedom from slavery does not hinge on whether they have committed a crime.“Nothing in the Constitution is just symbolic,” said Curtis Ray Davis II, who said he earned 2 cents an hour picking cotton, okra, squash and other crops in Louisiana’s fields while imprisoned. “We do not need to enslave people in order to punish them.”The measures, which are on the Nov. 8 ballots, have drawn criticism from some lawmakers who say that the changes are unnecessary or confusing. In one state, a former sponsor said the proposal was so ambiguous that he has started urging people to vote against it.Here’s what to know about the proposed changes.What is prison labor used for?The American Civil Liberties Union estimated in a report this year that prisoners produced more than $2 billion in goods annually and provided more than $9 billion worth of services while being paid an average of 13 to 52 cents per hour.Their jobs vary widely, and include doing laundry, serving food in prisons, building furniture for colleges and schools, and manufacturing license plates. Several states — including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas — pay prisoners nothing for most jobs, according to the A.C.L.U. The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.Mr. Davis, who was imprisoned in Louisiana for more than 26 years, said that he and other prisoners spent long, hot days doing farm work, sometimes without enough access to water. He said he grew so frustrated with being forced to do the job for 2 cents an hour that he intentionally dropped a 25-pound dumbbell on his foot so that he would not have to work. Instead, he said, he was sent to solitary confinement as punishment.Claudia M. Flores, a law professor at Yale and an author of the A.C.L.U. report, said much of prisoners’ work went toward running the prison itself.“This is an entire industry of workers that are really maintaining part of our government, part of our state,” Ms. Flores said.She and other experts noted that many prisoners who worked jobs did not want to get rid of prison work because some had been able to learn skills, make some money and be productive with their time“Some people might choose to work and really choose to work, but they should be working with wages and safe conditions and proper training, and maybe even gaining skills for when they reintegrate into society,” Ms. Flores said. Any such proposal would likely come up against opposition from state governments that would be required to either get rid of their work programs or pay a lot more in wages.In California, a proposal to remove from the State Constitution an exception to its ban on indentured servitude was rejected by the State Senate after officials in the administration of Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said it could require the state to pay prison workers the state’s minimum wage of $15 an hour.What could change in the five states that have ballot measures?Each of the five states has a constitution that bans slavery or involuntary servitude for everyone except those who have been convicted of a crime.The exact language differs state by state, but each amendment is focused on eliminating or altering that exception. In Alabama, for example, the State Constitution would be amended to remove an exception that allows involuntary servitude “for the punishment of crime.” In some other states, the changes are more complicated.In Louisiana, the proposal would remove an exception having to do with people convicted of a crime but would add a new clarifying sentence noting that the amendment “does not apply to the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice.”The broadness of that phrasing led State Representative Edmond Jordan, who had initially sponsored the bill, to fear that it could actually create more exceptions to the protection from slavery. He told The Advocate that he was urging people to vote against it but hoped to put a clearer measure up for vote in the future.Legal experts said it was unclear whether the changes would have any effect on the legality of prison labor, though prisoners will probably argue that they are being illegally forced to perform slave labor or involuntary servitude.The proposed changes — and the lawsuits that would follow — could force courts “to engage a little more deeply with whether this type of labor is prohibited,” said Andrea Armstrong, a law professor at the Loyola University New Orleans College of Law who studies prisons and jails.Does the U.S. Constitution still allow slavery?The U.S. Constitution has a nearly identical “exceptions clause” that allows people who are convicted of crimes to be forced into involuntary servitude.The clause is found in the 13th Amendment, which was ratified in 1865: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”Courts have at times referenced the amendment in denying prisoners the same rights as other workers, but they have more often relied on other laws and justifications to do so.A group of federal lawmakers has proposed a bill to remove the clause, but the lawmakers have not won enough support to pass it.Sharon Dolovich, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that even if the 13th Amendment was not the primary justification for allowing mandatory prison labor, its existence in the Constitution most likely weighs on the mind of judges who evaluate prisoners’ claims.“The 13th Amendment, as it’s currently written — and the state’s analogues to the amendment — form a backdrop that infuses the legal regime governing incarcerated people,” said Ms. Dolovich, who leads the Prison Law and Policy Program at U.C.L.A. “It forms the moral atmosphere around which we treat incarcerated workers.”Other states have already removed exceptions to their slavery bans. What happened there?Many states’ constitutions do not mention slavery at all, relying on the protections — and exception — of the U.S. Constitution. But three states with constitutions that ban slavery have in recent years voted to remove the clause that created an exception for those convicted of crimes.Colorado did so in 2018, followed by Nebraska and Utah in 2020.After Colorado’s decision, a prisoner sued the state, claiming that it was violating its new, absolute ban on slavery and involuntary servitude, but a state appellate court ruled in August that voters had not meant to abolish prison labor. The judges also ruled that the prisoner’s complaint did not support a claim that the prison work program was involuntary servitude.But in Nebraska, the change has led at least one jail that had never paid its inmates for work to begin paying them $20 to $30 a week, The Lincoln Journal Star reported.More legal challenges are expected in those states, as well as any that pass similar measures next month. More

Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York TimesVoter turnout in Georgia is far outperforming that of previous midterm elections, rivaling presidential-year figures. On the first day of early voting, more than 130,000 people cast ballots — a more than 85 percent increase from the same day in 2018, according to the secretary of state’s office. More

The president told MSNBC that G.O.P. lawmakers could undo Democrats’ legislative victories if they regained control of Congress.WASHINGTON — President Biden warned on Friday that Republicans could upend legislative victories achieved under his administration and a Democratic Congress if the G.O.P. were to win control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.“They don’t have a platform other than to tear down what I’ve been able to do, we’ve been able to do.” Mr. Biden told an MSNBC news anchor, according to NBC News. “And I don’t know what they’re for.”He also vowed to veto a federal abortion ban if Republicans regain majorities of Congress and seek to pass such legislation. G.O.P. candidates have sought to avoid the subject as polls show a majority of voters support abortion rights.“The president has to sign it. I’ll veto it,” he said.Democrats pulled out a recent series of legislative victories heading into campaign season, after passing sweeping health, climate and tax legislation earlier this year. Those include an infusion of funding into America’s semiconductor industry to counter China and expanded medical benefits for veterans who were exposed to toxins from burn pits on military bases and a gun safety package.“These last several weeks all I’m doing is saying here’s what we’re for, here’s what they’re for and make a choice and vote,” Biden said in the interview with the MSNBC journalist Jonathan Capehart. “And I think people are going to show up and vote like they did last time.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.Most recently, Mr. Biden vowed to wipe out up to $20,000 in student loan debt, which he touted on the campaign trail on Friday, noting that the program has received 22 million applications since it opened last week.But that plan was dealt a blow with a ruling by an appeals court Friday on a case brought by several Republican-led states. And a number of Republicans in Congress have targeted some of the administration’s key legislative measures..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.Several House Republicans, including the top G.O.P. member of the committee that oversees entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, said they would back repealing the law that reduced prescription drug costs for seniors if their party took control of the House in November.Mr. Biden has previously warned that Republicans pose a threat to Social Security and Medicare, as Democrats paint the fate of America’s social safety net programs as a central campaign issue. He has also promised to continue to push forward on Democratic priorities in the next two years, like codifying abortion rights, strengthening gun control laws and instituting police reform, all measures that would be nonstarters with Republican majorities in the House and Senate.“What do you think they’re going to do?” Mr. Biden said at an event last month, criticizing a plan drafted by Senator Rick Scott, Republican of Florida, that would allow Social Security and Medicare to “sunset” if Congress did not extend the programs with new legislation.In his MSNBC interview, Mr. Biden dismissed polls that showed that the majority of voters disproved of his handling of the economy. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found Republicans have an edge among likely voters going into November, with many voters citing worries about the economy, an issue on which Republican candidates have heavily campaigned.Mr. Biden has kept a low profile on the campaign trail, choosing to avoid rallies and instead touting his legislative victories in smaller events. He reiterated on Friday to MSNBC that he intends to seek re-election in 2024, though he said he had not made a formal decision. More

Mr. Graham has been fighting a subpoena requiring him to appear before a special grand jury examining efforts to overturn former President Donald J. Trump’s election loss.ATLANTA — Senator Lindsey Graham asked the Supreme Court on Friday to stay a lower court’s order that would force him to testify before a special grand jury investigating efforts to overturn former President Donald J. Trump’s election loss in Georgia.The appeal by Mr. Graham, the South Carolina Republican and Trump confidant, is the latest in a protracted legal fight that he has been waging to defy a subpoena requiring him to answer questions before the special grand jury in Atlanta. Dozens of witnesses have already testified in the secret proceedings. Some, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and several other lawyers aligned with Mr. Trump, have tried unsuccessfully to avoid traveling to Atlanta to do so.But none has fought as long or as hard as Mr. Graham, who was subpoenaed in July. Soon after, he had the matter moved to the federal court system, arguing that forcing him to testify would raise constitutional issues. He pointed to the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause, which says that members of Congress cannot be questioned on matters pertaining to their legislative duties.On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta rejected the argument that the Speech and Debate Clause fully shielded Mr. Graham from having to testify. Mr. Graham responded with an emergency application on Friday, asking the Supreme Court for a stay while he appeals the ruling, and, if necessary, a ruling enjoining the special grand jury from questioning him until the appeal is resolved. The filing notes that Mr. Graham was issued a fresh subpoena on Friday compelling him to testify on Nov. 17.“Without a stay, Senator Lindsey Graham will soon be questioned by a local Georgia prosecutor and her ad hoc investigative body about his protected ‘Speech or Debate’ related to the 2020 election,” Mr. Graham’s lawyers wrote in the filing. “This will occur despite the Constitution’s command that Senators ‘shall not be questioned’ about ‘any Speech or Debate.’”Understand Georgia’s Investigation of Election InterferenceCard 1 of 5An immediate legal threat to Trump. More

Dealing setbacks to Republican-led voter fraud prosecutions, judges in Florida and Texas this week dropped charges against two former felons who had been accused of casting ballots when they were not eligible to do so because of their status as offenders.Robert Lee Wood, one of those two felons, was part of an August roundup spearheaded by Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a Republican, on voter fraud.On Friday, a circuit court judge in Miami-Dade County granted a motion to dismiss two felony charges related to voter fraud against Mr. Wood, 56, who spent two decades in prison for second-degree murder. Mr. Wood was among the 20 people who were recently arrested in Florida on voter fraud charges and became the first defendant to have them dropped.And on Monday, a district court judge in Texas set aside the indictment of Hervis Earl Rogers, a Houston man who gained widespread attention for waiting seven hours to vote during the 2020 primary election. Last year, Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general and a Republican, charged Mr. Rogers with voting illegally because he was on parole.A lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud has not stopped Republicans from aggressively pursuing it in states where they hold power. Now, the unraveling of the two high-profile cases has compromised the legitimacy of those efforts.Bryan Griffin, a spokesman for Mr. DeSantis, said in an email on Friday that the state disagreed with the dismissal of charges against Mr. Wood and would appeal the ruling.“The state will continue to enforce the law and ensure that murderers and rapists who are not permitted to vote do not unlawfully do so,” Mr. Griffin said. “Florida will not be a state in which elections are left vulnerable or cheaters unaccountable.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.The ruling by Judge Milton Hirsch of the 11th Judicial Circuit was limited to jurisdictional issues and not Mr. Wood’s voting status. It said that state prosecutors did not have standing in what was a local criminal proceeding. The prosecutors had tried to argue that they did have jurisdiction, because Mr. Wood’s voter application and ballot were processed in another county.“Given that elections violations of this nature impact all Florida voters, elections officials, state government, and the integrity of our republic, we continue to view the Florida Office of Statewide Prosecution as the appropriate agency to prosecute these crimes,” Mr. Griffin said.Larry Davis, a lawyer for Mr. Wood, said in an interview on Friday that his client was approached in the summer of 2020 by a voter drive representative at a Miami-area Walmart asking if he wanted to register to vote.When Mr. Wood told the person that he was a convicted felon, the person said that a state constitutional amendment had restored voting rights to felons and so he filled out an application, according to Mr. Davis. The amendment, however, excluded people convicted of murder or felony sex offenses and required them to apply separately to have their rights reinstated.Mr. Wood received a voter card from the state six or seven weeks after filling out the application, said Mr. Davis, who described the dramatic scene when his client was arrested at 6 a.m. in August.“The house was surrounded with police that had automatic weapons,” Mr. Davis said. “They wouldn’t even let him get dressed and they took him to jail.”In Florida, a conviction of voter fraud requires proof of intent. Mr. Davis said “there’s absolutely no proof” that his client willfully broke the law.The legal setback for Mr. DeSantis, who is running for re-election in November and has White House ambitions, came days after the release of body camera footage from law enforcement officers in the Tampa area who carried out similar arrests. In the videos, the people arrested seemed puzzled and appeared to have run afoul of the law out of confusion rather than intent.Mr. Davis said that he had requested the body camera footage from Mr. Wood’s arrest, but had not yet received it.In the case of Mr. Rogers in Texas, Judge Lisa Michalk of the 221st District Court in Montgomery County, which is about 40 miles north of Houston, ruled on Monday that Mr. Paxton as Texas’s attorney general did not have the authority to independently prosecute criminal offenses under the Election Code.A spokeswoman for Mr. Paxton did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday.In a statement, Mr. Rogers expressed his relief that the indictment had been set aside.“I am thankful that justice has been done,” Mr. Rogers said. “It has been horrible to go through this, and I am so glad my case is over. I look forward to being able to get back to my life.”Tommy Buser-Clancy, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and one of the lawyers who represented Mr. Rogers, in a statement this week lamented what happened to Mr. Rogers.“He never should have been prosecuted in the first place, and this ruling allows him to put this traumatic ordeal behind him and move on with his life,” Mr. Buser-Clancy said. More