Elections

Los resultados de la primera ronda de votaciones asestaron un duro golpe a la clase política conservadora en Colombia.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Dos candidatos antisistema, el líder de la izquierda Gustavo Petro y el populista de derecha Rodolfo Hernández, tomaron los primeros lugares en las elecciones presidenciales de Colombia, asestando un duro golpe a la clase política dominante y conservadora del país.Los dos hombres se enfrentarán en una segunda vuelta electoral el 19 de junio, que se perfila como una de las más importantes en la historia del país. Está en juego el modelo económico del país, su integridad democrática y los medios de vida de millones de personas que se sumieron en la pobreza durante la pandemia.Con más del 99 por ciento de las boletas contadas el domingo en la noche, Petro logró el respaldo de más del 40 por ciento de los votos, mientras que Hernández recibió poco más del 28 por ciento. Hernández superó por más de cuatro puntos de porcentaje al candidato de la clase dirigente conservadora, Federico Gutiérrez, que figuraba en segundo lugar en las encuestas.La inesperada victoria de Hernández al segundo lugar muestra a una nación deseosa de elegir a cualquiera que no represente a los dominantes líderes conservadores del país.Según el politólogo colombiano Daniel García-Peña, el enfrentamiento entre Petro y Hernández representa el “cambio contra el cambio”.Durante meses, las encuestas habían mostrado a Petro, que plantea una modificación al modelo económico capitalista del país, aventajando al exalcalde conservador de Medellín Federico Gutiérrez.Fue solo recientemente que Hernandez, postulándose con una plataforma populista y anticorrupción, empezó a subir en los sondeos.Gustavo Petro y Francia Márquez celebrando en Bogotá, la noche del domingo.Federico Rios para The New York TimesSi Petro al final gana en la próxima ronda de votaciones sería un momento histórico para una de las sociedades más políticamente conservadoras de América Latina, lo que pondría a Colombia en una senda nueva y desconocida.En su discurso luego de las elecciones, en un hotel cerca del centro de Bogotá, Petro estuvo acompañado por su candidata a la vicepresidencia y dijo que los resultados del domingo mostraban que el proyecto político del actual presidente y sus aliados “ha sido derrotado”.Luego, rápidamente emitió advertencias sobre Hernández y dijo que votar por él era una regresión peligrosa y desafió al electorado a arriesgarse en lo que calificó como un proyecto progresista, “un cambio de verdad”.Su ascenso refleja no solo un viraje a la izquierda en toda América Latina, sino un impulso contra los gobiernos de turno que ha cobrado fuerza a medida que la pandemia ha agravado la pobreza y la desigualdad, intensificando la sensación de que las economías de la región están construidas principalmente para servir a las élites.Ese resentimiento contra el establecimiento político parece haberle dado a Hernández un empujón en la segunda vuelta e indica el poder menguante del uribismo, un conservadurismo de línea dura que ha dominado la política colombiana en las últimas dos décadas y que se llama así por su fundador, el expresidente Álvaro Uribe.En las mesas de votación de todo el país el domingo, los seguidores de Petro mencionaron esa frustración y un renovado sentimiento de esperanza.“Es un momento histórico que está viviendo Colombia. No queremos más continuismo, no queremos más Uribismo”, dijo Chiro Castellanos, de 37 años, seguidor de Petro en Sincelejo, una ciudad cercana a la costa caribeña. “Siento que esto es un cambio, es un proyecto de país que no es solo Gustavo Petro”.Pero en muchos lugares también había temor de lo que ese cambio podría significar, así como llamados a un enfoque más moderado.“Realmente este país está vuelto nada”, comentó Myriam Matallana, de 55 años, simpatizante de Gutiérrez en Bogotá, la capital. Pero con Petro, dijo, “sería peor”.Rodolfo Hernández después de votar en Bucaramanga, Colombia, el domingoReutersPetro ha prometido transformar el sistema económico de Colombia, que dice que alimenta la desigualdad, con la expansión de programas sociales, un alto a la exploración petrolera y el cambio del enfoque del país hacia la industria y la agricultura nacional.Durante mucho tiempo, Colombia ha sido el aliado más fuerte de Estados Unidos en la región y un triunfo de Petro podría significar un enfrentamiento con Washington. El candidato pidió un reajuste de la relación, lo que incluye cambios en el enfoque de la guerra contra las drogas y una reevaluación de un acuerdo comercial bilateral.Las elecciones se producen en un momento en el que las encuestas muestran una creciente desconfianza en las instituciones del país, incluido el Congreso, los partidos políticos, el Ejército, la prensa y la Registraduría Nacional, un organismo electoral.También sucede en momentos en que la violencia va en aumento; a principios de este mes un grupo criminal emitió una orden de inamovilidad que paralizó a una parte considerable del país por al menos cuatro días.Antes de las elecciones existía la preocupación generalizada de que esos factores podrían afectar el proceso democrático.La elección se produce en un momento en que las encuestas muestran una creciente desconfianza en las instituciones del país.Federico Rios para The New York Times“Si nos quedamos en casa diciendo ‘todo el mundo es corrupto’, no vamos a lograr nada”, dijo María Gañan, de 27 años, que votó por Hernández en Bogotá. “Queremos cambiar la historia del país”.Hernández, quien era relativamente desconocido hasta hace unas pocas semanas, se presentó a los votantes como un candidato anticorrupción, y propuso recompensar a los ciudadanos por denunciar actos de corrupción y nombrar a colombianos que ya residen en el exterior en posiciones diplomáticas, lo que él dice que ahorrará en gastos de viaje y otros costos, además de prohibir festejos innecesarios en las embajadas.“Hoy perdió el país de la politiquería y la corrupción”, dijo Hernández en una nota que publicó en Facebook para sus seguidores, tras los resultados del domingo.“Hoy perdieron las gavillas que creerían que serían gobierno eternamente”, añadió.Pero algunas de las propuestas de Hernández han sido criticadas como antidemocráticas.En específico, ha propuesto declarar un estado de emergencia por 90 días y suspender todas las funciones judiciales y administrativas para combatir la corrupción, generando temores de que pueda clausurar el congreso o suspender a los alcaldes.Votación en el norte del Cauca, en ColombiaFederico Rios para The New York TimesMuchos votantes están hartos del aumento de precios, el alto desempleo, el alza en los costos de la educación, la violencia y los sondeos muestran que una clara mayoría de colombianos tienen una opinión desfavorable del actual gobierno conservador.Otros candidatos que impulsaron cambios han sido asesinados durante las campañas electorales en Colombia. Petro y su compañera de fórmula, Francia Márquez, han recibido amenazas de muerte, lo que ocasionó que se reforzara su seguridad con guardaespaldas y escudos antibalas.Sin embargo, la elección también se caracterizó por la ampliación del espectro político.En cuestión de meses, Márquez, una activista ambiental que, de triunfar se convertiría en la primera vicepresidenta negra del país, se transformó en un fenómeno nacional, y brindó a las elecciones un enfoque de género, raza y conciencia de clase que pocos candidatos han logrado invocar en la historia del país.Su popularidad ha sido considerada como el reflejo del profundo deseo de muchos votantes —negros, indígenas, pobres, campesinos— de verse representados en los cargos más altos del poder.El domingo, Márquez podría haber votado en la capital del país. Pero decidió viajar al departamento suroccidental del Cauca, donde se crió.Francia Márquez, la candidata a vicepresidente de la izquierda, voto en su pueblo natal de Suárez, al norte de Cauca, en Colombia, diciendo que representaba a “los históricamente excluidos”.Federico Rios for The New York Times“Hoy están partiendo la historia de este país en dos”, dijo poco después de depositar su voto. “Hoy una de los nadies y las nadies, de los históricamente excluidos, se pone de pie para ocupar la política”.Sofía Villamil More

The results in the first round of voting delivered a stunning blow to Colombia’s dominant conservative political class.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Two anti-establishment candidates, Gustavo Petro, a leftist, and Rodolfo Hernández, a right-wing populist, captured the top two spots in Colombia’s presidential election on Sunday, delivering a stunning blow to Colombia’s dominant conservative political class.The two men will compete in a runoff election on June 19 that is shaping up to be one of the most consequential in the country’s history. At stake is the country’s economic model, its democratic integrity and the livelihoods of millions of people pushed into poverty during the pandemic.With more than 99 percent of the ballots counted on Sunday evening, Mr. Petro received more than 40 percent of the vote, while Mr. Hernández received just over 28 percent. Mr. Hernández beat by more than four percentage points the conservative establishment candidate, Federico Gutiérrez, who had been polling in second place.Mr. Hernández’s unexpected second-place victory shows a nation hungry to elect anyone who is not represented by the country’s mainstream conservative leaders. The Petro-Hernández face-off, said Daniel García-Peña, a Colombian political scientist, pits “change against change.”For months, polls have shown Mr. Petro, who is proposing an overhaul of the country’s capitalist economic model, leading against a conservative former mayor, Federico Gutiérrez.It was only recently that Mr. Hernández, running on a populist, anti-corruption platform, had begun rising in the polls.Gustavo Petro and Francia Márquez celebrating in Bogotá on Sunday night. Federico Rios for The New York TimesIf Mr. Petro ultimately wins in the next round of voting, it would mark a watershed moment for one of the most politically conservative societies in Latin America, and it would set Colombia on an uncharted path.In his postelection speech at a hotel near the center of Bogotá, Mr. Petro stood beside his vice-presidential pick and said Sunday’s results showed that the political project of the current president and his allies “has been defeated.”He then quickly issued warnings about Mr. Hernández, painting a vote for him as a dangerous regression, and daring the electorate to take a chance on what he called a progressive project, “a true change.”Mr. Petro’s rise reflects not just a leftist shift across Latin America, but also an anti-incumbent fervor that has gained strength as the pandemic has deepened poverty and inequality, intensifying feelings that the region’s economies are built mostly to serve the elite.That same anti-incumbent sentiment appeared to give Mr. Hernández a late lift into the runoff, and pointed to the waning power of Uribismo, a hard-line conservatism that has dominated politics in Colombia for the last two decades, named for its founder, former president Álvaro Uribe.At polling stations around the country on Sunday, supporters of Mr. Petro spoke to that frustration, and to a renewed sense of hope.“This is a historic moment for Colombia, we don’t want more continuity,” said Chiro Castellanos, 37, a Petro supporter in Sincelejo, a city near the Caribbean coast. “This marks a change, it’s a countrywide project that is not just about Gustavo Petro.”But in many places there was also fear of what that change might look like, and calls for a more moderate approach.“This country is in trouble,” said Myriam Matallana, 55, a supporter of Mr. Gutiérrez, in Bogotá, the capital. But with Mr. Petro, “it would be worse.”Rodolfo Hernández after voting in Bucaramanga, Colombia, on Sunday.ReutersMr. Petro has vowed to transform Colombia’s economic system, which he says fuels inequality, by expanding social programs, halting oil exploration and shifting the country’s focus to domestic agriculture and industry.Colombia has long been the United States’ strongest ally in the region, and a win for Mr. Petro could set up a clash with Washington. The candidate has called for a reset of the bilateral relationship, including changes to the approach to the drug war and a re-examination of a trade agreement.The election comes as surveys show growing distrust in most of the country’s institutions, including congress, political parties, the police, the military, the press and the national registrar, a key electoral body.It also comes amid rising violence that included a stay-at-home order issued by a criminal group earlier this month that paralyzed a sizable part of the nation for at least four days.Ahead of the election, there was widespread concern that these factors would stifle the democratic process.The election comes as surveys show growing distrust in most of the country’s institutions, including congress, political parties, the police, the military, the press and the national registrar, a key electoral body.Federico Rios for The New York Times“If we stay at home and say, ‘Everyone is corrupt,’ we’re not going to accomplish anything,” said María Gañan, 27, who voted for Mr. Hernández in Bogotá. “We want to change the history of the country.”Mr. Hernández, who was relatively unknown before until just a few weeks ago, branded himself as an anti-corruption candidate, and has proposed rewarding citizens for reporting corruption, appointing Colombians already living abroad to diplomatic positions, which he says will yield savings on travel and other expenses, and banning unnecessary parties at embassies.“Today the country of politicking and corruption lost,” Mr. Hernández wrote in a Facebook message to his supporters following Sunday’s results.“Today, the gangs who thought that they could govern forever have lost,” he added.But some of Mr. Hernández’s proposals have been criticized as undemocratic.Specifically, he’s proposed declaring a state of emergency for 90 days and suspending all judicial and administrative functions in order to address corruption, leading to fears that he could shut down Congress or suspend mayors.Election Day in Suarez, north of Cauca, in Colombia.Federico Rios for The New York TimesMany voters are fed up with rising prices, high unemployment, low wages, rising education costs and surging violence, and polls show that a clear majority of Colombians have an unfavorable view of current conservative administration.Candidates pushing change have been killed on the campaign trail in Colombia before. Mr. Petro and his running mate, Francia Márquez, have both received death threats, prompting increased security, including bodyguards holding riot shields.Yet the election was also marked by a broadening of the political tent.In a matter of months, Ms. Márquez, an environmental activist who would be the country’s first Black vice president if she won, has morphed into a national phenomenon, infusing the election with a gender, race and class-conscious focus like few other candidates in the country’s history.Her popularity has been viewed overwhelmingly as a reflection of a deep desire by many voters — Black, Indigenous, poor, rural — to see themselves in the highest halls of power.On Sunday, she could have voted in the capital. Instead, she chose to travel to the southwestern department of Cauca, where she grew up.Francia Márquez, the left’s vice-presidential candidate, voting in her hometown Suarez, North of Cauca, in Colombia. Federico Rios for The New York Times“Today we are splitting the country’s history in two,” she said on Sunday, shortly after casting her ballot. “Today, one of the nobodies, the historically excluded, is standing up to occupy a place in politics.”Reporting was contributed by Sofía Villamil, Megan Janetsky and Genevieve Glatsky in Bogotá, and by Federico Rios in Suarez, Cauca. More

Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to beginFormer president intensifies attacks on Liz Cheney at Wyoming rally and endorses her Republican primary challenger in midterm elections As the House committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol by extremist supporters of Donald Trump prepares to start public hearings next week, the former president called the insurrection on January 6, 2021, a hoax.Trump spoke at a rally in Wyoming on Saturday night in support of the Republican primary challenger in the midterm elections to congresswoman Liz Cheney. Cheney sits on the committee and has been vilified by Trump since she voted in favor of his historic second impeachment over the insurrection.Addressing the sub-capacity crowd at a rally in Casper for Republican candidate Harriet Hageman, Trump slammed Cheney, saying: “As one of the nation’s leading proponents of the insurrection hoax, Liz Cheney has pushed a grotesquely false, fabricated, hysterical partisan narrative.”Capitol attack panel to hold six public hearings as it aims to show how Trump broke lawRead moreHe added: “Look at the so-called word insurrection, January 6 – what a lot of crap.”Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives a week after a violent mob broke into the US Capitol to try in vain to prevent a joint session of congress certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over Republican Trump in the 2020 presidential election.Trump was accused of inciting the deadly insurrection because he held a rally near the White House that morning, during which he urged the crowd to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” to overturn the election result.Then as the violent mob, many carrying Trump banners, broke into the Capitol and rampaged through corridors, offices and chambers, attacking vastly outnumbered police officers and sending Democrats and Republicans fleeing for their lives, Trump ignored calls from colleagues and relatives to publicly call his supporters off and only hours later went on TV mildly telling people to “go home”.Trump was acquitted at his impeachment trial by the US Senate. A bipartisan Senate report later linked seven deaths to the Capitol attack on January 6.Lawmakers called for an independent commission to be created, similar to one set up after the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11 2001, to investigate the events on and leading up to January 6 and the involvement of the Trump White House.Republicans in the Senate killed that move so the House last summer formed a select committee to investigate the insurrection, chaired by Mississippi Democratic congressman Bennie Thompson but also including Republicans Adam Kinzinger and Cheney, the daughter of former vice-president Dick Cheney.The committee has since gathered mountains of evidence and taken testimony from numerous witnesses behind closed doors, while being stonewalled by many senior Republicans, and accuses Trump of attempting to lead a type of coup.January 6 ‘was a coup organized by the president’, says Jamie RaskinRead moreThe committee is due to hold a series of public hearings beginning 9 June and expects to present a report before the midterm elections in November. Separately, the Department of Justice is also investigating events on and surrounding the Capitol attack, led by the US attorney general, Merrick Garland.At the rally in Wyoming , Trump appeared to lament the treatment of those arrested for taking part in the Capitol attack, while falsely claiming that anti-fascist and Black Lives Matter movement anti-racism activists “have killed plenty”.“Look what they are doing to these people,” he said.More than 800 people have been charged with federal crimes relating to the riot on January 6, in the biggest federal criminal investigation since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.At least 300 have already pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors, and nearly 20o have been sentenced. Approximately 100 others have trial dates.In the latest court cases, Matthew Mark Wood, of North Carolina, pleaded guilty last Friday to charges that he stormed the Capitol, including a felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding, and will be sentenced in September.He entered the Capitol by climbing through a smashed window and followed others who had overcome police through corridors and into House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s offices.Also last Friday Matthew Joseph Buckler, of Maryland, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in July for “parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building” after also entering through a window breached by the mob.It was ruled in court that the former top leader of the far right, violent group the Proud Boys, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, will remain jailed while awaiting trial on charges that he conspired with other members of the extremist group to take part in the insurrection.Tarrio, a south Florida resident, has been indicted on charges including conspiracy.TopicsUS newsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

A new documentary from Trump allies makes the latest case the election was stolen, but the group behind the claim has been assailed even by some on the hard right.PALM BEACH, Fla. — Votes switched by Venezuelan software. Voting machines hacked by the Chinese. Checking for telltale bamboo fibers that might prove ballots had been flown in from Asia. After the 2020 election, Donald J. Trump and his allies cycled through a raft of explanations for what they claimed was the fraud that stole his rightful re-election as president, all of them debunked.Yet on a recent evening at his Mar-a-Lago resort, there was Mr. Trump showcasing his latest election conspiracy theory, one he has been advancing for months at rallies for his favored midterm candidates.The basic pitch is that an army of left-wing operatives stuffed drop boxes with absentee ballots — a new spin on an old allegation that voter-fraud activists call “ballot trafficking.” And while MAGA-world luminaries like Rudolph W. Giuliani, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and the MyPillow founder Mike Lindell filled the gilded ballroom, the former president called out two lesser-known figures sitting up front — the stars of “2000 Mules,” a documentary film promoting that ballot-trafficking theory and premiering at Mar-a-Lago that night.“These people are true patriots,” Mr. Trump said, gesturing from the podium to the pair — a Tea Party veteran from Texas, Catherine Engelbrecht, and Gregg Phillips, her full-bearded sidekick, a longtime Republican operative — and imploring them to “stand up.”The Mar-a-Lago “2000 Mules” screening earlier this month.Alexandra Berzon/The New York TimesDonald Trump and his allies are pushing the conspiracy theory covered in “2000 Mules.”Alexandra Berzon/The New York TimesWhile the early primaries have delivered a mixed verdict on the former president’s endorsements and stolen-election obsessions, polling nonetheless shows that a majority of Republicans believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen, even though vote fraud is exceedingly rare. Mr. Trump and his allies hope “2000 Mules,” now playing at several hundred theaters, will win over doubters among establishment Republicans.Ms. Engelbrecht, the founder of True the Vote, a group that has spent years warning of the dangers of voter fraud, has criticized the earlier narratives of the 2020 election as unhelpful. “What they were putting out there was a lot of misinformation that just wasn’t true,” she said in a recent interview. “People want to believe the conspiracies in some ways.” Their film, she maintains, offers a more-serious theory.Catherine Engelbrecht, center, founder and president of True the Vote.Michael F. McElroy for The New York TimesYet a close look at the documentary shows that it, too, is based on arguments that fall apart under scrutiny.The film, directed by the conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza, is based in part on an erroneous premise: that getting paid to deliver other people’s ballots is illegal not just in states like Pennsylvania and Georgia where True the Vote centered its research and where third-party delivery of ballots is not allowed in most cases, but in every state.What’s more, the film claims, but never shows in its footage, that individual “mules” stuffed drop box after drop box. (Mr. Phillips said such footage exists, but Mr. D’Souza said it wasn’t included because “it’s not easy to tell from the images themselves that it is the same person.”) Those claims are purportedly backed up by tracking cellphone data, but the film’s methods of analysis have been pilloried in numerous fact-checks. (True the Vote declined to offer tangible proof — Mr. Phillips calls his methodology a “trade secret.”)More broadly, Ms. Engelbrecht has said that the surge of mail-in voting in 2020 was part of a Marxist plot, aided by billionaires including George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg, to disrupt American elections, rather than a legitimate response to the coronavirus pandemic.Mr. Phillips, whose firm OpSec does data analysis for True the Vote, is perhaps best known for making a fantastical claim in 2017 that more than three million illegal immigrants voted in the 2016 election, which was amplified by Mr. Trump but never backed up with evidence. Mr. Phillips is also an adviser to Get Georgia Right, a political action committee that received $500,000 from Mr. Trump’s Save America PAC this past March 25, the day after Mr. Phillips and Ms. Engelbrecht advanced their 2020 vote-fraud theories to a legislative committee in Wisconsin. Mr. Phillips said he had “received zero money” from Get Georgia Right, which backed Mr. Trump’s favored and failed governor-primary candidate, David Perdue.Gregg Phillips, right, at the “2000 Mules” screening at Mar-a-Lago.Alexandra Berzon/The New York TimesMr. Phillips and Ms. Engelbrecht have become controversial even within the hard-right firmament. They are embroiled in litigation with True the Vote’s largest donor, and Ms. Engelbrecht has feuded with Cleta Mitchell, a leading Trump ally and elections lawyer. John Fund, a prominent conservative journalist who was once a booster of Ms. Engelbrecht, has implored donors to shun her, according to videotape provided to The New York Times by Documented, a nonprofit news site.“I would not give her a penny,” Mr. Fund said at a meeting of members of the Council for National Policy, a secretive group of right-wing leaders, in the summer of 2020. “She’s a good person who’s been led astray. Don’t do it.”But Ms. Engelbrecht found support from Salem Media Group, which distributes right-wing talk radio and podcasts, including one hosted by Mr. D’Souza, who was pardoned by Mr. Trump after being convicted of campaign finance fraud. After meeting with Mr. Phillips and Ms. Engelbrecht, Salem Media spent $1.5 million to make the film and $3 million to market it, according to Mr. D’Souza. An elaborate and shadowy film set, with giant screens and flashing lights, was built to show Ms. Engelbrecht and Mr. Phillips conducting their cellphone-data analysis.Directed by the conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza, “2000 Mules” is based on an erroneous central premise: that getting paid to deliver other people’s ballots is illegal in every state.Shannon Finney/Getty ImagesThe group has not presented any evidence that the ballots themselves — as opposed to their delivery — were improper. “I want to make very clear that we’re not suggesting that the ballots that were cast were illegal ballots. What we’re saying is that the process was abused,” Ms. Engelbrecht said in Wisconsin. In an interview, she backtracked, but when asked to provide evidence of improper votes, she only pointed to previous accusations unrelated to the 2020 general election.A repeated contention of the documentary is that getting paid to deliver other peoples’ ballots is illegal in every state. Mr. D’Souza emailed The New York Times a citation to a federal statute that outlaws getting paid to vote — and does not discuss delivering other people’s ballots. Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation fellow, appears in the movie agreeing that the practice is outlawed nationwide, but in 2019 he wrote that it was “perfectly legal” in some states for “political guns-for-hire” to collect ballots. (Asked about the discrepancy, Mr. von Spakovsky said he believed the practice is illegal based on federal law.)The swing states where Ms. Phillips and Ms. Engelbrecht focused their research do ban the delivery of ballots on behalf of others, with some exceptions. But elections officers in 16 other states surveyed by The Times said their states did not prohibit people getting paid to deliver a ballot. Some of those states limit how many ballots an individual can deliver, or bar campaigns from doing so.Mr. Phillips and Ms. Engelbrecht’s case is largely built on cellphone data. A report created by the group includes an appendix that claims to list “IMEI” numbers of the tracked devices — 15-digit codes unique to each cellphone. But each entry on the list is a 20-character string of numbers and letters followed by a lot of x’s. Mr. Phillips said new IDs had been created “to obfuscate the numbers.”The same report says the group “purchased 25 terabytes of cellphone signal data emitted by devices” in the Milwaukee area in a two-week period before the 2020 election. They claim to have isolated 107 unique devices that made “20 or more visits to drop boxes” and “multiple visits to nongovernmental organizations” that were involved in get out the vote efforts.A number of researchers have said that while cellphone data is fairly precise, it cannot determine if someone is depositing ballots in a drop box or just passing by the area.“It’s really, really hard to assign even what side of the street you’re on when you’re using this kind of data,” said Paul Schmitt, a research scientist and professor at the University of Southern California.The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 8Numerous inquiries. More

More from our inbox:A Piercing Inquiry Into the History of Haiti’s PlightA Self-Fulfilling Election Prophecy? Ben HickeyTo the Editor:In “Punishing Women Who Have Abortions” (Opinion, Sunday Review, May 15), Jane Coaston mentions the possibility being discussed in some anti-abortion circles of charging those who have abortions with homicide. There is another way some in the anti-abortion camp speak of punishing women who seek abortions, in this case very ill women — letting them die.This is not a majority position in the anti-abortion movement, but it is not a new idea. In 1984, Paul Weyrich, an influential conservative activist, stated, in explaining his opposition to exceptions to abortion bans in cases of threats to a woman’s life: “I believe that if you have to choose between new life and existing life, you should choose new life. The person who has had an opportunity to live at least has been given that gift by God and should make way for new life on earth.”In the likely event that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and about half the states ban abortion, it is in the realm of possibility that extremist politicians in some of these states will be successful in blocking any exceptions whatsoever. Doctors in those states will be placed in a horrible position, facing years of jail time if they abort the fetus, and women will die needlessly.Carole JoffeSan FranciscoThe writer is a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.To the Editor:An important problem in criminalizing abortion is frequently overlooked: policing it.New York County abortion trial transcripts in the John Jay College of Criminal Justice archives (1883-1927) show that because illegal abortions invariably took place in private locations — usually the home of the doctor or midwife who performed the abortion — the authorities had to rely on unsavory detection methods.These included threatening the hospitalized victims of botched abortions with arrest unless they named and testified against their abortion providers; making deals for leniency with pregnant women arrested for unrelated crimes if they agreed to help entrap a suspected abortion provider; and setting up elaborate sting operations with women employed by the police.Even with the more sophisticated surveillance methods available today, law enforcement personnel will often be obliged to rely on entrapment to prosecute abortion providers in states where abortion is illegal. The surprising number of acquittals in the historic abortion cases I have studied suggest that entrapment can be distasteful to jurors. Entrapment methods may also have a demoralizing, demeaning and potentially corrupting effect on the police.Elisabeth GitterNew YorkThe writer is emerita professor of English and interdisciplinary studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.To the Editor:I’d like to see an article about “How Will We Punish Men Who Don’t Support Women Who Have the Pregnancies.” We are still focused on the women, but now we have the technologies to identify the fathers and expect them to fully support the children they conceive. Would this change the dynamics of pregnancy, abortions and support? You bet it would.Janice WoychikChapel Hill, N.C.A Piercing Inquiry Into the History of Haiti’s PlightAn illustration depicting plantations burning in 1791, during the Haitian Revolution.Universal Images Group, via Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Your comprehensive May 22 special section on Haiti, “The Ransom,” was eye-opening. It showed that debt is a tool of the rich comparable to slavery — and has been throughout history.But the special section, sadly, also shows the limits of talking about reparations as justice. Even if the French government paid Haiti back all that it took, with interest, the resulting payment would scarcely account for the lost opportunities and social dislocations caused by its aggression.Andrew OramArlington, Mass.To the Editor:When I arrived in Haiti for the first time, in 1996, I had already been in a number of poverty-stricken countries in this hemisphere. There were similarities, of course, but the depth and pervasiveness of impoverishment and the unreliability or absence of the most basic physical and governmental infrastructure were on a scale I had not previously encountered.It was not surprising that Haitians felt that they had little control over their lives — lives spent in surviving day to day.How did it come to this? Your series “The Ransom” provides well-researched, convincing answers to that question.George Santayana warned that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” We cannot heed that warning if that past is not known to begin with. Now that the reality of that Haitian history is more widely known, will it continue to be repeated?John CosgroveLumberton, N.J.The writer is professor emeritus in the Graduate School of Social Service at Fordham University.A Self-Fulfilling Election Prophecy?To the Editor:Current reporting from many Democratic and Republican pundits presumes that Republicans will take over the House and the Senate in the November elections. No doubt they base this prediction on polling and the historical results of midterm elections. Perhaps they are right, but perhaps not.While such a prediction serves the Republicans well, for the Democrats, it’s toxic. An attitude of “it’s all over but the voting” has the potential to discourage Democrats from bothering to vote, turning that presumption into a self-fulfilling prophecy.Mary-Lou WeismanWestport, Conn. More

Out of power for 12 years, Britain’s Labour Party has made some gains, but its message hasn’t won back the rust belt regions that abandoned it in the last election.LONDON — When Boris Johnson hit energy companies with a windfall tax last week as a way of providing more aid for struggling consumers, it was a bittersweet moment for the opposition Labour Party, which had been promoting just such a plan for months.For once, Labour could claim to have won “the battle of ideas.” But at a stroke, Mr. Johnson had co-opted the party’s marquee policy and claimed the credit.This might have been a moment of opportunity for Labour. Mr. Johnson’s leadership has been in jeopardy because of a scandal over illicit lockdown-busting parties in Downing Street — missteps highlighted by a civil servant’s report last week that said senior leadership “must bear responsibility” for the failure to follow the rules.But some political analysts think Labour should focus less on the “partygate” scandal and more on outlining a clear agenda to British voters, who face rising inflation and a possible recession.Prime Minister Boris Johnson outside 10 Downing Street in London. His leadership has been in jeopardy because of illicit lockdown-busting parties held there.Dominic Lipinski/Press Association, via Associated PressNow out of power for 12 years, Labour has lost the last four general elections, including a thrashing in 2019 when Jeremy Corbyn, a left-winger and the party’s leader at the time, was crushed by Mr. Johnson’s Conservatives.John McTernan, a political strategist and onetime aide to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, said that while Labour had made a decent recovery under the current leader, Keir Starmer, it had not yet “closed the deal” with the electorate.“It looks like modest progress because it is modest progress” said Mr. McTernan, while adding that it was still a “massive rebalancing” after the 2019 defeat.He praised the advances made under Mr. Starmer, but said the party still had work to do if it hoped to install a Labour government in place of the Tories. “This is the year the tempo has to pick up,” he said.And while the Conservatives lost badly in recent local elections, Labour has made only limited progress, with smaller parties doing well.Mr. Starmer suffered a setback recently when the police reopened an investigation into whether he, too, broke coronavirus rules. He promptly promised that he would resign if he were fined by the police — in contrast to Mr. Johnson, who suffered that fate in April but refused to quit.But whatever Mr. Starmer’s future, the Labour Party has yet to draft a convincing message to win back rust belt regions that abandoned it in the last election and that — judging by the local election results — remain to be convinced.A polling station this month in Wandsworth, England. While the Conservatives lost badly in recent local elections, Labour has made only limited progress, with smaller parties doing well.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesIn the 2019 general election, parts of England that for decades had voted for Labour switched en masse to the Conservatives, allowing Mr. Johnson to recast the political map just as Donald J. Trump did in the United States in 2016.Since then, Mr. Starmer has junked much of Mr. Corbyn’s socialist agenda, posed frequently alongside the British flag to illustrate his patriotism, taken a tough line against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and become the first Labour leader in more than a decade to visit NATO.But the party has yet to define itself with a clear new vision to British voters, and Mr. Starmer, a former chief prosecutor, has little of the charisma that distinguishes leaders in the mold of Mr. Trump and Mr. Johnson.Even he accepts that Labour is not yet in a solid, election-winning position.“I always said the first thing we needed to do was to recognize that if you lose badly, you don’t blame the electorate, you change your party,” Mr. Starmer said in an interview this year after meeting with voters at a town-hall meeting at Burnley College in northwestern England. “We have spent the best part of two years doing that heavy lifting, that hard work.”A supermarket in London. Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised a new and more generous package of aid worth billions of dollars to help all British households.Tolga Akmen/EPA, via ShutterstockYet Labour’s task is huge.In 2019, the Conservatives captured areas like Burnley, in Britain’s postindustrial “red wall,” and Labour polled poorly in Scotland, once another heartland, losing out to the Scottish National Party. Looming changes to electoral boundaries are likely to favor the Conservatives in the next general election, which must take place by the end of 2024 but that many expect next year.So Labour is hosting a series of town-hall meetings where uncommitted voters are asked what would lure them back to the party.After the gathering in Burnley, Lisa Nandy, a senior member of the Labour Party, reflected on the project to mend what she called “a breakdown in trust” between Labour and its traditional voters.“It broke my heart in 2019 when I watched communities where I grew up and that I call home turning blue for the first time in history,” said Ms. Nandy, referring to the campaign color used by the Conservatives. She represents Wigan, another former industrial town, speaks for Labour on how to spread prosperity to areas outside England’s prosperous southeast, and knows that her party has work to do.People at the meeting in Burnley liked the idea of cutting energy bills by placing a windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas firms, said Ms. Nandy, speaking before the government announced the plan. Yet few at this time knew this was one of Labour’s main policy proposals.“The question is, why don’t they know this is what we have been saying?” Ms. Nandy lamented earlier this year, referring to voters.The reason, she thinks, is that politicians spend too much time in London and too little “on people’s own territory having conversations with them about things that matter to them.”Labour is also reaching out to a business community whose ties to the government have been strained over Brexit rules that pile mounds of extra red tape onto many exporters. At a digital meeting with businesses in the Midlands, Seema Malhotra, who speaks for Labour on business and industrial issues, heard a litany of problems, including customs bureaucracy, inflation, rising energy and wage costs, and supply-chain difficulties.Labour Party signs in Bradford, England.Mary Turner for The New York Times“I don’t think anyone is expecting full policy across the board until the time of the next election,” she said. “A lot of what we need to do is about rebuilding our relationship with the country and setting out our values, and people need to get to know the Labour Party again.”“Whilst people are prepared to listen to Labour again, we cannot be complacent,” she added. “Many people have yet to feel that we have fully moved on from the past enough to now trust us. We have work to do on continuing to demonstrate that our party has changed.”Some analysts argue that what Labour really needs is a sharper message.“I know so many progressives who think that politics is like a football game: If you have a 10-point plan on health and your opponents only have a five-point plan you win 10 to 5,” Mr. McTernan said. “You don’t.”Instead, he added, “You have to say: ‘This is Britain’s big challenge. Labour is the answer. Here’s why and here’s how.’”To succeed, the party needs to convince people like Ged Ennis, the director of a renewable energy company that equipped Burnley College with solar panels. He has voted for Labour and the Conservatives over the years, but opted for the centrist Liberal Democrats in 2019.Mr. Ennis said he had been convinced that Labour was keen to listen but confessed to having a hazy picture of Mr. Starmer’s politics. “I think what he needs to do is to be brave and to be really clear about what he wants to deliver,” he said. More

This is a column about good news, written in the shadow of the worst news imaginable.Like many people, the mass shooting of children in Uvalde, Texas, is basically the only thing I’ve read about for days. But as I’ve marinated in the horror — and, increasingly, in rage at the police response — I’ve also been aware of the way our media experience works today, how we are constantly cycled from one crisis to another, each one seemingly existential and yet seemingly forgotten when the wheel turns, the headlines change.Climate change, systemic racism, toxic masculinity, online disinformation, gun violence, police violence, the next Trump coup, the latest Covid variant, the death of democracy, climate change again. This is the liberal crisis list; the conservative list is different. But for everyone there are relatively few opportunities to take a breath and acknowledge when anything actually gets better.So my next column will be about the darkness in Texas and the possible policy response. In this one I want to acknowledge that in a different zone of existential agitation, things just meaningfully improved.In Georgia, the state at the center of the 45th president’s attempt to defy the public will and stay in office, there were two Republican primary races that doubled as referendums on the Trumpian demand that G.O.P. officials follow him into a constitutional crisis — and in both of them his candidate lost badly.The higher-profile race was the battle for the gubernatorial nomination between Brian Kemp and David Perdue, which Kemp won in an extraordinary rout. But the more important one was the Republican primary for secretary of state, in which Brad Raffensperger, the special target of Trump’s strong-arm tactics and then his public ire, defeated Jody Hice, Trump’s candidate — and did so without a runoff. Probably some crossover Democratic votes helped push him over 50 percent, but most of his voters were Republicans who listened to his challenger’s constant talk of voter fraud and decided to stick with the guy who stood up to Trump.Brian KempNicole Craine for The New York TimesBrad RaffenspergerAudra Melton for The New York TimesThe Kemp victory was expected; the easy Raffensperger win less so, and certainly it wasn’t expected at this time last year. Back then, if you pointed out that all the Republicans in positions that really mattered in the aftermath of the 2020 election, across multiple states and multiple offices, did their jobs and declined to go along with Trump, the usual response was maybe it happened once but wouldn’t happen again, because Trump’s enmity was a guaranteed career-ender.Now that narrative, happily, has been exploded. Any Republican in a key swing-state office come 2024 can look at Kemp and Raffensperger and know that they have a future in G.O.P. politics if, in the event of a contested election, they simply do their job.Moreover, the primary balloting in Georgia saw record early-voting turnout and no evidence of meaningful impediments to voting, which exploded a different crisis narrative that took hold on the left — and in corporate America and the Biden White House — when the state passed new voting regulations last year. According to that narrative, in trying to address the paranoia of their own constituents, Republicans were essentially rolling back voting rights, even recreating Jim Crow — “on steroids,” to quote our president.There was little good evidence for this narrative at the time, and even less evidence in the turnout rate for the Georgia primary, where early voting numbers were higher even than in 2020. “Jim Crow on steroids” should be stricken from the crisis cycle; it does not exist.On the other hand the Trumpian peril, the risk of election subversion and constitutional crisis, does still exist. Doug Mastriano’s recent primary victory in Pennsylvania proves as much, and there may be other swing-state nominees who, like Mastriano, can’t be trusted to imitate Kemp and Raffensperger in the clutch.But the results in Georgia prove that the faction that elevates figures like Mastriano does not have a simple veto in the party. It shows the effectiveness of what you might call a “stay and govern” strategy of dealing with Trump’s hold on the G.O.P., one with wide application as the party moves toward 2024.And it indicates the limits of the all-or-nothing thinking that a crisis mentality imposes. I can easily imagine an alternative timeline where Raffensperger resigned his office rather than standing for re-election, inked a deal with MSNBC, turned his subsequent book into a mega-bestseller in the style of so many Trump-administration exposés and adopted Biden-administration talking points to denounce Georgia election laws. That timeline would have unquestionably been better for the Raffensperger family’s bank account, and it would have prompted many liberals to hail him as a profile in Republican courage.But for everyone else — Georgians, the G.O.P., the country — that timeline would have been worse. Whereas because he stayed in the party, ran again and won, even in a dark week for America one region of our common life looks a little better, and one of our crises should feel a little bit less dire.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

Jonathan Cervas, a former bartender from Las Vegas, radically redrew New York’s House district lines, forcing some Democratic incumbents to scramble for new seats.He is a postdoctoral fellow from Pittsburgh, a bartender turned political mapmaker. Now, Jonathan Cervas is suddenly New York’s most unforeseen power broker.Last month, a New York State judge chose Mr. Cervas to create new district maps in New York for the House and State Senate, after maps approved by state Democratic leaders were declared unconstitutional.Mr. Cervas’s new maps radically reshaped several districts, scrambling the future of the state’s political establishment for the next decade. Republicans were quietly pleased, and some anti-gerrymandering groups praised his work. But Democrats, who saw several potential pickups in the House of Representatives potentially evaporate, were outraged. Mr. Cervas’s decisions — the rationale for which he outlined in a lengthy explanation released early Saturday — have already caused vicious infighting and prospective primaries between some incumbent Democrats, including one pitting Representatives Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney against each other in Manhattan.For his part, Mr. Cervas, 37, insists he was just doing his job, the importance of which he says has been exaggerated by the fact that the state’s changes came so late in the 2022 election cycle.“People have made a narrative how the House of Representatives is going to be determined by one man who is from Pennsylvania; nothing could be further from the truth, ” he said in a lengthy interview this week, adding that “people still have to run” for office.“I serve the court, I serve democracy. That’s it,” he added. “If people want to make me important, so be it, but I just stick with my moral principles and things I’ve learned and apply the law as its written.”That said, the impact of Mr. Cervas’s circumscription has already been profound, creating the likelihood of highly competitive general-election campaigns from Long Island to upstate New York. Some races in the New York State Senate, where Democrats hold a comfortable majority, have also been upended by new lines.Representative Hakeem Jeffries, who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens, was particularly galled by the congressional changes, likening the new lines to “Jim Crow” laws — which restricted Black involvement in voting and other aspects of society — and skewering Mr. Cervas’s work as having “degraded the Black and Latino populations in five New York City-based congressional districts.”“The unelected, out-of-town special master did a terrible job, produced an unfair map that did great violence to Black and Latino communities throughout the city, and unnecessarily detonated the most Jewish district in America,” said Mr. Jeffries, who is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and the second-highest-ranking Black lawmaker in Congress. “That’s problematic and that cannot be excused or explained in any fair or rational fashion.”What to Know About RedistrictingRedistricting, Explained: Here are some answers to your most pressing questions about the process that is reshaping American politics.Understand Gerrymandering: Can you gerrymander your party to power? Try to draw your own districts in this imaginary state.Killing Competition: The number of competitive districts is dropping, as both parties use redistricting to draw themselves into safe seats.Deepening Divides: As political mapmakers create lopsided new district lines, the already polarized parties are being pulled even farther apart.Mr. Cervas said that his map “fully reflected” how many of New York’s largest minority populations — including Black, Latino, and Asian groups — are “geographically concentrated.”As for Mr. Cervas’s political beliefs, they are somewhat hard to divine. He describes his political leanings as “pro-democracy,” rather than professing allegiance to any party, though he adds that belief happens “to align more closely with one party than another.” He is registered as an independent in Pennsylvania, where he lives, but he says he recently voted in a Republican primary there in hopes of electing moderate members of that party.What’s more, he says he hates politics, preferring institutions and policy to electoral battles.“I like governance,” Mr. Cervas said. “I don’t really like the bickering, the animosities, the games. Those types of things are uninteresting to me.”Ross Mantle for The New York TimesRoss Mantle for The New York TimesMr. Cervas was appointed as a so-called special master by Justice Patrick F. McAllister of State Supreme Court in Steuben County, who ordered new maps drawn up after a successful lawsuit from Republicans. Justice McAllister, a Republican, found that Democratic lawmakers in Albany had adopted lines that were “unconstitutionally drawn with political bias.”Mr. Cervas’s was appointed in mid-April, after Nate Persily, a Stanford law professor who helped draw New York’s current congressional map in 2012, turned down Justice McAllister. His previous work had been as an assistant on more limited redistricting cases in Georgia, Virginia and Utah. Last year, however, Mr. Cervas was hired for a statewide project, as part of a redistricting commission in Pennsylvania, where the chairman, Mark Nordenberg, said he proved invaluable as a redistricting specialist, as well as having “a deep knowledge of the law” and, of course, “technical, mapping skills.”“He approached everything we did in a fair and nonpartisan fashion,” said Mr. Nordenberg, the former chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh, noting he “would hire him again if I had the opportunity.”That said, Mr. Cervas had never been a special master, particularly on such a tight deadline: about five weeks to deliver the final maps, including and incorporating revisions. He worked with several assistants and solicited comments from the public, both online and in a single, in-person hearing in Steuben County, about 275 miles from New York City.And while the remoteness of that location made court appearances cumbersome, some anti-gerrymandering advocates made the trip to voice support for the new maps.“I have to say I was pleasantly surprised,” said Jerry Vattamala, the director of the Democracy Program at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which was part of a coalition lobbying for more representation for people of color in New York City, adding that Mr. Cervas seemed responsive to the thousands of comments he received. “So the six-hour drive, I guess, was worth it.”In some ways, Mr. Cervas seems destined to have played an outsize role in Democratic woe: He was born, outside Pittsburgh, on Election Day in 1984, when Ronald Reagan humiliated the party’s nominee, Walter Mondale, winning a second term. His upbringing — in two swing states — was working-class: His father was a field service representative for Whittle Communications, his mother worked at Kmart.The family moved to Las Vegas in the early 1990s, and Mr. Cervas became interested in politics, eventually studying the topic at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and graduating with a degree in political science. He supported himself by working in a movie theater at a casino and eventually tending bar, a job he said helped him learn how to listen to divergent opinions.“It’s actually an education on how to be moderate,” he said. “When people say things that are inflammatory, you have to not take it too personally. ”Before working on New York’s lines, Mr. Cervas was a redistricting specialist for a Pennsylvania commission.Ross Mantle for The New York TimesIf there was a turning point in the road for Mr. Cervas, it may have come nearly a decade ago at a rock concert in Anaheim, Calif.How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More