Elections

For the second time in two months, New Yorkers are voting in primary races, this time for Congress and the State Senate.There are several competitive congressional primaries and special elections, but there’s concern that a rare August primary, when many New Yorkers are distracted or away, will drive low turnout even lower than it usually is.How to votePolls are open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday. In New York State, you must be enrolled in a party to vote in its primary; independents cannot do so.Early voting ended on Sunday. If you have an absentee ballot but have not mailed it yet, today is the deadline; the ballot must have a postmark of Aug. 23 or earlier. You can also hand it in at a polling site before 9 p.m. (If you have requested to vote absentee but cannot mail your ballot, you may use an affidavit ballot at a polling place — but not a voting machine.)New Yorkers having trouble voting can call the state’s election protection hotline at 866-390-2992.Where to voteFind your polling place by entering your address at this state Board of Elections website.Who is on the ballotEarlier this year, the state’s highest courts ruled that district maps created by Democrats were unconstitutional and ordered them to be redrawn. That’s why primaries for Congress and State Senate were pushed back to August from June.If you’re in New York City, go here to see what’s on your ballot. Ballotpedia offers a sample ballot tool for the state, as well.The marquee contest is in the 12th Congressional District in Manhattan, where Representative Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side, is facing Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, who represents the Upper East Side. A third candidate, Suraj Patel, is running on generational change.The 10th District, covering parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has a rare open seat that has drawn many Democratic entrants, including Daniel Goldman, an impeachment investigator in the trial of former President Donald J. Trump; Representative Mondaire Jones, who now represents a different district; and Elizabeth Holtzman, 81, who was once the youngest woman elected to the House of Representatives. Two local women, Councilwoman Carlina Rivera and Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, have surged in the race.Two strong conservatives and Trump supporters are running in the 23rd District: Carl Paladino, a developer with a history of racist remarks, and Nick Langworthy, the state Republican Party chairman.In the revised 17th District, Alessandra Biaggi, a state senator, is challenging Sean Patrick Maloney, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, from the left. Mr. Maloney drew heavy criticism after the districts were redrawn and he chose to run in a safer district held by Mr. Jones, one of the first Black, openly gay men elected to Congress.The 19th District’s seat was vacated when Gov. Kathy Hochul chose former Representative Antonio Delgado as lieutenant governor. Two county executives are in a special election to finish his term: Marc Molinaro, a Republican, and Pat Ryan, a Democrat.Another special election is being held in the 23rd District to complete the term of Representative Tom Reed. Joe Sempolinski, a former congressional aide, is expected to keep it under Republican control. More

The election dashboards are back online, the fact-checking teams have reassembled, and warnings about misleading content are cluttering news feeds once again.As the United States marches toward another election season, social media companies are steeling themselves for a deluge of political misinformation. Those companies, including TikTok and Facebook, are trumpeting a series of election tools and strategies that look similar to their approaches in previous years.Disinformation watchdogs warn that while many of these programs are useful — especially efforts to push credible information in multiple languages — the tactics proved insufficient in previous years and may not be enough to combat the wave of falsehoods pushed this election season.Here are the anti-misinformation plans for Facebook, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube.FacebookFacebook’s approach this year will be “largely consistent with the policies and safeguards” from 2020, Nick Clegg, president of global affairs for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, wrote in a blog post last week.Posts rated false or partly false by one of Facebook’s 10 American fact-checking partners will get one of several warning labels, which can force users to click past a banner reading “false information” before they can see the content. In a change from 2020, those labels will be used in a more “targeted and strategic way” for posts discussing the integrity of the midterm elections, Mr. Clegg wrote, after users complained that they were “over-used.”Warning labels prevent users from immediately seeing or sharing false content.Provided by FacebookFacebook will also expand its efforts to address harassment and threats aimed at election officials and poll workers. Misinformation researchers said the company has taken greater interest in moderating content that could lead to real-world violence after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.Facebook greatly expanded its election team after the 2016 election, to more than 300 people. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, took a personal interest in safeguarding elections.But Meta, Facebook’s parent company, has changed its focus since the 2020 election. Mr. Zuckerberg is now more focused instead on building the metaverse and tackling stiff competition from TikTok. The company has dispersed its election team and signaled that it could shut down CrowdTangle, a tool that helps track misinformation on Facebook, some time after the midterms.“I think they’ve just come to the conclusion that this is not really a problem that they can tackle at this point,” said Jesse Lehrich, co-founder of Accountable Tech, a nonprofit focused on technology and democracy.More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsChallenging DeSantis: Florida Democrats would love to defeat Gov. Ron DeSantis in November. But first they must nominate a candidate who can win in a state where they seem to perpetually fall short.Uniting Around Mastriano: Doug Mastriano, the far-right G.O.P. nominee for Pennsylvania governor, has managed to win over party officials who feared he would squander a winnable race.O’Rourke’s Widening Campaign: Locked in an unexpectedly close race against Gov. Greg Abbott, Beto O’Rourke, the Democratic candidate, has ventured into deeply conservative corners of rural Texas in search of votes.The ‘Impeachment 10’: After Liz Cheney’s primary defeat in Wyoming, only two of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump remain.In a statement, a spokesman from Meta said its elections team was absorbed into other parts of the company and that more than 40 teams are now focused on the midterms.TikTokIn a blog post announcing its midterm plans, Eric Han, the head of U.S. safety, said the company would continue its fact-checking program from 2020, which prevents some videos from being recommended until they are verified by outside fact checkers. It also introduced an election information portal, which provides voter information like how to register, six weeks earlier than it did in 2020.Even so, there are already clear signs that misinformation has thrived on the platform throughout the primaries.“TikTok is going to be a massive vector for disinformation this cycle,” Mr. Lehrich said, adding that the platform’s short video and audio clips are harder to moderate, enabling “massive amounts of disinformation to go undetected and spread virally.”TikTok said its moderation efforts would focus on stopping creators who are paid for posting political content in violation of the company’s rules. TikTok has never allowed paid political posts or political advertising. But the company said that some users were circumventing or ignoring those policies during the 2020 election. A representative from the company said TikTok would start approaching talent management agencies directly to outline their rules.Disinformation watchdogs have criticized the company for a lack of transparency over the origins of its videos and the effectiveness of its moderation practices. Experts have called for more tools to analyze the platform and its content — the kind of access that other companies provide.“The consensus is that it’s a five-alarm fire,” said Zeve Sanderson, the founding executive director at New York University’s Center for Social Media and Politics. “We don’t have a good understanding of what’s going on there,” he added.Last month, Vanessa Pappas, TikTok’s chief operating officer, said the company would begin sharing some data with “selected researchers” this year.TwitterIn a blog post outlining its plans for the midterm elections, the company said it would reactivate its Civic Integrity Policy — a set of rules adopted in 2018 that the company uses ahead of elections around the world. Under the policy, warning labels, similar to those used by Facebook, will once again be added to false or misleading tweets about elections, voting, or election integrity, often pointing users to accurate information or additional context. Tweets that receive the labels are not recommended or distributed by the company’s algorithms. The company can also remove false or misleading tweets entirely.Those labels were redesigned last year, resulting in 17 percent more clicks for additional information, the company said. Interactions, like replies and retweets, fell on tweets that used the modified labels.In Twitter’s tests, the redesigned warning labels increased click-through rates for additional context by 17 percent.Provided by TwitterThe strategy reflects Twitter’s attempts to limit false content without always resorting to removing tweets and banning users.The approach may help the company navigate difficult freedom of speech issues, which have dogged social media companies as they try to limit the spread of misinformation. Elon Musk, the Tesla executive, made freedom of speech a central criticism during his attempts to buy the company earlier this year.YouTubeUnlike the other major online platforms, YouTube has not released its own election misinformation plan for 2022 and has typically stayed quiet about its election misinformation strategy.“YouTube is nowhere to be found still,” Mr. Sanderson said. “That sort of aligns with their general P.R. strategy, which just seems to be: Don’t say anything and no one will notice.”Google, YouTube’s parent company, published a blog post in March emphasizing their efforts to surface authoritative content through the streamer’s recommendation engine and remove videos that mislead voters. In another post aimed at creators, Google details how channels can receive “strikes” for sharing certain kinds of misinformation and, after three strikes within a 90-day period, the channel will be terminated.The video streaming giant has played a major role in distributing political misinformation, giving an early home to conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, who was later banned from the site. It has taken a stronger stance against medical misinformation, stating last September that it would remove all videos and accounts sharing vaccine misinformation. The company ultimately banned some prominent conservative personalities.More than 80 fact checkers at independent organizations around the world signed a letter in January warning YouTube that its platform is being “weaponized” to promote voter fraud conspiracy theories and other election misinformation.In a statement, Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokeswoman, said its election team had been meeting for months to prepare for the midterms and added that its recommendation engine is “continuously and prominently surfacing midterms-related content from authoritative news sources and limiting the spread of harmful midterms-related misinformation.” More

The main argument against prosecuting Donald Trump — or investigating him with an eye toward criminal prosecution — is that it will worsen an already volatile fracture in American society between Republicans and Democrats. If, before an indictment, we could contain the forces of political chaos and social dissolution, the argument goes, then in the aftermath of such a move, we would be at their mercy. American democracy might not survive the stress.All of this might sound persuasive to a certain, risk-averse cast of mind. But it rests on two assumptions that can’t support the weight that’s been put on them.The first is the idea that American politics has, with Trump’s departure from the White House, returned to a kind of normalcy. Under this view, a prosecution would be an extreme and irrevocable blow to social peace. But the absence of open conflict is not the same as peace. Voters may have put a relic of the 1990s into the Oval Office, but the status quo of American politics is far from where it was before Trump.The most important of our new realities is the fact that much of the Republican Party has turned itself against electoral democracy. The Republican nominee for governor in Arizona — Kari Lake — is a 2020 presidential election denier. So, too, are the Republican nominees in Arizona for secretary of state, state attorney general and U.S. Senate. In Pennsylvania, Republican voters overwhelmingly chose the pro-insurrection Doug Mastriano to lead their party’s ticket in November. Overall, Republican voters have nominated election deniers in dozens of races across six swing states, including candidates for top offices in Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin.There is also something to learn from the much-obsessed-over fate of Liz Cheney, the arch-conservative representative from Wyoming, who lost her place on the Republican ticket on account of her opposition to the movement to “stop the steal” and her leadership on the House Jan. 6 committee investigating Trump’s attempt to overturn the presidential election to keep himself in office. Cheney is, on every other issue of substance, with the right wing of the Republican Party. But she opposed the insurrection and accepted the results of the 2020 presidential election. It was, for Wyoming voters, a bridge too far.All of this is to say that we are already in a place where a substantial portion of the country (although much less than half) has aligned itself against the basic principles of American democracy in favor of Trump. And these 2020 deniers aren’t sitting still, either; as these election results show, they are actively working to undermine democracy for the next time Trump is on the ballot.This fact, alone, makes a mockery of the idea that the ultimate remedy for Trump is to beat him at the ballot box a second time, as if the same supporters who rejected the last election will change course in the face of another defeat. It also makes clear the other weight-bearing problem with the argument against holding Trump accountable, which is that it treats inaction as an apolitical and stability-enhancing move — something that preserves the status quo as opposed to action, which upends it.But that’s not true. Inaction is as much a political choice as action is, and far from preserving the status quo — or securing some level of social peace — it sets in stone a new world of total impunity for any sufficiently popular politician or member of the political elite.Now, it is true that political elites in this country are already immune to most meaningful consequences for corruption and lawbreaking. But showing forbearance and magnanimity toward Trump and his allies would take a difficult problem and make it irreparable. If a president can get away with an attempted coup (as well as abscond with classified documents), then there’s nothing he can’t do. He is, for all intents and purposes, above the law.Among skeptics of prosecution, there appears to be a belief that restraint would create a stable equilibrium between the two parties; that if Democrats decline to pursue Trump, then Republicans will return the favor when they win office again. But this is foolish to the point of delusion. We don’t even have to look to the recent history of Republican politicians using the tools of office to investigate their political opponents. We only have to look to the consequences of giving Trump (or any of his would-be successors) a grant of nearly unaccountable power. Why would he restrain himself in 2025 or beyond? Why wouldn’t he and his allies use the tools of state to target the opposition?The arguments against prosecuting Trump don’t just ignore or discount the current state of the Republican Party and the actually existing status quo in the United States, they also ignore the crucial fact that this country has experience with exactly this kind of surrender in the face of political criminality.National politics in the 1870s was consumed with the question of how much to respond to vigilante lawlessness, discrimination and political violence in the postwar South. Northern opponents of federal and congressional intervention made familiar arguments.If Republicans, The New York Times argued in 1874, “set aside the necessity of direct authority from the Constitution” to pursue their aims in the South and elsewhere, could they then “expect the Democrats, if they should gain the power, to let the Constitution prevent them from helping their ancient and present friends?”The better approach, The Times said in an earlier editorial, was to let time do its work. “The law has clothed the colored man with all the attributes of citizenship. It has secured him equality before the law, and invested him with the ballot.” But here, wrote the editors, “the province of law will end. All else must be left to the operation of causes more potent than law, and wholly beyond its reach.” His old oppressors in the South, they added, “rest their only hope of party success upon their ability to obtain his goodwill.”To act affirmatively would create unrest. Instead, the country should let politics and time do their work. The problems would resolve themselves, and Americans would enjoy a measure of social peace as a result.Of course, that is not what happened. In the face of lawlessness, inaction led to impunity, and impunity led to a successful movement to turn back the clock on progress as far as possible, by any means possible.Our experience, as Americans, tells us that there is a clear point at which we must act in the face of corruption, lawlessness and contempt for the very foundations of democratic society. The only way out is through. Fear of what Trump and his supports might do cannot and should not stand in the way of what we must do to secure the Constitution from all its enemies, foreign and domestic.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

EE. UU. no está solo en cuanto a la presión que sufren las normas e instituciones democráticas. Según un estudio reciente, ahora hay más democracias que decaen que en cualquier otro momento del último siglo.Estados Unidos no es el único país que enfrenta presión contra sus reglas e instituciones democráticas. De acuerdo con datos de V-Dem, un instituto de monitoreo con sede en Suecia, en la actualidad, más que en ningún otro momento del siglo pasado, hay otras democracias en deterioro, e incluso hay algunas que están muy cerca de la autocracia. Los datos demuestran que, al parecer, esta tendencia, que lleva más de una década, va en aumento y está afectando tanto a las democracias bien establecidas como a las endebles.Este es una revisión de algunos de los acontecimientos más recientes.KeniaPese a ser considerada una de las democracias más sólidas de África, Kenia ha tenido que enfrentar turbulencias continuas. En ocasiones, los políticos han aprovechado la polarización en cuestiones étnicas y geográficas, sobre todo durante las elecciones. Esto ha dado origen a una serie de crisis, violencia comunitaria y ataques a instituciones como los órganos judiciales.Las reñidas elecciones de este mes han supuesto una prueba más para la democracia keniana, ya que un asesor sénior del candidato perdedor ha insinuado que quizá su campaña impugnará los resultados por considerarlos fraudulentos.“La democracia en nuestro país, Kenia, está actualmente en un territorio muy hostil”, señaló en un evento de marzo en Washington D. C. William Ruto, el candidato ganador de las recientes elecciones.Sri LankaEsta democracia multiétnica y diversa en términos religiosos ha sido cuestionada desde que el hermano del exdictador Mahinda Rajapaksa subió al poder en las elecciones de 2019. Desde hacía mucho tiempo, la familia Rajapaksa había sido acusada de abuso de poder y de denigrar a las minorías del país, lo que incrementó el temor de que Sri Lanka pudiera volver a la autocracia.Este verano, las protestas por los problemas económicos terminaron en un asalto al palacio presidencial por parte de los manifestantes. El presidente Gotabaya Rajapaksa renunció, pero designó como su sustituto a uno de sus aliados, el cual, con la aprobación del Parlamento, más tarde se convirtió en el presidente oficial. Esto ha dejado en un punto muerto el conflicto entre los manifestantes y la influencia de la dinastía Rajapaksa.Hungría“Este nuevo Estado que estamos construyendo es en un Estado iliberal”, declaró el primer ministro Viktor Orbán en 2014.Desde entonces, Orbán, quien se presenta como la vanguardia de la derecha populista a nivel mundial, ha reconfigurado el sistema judicial, la Constitución y las normas electorales a modo de fortalecer su mandato. También ha usado los medios de comunicación, tanto estatales como privados, para atacar a sus opositores mediante la divulgación de desinformación y discursos nacionalistas.Orbán ha planteado estas medidas como algo necesario para defender a Hungría de la influencia corruptora de la diversidad racial, la migración no europea y la Unión Europea. Aunque, debido al descontento con el mandatario, los partidos de oposición han repuntado, Orbán sigue contando con una importante base de apoyo.BrasilEl presidente Jair Bolsonaro, quien elogia la figura de Donald Trump como un modelo político, desde hace mucho tiempo ha tachado de corruptas a las instituciones democráticas de Brasil. También ha expresado muy buenas opiniones de la dictadura militar de derecha que gobernó el país de 1964 a 1985.Bolsonaro ya está cuestionando la legitimidad de la contienda presidencial de Brasil que se celebrará en octubre, para la cual ha quedado rezagado en las encuestas. Incluso ha conseguido la ayuda de algunos dirigentes militares que han planteado dudas sobre la integridad de las elecciones.Aunque no se sabe si Bolsonaro en verdad intentaría impugnar o rechazar una derrota, sus provocaciones han aumentado las inquietudes del mundo por la estabilidad de la democracia más poblada de Latinoamérica.FilipinasEn los seis años de la presidencia de Rodrigo Duterte en Filipinas, atestiguamos el encarcelamiento de enemigos políticos y periodistas, la propagación generalizada de desinformación en favor de Duterte y una ola de violencia ocasionada por grupos paramilitares que dejó miles de personas muertas.Duterte, un férreo populista, se posicionó como defensor de la democracia frente a sus opositores, a quienes describía como amenazas internas para el país, y obtuvo el apoyo de sus bases a pesar de sus excesos mientras ocupó el cargo.Aunque dejó la presidencia por voluntad propia cuando terminó su mandato en mayo, los ciudadanos eligieron a un nuevo presidente, Ferdinand Marcos, hijo, que los grupos de derechos humanos temen que continuará con el mismo estilo de gobierno. El nuevo Marcos es hijo de un exdictador del país. Su vicepresidenta, Sara Duterte, es la hija de Rodrigo Duterte.IndiaBajo el mandato de Narendra Modi, el primer ministro de India desde 2014, un drástico incremento del ultranacionalismo hindú, que suelen apoyar los aliados de su gobierno, ha dividido a la sociedad del país.Los aproximadamente 200 millones de musulmanes del país han sufrido marginación política y, en muchos casos, una letal violencia religiosa, lo que ha sido ignorado en varias ocasiones por los funcionarios. Los periodistas críticos viven bajo una creciente presión del gobierno y de los medios de comunicación cada vez más nacionalistas.El gobierno de Modi reprimió con violencia la región en disputa de Cachemira y, el año pasado, respondió con dureza a una ola de protestas de los agricultores indios, lo que aumentó el temor de que su gobierno estuviera volviéndose cada vez más coercitivo.TurquíaEn sus casi 20 años en el poder, Recep Tayyip Erdogan ha reconfigurado la democracia turca para convertirla en un vehículo de su poder personal. Erdogan, quien era visto como una fuerza de liberalización, ha restringido las libertades políticas y centralizado el poder de manera tan drástica que ahora casi todos lo consideran un dictador.Después del intento de golpe de Estado en su contra en 2016, el gobierno de Erdogan arrestó a 100.000 personas y despidió a 150.000 empleados del gobierno, lo cual consolidó su poder. Sin embargo, sigue existiendo algo de democracia, puesto que en 2019 los grupos de oposición destituyeron al aliado de Erdogan de la poderosa alcaldía de Estambul y esperan lograr más triunfos.PoloniaPolonia, que solía ser la mayor historia de éxito de la era poscomunista en Europa del Este, ahora se enfrenta a una fuerte polarización política. El partido de derecha en el gobierno ha querido subordinar a su voluntad al sistema judicial y a los medios de comunicación, que siempre han sido independientes. También arremetió contra la Unión Europea, la cual ha puesto en duda que los dirigentes polacos estén defendiendo el Estado de derecho.En los últimos meses, la preocupación por la democracia polaca ha disminuido un poco. Los dirigentes polacos han querido reparar sus vínculos con la Unión Europea, incluso en los temas de la democracia, como una manera de combatir lo que ven como la amenaza de Rusia para Europa. No obstante, los grupos de derechos humanos afirman que la democracia polaca casi no ha revertido su retroceso.El SalvadorEste pequeño país de Centroamérica había establecido una democracia débil después de su dolorosa guerra civil, que terminó en 1992, pero dejó heridas sin sanar.En 2019, un joven desconocido, Nayib Bukele, ganó la presidencia con la promesa de un cambio. Sin embargo, ya en el cargo, ha restringido los derechos básicos, despedido a los jueces, encarcelado a miles de personas sin cumplir con el debido proceso y desplegado al ejército. Bukele alega que son medidas de emergencia para combatir la delincuencia.No obstante, aunque los grupos de derechos humanos y los observadores internacionales están alarmados, Bukele se ha vuelto muy popular, lo que nos recuerda que, en el mundo actual, a los futuros dictadores con frecuencia se les elogia mientras van en ascenso.VenezuelaEl país, que alguna vez fue la democracia más antigua y la economía más rica de Sudamérica, ha caído en una zona de desastre económico, en la que la mayor parte de la población padece hambre y está gobernada por lo que, en general, se considera una dictadura.Los estudiosos de la democracia a menudo sostienen que este país es representativo de la manera en que las democracias tienden a deteriorarse en la actualidad: con lentitud, socavadas desde el interior por populistas electos que tachan de ilegítimos a los opositores y a las instituciones y cuyas medidas iniciales pueden ser muy populares.El dirigente responsable de gran parte de este deterioro, Hugo Chávez, murió en 2013. Su sucesor, Nicolás Maduro, ha llevado a cabo represiones letales contra los manifestantes y ha ejercido un control férreo de los tribunales y las legislaturas.República Checa y EsloveniaCuando, en 2017, el populista y multimillonario magnate de los medios de comunicación Andrej Babis se convirtió en primer ministro de la República Checa, hubo temor de que siguiera el camino hacia el iliberalismo ultraconservador marcado por Orbán en Hungría. Cuando la vecina Eslovenia eligió a su propio populista de derecha, aumentó la preocupación de que se formara un bloque de países que acabaran con la Unión Europea desde el interior.Aunque Babis sí condujo poco a poco a su país en esa dirección, al final fue derrotado en las elecciones de 2021, ya que varios partidos de oposición se aliaron contra él, pues lo calificaban como una amenaza para la democracia checa. Al año siguiente, los electores eslovenos expulsaron a su gobierno populista. Ambos países fueron un ejemplo de que todavía, en ocasiones, se pueden disipar las dudas en torno a la democracia.Max Fisher es reportero y columnista de temas internacionales con sede en Nueva York. Ha reportado sobre conflictos, diplomacia y cambio social desde cinco continentes. Es autor de The Interpreter, una columna que explora las ideas y el contexto detrás de los principales eventos mundiales de actualidad. @Max_Fisher • Facebook More

A federal judge ruled that Arkansas violated the Voting Rights Act with its six-voter limit for those who help people cast ballots in person, which critics had argued disenfranchised immigrants and people with disabilities.In a 39-page ruling issued on Friday, Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court in Fayetteville, Ark., wrote that Congress had explicitly given voters the choice of whom they wanted to assist them at the polls, as long as it was not their employer or union representative.Arkansas United, a nonprofit group that helps immigrants, including many Latinos who are not proficient in English, filed a lawsuit in 2020 after having to deploy additional employees and volunteers to provide translation services to voters at the polls in order to avoid violating the state law, the group said. It described its work as nonpartisan.State and county election officials have said the law was intended to prevent anyone from gaining undue influence.Thomas A. Saenz is the president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represented Arkansas United in the case. He said in an interview on Monday that the restrictions, enacted in 2009, constituted voter suppression and that the state had failed to present evidence that anyone had gained undue influence over voters when helping them at the polls.Read More About U.S. ImmigrationA Billion-Dollar Business: Migrant smuggling on the U.S. southern border has evolved over the past 10 years into a remunerative operation controlled by organized crime.Migrant Apprehensions: Border officials already had apprehended more migrants by June than they had in the entire previous fiscal year, and are on track to exceed two million by the end of September.An Immigration Showdown: In a political move, the governors of Texas and Arizona are offering migrants free bus rides to Washington, D.C. People on the East Coast are starting to feel the effects.“You’re at the polls,” he said. “Obviously, there are poll workers are there. It would seem the most unlikely venue for undue voter influence to occur, frankly.”Mr. Saenz’s organization, known as MALDEF, filed a lawsuit this year challenging similar restrictions in Missouri. There, a person is allowed to help only one voter.In Arkansas, the secretary of state, the State Board of Election Commissioners and election officials in three counties (Washington, Benton and Sebastian) were named as defendants in the lawsuit challenging the voter-assistance restrictions. It was not immediately clear whether they planned to appeal the ruling.Daniel J. Shults, the director of the State Board of Election Commissioners, said in an email on Monday that the agency was reviewing the decision and that its normal practice was to defend Arkansas laws designed to protect election integrity. He said that voter privacy laws in Arkansas barred election officials from monitoring conversations between voters and their helpers and that this made the six-person limit an “important safeguard” against improper influence.“The purpose of the law in question is to prevent the systematic abuse of the voting assistance process,” Mr. Shults said. “Having a uniform limitation on the number of voters a third party may assist prevents a bad actor from having unlimited access to voters in the voting booth while ensuring voter’s privacy is protected.”Chris Powell, a spokesman for the secretary of state, said in an email on Monday that the office was also reviewing the decision and having discussions with the state attorney general’s office about possible next steps.Russell Anzalone, a Republican who is the election commission chairman in Benton County in northwestern Arkansas, said in an email on Monday that he was not familiar with the ruling or any changes regarding voter-assistance rules. He added, “I follow the approved State of Arkansas election laws.”The other defendants in the lawsuit did not immediately respond on Monday to requests for comment.In the ruling, Judge Brooks wrote that state and county election officials could legally keep track of the names and addresses of anyone helping voters at the polls. But they can no longer limit the number to six voters per helper, according to the ruling.Mr. Saenz described the six-voter limit as arbitrary.“I do think that there is a stigma and unfair one on those who are simply doing their part to assist those who have every right to be able to cast a ballot,” he said. More

Plus the Philippines reopens schools and China raises interest rates.Good morning. We’re covering political turmoil in Pakistan and schools reopening in the Philippines.An expert on Pakistani politics said Imran Khan was “clearly an order of magnitude stronger” than when he was ousted as prime minister. Sohail Shahzad/EPA, via ShutterstockPolitical tensions swell in PakistanImran Khan, Pakistan’s former prime minister, was charged under the country’s antiterrorism act on Sunday. He is trying to stage a political comeback after he was ousted from power in April following a no-confidence vote.The charges followed a rally in Islamabad, the capital, where Khan condemned the recent arrest of one of his top aides and vowed to file legal cases against police officers and a judge involved in the case. Police said the comments amounted to an illegal attempt at intimidation.The charges represent a drastic escalation of the power struggle between Pakistan’s current government and its former leader and could set off a fresh round of public unrest and violent street protests.Analysis: Khan’s rallies have drawn tens of thousands, and his party has scored recent victories in the most populous province, Punjab, and the economic hub, Karachi. But experts say he and his supporters face a mounting crackdown aimed at curtailing their electoral successes.Details: Pakistan’s media regulatory authority imposed a ban on the live broadcast of Khan’s speeches on news television channels. Several journalists and talk show hosts, who are sympathetic to Khan, say they have been threatened by the state authorities.Classes opened across the Philippines yesterday.Aaron Favila/Associated PressThe Philippines reopens schoolsMillions of children in the Philippines returned to in-person classes yesterday, ending one of the world’s longest pandemic-related shutdowns.“We could no longer afford to delay the education of young Filipinos,” said Vice President Sara Duterte, who is also the education secretary.The lost time will be hard to make up: Even before the pandemic, the Philippines had among the world’s largest education gaps, with more than 90 percent of students unable to read and comprehend simple texts by age 10, according to the World Bank.Read More on the Coronavirus PandemicNew Guidelines: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention loosened its Covid-19 guidance, saying those exposed to the virus no longer need to quarantine.A Sweeping Rebuke: Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that her agency had failed to respond quickly enough to the coronavirus pandemic and needed to be overhauled.Back to School: New York City’s Education Department has rolled back most Covid restrictions ahead of the start of school on Sept. 8, reflecting a wider shift toward learning how to live with the virus.A Century-Old Vaccine: The results of clinical trials, launched in the early days of the pandemic, involving an old tuberculosis vaccine offered hope that it could provide a measure of universal protection against infectious diseases.Covid-19 may have only worsened divides. Even though the country offered online instruction during the pandemic, many students lacked access to computers or the internet.Pandemic: As other countries sent students back to classrooms, government officials and parents hesitated. They feared that schoolchildren could bring the virus to homes crowded with multiple generations of family members, potentially overtaxing a creaky health care system.Details: Schools in the Philippines have long suffered from teacher shortages, and only some schools are currently in-person five days a week. The country plans to fully reopen all of its roughly 47,000 schools by November.A dried-out riverbed of the Jialing River, a major tributary of the Yangtze River.EPA, via ShutterstockDrought roils China’s economyChina’s central bank announced that it would cut its five-year interest rate yesterday, an effort to bring a little relief to the country’s huge construction and real estate sector.The rate cut comes as record-high temperatures and a severe drought have crippled hydropower and prompted the shutdown of many factories in west-central China, an industrial base.Sichuan Province, for instance, normally generates more than three-quarters of its electricity from huge dams. The summer rainy season usually brings so much water that Sichuan sends much of its hydropower to cities and provinces as far away as Shanghai.But an almost complete failure of summer rains this year has meant that many dams now cannot generate enough electricity even for Sichuan’s own needs, forcing factories there to close for up to a week at a time and triggering rolling blackouts in some commercial and residential districts.Fallout: Sichuan’s three main rivers feed the Yangtze River, so hydropower cutbacks have also started to affect downstream areas, like the city of Chongqing and adjacent Hubei Province.Details: The central bank cut the rate by 0.15 percentage points yesterday, to 4.3 percent, and said that it was reducing a one-year interest rate by 0.05 percentage points, to 3.65 percent.THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificSouth Korean howitzers took positions near the border with North Korea yesterday.Ahn Young-Joon/Associated PressThe U.S. and South Korea began their largest joint military drills in years yesterday, The Associated Press reports.More than 5,000 farmers protested in New Delhi, Reuters reports. They are pushing for minimum price guarantees and government accountability.Today, Anthony Albanese, Australia’s prime minister, plans to release a report on Scott Morrison’s secret ministerial roles, Reuters reports.A woman in South Korea may be the relative of two children whose remains were found in suitcases in New Zealand, The Independent reports.Bangladesh is closing schools for another day during the week and taking other measures to save energy, Reuters reports. The country shut down its diesel-run power plants after the war in Ukraine drove up fuel prices.Chinese censors changed the end of the new “Minions” film before releasing it, Reuters reports. In this version, police catch a rebel, and Gru, a main character, promotes family values.The War in UkraineHere are live updates.Daria Dugina, a Russian nationalist commentator.Tsargrad.Tv, via ReutersRussia blamed Ukraine for the killing of Daria Dugina, 29, an ultranationalist commentator. The allegation could not be verified. Kyiv denied involvement.Dugina’s father, who is a prominent supporter of the invasion, called for revenge.Moscow said that Dugina, not her father, was the target of the car bomb and said a suspect had fled to Estonia. The brazen attack recalled historical assassinations.What’s next: Tomorrow is Ukraine’s Independence Day — and the six-month mark of the war.What Else is HappeningDr. Anthony Fauci has advised seven presidents and spent more than half a century at the National Institutes of Health.Doug Mills/The New York TimesDr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s top medical adviser, plans to step down in December.Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s president, has suggested that he would dispute election results if he lost in October. But the political establishment believes he lacks support to stage a coup.Eric Adams vowed to bolster nightlife around New York City. But the mayor mostly visits one pricey restaurant, run by friends with troubled pasts.A Morning ReadCarmen Abd Ali for The New York TimesAs more looted art returns to Africa, countries have wrestled with the right way to display it.Benin may have found an answer: More than 200,000 people have come to a free exhibition of pieces that were plundered by French colonial forces in the 19th century and returned last year.ARTS AND IDEASWill New Zealand change its name?New Zealand, known by some as Aotearoa.Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesIn the 1600s, the Dutch named the land now known as New Zealand for Zeeland, a western province of the Netherlands. It was intended as a companion name for “Hollandia Nova” or “New Holland,” as Australia was then known.Nearly four centuries later, a petition before Parliament asks that the country be called “Aotearoa,” which loosely translates from Maori as the “land of the long white cloud.” The Maori have used Aotearoa to refer to the country for decades, if not centuries. It is widely believed to be the name bestowed by Kupe, a Polynesian navigator — and is, increasingly, what New Zealanders and their lawmakers call their home.For now, a wholesale change seems unlikely: Polls suggest voters prefer “New Zealand” or a hybrid “Aotearoa New Zealand.” But the debate speaks to a changing climate: Amid culture war debates, Maori names are gaining traction. In 2009, New Zealand’s politicians voted against creating a holiday for Matariki, the Maori New Year. In June, it was observed nationally for the first time.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookTanveer Badal for The New York TimesKimjang, the act of making kimchi, connects Koreans across the diaspora. Eric Kim offers a recipe.What to ReadFour new books re-examine World War II.ArtMichael Heizer’s “City,” a mysterious land art megasculpture, was revealed after 50 years.Now Time to PlayPlay today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: “Guacamole ingredient” (five letters).Here are today’s Wordle and today’s Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. Chang Che is joining The Times from SupChina to cover technology in Asia.The latest episode of “The Daily” is about a U.S. coal miner on strike.You can reach Amelia and the team at [email protected]. More

A hand recount in nine Kansas counties affirmed the overwhelming rejection of an anti-abortion constitutional amendment by the state’s voters on Aug. 2.The recounted results differed from the initially reported results by fewer than 65 votes out of more than 556,000 cast in those counties, an error rate of about 0.01 percent.“As we expected, the recount again confirmed the Aug. 2 landslide victory for freedom,” said Ashley All, a spokeswoman for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, the main group that opposed the amendment. “Kansans across the political spectrum voted to protect the constitutional rights of women to make private medical decisions about abortion.”The recount was requested by Melissa Leavitt, a Kansas resident, and its more than $100,000 cost was funded in large part by Mark S. Gietzen, an anti-abortion activist who is the chairman of the Kansas Coalition for Life.An email sent to an address associated with Ms. Leavitt was not returned. Reached for comment on Monday, Mr. Gietzen continued to suggest that the vote counts were wrong, but said he did not have time to share details or evidence on a phone call because he was busy writing a lawsuit that he planned to file later in the day.The original results reported in the nine counties showed 365,568 votes against the amendment and 190,847 votes for it. The recounts showed 365,511 votes against the amendment (57 fewer than originally reported) and 190,853 for it (six more than originally reported). Such small discrepancies can be caused by a number of factors, including unclear marking of ballots.The recount “proves once and for all that there is no systemic election fraud in our state’s election process,” the Kansas secretary of state, Scott Schwab, a Republican, said in a statement. “Kansans should be confident that these results put to rest the unfounded claims of election fraud in our state and know that our elections are secure and that their vote counted.”Statewide, the amendment lost by more than 160,000 votes. Typically, recounts in statewide races result in shifts of a few hundred votes at most.The nine Kansas counties that were required to perform recounts account for more than half of the ballots cast statewide in the amendment vote. They are Johnson County, which includes Kansas City suburbs and is the state’s largest; Sedgwick County, which includes Wichita; Shawnee County, which includes the capital, Topeka; Douglas County, which includes Lawrence, home to the University of Kansas’ flagship campus; and Crawford, Harvey, Jefferson, Lyon and Thomas Counties. More

El presidente Bolsonaro ha advertido la posibilidad de fraude e insinuado que impugnará los resultados si pierde. La élite política considera que no tiene respaldo para intentar aferrarse al poder.Una pregunta simple pero alarmante domina el discurso político en Brasil cuando faltan apenas seis semanas para las elecciones nacionales: ¿Aceptará el presidente Jair Bolsonaro los resultados?Durante meses, Bolsonaro ha atacado a las máquinas de votación electrónica de Brasil diciendo que están plagadas de fraude —a pesar de que prácticamente no hay pruebas— y a los funcionarios electorales de Brasil por estar alineados contra él. Ha insinuado que disputaría cualquier derrota a menos que se realicen cambios en los procedimientos electorales. Ha alistado a los militares brasileños en su batalla. Y ha dicho a sus decenas de millones de seguidores que se preparen para luchar.“Si es necesario”, dijo en un discurso reciente, “iremos a la guerra”.Con la votación del 2 de octubre, Brasil se sitúa ahora en la vanguardia de las crecientes amenazas globales a la democracia, impulsadas por líderes populistas, extremismo, electorados muy polarizados y desinformación en internet. La cuarta democracia más poblada del mundo se prepara para la posibilidad de que su presidente se niegue a dejar el poder por acusaciones de fraude que podrían ser difíciles de desmentir.Sin embargo, según entrevistas con más de 35 funcionarios del gobierno de Bolsonaro, generales militares, jueces federales, autoridades electorales, miembros del Congreso y diplomáticos extranjeros, la élite del poder en Brasil se siente confiada de que, aunque Bolsonaro pudiera disputar los resultados de las elecciones, carece del apoyo institucional para dar un golpe de Estado exitoso.El último golpe de Brasil, en 1964, condujo a una brutal dictadura militar que duró 21 años. “La clase media lo apoyó. Los empresarios lo apoyaron. La prensa lo apoyó. Y Estados Unidos lo apoyó”, dijo Luís Roberto Barroso, juez del Supremo Tribunal Federal y ex jefe de la autoridad electoral de Brasil. “Pues bien, ninguno de estos actores apoya un golpe ahora”.Personas preparándose para un paseo en moto celebrado en apoyo de Bolsonaro en Salvador, Brasil.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesEn cambio, los funcionarios se preocupan por el daño duradero a las instituciones democráticas de Brasil —las encuestas muestran que una quinta parte del país ha perdido la fe en los sistemas electorales— y por la violencia en las calles. Las afirmaciones de fraude de Bolsonaro y su potencial negativa a aceptar una derrota se hacen eco de las de su aliado Donald Trump; los funcionarios brasileños mencionaron repetidamente el ataque del 6 de enero de 2021 en el Capitolio de Estados Unidos como un ejemplo de lo que podría suceder.“¿Cómo tenemos algún control sobre esto?”, dijo Flávio Bolsonaro, senador e hijo de Bolsonaro, en una entrevista con el periódico brasileño Estadão en referencia a la violencia potencial. En Estados Unidos, dijo, “la gente estuvo al tanto de los problemas del sistema electoral, se indignó e hizo lo que hizo. No hubo orden del presidente Trump y no habrá orden del presidente Bolsonaro”.Este mes, más de un millón de brasileños, entre los que se encuentran expresidentes, académicos de alto nivel, abogados y estrellas del pop, firmaron una carta en defensa de los sistemas de votación del país. Los principales grupos empresariales de Brasil también publicaron una carta similar.El martes, en un acto al que acudieron casi todas las principales figuras políticas brasileñas, otro magistrado del Supremo Tribunal Federal, Alexandre de Moraes, asumió el cargo de nuevo jefe de elecciones del país y advirtió que castigaría los ataques al proceso electoral.“La libertad de expresión no es libertad para destruir la democracia, para destruir las instituciones”, dijo. Su reacción, añadió, “será rápida, firme e implacable”.La multitud se puso en pie y aplaudió. Bolsonaro se quedó sentado y frunció el ceño.Bolsonaro, cuyos representantes declinaron las solicitudes de entrevista, ha dicho que está tratando de proteger la democracia de Brasil mediante el fortalecimiento de sus sistemas de votación.Entre los funcionarios entrevistados, hubo un amplio desacuerdo sobre si al presidente derechista lo impulsaba una genuina preocupación por el fraude o simplemente el miedo a perder. Bolsonaro ha quedado constantemente por detrás del expresidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, un izquierdista, en las encuestas de opinión; si nadie gana la mayoría de los votos el 2 de octubre, está prevista una segunda vuelta para el 30 de octubre.Bolsonaro va por detrás del expresidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva en las encuestas.Dado Galdieri para The New York TimesSin embargo, hay cada vez más esperanzas de que suceda una transición sin sobresaltos si Bolsonaro pierde, porque el mandatario ahora parece estar dispuesto a una tregua.Sus aliados, incluyendo altos oficiales de las fuerzas armadas, están a punto de comenzar negociaciones con De Moraes sobre los cambios al sistema electoral diseñados para atender las críticas de seguridad del presidente, según tres jueces federales y un alto funcionario del gobierno cercano a las conversaciones previstas, que hablaron bajo la condición de anonimato porque son confidenciales.La idea es que Bolsonaro retroceda en sus ataques a las máquinas de votación, dijeron estas personas, si los funcionarios electorales aceptan algunos cambios solicitados por los militares de Brasil.“Tengo plena confianza en el sistema electoral de Brasil. Eso tampoco significa que sea infalible”, dijo Ciro Nogueira, jefe de gabinete de Bolsonaro. “Estoy seguro de que, como dice el presidente, el pueblo tendrá su opinión”. Y el sábado, Bolsonaro pareció insinuar en un mitin que aceptaría los resultados de las elecciones.Sin embargo, Bolsonaro ha hecho comentarios similares en el pasado y acordó una tregua similar el año pasado… y luego continuó sus ataques.Esos ataques han surtido efecto. Desde junio, los usuarios brasileños de Twitter han mencionado las máquinas de votación de Brasil más que la inflación o los programas de bienestar social en relación con las elecciones, y casi tanto como los precios de la gasolina, que han sido un punto importante del debate político, según un análisis realizado por investigadores de la Escuela de Comunicación de la Fundación Getúlio Vargas solicitado por The New York Times.Partidarios de Bolsonaro en Salvador, BrasilVictor Moriyama para The New York TimesUn sondeo realizado el mes pasado mostró que el 32 por ciento de los brasileños confía “un poco” en las máquinas de votación y el 20 por ciento no confía en ellas para nada.Y mientras que bastantes de los partidarios de Bolsonaro están convencidos de que el voto puede estar amañado, muchos más también tienen armas. Bolsonaro facilitó la compra de armas de fuego por parte de civiles con restricciones más laxas para los cazadores, y ahora más de 670.000 brasileños poseen armas bajo esas normas, 10 veces más que hace cinco años.Dentro de su gobierno, Bolsonaro se ha visto cada vez más dividido entre dos facciones.Una de ellas ha animado al presidente a dejar de atacar las máquinas de votación porque creen que el tema es impopular entre los votantes más moderados que necesita ganar y porque la economía de Brasil está repuntando, lo que ayuda a sus posibilidades de reelección, según dos altos asesores del presidente.Dijeron que el otro grupo, liderado por antiguos generales militares, ha alimentado al presidente con información errónea y lo ha instado a seguir advirtiendo de posibles fraudes.Los funcionarios electorales invitaron el año pasado a los militares a unirse a un comité para mejorar los sistemas electorales. Los militares sugirieron una serie de cambios, pero los funcionarios electorales dijeron que no podrían aplicarse a tiempo para la votación de octubre.Pero los líderes militares siguen presionando en busca de un cambio en particular: que las pruebas de integridad de las máquinas de votación se realicen con votantes reales, en lugar de con simulaciones.Durante meses, Bolsonaro ha acusado a los funcionarios electorales de estar alineados en contra suya.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesA los militares les preocupa que un pirata informático pueda implantar un software malicioso en las máquinas de votación que reconozca las simulaciones y permanezca inactivo durante esas pruebas, lo que le permitiría evadir la detección.Un experto en seguridad electoral dijo que tal hackeo es concebible pero improbable.De Moraes, el nuevo jefe de elecciones, ha señalado que estaría dispuesto a realizar cambios en los sistemas de votación, aunque no está claro lo que podría lograrse para el 2 de octubre.Bolsonaro lleva mucho tiempo en desacuerdo con De Moraes, que ha dirigido las investigaciones sobre las denuncias de desinformación y filtraciones de material clasificado que implican al presidente y a sus aliados. Bolsonaro ha criticado a De Moraes por considerarlo políticamente motivado, y dijo en un mitin el año pasado que ya no acataría sus dictámenes, declaración de la que luego se retractó.Por lo tanto, se esperaba que el ascenso de De Moraes a la presidencia del tribunal superior electoral de Brasil agravara aún más las tensiones.Pero en las últimas semanas, él y Bolsonaro han comenzado a chatear por WhatsApp en un esfuerzo por arreglar su relación, según una persona cercana al presidente. Cuando De Moraes le entregó en mano una invitación para su investidura como presidente del tribunal electoral este mes, Bolsonaro le regaló una camiseta del Corinthians, el equipo de fútbol favorito de De Moraes. (El Corinthians es el archienemigo del equipo favorito de Bolsonaro, el Palmeiras).Con las tensiones a flor de piel, los dirigentes brasileños decidieron hacer de la toma de posesión de De Moraes el martes de la semana pasada —normalmente un acto de trámite— una demostración de la fortaleza de la democracia brasileña.Las caravanas de motos se han convertido en algo habitual en los actos de apoyo al presidente en todo el país.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesEn un anfiteatro modernista y subterráneo, los jefes del Congreso brasileño, el Supremo Tribunal Federal y los militares se unieron a cinco de los seis presidentes vivos de Brasil para la ceremonia, incluidos Bolsonaro y Lula da Silva.Las cámaras enfocaron a Bolsonaro junto a De Moraes en la mesa principal, una escena poco habitual. Conversaron en voz baja, a veces entre risas, durante todo el evento. Entonces De Moraes se levantó para su discurso. Antes del evento, había advertido a Bolsonaro que no lo disfrutaría, según una persona cercana al presidente.“Somos la única democracia del mundo que calcula y publica los resultados electorales en el mismo día, con agilidad, seguridad, competencia y transparencia”, dijo. “La democracia no es un camino fácil, exacto o predecible. Pero es el único camino”.La sala le dedicó una ovación de 40 segundos. Bolsonaro fue de los primeros en dejar de aplaudir.Después, los dos hombres posaron para una foto. No sonrieron.Jack Nicas es el jefe de la corresponsalía del Times en Brasil, que abarca Brasil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay. Antes cubría tecnología desde San Francisco. Antes de unirse al Times, en 2018, trabajó durante siete años en The Wall Street Journal. @jacknicas • Facebook More