Elections

Michael Sussmann, a prominent lawyer with Democratic ties, is accused of lying to the F.B.I. in a case with broader political overtones.WASHINGTON — Prosecutors and defense lawyers clashed in opening arguments on Tuesday in the trial of Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer with links to Democrats who has been charged by a Trump-era special counsel with lying to the F.B.I. in 2016 when he brought the bureau a tip about possible Trump-Russia connections.Deborah Shaw, a prosecutor working for the Trump-era special counsel, John H. Durham, told a federal jury that Mr. Sussman was in part representing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign at the time. But he claimed to the F.B.I. that he was not bringing the tip on behalf of any client because he wanted to conceal his ties to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.Whether one loves or hates former President Donald J. Trump, Ms. Shaw said, the F.B.I. needs to know the truth “and should never be used as a political pawn.”But a defense lawyer, Michael Bosworth, argued to the jury that Mr. Sussmann did not lie to the F.B.I. when he relayed the suspicions. No one at the Clinton campaign told Mr. Sussman to take the matter to the F.B.I., Mr. Bosworth said.Mr. Bosworth did acknowledge that Mr. Sussmann was representing the Clinton campaign when he reached out separately to a reporter then at The New York Times about the suspicions. The move led the bureau, Mr. Bosworth said, to try to delay any news article while they investigated.“The meeting with the F.B.I. is the exact opposite of what the campaign would have wanted,” Mr. Bosworth said, adding: “They wanted a big story that hurts Trump and helps them. He was there to help the F.B.I.”The contrasting narratives were a highlight of the first day of the trial, which is expected to take about two weeks. Witnesses may include Marc Elias, who was then Mr. Sussmann’s law partner as well as the general counsel of the Clinton campaign, and James Baker, who was then the F.B.I.’s general counsel.The case centers on a meeting Mr. Sussmann had with Mr. Baker in September 2016, when Mr. Sussmann told Mr. Baker about some odd internet data and analysis by cybersecurity researchers who had said it might be a sign of a covert communications channel using servers for the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked financial institution. The F.B.I. investigated the matter but concluded the concerns were unsubstantiated.Although the false-statement charge against Mr. Sussmann is narrow, the case has attracted broad attention. It is the first developed by Mr. Durham, and the special counsel has used court filings to insinuate that Clinton campaign associates sought to frame Mr. Trump for colluding with Russia.It has been clear for months that the trial will turn in part on how to interpret what it means to bring information to the F.B.I. “on behalf” of a client. But the rival opening statements brought into sharper relief another dispute: Mr. Sussmann’s understanding of the status of a potential New York Times article.Ms. Shaw maintained that Mr. Sussmann and others decided to bring the information to the F.B.I. “to create a sense of urgency” when a Times reporter with whom he had previously shared the Alfa Bank allegations, Eric Lichtblau, did not swiftly publish a story about them.But Mr. Bosworth argued that Mr. Sussmann believed The Times was on the cusp of publishing the article when he reached out to the F.B.I. Mr. Sussmann, he emphasized, had been a federal prosecutor and had worked with the F.B.I. for years and wanted to give it advance warning so it would not be “caught flat-footed.”Mr. Lichtblau, who no longer works for The Times, may testify. In the meantime, some things remain unclear about the status of the potential article he was drafting. Mr. Baker has testified to Congress that the F.B.I. asked The Times “to slow down” on publishing it. But news reports have indicated that editors were not ready to run that article anyway.Mr. Sussmann was given the data and analysis by Rodney Joffe, an internet entrepreneur and expert in domain name systems who was already his client. The analysis had been developed by a group of data scientists who specialized in analyzing DNS data for signs of cyberthreats, and who eventually started working with him.After opening arguments, two F.B.I. agents testified. The first explained technical details to the jury about so-called DNS data, a type of internet log that was the basis for the suspicions.The second agent, Scott Hellman, an F.B.I. cybercrime specialist who was part of a two-person team that performed a quick initial assessment of the materials Mr. Sussmann had provided to Mr. Baker, testified that he was skeptical of its methodology and conclusions.Among other things, Mr. Hellman said, he did not think it made any sense that anyone would use a server with Trump’s name on it for a secret channel. He also testified that he had been frustrated that Mr. Baker did not tell him from whom he received the data.John H. Durham, center, is the special counsel assigned by the Trump administration in 2019 to scour the Russia investigation for wrongdoing.Samuel Corum for The New York TimesThe prosecution and defense appeared to be putting different emphasis on a matter that formed the backdrop to the constellation of events at issue in the trial: Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.In her opening statement, Ms. Shaw told the jury that Mr. Sussman had represented the Democratic National Committee when it was hacked in the spring of 2016, but she omitted the fact that Russia was the perpetrator.Mr. Bosworth, by contrast, emphasized to the jury that the onset the events took place “at a time when questions were swirling about Donald Trump’s connections to Russia.” More

In an updated indictment, the Justice Department said Thomas Barrack sought money from the United Arab Emirates for an investment fund that would boost the Trump administration’s agenda.Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a businessman and longtime friend who acted as an informal adviser to former President Donald J. Trump, sought money from the United Arab Emirates in early 2017 for an investment fund that would seek both to boost Mr. Trump’s agenda and to benefit from his policies, federal prosecutors said in a court filing on Tuesday.Prosecutors cited the effort in a superseding indictment in a case in which they charged Mr. Barrack last July with acting as an unregistered agent for the United Arab Emirates, conspiring with the Emiratis to influence the Trump campaign and the White House, and lying to investigators.While the proposed fund’s “primary purpose” would be earning profits, it would “accomplish a secondary mandate to garner political credibility for its contributions to the policies” of the Trump administration, a top aide to Mr. Barrack wrote in the weeks after Mr. Trump’s election in November 2016 in a plan for the “U.A.E. Fund” quoted in the prosecutors’ filing. The fund would make money by “sourcing, financing, operationally improving and harvesting assets” in industries that would “benefit the most” from the Trump presidency, the plan said.The new indictment cited the proposed fund as evidence that Mr. Barrack sought to profit from his advocacy for the Emiratis with Mr. Trump and his circle. The indictment quoted emails and text messages from April 2017 stating that while traveling in the Middle East, Mr. Barrack could “pitch” the idea in a meeting with Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the Emirati ruler, whose title then was the crown prince of Abu Dhabi.There is no evidence that the proposed pro-Trump venture ever materialized or that Mr. Barrack had the meeting with the crown prince. But the indictment noted that in the following months, Emirati sovereign wealth funds invested a total of $374 million in two deals sponsored by the giant real estate company Mr. Barrack led, now known as DigitalBridge Group and formerly known as Colony Capital.Alongside several other major funds, the Emiratis invested about $74 million in a deal to buy a Los Angeles office building and also invested about $300 million in an investment fund targeting digital communications infrastructure. The indictment noted that Mr. Barrack’s company had not raised any new capital from the United Arab Emirates in the seven years before Mr. Trump’s election, and that internal company records attributed the $300 million investment in the digital fund to “Barrack magic.”Through a spokesman, Mr. Barrack declined to comment. Lawyers for Mr. Barrack are expected to argue that the Emiratis invested in those deals on their financial merits and on the same terms as other big investors, not as payments for influence. Although he was a close friend, major fund-raiser and informal adviser to Mr. Trump, Mr. Barrack stayed in private business, where he was not subjected to government ethics rules, and he has relied heavily on Persian Gulf investors throughout his career.The new indictment included new details about what prosecutors portrayed as Mr. Barrack’s efforts under the direction of the Emirati ruler and his lieutenants to try to influence the Trump campaign and administration.In May 2016, during the presidential campaign, Mr. Barrack sent the Emiratis a copy of a speech that he said he had personally drafted for Mr. Trump and that praised Sheikh Mohammed by name.“They loved it so much! This is great,” responded an Emirati intermediary, Rashid al-Malik, who was indicted along with Mr. Barrack but has remained outside the United States.As the speech was revised, Mr. Barrack worked closely with campaign officials to ensure the remarks retained a favorable if less explicit reference to Persian Gulf allies. The Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, an old friend whom Mr. Barrack had recommended for the job, asked him in an email for “an insert that works for our friends” — referring to the Emiratis — and afterward a senior Emirati official gratefully emailed Mr. Barrack that “everybody here are very happy with the results.”During the Republican convention, the updated indictment said, Mr. Barrack again worked with Mr. Manafort to tailor certain passages of the Republican platform according to Emirati input. “Can be much more expansive than what we did in the speech,” Mr. Manafort wrote in an email to Mr. Barrack, “based on what you hear from your friends.”In November 2016, during the transition, Mr. Barrack then worked with several senior Emirati officials to arrange a phone call with President-elect Trump for Sheikh Mohammed, the indictment said. “It’s done, great call,” Mr. Malik wrote in thanks to Mr. Barrack’s aide.The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 8Numerous inquiries. More

Newly drawn congressional maps have led some House members to quickly lay claim to certain districts, even if it means challenging fellow incumbents.Two weeks ago, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney warned fellow Democrats in a private meeting that a ruling by New York’s highest court to invalidate a Democratic-leaning congressional map could prompt “an extinction-level event” for the party, according to people familiar with the remarks.Democratic incumbents, he feared, could either be shoehorned into more difficult districts or forced into primaries against one another.So on Monday, when the courts finally unveiled a proposed new slate of districts unwinding Democrats’ gerrymander, Mr. Maloney, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, knew precisely what to do.Just 25 minutes after the maps’ release, Mr. Maloney announced on Twitter that he would leave behind the bulk of his traditional Hudson Valley seat and run instead for a newly drawn 17th Congressional District rooted in Westchester County. Mr. Maloney lives within the new lines, which happen to offer a safer path for a Democrat than the district he currently represents.What might have seemed like an easy political decision for Mr. Maloney, however, has quickly turned into a political firestorm, replete with racial overtones, off-the-record recriminations and rare breaches of congressional decorum between staff of neighboring colleagues.Some Democrats saw the maneuver as an attempt to box out Representative Mondaire Jones, a first-term congressman who represents the vast majority of the district’s population, and force him to enter a primary against Jamaal Bowman, a fellow Black progressive, in the neighboring 16th District. Mr. Jones made no secret of his own feelings, though he has yet to say which Democrat he will challenge.“Sean Patrick Maloney did not even give me a heads-up before he went on Twitter to make that announcement,” Mr. Jones tersely told Politico on Monday. “And I think that tells you everything you need to know about Sean Patrick Maloney.”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.In a rare break from Congress’s genteel protocols, Mr. Jones’s chief of staff even shared a screenshot of an exchange with Mr. Maloney’s top aide, and accused the chairman of prioritizing his personal interests “rather than working to unravel this gerrymander” by the courts.The once-a-decade congressional redistricting process is almost always an exercise in raw political power, particularly in a state like New York, which this year must shed a seat overall to account for population losses.But if New York’s redistricting cycle began this year with an attempt by Democrats to marginalize Republicans, it now appears destined to end in intense infighting among Democrats as the Aug. 23 primary approaches — thanks to a ruling last month by the state’s highest court declaring the Democrat-led Legislature’s maps unconstitutional.“Can I just go on vacation through August and wake up in September?” said Maria Slippen, the chairwoman of the Cortlandt Democratic Committee in Westchester County, lamenting a potential Democrat on Democrat fight in her district between Mr. Maloney and Mr. Jones. “When we are put in a situation where we have to fight with each other, the Republicans win,” she added.Representative Mondaire Jones said Mr. Maloney failed to give him a heads-up on his election plan.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesThe replacement map, drawn for the court by Jonathan R. Cervas, erased outright gains that Democrats had counted on based on the Legislature’s map and made other Democratic swing seats more competitive. It also forced at least five pairs of incumbents together in the same districts from Brooklyn to Buffalo, leaving candidates to decide whether to retire, move or go head-to-head with another sitting House member.A few miles down the Hudson from Mr. Maloney, two powerful Democratic committee chairs who have served alongside each other for 30 years — Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney — were also gearing up for a potentially explosive primary fight that would pit the east and west sides of Manhattan against one another in the new 12th Congressional District.Representatives Hakeem Jeffries and Yvette Clarke, two Black Democrats drawn into a single district in Central Brooklyn, expressed fury at Mr. Cervas, but indicated they were likely to still run for separate seats.The maps, which could still be tweaked before a judge makes them final on Friday, may simply leave other candidates without a natural seat to run in and create unexpected openings for candidates who had previously decided not to run in 2022.Alessandra Biaggi, a rising Democratic star in the State Senate, had hoped to run in a new seat — stretching from her home in Westchester County to Nassau County on Long Island — created under the State Legislature’s plan. But Mr. Cervas’s map removed Westchester from the district entirely.Rana Abdelhamid, a community organizer backed by Justice Democrats, had spent more than a year campaigning against Ms. Maloney in New York City, only to see her Queens neighborhood removed from the district.Suraj Patel, another Carolyn Maloney challenger, has yet to declare his intentions but lives close to the line separating the new 12th District from the 10th, the remnants of Mr. Nadler’s old seat. He could decide to run in the 10th, where State Senator Brad Hoylman, former Mayor Bill de Blasio and Carlina Rivera, a member of the City Council, are also seriously considering runs.How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More

How will progressive Democrats fare against moderate rivals? What signals will North Carolina Republicans send? And in Pennsylvania, will Kathy Barnette concede a loss?PHILADELPHIA — Tonight’s big races in Pennsylvania and North Carolina are sending tremors across the Republican Party, as its MAGA wing vies for dominance with other flavors of Trumpism.Democrats have held quieter primaries, but their party’s center-left establishment has battled progressive uprisings in places like the Raleigh-Durham region and Pittsburgh.New York Times reporters have fanned out across the states, and polls close in Pennsylvania at 8 p.m. Eastern and in North Carolina at 7:30 p.m. Eastern. Follow our live coverage of developments here, and view the results as they come in here. For now, we’ve got some questions about the wider implications of today’s races:Will Kathy Barnette claim the election was stolen if she loses?Barnette, a conservative commentator, has rocketed toward the top of polls in the Republican primary for Senate in Pennsylvania.She rose to prominence for embracing conspiracy theories about the 2020 election — including ones about her own failed race that year for a House seat in the Philadelphia suburbs, which she lost by nearly 20 percentage points to Representative Madeleine Dean, the Democratic incumbent. Barnette refused to concede, despite no evidence of problems with the election.The campaigns for Barnette’s top rivals, Dr. Mehmet Oz and Dave McCormick, projected confidence in conversations with senior campaign aides and surrogates today, but both are bracing for the possibility that Barnette will make similar claims if tonight’s results are especially close or uncertain.“We’re focused on running our race and we’re confident that Kathy will have a good night,” said Ryan Rhodes, a spokesman for the Barnette campaign.The McCormick campaign, which has the largest legal and communications infrastructure of all its rivals, has deployed 500 poll monitors to watch for any irregularities.Barnette’s late surge has frazzled and dismayed Republicans in Pennsylvania and beyond. They fear that her biography has not been subject to serious scrutiny, and many G.O.P. operatives in Washington would prefer Oz or McCormick, who are widely deemed better candidates for the general election.Republican strategists are weighing how to respond if the results tonight are close. Some counties are not expected to begin counting mail-in ballots until tomorrow.“If Kathy alleges fraud, I hope it will be for good reason,” said Josh Novotney, a Philadelphia-based lobbyist for SBL Strategies. “If not, it will hurt our party.”“A candidate crying election fraud against a Trump-backed candidate will probably have to be put in Webster’s as the new definition of irony,” he added.How does the progressive movement fare? Not every Democratic primary today falls neatly into the bucket of progressives versus the establishment. But there are few exceptions.One House primary in Oregon stands out because it’s not for an open seat. The incumbent, Representative Kurt Schrader, a leading moderate, has support from House Democrats’ campaign arm and an endorsement from President Biden.In Congress, progressive leaders haven’t flocked to support his challenger, Jamie McLeod-Skinner. But she has received the backing of one prominent Democrat — Senator Elizabeth Warren — as well as support from smaller left-leaning groups and several county Democratic Party organizations in Oregon that would normally be expected to back the incumbent or remain neutral.The clearest example of a left-versus-center showdown might be in Pittsburgh, where Representative Mike Doyle, a Democrat, is retiring. The top contenders to replace him are Summer Lee, a state legislator backed by progressives including Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders, and Steve Irwin, a Democrat supported by Doyle.Summer Lee, a progressive House candidate in Pennsylvania, with Mayor Ed Gainey of Pittsburgh today.Jeff Swensen/Getty Images“It’ll be a real bellwether for where the progressive movement is today,” said Aren Platt, a Democratic strategist in Pennsylvania.The United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, aired an ad that questioned Lee’s loyalty to Biden and the Democratic Party. The progressive group Justice Democrats has also been on air questioning whether Irwin is a “real Democrat” by trying to tie him to Republicans.Understand the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6Why are these midterms so important? More

Here’s what you need to know at the end of the day.(Want to get this newsletter in your inbox? Here’s the sign-up.)Good evening. Here’s the latest at the end of Tuesday.President Biden and Jill Biden, at a memorial outside the Tops supermarket in Buffalo, today.Doug Mills/The New York Times1. In a speech in Buffalo today, President Biden called white supremacy “a poison” and Saturday’s racist massacre “domestic terrorism” and shared each victim’s name and story.Biden and his wife, Jill, met with victims’ families before the speech, in which Biden denounced “replacement theory” and condemned those “who spread the lie for power, political gain and for profit.” Biden added, “I don’t know why we don’t admit what the hell is going on.” But he stopped short of naming influential proponents of the conspiracy theory, like Tucker Carlson.Not all residents welcomed his words: “I could care less about what Biden said. I want to see action,” one resident said. “I want to see our community actually get help.”Biden voiced support for getting assault weapons off the streets but, before leaving, said he could do little on gun control via executive action and that it would be hard to get Congress to act.The Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol, on Sunday.Alexander Ermochenko/Reuters2. By early Tuesday, more than 260 Ukrainian fighters at the Mariupol steel mill had surrendered to Russia. Their fate is uncertain, as is that of hundreds more still in the plant.The soldiers laid down arms under orders from their country’s military, after very secretive negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. The surrender seems to end the war’s longest battle so far, solidifying one of Russia’s few major territorial gains.What happens next is unclear. The evacuated soldiers were taken to Russian-controlled territory, where Ukrainian officials said the fighters would be swapped for Russian prisoners. But the Kremlin did not confirm the swap and signaled that it might level war-crimes charges against the soldiers.Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine appear farther apart than ever on peace negotiations.Voters in Asheville, N.C., cast their ballots today.Logan R. Cyrus for The New York Times3. Five states held primaries today.No state is more closely watched than Pennsylvania. Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who spent the day recovering from a stroke, is the front-runner for the Democratic Senate nomination over Representative Conor Lamb. Three candidates are neck and neck in the Republican Senate race; Dr. Mehmet Oz, a celebrity physician endorsed by Donald Trump, was slightly ahead in polls. The former president also endorsed Doug Mastriano, a far-right loyalist who has promoted conspiracy theories and is the leading Republican candidate for governor. Officials said that final election results might not come tonight.Madison Cawthorn, the controversial G.O.P. representative, is in a closely watched race in North Carolina. In Idaho, an extreme far-right candidate is running against its conservative governor. Oregon and Kentucky also held primaries; check in with us for results.Attorney General Merrick Garland in the White House Rose Garden.Sarah Silbiger for The New York Times4. The Justice Department is requesting transcripts from the Jan. 6 committee.The House select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol has interviewed more than 1,000 people so far. And the Justice Department has asked the committee to send transcripts of any interviews it is conducting — including discussions with Trump’s inner circle, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.The transcripts could be used as evidence in potential criminal cases or to pursue new leads. The move comes amid signs that Attorney General Merrick Garland is ramping up the pace of his painstaking investigation into the Capitol attack, which coincided with the certification of the election that the former president lost.Capistrano Unified School District, in Orange County, Calif., has lost over 2,800 students since 2020.Alisha Jucevic for The New York Times5. America’s public schools have lost at least 1.2 million students since 2020.Experts point to two potential causes: Some parents became so fed up with remote instruction or mask mandates that they started home-schooling their children or sending them to private schools that largely remained open during the pandemic. Other families were thrown into such turmoil by pandemic-related job losses, homelessness and school closures that their children dropped out.While a broad decline was underway as birth and immigration rates have fallen, the pandemic supercharged that drop in ways that experts say will not easily be reversed.Elon Musk, chaos agent.Susan Walsh/Associated Press6. Is he in or out?The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, raised further doubts about his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter, saying (on Twitter) that “this deal cannot move forward” until he gets more details about the volume of spam and fake accounts on the platform.Musk has latched onto the issue of fake accounts, which Twitter says make up fewer than 5 percent of its total, in a move that some analysts figure is an attempt to drive down the acquisition price, or walk away from the deal.The social media company is pressing ahead. In a lengthy regulatory filing, Twitter’s board urged shareholders to vote in favor of the deal, and provided a play-by-play view of how the board reached an agreement with Musk last month.A baby formula display shelf at Rite Aid in San Diego, Calif. on May 10, 2022.Ariana Drehsler for The New York Times7. More baby formula may be on the way.As a national shortage of infant formula put many parents on edge, the F.D.A. announced an agreement with Abbott Laboratories to reopen the company’s shuttered baby formula plant.Russia-Ukraine War: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 4In Mariupol. More

Jeff Yass, a Pennsylvania-based financier and a major Republican donor, had a straightforward request for Bill McSwain, a trailing candidate in that state’s G.O.P. primary for governor.During a phone call last Tuesday, Mr. Yass asked: Will you consider dropping out?Mr. McSwain, a former U.S. attorney who has been fielding many such calls lately, said he would think about it. He had hung in thus far, and with a week to go, why quit now?Mr. Yass urged Mr. McSwain to consider the risk that if he stayed in the race, his candidacy could split the vote in a way that would help a polarizing far-right Republican candidate and put Democrats on a sure path to victory in the fall.The far-right candidate, Doug Mastriano, a conspiracy-theory-minded state senator, leads polls ahead of the Tuesday primary. Many Republican leaders and donors have worried that if Mr. Mastriano wins the nomination, he would saddle the Republican Party with a candidate who might easily be defeated by Josh Shapiro, the attorney general of Pennsylvania, who is running uncontested on the Democratic side of the race.Mr. Yass is a prominent supporter of charter schools, which are a major plank of Mr. McSwain’s campaign. As a state lawmaker, Mr. Shapiro voted against tuition vouchers for private schools, but has spoken in favor of the principle of allowing parents to have choices about where to send their children. He favors increased funding for public schools.Understand the Pennsylvania Primary ElectionThe crucial swing state will hold its primary today, with key races for a U.S. Senate seat and the governorship.Trumpism vs. Trump: Pennsylvania’s G.O.P. Senate primary has turned into a case study of whether the movement Donald J. Trump created remains within his control.Hard-Liners Gain: Republican voters appear to be rallying behind far-right candidates in two pivotal races, worrying both parties about what that could mean in November.G.O.P. Senate Race: Kathy Barnette, a conservative commentator, is making a surprise late surge against big-spending rivals, Dr. Mehmet Oz and David McCormick.Democratic Senate Race: Representative Conor Lamb had all the makings of a front-runner, but John Fetterman, the state’s shorts-wearing lieutenant governor, is resonating with voters.Abortion Battleground: Pennsylvania is one of a handful of states where abortion access hangs in the balance with midterm elections this year.“This is about the cause, not about you,” Mr. Yass said he told Mr. McSwain. “If you drop out, we have a better chance of beating” what he called “wealthy Democrats like Josh Shapiro.”In the end, Mr. McSwain decided to stick with his long-shot candidacy. The ballots were printed long ago, and it is unlikely that many voters would be aware if Mr. McSwain left the race. What little advertising money remained left was already being spent on pro-McSwain ads.Mr. McSwain did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The phone call was described by five people who had been briefed on its contents and insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations.On Saturday, former President Donald J. Trump endorsed Mr. Mastriano, roiling the fractious Republican Party establishment in Pennsylvania, which is alarmed by the former military officer’s rapid ascent. Party leaders have scrambled to coalesce around the candidate thought to be in second place behind Mr. Mastriano, former Representative Lou Barletta, but many fear it may be too late to stop Mr. Mastriano from winning the nomination.On Sunday night, the Commonwealth Partners Chamber of Entrepreneurs, a powerful Pennsylvania organization that is the top financial backer of Mr. McSwain’s campaign, endorsed Mr. Barletta.“It’s become abundantly clear in recent days that nominating Lou Barletta for governor is Republicans’ best chance to defeat Josh Shapiro in November,” Matt Brouillette, the pro-business group’s chief executive, said in a statement.Mr. Brouillette urged Mr. McSwain and another candidate, Dave White, to withdraw from the primary “for the good of our commonwealth and our country.”In an interview, Mr. Brouillette said that his organization had concluded that Mr. Mastriano would lose to Mr. Shapiro in November. “We’ve determined mathematically he can’t win because he won’t appeal to key swing voters, given some of his extreme behavior,” Mr. Brouillette said.Understand the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6Why are these midterms so important? More

The nostalgia was powerful, and came with a twist.In the latest Times Opinion focus group, 10 Republican voters in swing states wished for an America before 8 percent inflation, before high gas prices, before the Ukraine war. Wished for a leader they saw as strong, commanding, feared. Wished for a party that, in the words of one, “put America first again.”They wished, in other words, for a return of President Donald Trump.But here’s the twist: When asked if they felt it was extremely important to vote for someone this year who embraces Mr. Trump’s agenda, eight of the 10 Republicans raised their hands. A few seconds later, when asked if it was extremely important to vote for someone who has the same style and personality as Mr. Trump, no one raised a hand.Throughout the 90-minute discussion with these Republicans, from Georgia, Ohio and Pennsylvania — three states with big primaries for Senate and governor this month — Mr. Trump’s record looked only better to them in hindsight, especially without the distraction of his “mean tweets” or personal manner. One Georgia Republican who didn’t vote for Mr. Trump in 2020 even said he’d consider supporting the former president if he ran again in 2024. “I don’t like what I’m seeing, as far as the direction that the country is headed,” this Republican said.As for the influence of Mr. Trump’s endorsements in party primaries this month, it was most potent when voters didn’t already have strong attachments to candidates, as our focus group moderator, Kristen Soltis Anderson, noted. The Ohio and Pennsylvania Republicans were mostly taking their cues from Mr. Trump in their Senate primaries; by contrast, the Georgia Republicans were more inclined to buck Mr. Trump and stick with their incumbent Republican governor, Brian Kemp, whom the former president is trying to oust in next week’s primary.This is the 10th group in our series America in Focus, which seeks to hear and understand the views of cross-sections of Americans whose voices are often not heard in opinion journalism. We conducted the discussion with Ms. Anderson, who does similar work for political candidates, parties and special interest groups. (Times Opinion paid her for the work.) This transcript has been edited for length and clarity; an audio recording and a video clip of the session are also included. Participants provided their biographical details.Kristen Soltis Anderson: If you had to pick a word or phrase for what matters most to you in the upcoming elections, what would it be?Jennifer (38, white, Georgia): Inflation and gas prices. We have an R.V. that takes diesel, so it’s been really hurting at the gas pump.Raquel (29, Hispanic, Pennsylvania): Inflation. Education for our children. Just teach them math, science and reading, and we’ll do the rest at home.Kim (58, white, Ohio): Inflation and border control.Justin (38, white, Ohio): The economy.Kristen (49, white, Pennsylvania): Economy.Kristen Soltis Anderson: I want to ask you about leaders you admire. Who is an American leader during your lifetime who you admired?Robert (60, white, Ohio): Ronald Reagan. He brought about a good feeling in America after we had been through a complete disaster with Jimmy Carter. Carter’s a wonderful guy, but it was just a disaster for four years. With Reagan, it came back — the flag waving, the patriotism. People feared us once again.Brandon (32, Black, Georgia): Andrew Yang. He has an eye towards the future with A.I. and robots taking all the jobs.Kimberly (38, white, Georgia): I know Donald Trump’s pretty controversial. But I’ll take mean tweets all day when I can afford my groceries and my gas for my kids and my family.Jennifer: George W. Bush. When 9/11 happened, I was a senior in high school. He kind of brought the country back together. And I just think he’s an overall pretty cool guy, nice family man, just very respectable.10 Republican Voters in Swing States on Trump’s Hold on the PartyKristen Soltis Anderson: My next question pivots to things that you’re looking for in candidates. When you’re trying to decide what candidate to vote for, what are the characteristics, qualities, viewpoints you are most looking for?Sanjeev (48, Asian, Georgia): Transparency. And I’m getting sick and tired of these politicians who’ve been in office 40, 50 years who don’t seem like they’re doing anything.Kristen Soltis Anderson: I saw a lot of heads nod when you said that. Raquel?Raquel: Honesty. And I watched the Senate debate for Pennsylvania’s election and saw a lot of the candidates throwing shade at each other instead of really speaking up about you. Tell me what you’re going to do.Justin: I’m looking for someone more moderate, someone that’s willing to work with both sides.Robert: Somebody honest. Trustworthy. It would be nice to have somebody that isn’t a millionaire already and understands what it’s like to have to pick, scrape, somebody who understands what it’s really like to not be able to go out and buy exactly what you want when you want it. And somebody strong, who walks into the room and commands it.Casey (52, white, Pennsylvania): I just wish younger and stronger people would get involved and start accepting new ideas and collaborate with each other instead of bickering back and forth. Compromise. Get to the point and get it done. Keep America living.Patrick Healy: So all of you are voting in the Republican primary elections in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Georgia. How confident are you that the votes in the Republican primaries will be counted fairly and accurately? Raise your hand if you are confident in that.[Six raise their hands.]Patrick Healy: And how many are not confident? We’ve got Kristen and Raquel. Raquel, what’s your concern there?Raquel: With the last presidential election, I feel like there were a lot of things that happened that haven’t been brought to light just yet. I just moved to Pennsylvania from Florida, so I’m not sure what the laws are here. But we should have to bring your ID, to vote in person, because through the mail, I feel like that’s kind of iffy.Patrick Healy: Kristen, what would make you feel more confident that votes were being counted fairly and accurately?Kristen: I don’t know. I mean, I think up until the last election with Trump, I felt confident in elections. And I think the mail voting definitely had a big issue. That’s a big reason for my feelings that it’s not really secure.Kristen Soltis Anderson: All right. So, early this month there was a primary in Ohio. I want to focus on the Senate race. Who did you choose and why?Robert: I ended up voting for J.D. Vance. I was not going to. I really liked what Mike Gibbons had to say. But I ended up going with J.D. Vance primarily because President Trump endorsed him. I trust a lot of the things President Trump did. I thought, “If this man endorses J.D. Vance, even after he stood publicly and said he was a No Trumper and a Never Trumper and he couldn’t stand him, there’s got to be something there.”Kim: I also chose J.D. Vance. And it was because of President Trump.Justin: I did research. I chose Matt Dolan. He was more moderate. I voted for Trump the last two times. As a person, I don’t like him, but I do like more what he did for the economy. I want someone more moderate in office. I’m tired of extremes both ways.Kristen Soltis Anderson: In Georgia, your primary is coming up May 24. The big race is between Brian Kemp, the incumbent governor, and a variety of challengers. President Trump has had some criticisms of Governor Kemp, and he has endorsed one of the challengers, David Perdue. For those who plan to vote for Brian Kemp, tell me why.Kimberly: I did vote for him the last time, and I will vote for him again. I think he’s done a great job handling Georgia through Covid. He’s done a great job with our economy. I hate that our primary is going to be split probably between him and Perdue. I think that’s just going to hurt us in the long run. But we’ll see what happens.Brandon: Well I voted for Kemp last time. And I felt like he kept most of his campaign promises. And he didn’t let Trump bully him. He’s going to get my vote again for that reason.Sanjeev: It’s going to come down to Kemp and Perdue, but I don’t know yet. I’m going to have to think about it a lot more and do some research.Kristen Soltis Anderson: OK. Kimberly, when you mentioned the primary being really divided, tell me a little bit more about what you mean by that.Kimberly: I’m a Trump supporter. I voted for him. I like generally what he does. But I think sometimes he takes things to the extreme and sometimes he needs to just butt out of the states’ elections. I know that he’s a big Perdue fan, but I really do think that Kemp did a great job with our economy. He did not get bullied by Trump. Or he did, but he didn’t give in to him.Patrick Healy: President Trump did ask Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Raffensperger for help after the 2020 election. Kimberly, you’re a Trump supporter. How sympathetic were you to Trump in regard to asking for help from Kemp and others? Or did you think he was crossing a line?Kimberly: I think when he initially reached out, he wasn’t crossing a line. I do think as time went on and he took it more on a personal level, the name calling he does — I just want to roll my eyes. Golly, man, chill. I mean, I am a supporter of him, but let’s be honest, anybody that’s his supporter has rolled their eyes at him a time or two as well.Kristen Soltis Anderson: I had you down as a Perdue voter, Jennifer.Jennifer: Yeah. I wasn’t really sure. But the more I think about it, I’m probably going to go back with Kemp again. I voted for him to begin with. I think he’s done a pretty good job. I wasn’t a huge fan of how he handled a lot of the Covid stuff, but —Kristen Soltis Anderson: In what way?Jennifer: I understand you need to get businesses going. But I mean, there was still just a huge pandemic going. And I have family members that are immunocompromised, and it’s just like, are you really thinking about the health of others?Kristen Soltis Anderson: Pennsylvania has a Senate primary race on Tuesday. Former President Trump has endorsed Dr. Mehmet Oz. Who are you leaning towards at the moment?Kristen: I’m leaning towards Dr. Oz just because Trump endorses him. I voted for Trump twice. I don’t like him as a person, but I did like what he did when he was in office.Raquel: I’m going to vote for Kathy Barnette. She is pro-life, and that’s really important to me. That’s one of my No. 1 issues as to why I would vote for somebody. And she comes across as just the most genuine person. She’s a byproduct of rape. Her mom decided to keep her at a very young age. And it goes to show you can do it. You know what I mean? So I think it’s amazing.Casey: I’m leaning towards Oz because Trump’s backing him up.Patrick Healy: Kristen and Casey, do you think, if President Trump hadn’t endorsed Dr. Oz, that you would definitely still be voting for him?Kristen: I’m not sure. I mean, I like him on TV.Casey: I’d probably be open to more candidates.Patrick Healy: I’d love to see a show of hands of those of you who say it’s extremely important that a candidate do the following things. Raise your hand if it’s extremely important that a candidate show that they can work in a bipartisan way with Democrats.[Two raise their hands.]Patrick Healy: Next one is fight against the media — who says that’s an extremely important thing for a candidate to do?[One raises a hand.]Patrick Healy: Win over swing voters?[Five raise their hands.]Patrick Healy: Push to overturn Roe v. Wade?[Five raise their hands.]Patrick Healy: Support the same sort of agenda as Donald Trump?[Eight raise their hands.]Have the same style and personality as Donald Trump?[No one raises a hand.]Kim: I have something to say.Patrick Healy: Please.Kim: I want a strong person that is not going to take any crap. And sometimes you have to be blunt. You just have to because you have to stand up against whatever that’s not right. So I’m kind of like halfway hand for what you asked. I just wanted to explain why.Patrick Healy: Is there a candidate running who embodies Donald Trump’s agenda but not his personality?Kimberly: So Herschel Walker is running on the Republican ticket for Senate in Georgia. I think he follows really closely with Trump’s agenda. I haven’t seen the personality as much.Patrick Healy: To go back to those who said that it’s extremely important to you that the candidate support turning over Roe v. Wade, let’s talk about that.Raquel: I think life begins at conception. I used to get picked on at school, when we had debates in class, I was the odd one out for being pro-life. Even in college I used to get called names. I’m not going to repeat them, but it was really crazy how an ethics class — I’m the odd one out. So I think it’s time to stand strong in your belief. And if I’m pro-life, then that’s 100 percent.Patrick Healy: Is there anyone who has concerns about overturning Roe v. Wade?Justin: Personally I am pro-choice. And with that leak, it almost makes me want to, when the primaries come around, vote Democratic. I mean, I think it’s almost crazy that they’re going to overturn something that has been law for that long. It’s not my body. I have a mom, three sisters. I’m just pro-choice.Brandon: In my younger years, I was more pro-choice. But as I’ve gotten older, I’m more pro-life. I think it’s going to be one of those things that generations from now, you’re going to look back and it’s going to be one of those things that you can’t believe was ever legal.Kimberly: Since I was old enough to vote, a candidate’s stance on abortion has been a reason I will or will not vote for a candidate. So I’m very much pro-life. And I think that it will go back to the states, like it should.Patrick Healy: Kimberly, is that what you want to see — each state decides? Or would you ultimately like to see a national ban for all states on abortion?Kimberly: That’s a very slippery slope question. Because if I say I want there to be a ban on abortion for the entire United States, then if the Democrats have something that they want to ban, that would affect me. I choose to live in what until recently has been a very conservative state. I’m not moving to California because I know what goes on in California and I know their laws. I don’t want to be there. So I don’t want to say, “Well, they can’t have abortions in California.” Religiously, it’s a conviction of mine. I’m 100 percent pro-life. But I don’t want to say I would want to see a national ban, because it goes both ways: If we want to ban something, then we have to be OK when they want to ban something.Kristen Soltis Anderson: I want to bring the conversation back to Donald Trump. Show of hands — how many of you think it’s good that Donald Trump is making a lot of endorsements in different races right now?[Four raise their hands.]Robert: I think he’s looking for people that will support his agenda. And he knows that he is extremely popular in x number of states, Ohio being one of them. And I think J.D. Vance, he came from way behind and ended up winning. And he won pretty handily. And there’s only one thing I can attribute to it. I didn’t know Vance. I never read his book. But I thought, well, President Trump doesn’t usually put his name on anything that’s a losing battle.Kristen: All right.Robert: Trump said way back in 2016, you’re going to get tired of winning, winning, winning. We really did win, win, win with a lot of things. And I just can’t think of anything except to attribute it to him and his policies. And I’m thinking if we can just clone or mirror some of the things he did, just bit by bit, piece by piece in some of the states, maybe we can get back on the road to recovery and abolish some of this craziness, like a war on fossil fuels in Ohio.Kristen Soltis Anderson: There’s a presidential election on the horizon. A show of hands — how many of you would say Donald Trump should run for president in 2024?[Eight raise their hands.]Sanjeev: I liked his first term. Not everything he did, but for the most part, I liked him, so I’d like to vote for him again. He’s got that business world perspective that he brings.Kristen: I think people can see the difference now that he’s not in office and what’s going on. I think when he was in office, people were more focused on him not being very presidential. Now that he’s not in office and we see what is happening, you can see what he did. It’s clearer now.Kristen Soltis Anderson: I want to ask a slightly different question. If Donald Trump runs for president again and there are other Republicans who are also running for president, how many of you think you would probably choose Donald Trump over other Republicans in a primary race?[Seven raise their hands.]Kristen Soltis Anderson: It’s most of the same hands.Raquel: That’s a tough one because I am really hoping that DeSantis says he’s going to run for president. I really like him as a governor. I think it comes down to giving someone new a chance and seeing if they could work, too.Kimberly: You know Trump’s qualified. You know he can do it. Do we want to stick with somebody that we know is going to probably come in and get us back on track and help us, or do we say, “We’re going to give you a chance”? Do we gamble our future here?Justin: So I’m torn on if he should run. But I would definitely vote for him in the primary just because he’s pro-America, he’s more about the economy. I think if he would have won his election again, I don’t think Russia would have probably invaded Ukraine.Patrick Healy: Justin, a quick follow-up. You are interested in moderate politicians. You’re pro-choice. You mentioned some issues with Trump’s style. And yet you are drawn to him.Justin: So if I can explain it, I think he’s more about the economy. And that’s my No. 1 issue is the economy. Yes, I differ with a lot of people with being pro-choice, but the economy is my No. 1 thing.Kim: I would vote for him again. Like someone else said, you can see the difference with when he was president. Biden — it’s like night and day.Patrick Healy: Is there anyone in the group who did not vote for Donald Trump in 2020 but who would consider voting for him if he ran again in 2024?Brandon: Well I voted for a third party in 2020. So I think this time around, I’ve seen the things that are happening. And I don’t like what I’m seeing, as far as the direction that the country is headed. So, yes, I’m going to consider voting for him.Kristen Soltis Anderson: I want to ask about some other folks in the Republican Party who might consider running for president in 2024. I’m going to say a name. If you have heard of this person before, give me one word or phrase that comes to mind when you think about that person. We will start off with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.Jennifer: I just kept hearing his name in regards of Covid and Florida being a hotbed and all that stuff.Sanjeev: The same things that Jennifer just mentioned. He was keeping pretty much everything open, and Covid was having big outbreaks. And so nationally he was getting a lot of negative press.Justin: Same. I remember during Covid he didn’t want to lock down. He wanted the state to stay open.Kimberly: Disney — I think that Disney got into the political field and thought they were going to just go on and say what they wanted to say. And I think it’s potentially going to bite them in the rear because he’s like, “OK, if you want to be political, we’ll be political.”Kristen Soltis Anderson: What do you think of when you think of former vice president Mike Pence?Robert: I think he’s an honest, God-fearing man that probably would do what’s right. Although I don’t know that he’s as firm as Trump, I think he’s an honest man.Kristen: I don’t think he’s as strong as Trump.Kim: I lost a lot of respect. I do like him being a Christian man, but he isn’t strong. He doesn’t have the backbone.Kristen Soltis Anderson: Thoughts about Chris Christie?Kristen: Yeah, don’t like him. I don’t think he’s honest. I think he’s for himself, not for the people, and he’s just a fool.Justin: With Christie and Mike Pence, I think they’re both career politicians. That’s someone that I don’t want in the office. I’d rather a businessman come to the office.Robert: I think he’s a powerful guy. And I think whatever he says, he’s going to do along the lines of Trump.Raquel: I feel like they’re just part of the same old politicians.Kristen Soltis Anderson: What do folks think about Texas Senator Ted Cruz in one word?Raquel: I donated money to him. He’s pro-life. And he’s on Instagram a lot speaking up against a lot of big money people.Justin: The first thing that came to mind was when he flew to Mexico and got caught during Covid. I think he was a hypocrite.Brandon: I think he would be my second choice. I hope that it would be between him and DeSantis.Kristen Soltis Anderson: And would DeSantis be your first choice in that matchup?Brandon: Yes, because DeSantis is a little bit stronger. And I feel like we need to regain our standing in the world.Kristen Soltis Anderson: Jennifer, any of these folks seem appealing to you?Jennifer: I guess the best one out of them would be Pence, I guess. Just because he was from the Trump time. But Cruz, I would say no. A little too religious for me mixing in with politics.Kristen Soltis Anderson: So my last question then to each of you is: If you had to give the Republican Party some advice, what would that advice be?Kimberly: I would say stop cowering to the Democrats all the time. Stand up. You have so many people in this country that support you. And maybe we’re just quieter. The media don’t talk about us. But you have a huge base. So stop cowering down to them and stop being intimidated by them. And if they want to play — I don’t want to say dirty games, but — let’s play the same games they play. Stop saying we’re going to take the high road all the time. No. Give it back to them. Say the truth.Kristen Soltis Anderson: Are there particular things that you think Republicans have cowered over when it comes to —Kimberly: Trump was really one of those people that was like, “I’m not taking anybody’s crap. And I’m going to give it right back to you. Maybe I tweet about you for 15 days and how much you suck. At least I’m tweeting, at least I’m saying something.”Kristen Soltis Anderson: Kristen, what would your advice be to the Republican Party?Kristen: Just get us back on track. Get the economy back on track and just put America first again.Kristen Soltis Anderson: Justin?Justin: The economy, bringing jobs back to America. In Ohio, in Columbus, in New Albany, we’re having that Intel plant come to Ohio. So I’d like to see those kind of things happen.Raquel: I think it would be to stand strong by your beliefs and stand up for yourself. Have a voice. Be mean if you have to be mean but stand true to your beliefs. Don’t cower to others just because you’re in a room with other people that don’t believe in the same thing you do.Kim: I would say Republicans need to unite. If they are united and had the backbone, we would be in a much better place right now.Robert: It’d be, get this economy back to where we’re in the plus side instead of the minus. And let’s get a constitutional amendment on term limits in every elected office in this country. It’s long overdue. I’m tired of seeing both D’s and R’s that are 80 years old standing there, can hardly even say two words together. And they’re supposed to be representing us. That wasn’t intended to be a career job. Serve your community, then go back home and do your thing at home.Brandon: Focus on healing the country, and let’s try to get away from everything being so partisan and so far left and so far right.Casey: Don’t beat around the bush. Just get to the point and stick your ground.Sanjeev: Stop fighting with each other and work together for the party and the greater good.Kristen Soltis Anderson: OK. Jennifer, last one’s to you.Jennifer: I would say definitely put the economy first. And maybe not talk about the social stuff as much and kind of be more moderate. Because a lot of things just seem really far right or really far left and just need a happy medium. We’re missing a happy medium.Patrick Healy is the deputy Opinion editor. Adrian J. Rivera is an editorial assistant in Opinion.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

The court-drawn lines would increase competition for seats in Congress, and pit longtime Democratic incumbents against one another.Earlier this year, Democratic leaders in New York made a brazen gamble: With the national party’s blessing, they created a congressional map that promised its candidates as many as three additional House seats.On Monday, three weeks after the state’s highest court declared the Democrats’ map unconstitutional, it became clear just how spectacularly the party’s gambit had backfired.A new slate of new congressional districts unveiled by the courts on Monday could pave the way for Republicans to make gains in this year’s critical midterm elections, a disastrous reversal for Democrats in a state where they control every lever of power.The proposed maps, drawn by Jonathan R. Cervas, the court-appointed special master, would unwind changes that Democrats had hoped to use to unseat Representative Nicole Malliotakis, a Staten Island Republican; flip other Republican-held swing districts; and secure their own tenuous seats in the Hudson Valley region.The new lines even cast the future of several long-tenured, powerful Democratic incumbents in doubt, forcing several to potentially run against one another.The most striking example came from New York City, where Mr. Cervas’s proposal pushed Representatives Jerrold Nadler, a stalwart Upper West Side liberal, and Carolyn Maloney of the Upper East Side into the same district, setting up a potentially explosive primary fight in the heart of Manhattan. Both lawmakers are in their 70s, have been in Congress for close to 30 years and lead powerful House committees.Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and a favorite to become the party’s next leader, was one of a handful of incumbent lawmakers who, under the new map, would no longer reside in the districts they represent. In one case, the new lines put Representative Brian Higgins mere steps outside his greater Buffalo district.Taken together, the proposed changes have broad national implications, effectively handing Republicans the upper hand in a national fight for control of the House, and rattling the top echelons of House Democratic leadership.“This is a huge swing against Democrats from the plan that was struck down,” said Dave Wasserman, a national elections analyst with the Cook Political Report. “Democrats could lose a lot of ground this fall and that could drive a stake through their hopes of keeping the House majority.”The final results promised to make New York an anomaly in a nation composed of increasingly gerrymandered states. Numerous states used redistricting this year to reinforce the dominance of one party or the other, yet New York — one of the largest Democratic-led states — is now expected to preserve and potentially even add competitive seats.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.By Mr. Cervas’s own account, the new map would create eight competitive congressional seats, a figure closer to New York’s current decade-old map than the three that he estimated the Democrats’ map would have yielded.Mr. Wasserman put the handicapping at 15 safely Democratic seats, five safely Republican seats and a half-dozen tossups in a state where roughly 60 percent of voters supported President Biden.The map approved by the State Legislature, where Democrats control both houses, this year would have given their party a clear advantage in 22 of 26 districts. Democrats hold 19 seats on the existing map, which was also drawn by a court-appointed special master a decade ago.The final lines may yet still be revised to account for feedback from both parties. The state court judge in upstate Steuben County who is overseeing the case, Patrick F. McAllister, has set a Friday deadline for approving the congressional lines and a separate proposal for State Senate districts.Mr. Cervas, who declined to comment on the maps, removed one House seat from upstate New York altogether, shrinking the state’s delegation from 27 members to 26. New York was required to shed the seat after its population failed to keep pace with growth in other states in the 2020 census, continuing a decades-long trend.In making other changes, outside redistricting analysts said, it appeared that Mr. Cervas had sought to make the districts as competitive and compact as possible.The effect was evident on Long Island, where Mr. Cervas created one safe Republican seat, one safe Democratic seat and two swing seats. In the Hudson Valley, he drew districts that were more competitive than the ones approved by Democrats. And he returned Ms. Malliotakis’s district to its more conservative contours, after the Legislature tried to fuse Brooklyn’s ultraliberal Park Slope neighborhood onto Staten Island.Mr. Cervas showed less regard for protecting incumbents from changes, though, in many instances sharply redrawing lines that the previous special master laid out a decade ago.Two upstate Republicans, Representatives Claudia Tenney and Chris Jacobs, were left scrambling to lay a stake in rearranged rural seats in central and western New York. A third Republican congressional candidate, the Dutchess County executive, Marc Molinaro, saw the territory he had competed in for months reconfigured.The situation was more dire for Democrats, though. No fewer than five were drawn out of their districts: Mr. Jeffries; Mr. Higgins; Paul Tonko, who represents the Albany area; Grace Meng, who represents a heavily Asian American swath of Queens; and Nydia Velázquez, who represents a Latino-heavy district in Brooklyn.Representatives are not required to reside in their districts, but the changes could create yet another layer of uncertainty for incumbents and challengers alike.Each could still run to represent the core of the district they currently hold, but they would be forced to choose between moving their homes or explaining to voters why they do not live inside the lines they are seeking to represent in Washington.Representatives Mondaire Jones and Jamaal Bowman, two Black progressive Democrats in their first term, may face more difficult choices after Mr. Cervas’s map drew them into a single Westchester County district.In a blistering statement, Mr. Jeffries accused the court of ignoring the input of communities of color, diluting the power of Black voters and pitting Black incumbents against each other in “a tactic that would make Jim Crow blush.”“The draft map released by a judicial overseer in Steuben County and unelected, out-of-town special master, both of whom happen to be white men, is part of a vicious national pattern targeting districts represented by members of the Congressional Black Caucus,” Mr. Jeffries wrote.How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More