Elections

More from our inbox:Moving Toward a ‘Republican Autocracy’Why Does the Postal Service Have to Make a Profit?Protesters storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Call Logs From Jan. 6 Have Gaps, Panel Finds” (front page, Feb. 11):Shredded documents, records improperly taken to Mar-a-Lago, papers flushed down the toilet, plans to seize voting machines, and now gaps in the official Oval Office call record from Jan. 6. Does this sound like a former president who has done nothing improper or illegal? Hardly! They seem like an archetypal example of the “res ipsa loquitur” legal doctrine — “the thing speaks for itself.”I eagerly await the Jan. 6 committee’s final report. Unpacking more fully these facts and many more, a well-documented and clear story will be told. I suspect that at least some of the committee’s findings will be referred to the Justice Department for investigation.The only question is: Will Donald Trump once again escape legal accountability?Richard CherwitzAustin, TexasThe writer is professor emeritus at the Moody College of Communication, the University of Texas at Austin.To the Editor:Re “Trump Turns Documents Over to U.S. Archives” (news article, Feb. 8):You report that, at the end of his term in office, Donald Trump unlawfully removed 15 cartons of documents and other items from the White House. There has long been a federal statute that makes it illegal to remove papers or documents from a public office. The offense is punishable by up to three years in prison, and the person is “disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”I know this because, in 1970, I was prosecuted for this crime when I burglarized the Selective Service complex in Providence, R.I., and carried off a bit over 15 cartons of papers and documents to destroy later at my leisure. I held a news conference about the burglary. I was duly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced (and, I believe, was the only convicted felon in my graduating class at Harvard Law School).Donald Trump should also be prosecuted for this offense.Jerry ElmerProvidence, R.I.To the Editor:Re “Trump Is Said to Have Taken Possible Classified Material With Him” (news article, Feb. 10):Is the irony lost on anyone that one of the most critical events contributing to Donald Trump’s 2016 victory was Hillary Clinton’s supposed mishandling of classified emails and James Comey’s investigation? Can Donald Trump plead ignorance on his reported destruction or removal of documents, some of which may have been classified, from the White House after reveling in the Clinton email investigation?Let us hope that Republicans don’t deliver up yet another double-standard response to this even more egregious misconduct by Mr. Trump.Larry LobertGrosse Pointe Park, Mich.To the Editor:So wads of paper were stuffed down the White House toilets. Well, remember how hard it was to get toilet paper during the early days of the pandemic?Mary GarripoliLos AngelesMoving Toward a ‘Republican Autocracy’“They’re the two most important leaders in the Republican Party,” said one lobbyist.Samuel Corum for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “As Trump Re-emerges, His Base Shows Fractures” (front page, Feb. 1) and “How DeSantis Gamed the Media as He Rose” (news article, Feb. 1):Former President Donald Trump was the catalyst for transforming the Republican Party from a policy-based party to one now focused on replacing our pluralistic democracy with one-party authoritarianism. But while Mr. Trump may be the titular leader of the Republican Party, he is not the future. He will serve only as the figurehead for the future revolution.Others such as Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida are the emerging leaders, and they are building a one-party autocratic government. For their vision of America look at how Mr. DeSantis successfully enacted voter suppression legislation, is proposing ballot police to intimidate voters, has signed legislation to suppress political demonstrations and has suppressed academic speech at a state university.The Trump Republicans have a national vision of taking the House and the Senate in 2022, and the presidency in 2024. When that is accomplished all three branches of government will effectively be in Trump Republican autocratic control, and the American experiment in constitutional democracy will be brought to an end.Michael AbelsDeLand, Fla.To the Editor:I can’t believe people still don’t get it. Or if they do, they can’t admit it. The G.O.P. and Donald Trump are one and the same. Reporters try to prod Republican politicians to refute Mr. Trump’s latest madman rant. It won’t happen. Not because they are “afraid” of the base. Because the Republican Party started this coup years ago, before Mr. Trump was elected in 2016.The Republicans are not interested in democracy or this country’s promised ideals. They are interested in total control, a permanent Republican autocracy, power and wealth. And if they have to get in bed with a vengeful, hate-filled wannabe king to bring their coup to a successful conclusion, so be it.They got oh so close. They won’t stop now. Take off the blinders, shake off the wishful thinking. They’re feeding the divisions; they’re dismantling our democratic institutions.Olivia KoppellBrookline, Mass.Why Does the Postal Service Have to Make a Profit?  Desiree Rios for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Lawmakers Vote to Avert Postal Insolvency” (news article, Feb. 9):You write, “Despite being a popular mainstay of American life, the Postal Service regularly fails to turn a profit, with 2020 marking the 14th consecutive year it incurred a net annual loss.”The police, the firefighters, the Army and the Navy all fail to turn a profit. These are responsibilities we expect our government to fulfill regardless of cost.Holding the Postal Service to a standard of profitability is unreasonable and plays into the hands of those who want to eliminate it for private gain.Tamar SingerNew York More

Under a traditionally liberal view of the Supreme Court, its decision on Monday to uphold, at least for this year, a Congressional map in Alabama that intentionally weakens the voting strength of Black people in the state is a betrayal of its duty to protect the rights of minorities, racial and otherwise.Under a more historical view, it is the court doing what the court does.First, a little background on Monday’s decision. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars any voting law or procedure that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race,” as the Department of Justice puts it. This includes situations where lawmakers have “cracked” minority communities into multiple districts in order to dilute the strength of their voters. To remedy this, courts can require states to create “majority-minority” districts in which these voters can then elect the candidates of their choice. This is especially important in places where voting is so polarized by race that minority communities are rarely, if ever, able to shape the outcome of an election.Last year, Alabama’s Republican-controlled Legislature drew and passed a Congressional map that packed a large number of Black voters into a single district encompassing the cities of Birmingham and Montgomery, while spreading the remaining voters throughout six majority white districts. By “packing” one group of Black voters and dispersing the rest, Alabama Republicans successfully reduced the voting strength of the entire Black community in the state, which accounts for 27 percent of its population.Black Alabamians filed suit. In January, after seeing evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, a three-judge district court panel (with two Trump appointees) agreed that the state had violated the Voting Rights Act. It ordered the Legislature to draw a new map containing a second majority-minority district. Republicans appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, where five members voted to stay the order, reinstating the original map.This, wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who voted with the majority, was not done “on the merits.” It was merely an attempt to keep the courts from disrupting the upcoming election which, he said, was “close at hand.” Except Alabama’s primary is not until May and its general election is not until November. There was, and there still is, plenty of time to draw new maps.In the view of Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted with the minority despite his hostility to the Voting Rights Act, “the District Court properly applied existing law in an extensive opinion with no apparent errors for our correction.” By granting a stay, the conservative majority has effectively changed the law, freeing Alabama (and other states) to devise the kinds of racial gerrymanders that the Voting Rights Act was in part written to prohibit. That is one reason my colleague Linda Greenhouse called the decision a “raw power play by a runaway majority that seems to recognize no stopping point.”But again, historically speaking, we should not see this as an exception to the rule, but as the rule.On July 9, 1868, the United States ratified the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. As the historian Eric Foner explains in “The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution,” the amendment was written, among other things, to “establish general principles about the rights of the freed people and of all Americans.” Within a decade, however, the Court had radically narrowed the scope of that amendment, construing it as “a vehicle for protecting corporate rights rather than those of the former slaves.”On Feb. 3, 1870, the United States ratified the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. It prohibited the national government and states from denying the right to vote on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” and gave Congress the power to enforce that prohibition with “appropriate legislation.” It was written, specifically, to extend suffrage to Black men. But in 1876, Foner notes, the Supreme Court “overturned the convictions of Kentucky officials who had conspired to prevent blacks from voting in a local election.”Writing for an 8-1 majority of the court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite conceded that the amendment grants “an exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race,” but denied that it conferred the “right of suffrage” on anyone. His opinion opened the door to the kinds of restrictions — poll taxes, literacy tests and grandfather clauses — that Southern states would eventually use to disenfranchise their Black populations.In the 1870s, Congress passed laws to punish acts of violence meant to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights, to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations and to prohibit exclusion from jury service. In the 1880s, the Supreme Court either invalidated those laws or rendered them a dead letter. In his 1883 opinion for the majority in the Civil Rights Cases, which held that neither the 13th nor the 14th Amendments gave Congress the power to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals, Justice Joseph P. Bradley declared that, “When a man has emerged from slavery” there must be “some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws.”It is Congress, and not the Supreme Court, that has, over time, done more to defend the civil and voting rights of all Americans. To do the same, the court has had to reverse its own work. As Nikolas Bowie, an assistant professor of law at Harvard, has written, “As a matter of historical practice, the Court has wielded an antidemocratic influence on American law, one that has undermined federal attempts to eliminate hierarchies of race, wealth, and status.”Barring the unexpected, and assuming the presidency continues to swing evenly between the two parties, conservatives can expect to hold the Supreme Court for at least a generation. But this won’t be a new frontier as much as a return to form.For most of its history, the Supreme Court — the 16 years of the Warren court notwithstanding — has been a friend to hierarchy and reaction. Thus, for Americans who want a more equal society, the Supreme Court has been, is and will continue to be an adversary, not an ally. Understanding that fact is the first step toward doing something about it.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

Upcoming primaries will test whether embracing Donald J. Trump’s election falsehoods is a litmus test for Republican voters.WASHINGTON — More than a year after the 2020 election, Donald J. Trump’s false claims of election fraud remain a destabilizing force for the Republican Party, dividing an activist base galvanized by a lie from elites in Washington who are hoping to hold the party together long enough to win back power in Congress in the upcoming midterm elections.The tension flared this week as Republicans were forced to either explain or denounce a party resolution characterizing the deadly events of Jan. 6 as “legitimate political discourse.” But the episode was a only a preview of the battles ahead, with a series of upcoming primary contests pitting candidates loyal to Mr. Trump against those who, to varying degrees, resist his distortions about the election.Those races, in Alaska, Georgia, North Carolina, Wyoming and elsewhere, promise to amplify calls for election audits, claims of fraud and a recasting of events surrounding the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. That debate will test the extent to which embracing Mr. Trump’s falsehoods about the 2020 election — and attempts to downplay the violence that followed — has become a new litmus test for Republican voters.“It still is a burning ember of passion for the base,” said Matt Batzel, the national executive director of American Majority, an organization that trains conservative grass-roots activists. “If those in Washington try to move on, there is going to be even a greater disconnect and greater frustration with their leadership, resulting in more tension and arguments within the party.”That prospect is alarming for some Republicans who worry about the long-term consequences of embedding Mr. Trump’s false claims into the foundation of the party. Far more Republicans, however, expressed concern this week about the near-term consequences: With President Biden’s approval ratings falling well below half of voters, many Republicans fear that debate will be a distraction ahead of a 2022 midterm election in which they are otherwise well positioned to take back power.“The more we talk about Jan. 6, the less we talk about how Biden hasn’t been successful,” said Steven Frias, a Republican committeeman from Rhode Island.Mr. Frias was among the estimated two dozen of 168 Republican National Committee members who voted last week against the party’s resolution to censure Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, the two Republicans working with congressional Democrats to investigate the Jan. 6 riot.Barriers around the Capitol have remained in place since the Jan. 6 riots in 2021.Michael A. McCoy for The New York TimesMr. Frias said he did not think the party should censure a member “unless that Republican has engaged in some kind of criminal or unethical conduct.” He also lamented the resolution’s “unforced error” declaring that Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger were participating in the “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman, quickly tried to clarify the phrase, saying that the party did not intend to include the rioters in that description — though such a distinction was not in the adopted text.That explanation did not prevent a rare public fight between Republican elected officials in Washington and the leaders of their party apparatus. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, and other Republicans at the Capitol publicly denounced the censure. “We saw it happen,” Mr. McConnell said of the Jan. 6 riot. “It was a violent insurrection.”The Trump era has shown repeatedly how Republican leaders, including Mr. McConnell, will briefly confront the Trump wing of the party, before ultimately realigning themselves with their voters, especially as elections near. Those who do not — such as former Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee — typically exit elected politics.“Mitch McConnell does not speak for the Republican Party, and does not represent the views of the vast majority of its voters,” Mr. Trump said in a statement on Wednesday.More than 70 percent of Republicans believe the 2020 election was illegitimate, according to a Washington Post poll last month. And the Pew Research Center found in a poll released Tuesday that 57 percent of Republicans believe Mr. Trump bears no responsibility for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — a number 11 points higher than a year ago.Protesters demanding a forensic audit of the 2020 presidential election in front of the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing, Mich., on Tuesday.Emily Elconin/ReutersFalse beliefs about the 2020 election were most intense among those who consume conservative media, according to a Public Religion Research Institute survey conducted in the fall. The poll found that 82 percent of Fox News viewers and 97 percent of those who consume far-right channels such as OAN and Newsmax believe the election was stolen.In Washington, party strategists and senators have mostly been loath to discuss the growing election denialism in the party’s ranks, either hoping it would fade with time or not wanting to challenge their voters. Now, as midterm elections near, Republican leaders close to the activists, volunteers and local leaders who power the party say that this sentiment is impossible to ignore.“Some people are very supportive of what happened on Jan. 6 and angry at the government’s response. Some people are offended by what happened on Jan. 6,” said Jane Brady, the chairwoman of the state Republican Party in Delaware, who voted in favor of the censure resolution. “I’ve got to rally those individuals on both sides to vote for our local candidates.”Some of the strongest condemnations of the censure resolution came from senators who are farthest from needing to face the voters.“The Republican Party started this year with a decided advantage on the issues that will determine the outcome of the fall elections,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine. “But every moment that is spent re-litigating a lost election or defending those who have been convicted of criminal behavior moves us further away from the goal of victory this fall.”Ms. Collins, like Mr. McConnell, won re-election in 2020 and will not be on the ballot again until 2026.Key Developments in the Jan. 6 InvestigationCard 1 of 3White House phone records. More

While many voters say they are concerned about the economy, the prime minister’s party has placed a focus on religion, with often polarizing effects.MEERUT, India — An election now underway in India’s most populous state is being closely watched as a referendum on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s eight years in office, during which he has often pursued a Hindu-first agenda that observers say has empowered his supporters’ polarizing emphasis on religious identity.Voters in Uttar Pradesh, a largely impoverished state of 200 million people in northern India, say they are concerned about the pandemic-battered economy, with youth unemployment widespread, housing shortages, and the rising cost of food and fuel.But the governing Bharatiya Janata Party has focused on religion, and on reinforcing new coalitions that have formed around caste, even as tensions between the state’s majority-Hindu population and its minority Muslims have been rising.Supporters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Meerut, a city in Uttar Pradesh, in January.Rajesh Kumar Singh/Associated PressThe party is apparently counting on that divisive tactic to resonate in Uttar Pradesh, a bastion of the Hindu right, preserving its hold on power in the state and putting it in a favorable position for a general election in two years.Here’s a look at the major issues as voters in Uttar Pradesh and four other states, from coastal Goa to Uttarakhand on the border with China, go to the polls. Voting takes place over a month; the first set of results are expected March 10.ReligionIn January, Yogi Adityanath, a Hindu monk who is the top official in Uttar Pradesh, laid out in stark terms how his party hoped to define the coming election.During a TV news interview, Mr. Adityanath, an acolyte of Mr. Modi’s and a potential successor as prime minister, cast the election in terms of “80 versus 20” — a thinly veiled reference to the rough percentage of Hindus in the state compared with Muslims.Referring to three high-profile Hindu temple development projects in a subsequent interview on state television, Mr. Adityanath said that “these 20 percent are those who oppose Ram Janam Bhoomi, they oppose Kashi Vishwanath Dham, they oppose the magnificent development of Mathura Vrindawan.”In India, religious and caste identity has long played a part in voters’ political calculations, and Uttar Pradesh is a stronghold of the B.J.P.’s Hindu nationalist ideology.Still, the backlash to Mr. Adityanath’s remarks was swift. Within days, several high-profile B.J.P. members defected from the party, joining the Samajwadi Party. That party, which is widely seen as representing the interests of the Yadav caste and other disadvantaged castes, has formed an alliance with other, smaller caste-based parties that were historically rivals.Yogi Adityanath, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, in a helicopter on Tuesday during an election rally. Prime Minister Modi appointed him to the post in 2017; voters will now decide if he gets to stay for five more years.Rajesh Kumar Singh/Associated PressOne defector was Swami Prasad Maurya, who as a state cabinet minister focused on the interests of the state’s socially or educationally disadvantaged castes, known in India as “Other Backward Castes,” or O.B.C.s.“B.J.P. leaders, in the arrogance of power, did not listen, did not give any importance” to minorities’ concerns, Mr. Maurya said.Some of the smaller O.B.C. groups that helped propel the B.J.P. to power in the last state election, in 2017, also expressed disillusionment. If enough members of these groups vote for opposition parties this time, the B.J.P. may struggle to retain power.Harmeet Singh, a voter who runs a trucking business in Meerut, an industrial city in western Uttar Pradesh, disapproved of Mr. Adityanath’s framing of the vote in religious terms.“Why they ask votes in the name of Hindus and Muslims? Why not ask for votes on your performance?” he said.“We employ both Hindus and Muslims,” he added. “This polarization will hurt the country.”EconomyThe B.J.P.’s focus on religion may not be enough to take voters’ minds off their economic struggles, political analysts said.Across India, the pandemic has buffeted the economy and people’s confidence in the government. The unemployment rate, which was as low as 3.4 percent in 2017, stood at nearly 8 percent in December 2021, with rates far higher among young people. And even as incomes have fallen for many, inflation has sent prices soaring for staples like tea, meat, cooking oil and lentils.“There is a change of political discourse. It’s not about mandir and masjid,” said Zoya Hasan, a political commentator, using the Hindi words for temple and mosque. “Economic issues are far more important for people.”This new focus on the economy among voters in Uttar Pradesh could threaten the B.J.P.’s firm hold on the state, Ms. Hasan said.“The B.J.P. has all the resources and all the power, but this election seems to be showing that new majorities can be formed,” she said.Some voters in Uttar Pradesh said they were pleased with social welfare measures carried out by Mr. Modi’s party.Rajesh Kumar Singh/Associated PressAs campaigning ended this week, economic issues were foremost on the minds of voters interviewed in western Uttar Pradesh.“What we want is better public service like good education, good health facilities and employment for our children,” said Surender Yadav, a sugar cane farmer and a member of an O.B.C. group who said he had voted for the B.J.P. in 2017 but would not again.“These are the basic issues, but there has been no improvement,” he said.In the city of Modinagar, an opposition candidate, Sudesh Sharma, was showered with flower petals and fed sweets while campaigning.“You give us employment,” one person in the crowd shouted, “we give you vote.”Still, many voters perceive the B.J.P. as less corrupt than the opposition parties that were previously in power. They say they are happy with the government’s signature welfare programs in the state, including the distribution of cooking gas cylinders to women, the expansion of food rations and the construction of modest houses of brick and cement.“B.J.P. is doing good work. Law and order is under control. Girls can go out, roads are good, poor people were given houses,” said Sachin Kumar, a 25-year-old mechanic on the outskirts of Meerut. “We will vote for Yogi and Modi.”Pandemic and ProtestThe elections in Uttar Pradesh and the four other states could also reflect public sentiment on the B.J.P.-led government’s response to the pandemic and to yearlong protests by farmers that extracted a big concession from the usually unyielding Mr. Modi.A catastrophic second wave of the coronavirus and a halting government response filled hospitals and crematories. At one point, dozens of bodies washed up on the banks of the Ganges River in Uttar Pradesh, presumably victims of Covid-19.Last March, the government stepped up its response, banning exports of Indian-made vaccines and funneling them into a vaccination campaign that has inoculated more than half of the country’s 1.4 billion people.A meeting of farmers in February 2021. Months of protests by farmers against an effort to overhaul the agricultural sector extracted a rare concession from Mr. Modi’s government.Saumya Khandelwal for The New York TimesBut another political challenge emerged when a protest by farmers against a government agricultural overhaul spilled into Uttar Pradesh after encircling India’s capital, New Delhi, for months.The son of a prominent B.J.P. lawmaker in the state was charged with mowing down a group of demonstrating farmers with his vehicle. Later, after months of deadlock in negotiations with the government, the protesters triumphed, forcing Mr. Modi to ask Parliament to repeal the agricultural measures.The farmers’ success showed a rare vulnerability in the B.J.P., which has been consolidating power since Mr. Modi first took office in 2014.The state elections in Uttar Pradesh and elsewhere will reveal whether the party’s recent stumbles are just bumps in the road, or a larger obstacle to retaining power in the world’s largest democracy.Hari Kumar reported from Meerut, India, and Emily Schmall from New Delhi. More

Making sense of the G.O.P. leader’s squabble with his own party.Mitch McConnell has a long history of playing hardball — even changing the rules of American politics — to benefit the Republican Party.He has opposed limits on campaign finance, knowing that corporations and the wealthy donate to Republicans. As the Republican Senate leader, he has helped turn the filibuster into a normal tactic. He has boasted about his desire to damage the presidencies of both Barack Obama and Joe Biden. And McConnell in 2016 refused to consider any Supreme Court nominee by Obama, effectively flipping the seat back to a Republican nominee.In each of the cases, McConnell has been willing to break with precedent in ways that many historians and legal scholars consider dangerous. He often seems to put a higher priority on partisan advantage than on American political traditions or even the national interest, these scholars say.So how is the country supposed to make sense of McConnell’s actions this week?On Tuesday, he criticized the Republican National Committee for its response to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The committee — the party’s official organization — had described the events of Jan. 6 as “legitimate political discourse” and censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, two House members who are helping investigate the riot.McConnell repudiated his own party. “We saw what happened,” he told reporters. “It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election, from one administration to the next. That’s what it was.”G.O.P., favoredThe remarks were striking because McConnell’s position on Jan 6. — and on Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud that inspired the attack — has been inconsistent. At first, McConnell harshly criticized Trump for inciting it, only to back off. He voted to acquit Trump of impeachment charges, effectively keeping Trump as the party’s dominant figure.“To this day McConnell has been unwilling to impose any political consequences on Trump,” Amanda Carpenter of The Bulwark, a conservative publication, has written. McConnell also waited more than a month to acknowledge that Biden had won the 2020 election.Still, I think there is a consistent explanation for McConnell’s behavior, whatever you think of it.McConnell’s biggest goals are plain to see. He wants to hold power and ensure that the federal government’s policies are largely conservative, pro-business and anti-regulation.Downplaying his rifts with Trump serves these goals. It helps the Republican Party remain united and increases its chances of winning elections. McConnell is surely savvy enough to understand that Trump appeals to some voters whom past Republicans did not win.At the same time, Trump alienates other voters whom Republicans have historically won, like the suburbanites who helped Democrats flip Arizona and Georgia in 2020. Fully aligning with the violence and lies of the Jan. 6 movement, as the R.N.C. did last week, brings potential political costs.McConnell understands that, as well. He remembers the 2010 midterms, when far-right “unelectable candidates” — a phrase he used last month, when recalling that year — lost winnable races.“This isn’t what he wants at all,” Carl Hulse — The Times’s chief Washington correspondent, who has been covering McConnell for years — told me, referring to the R.N.C. statement.The current political atmosphere looks quite favorable to Republicans, as Carl noted. Polls suggest they are heavily favored to retake the House and may retake the Senate, too. The Democratic Party is divided over President Biden’s agenda, and many Democrats seem out of step with public opinion on Covid-19 policies and several social issues. “It’s highly likely to be a situation where the wind is at our backs,” McConnell recently told CNN about this year’s campaign.Republicans also have some large long-term advantages, like control of the Supreme Court and the Senate’s built-in bias toward small states.Put all this together, and you start to understand why even somebody whose only goal was maximizing Republican power might choose to speak out against a violent insurrection that tried to overturn an election on Republicans’ behalf. In today’s political environment, such extremism might be both unnecessary and counterproductive.‘Partially courageous’Of course, there is another potential motivation for McConnell. He may genuinely believe in a hardball approach to partisan power while also opposing the fraudulent overturning of an election result. McConnell, who has spent decades working on Capitol Hill, was “personally appalled by what happened on Jan. 6,” Carl said.To people who are alarmed about the threats to American democracy, this principled explanation would be modestly encouraging.“He’s been only partially courageous,” said Richard Hasen, an election-law expert and the author of a new book on political disinformation. Even as he has overturned long-lasting political traditions, he has “drawn the line on election subversion,” Hasen told me.I also asked Daniel Ziblatt, a Harvard professor and a co-author of “How Democracies Die,” for his thoughts, and his email response is worth excerpting:When democracies face political violence, it’s almost as important how mainstream parties respond to it — Do they condemn it unambiguously and consistently? McConnell’s words were unambiguous (the good news) but he hasn’t been consistent (the bad news).The story isn’t over. Indeed, I fear he, and certainly his party are engaging in what I would call the “semi-loyalists’ swerve” — condemning anti-democratic behavior one day, backtracking the next, being ambiguous the next.The broader point is this: A democracy can’t survive in the way we have come to expect when one of two major political parties behaves as a party of authoritarians or democratic semi-loyalists. And that’s where the American Republican Party is today.An important thing to watch, Ziblatt said, is how McConnell and other Republicans react in coming weeks to the findings of the Jan. 6 investigation.THE LATEST NEWSThe VirusAn elementary school in Newton, Mass., this month.Tony Luong for The New York TimesIllinois, Massachusetts and Rhode Island joined other Democratic-leaning states lifting mask mandates.The changes leave school districts in charge of their own mask rules.Prime Minister Boris Johnson outlined plans to lift England’s remaining restrictions within weeks.PoliticsChuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that they were open to banning members of Congress from trading stocks.The National Archives found possible classified information in documents Trump took from the White House.J. Michelle Childs, a federal judge on Biden’s Supreme Court short list and a graduate of public schools, is getting bipartisan praise.Violent threats against members of Congress surged after Trump became president.The OlympicsNathan Chen won the gold that eluded him in 2018.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesNathan Chen won gold with a dominant performance in men’s figure skating.Chloe Kim won her second gold in halfpipe snowboarding. (See how she pulled off her tricks.)Officials have delayed the medal ceremony for team figure skating. CNN and others report that a Russian skater failed a drug test.Here are The Times’s photos of the day and the current medal count — as well as a guide to watching the events.Other Big StoriesColorado is trying to change its approach to road construction to address climate change.A former casino executive was sentenced to a year and a day in prison for a bribery scheme to get his daughter into U.S.C.The N.F.L. will investigate sexual harassment allegations against Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Washington Commanders.A geomagnetic storm fueled by an outburst of the sun knocked out dozens of satellites.Why doesn’t America have enough truckers? It’s a stressful, exhausting, lonely job.OpinionsCheap chicken comes at a high cost, this Times Opinion video shows.Become a regular at a restaurant, bar or coffee shop, Xochitl Gonzalez suggests in The Atlantic.Facebook has coasted on others’ inventions for so long that it’s forgotten how to innovate, Farhad Manjoo writes.MORNING READSRivian trucks during the company’s initial public offering.Brendan Mcdermid/ReutersElectric vehicles: Rivian was a stock market hit, but it’s struggling to actually produce trucks.Sim Senate: Politics can be a serious business. One former journalist turned it into a video game.Drink up: Winemakers are desperate to win over the White Claw generation.Advice from Wirecutter: The secret to delicious coffee? A reliable grinder.A Times classic: How not to wear a face mask.Lives Lived: Ashley Bryan brought diversity to children’s literature, writing and illustrating books that retold African folk tales. He died at 98.ARTS AND IDEAS From left, Rick Glassman, Albert Rutecki and Sue Ann Pien star in “As We See It.”From left: Maggie Shannon for The New York Times; Ryan Collerd for The New York Times; Maggie Shannon for The New York TimesChildren grow up“A lot of what we read about and see about autism is about children with autism,” said Jason Katims, a producer on “Friday Night Lights,” “Parenthood” and other television shows.Katims himself created a young character on “Parenthood” with Asperger’s syndrome, inspired partly by his own son. But children with autism grow up, even if you wouldn’t necessarily know it from popular culture. When television and movies do include adults on the spectrum, they are often savants, like Dustin Hoffman’s character in “Rain Man.”Katims’s latest show, “As We See It,” sets out to portray a more realistic version of adult autism. It’s a dramedy on Amazon Prime that follows three young adults who are navigating life, love, family and less typical challenges in Los Angeles. The three lead actors are all on the spectrum.The goal, Katims said, is to create a show that is both deeply respectful and full of laughs. “He has this ability to sort of be very sincere and very sweet and then all of the sudden, just crack you up,” Sosie Bacon, who plays a behavioral aide on the show, told The Associated Press.More recommendations: 50 shows to watch on Netflix now.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookRyan Liebe for The New York TimesRosemary-paprika chicken with fries is a delightful sheet-pan dinner.What to Listen ToThe dishy podcast “Celebrity Book Club” delves into the bizarre genre of memoirs by the rich and famous.What to ReadLaura Kipnis’s book “Love in the Time of Contagion” is about how relationships, including her own, have changed during the pandemic.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was vanguard. Here is today’s puzzle — or you can play online.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Like some slippers and memories (five letters).If you’re in the mood to play more, find all our games here.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidP.S. Somini Sengupta will become the anchor of the Climate Fwd newsletter.Here’s today’s front page. “The Daily” is about mask mandates. On the Modern Love podcast, what teenage anthems teach us about love.Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti, Ashley Wu and Sanam Yar contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at [email protected] up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

Since a surprise win on Long Island, Bruce Blakeman has been on a seemingly single-minded mission to challenge and defy Gov. Kathy Hochul over mask mandates.Bruce Blakeman, who has emerged as the leader of suburban Long Island’s revolt against mask mandates, has lost his fair share of elections.In 1998, Mr. Blakeman — a lifelong Republican — was trounced in a statewide election for comptroller. A year later, he was stunned to be voted out of the Nassau County Legislature, losing his perch as its presiding officer and majority leader. After toying with a run for New York City mayor in 2009, he then lost a congressional race to Representative Kathleen Rice of Long Island in 2014.But Mr. Blakeman’s surprising November win in the race for Nassau County executive — upsetting Laura Curran, a moderate, first-term Democrat — has led, after so many races, to his informal anointment as the state party’s unlikeliest new star.Helping to fuel his rise has been Mr. Blakeman’s seemingly single-minded political mission to challenge and defy Gov. Kathy Hochul, the state’s top Democrat, over her mask mandates, as well as rising crime rates and bail reform, which have proved potent issues for Republicans.“Bruce Blakeman is on the scene; he’s a major Republican leader in this state,” said Nick Langworthy, New York’s Republican Party chairman. “Everybody counted him out, but now Bruce has a great platform. And what I admire about him is he really wants to use it.”Mr. Blakeman, the Nassau County executive, in Mineola. His victory was part of a wave of Republican wins in the county.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesOn Wednesday, Ms. Hochul announced that she would end some rules on indoor masking. Infection rates and hospitalizations have rapidly declined as the Omicron variant of the coronavirus has waned. She added that counties and individual businesses could still require masks, framing that decision as empowering for local leaders.Extending that sort of restriction seems unlikely in Nassau, at least as far as the county government is concerned. Shortly after being inaugurated in early January, Mr. Blakeman made headlines by issuing a flurry of executive orders directing county agencies to stop enforcing mask mandates, and proclaiming that local school districts had to vote on whether or not to grant children what he called “the constitutional right” to cast off masks in the classroom.Whether those orders are legal or not — and Ms. Hochul says they clearly weren’t, considering that state orders outweigh local dictums — the defiant stance resulted in Mr. Blakeman’s ascension to the role of sought-after rabble-rouser, complete with repeated appearances on Fox News and a hero’s welcome in Republican circles in Albany.All of which, Mr. Blakeman insists, stems from a genuine concern for parental rights, not political gain.“I think good government is good politics,” Mr. Blakeman said in a recent interview in the State Capitol. “And part of good government is listening to your constituents.”Mr. Blakeman’s opponents counter that such platitudes are a mere disguise for an ambitious and oft-thwarted politician who has found his moment amid the polarization of the Trump era.“He’s following the tried-and-true Republican playbook,” said Jay Jacobs, who serves as both the Nassau County Democratic Party chair, as well as state chairman for the party. “You either scare the voters or make them angry.”Mr. Blakeman’s sudden celebrity has already paid dividends in one way: Less than a week after he announced his executive orders, his party selected Nassau County as the host for its 2022 convention later this month, noting the “historic Republican resurgence” in the county.Mr. Blakeman’s victory was part of a wave of Republican wins in Nassau, including by Anne Donnelly in the race for Nassau County district attorney, the first time that a Republican has held that position since 2005.White-maned, blue-eyed and fond of snazzy three-piece suits, Mr. Blakeman, 66, exudes a kind of old-school New York political swagger, complete with providing Page Six fodder, in part because his ex-wife, Nancy Shevell, is married to Paul McCartney.Politics is a bit of a Blakeman family business: Mr. Blakeman’s father, Robert, was a state assemblyman, and his younger brother, Bradley, was on President George W. Bush’s White House staff. One of five siblings who grew up in Valley Stream, on the Queens border, Mr. Blakeman recalls using Halloween as a campaign outing for his father.“I’d go out with an empty bag and a full bag of literature,” Mr. Blakeman said. “I came back home with a full bag of candy and an empty bag of literature.”After college and law school stints in Arizona and California — working for Republican campaigns and as a driver and aide to the former first lady Nancy Reagan — Mr. Blakeman returned to Long Island to serve as a partner in his father’s firm before being appointed Hempstead town councilman in 1993. He won a full term on the council later that same year, before being elected to the County Legislature in 1995.Mr. Blakeman at a meeting of the Nassau County Legislature in 1996. His father, Robert, was a state assemblyman.Vic DeLucia/The New York TimesLast winter, he had come full circle, once again serving as a member of the Hempstead Town council, when the Nassau County Republican chairman, Joseph G. Cairo Jr., approached him about taking on Ms. Curran.He was ambivalent, he said, because he was in “a very comfortable place in my life” and “wasn’t sure I wanted to go into that kind of a battle.”But, Mr. Blakeman said, he saw an opening as he looked at polling, saying that while Ms. Curran was popular, “she was upside-down on every important issue,” including bail reform. A 2019 law passed by Democrats in Albany had effectively abolished bail for many nonviolent felonies and most misdemeanors.To that end, Mr. Blakeman ran a law-and-order and anti-tax campaign. He seemingly galvanized concerned suburbanites and die-hard Trump conservatives into a winning coalition, despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans by about 25,000 in the county, with a tranche of some 200,000 independent voters.The margin was thin, with Mr. Blakeman beating Ms. Curran by less than 1 percent, or about 2,100 votes.Mr. Cairo said that Mr. Blakeman’s opponents “tried to portray him as being a loser, and that he’s only doing this because he’s Cairo’s friend.”Mr. Blakeman proved to a dogged campaigner, however, impressing even some Democrats.“I would see him along the way and he’d say, ‘Tom, we’re going to win this.’ And I would say, ‘Really?’” said Thomas DiNapoli, the state’s comptroller, a Democrat, and a figure in Nassau County politics for more than three decades. “But he believed in himself.”Mr. Blakeman also won, said Lawrence Levy, the dean of suburban studies at Hofstra University, because he “leveraged concerns over bail reform and property tax assessments in ways that appealed both to his base and the sort of moderate independent who abandoned Trump in 2020.”That combination, however, will prove to be difficult to maintain, Mr. Levy said.“He is trying to thread a political and ideological needle,” he said. “He is getting a lot of attention for taking very conservative populist positions with Trump-style rhetoric, ostensibly to deliver on promises he made to his base. But he’s also trying not to entirely alienate the sort of suburban swing voter that decides national and local elections.”Mr. Blakeman spoke at a press conference in Mineola about the funeral of Officer Wilbert D. Mora of the New York Police Department in February.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesStill, Mr. Blakeman’s victory gave particular hope to Republicans on Long Island, where liberals had celebrated in 2018, after an anti-Trump sentiment led to four State Senate seats flipping to Democrats on the island. The party then took control of the chamber for the first time in nearly a decade.And while new redistricting maps may dash any Republican dreams of seizing the State Senate — the Democrats hold a 23-seat advantage in a 63-seat chamber — Robert Ortt, the Republican minority leader, said Mr. Blakeman showed the potential potency of “bail reform and crime and public safety” in elections all across the state.“It’s a template from the standpoint that it’s a huge issue,” Mr. Ortt said, adding that “public safety is an issue we all campaign on.”Even before taking office, Mr. Blakeman was invited to Albany in mid-December to headline an anti-bail-reform rally in the State Capitol and once again took an opportunity to criticize Ms. Hochul as someone “who likes to lecture me on the law.”“When you look at this bail reform law it is nothing more than a get-out-of-jail-free card,” he said, citing examples of gun charges in his county related to defendants released without bail. “It’s madness, it’s crazy and enough is enough.”In a county in which President Biden won, of course, Mr. Blakeman may well have to walk a fine line between appealing to moderates and the Republican base. Asked about President Donald J. Trump, he said he was “a very effective president,” but added: “Our personalities and delivery style are very different.”His ascension in Republican ranks has fostered some chatter that perhaps Mr. Blakeman — who lives in the well-to-do enclave of Atlantic Beach with his wife, Segal Blakeman, a lawyer — might want to challenge Ms. Hochul at some point.But Mr. Blakeman denies this, saying he supports this year’s front-runner for the Republican nomination, Representative Lee Zeldin, and is happy staying put in Nassau.“I have zero plans,” he said. “This is a great job, I love it. And I get to stay home.” More

The National Archives consulted with the Justice Department about the discovery after the former president sent back documents that he had improperly taken from the White House when he left office.The National Archives and Records Administration discovered what it believed was classified information in documents Donald J. Trump had taken with him from the White House as he left office, according to a person briefed on the matter.The discovery, which occurred after Mr. Trump returned 15 boxes of documents to the government last month, prompted the National Archives to reach out to the Justice Department for guidance, the person said. The department told the National Archives to have its inspector general examine the matter, the person said.It is unclear what the inspector general has done since then, in particular, whether the inspector general has referred the matter to the Justice Department.An inspector general is required to alert the Justice Department to the discovery of any classified materials that were found outside authorized government channels.Making a referral to the Justice Department would put senior officials in the position of having to decide whether to open an investigation, a scenario that would thrust the department into a highly contentious political matter.The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the National Archives had asked the Justice Department to examine Mr. Trump’s handling of White House records.Officials with the National Archives did not respond to messages seeking comment.In January, after a lengthy back and forth between Mr. Trump’s lawyers and the National Archives, Mr. Trump handed over more than a dozen boxes of materials, including documents, mementos, gifts and letters. Among the documents were the original versions of a letter that former President Barack Obama had left for Mr. Trump when he was first sworn in, and letters written to Mr. Trump by the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un.Also included in the boxes was a map Mr. Trump famously drew on with a black Sharpie to demonstrate the track of Hurricane Dorian heading toward Alabama in 2019 to back up a declaration he had made on Twitter that contradicted weather forecasts.Mr. Trump in the Oval Office in September 2019. The map of a storm appears to have been altered with a marker to show Hurricane Dorian headed for Alabama.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesThe boxes had originally been sent to Mar-a-Lago from the White House residence, where a range of items — including clothes — were hastily packed up in Mr. Trump’s final days in office. Legally, Mr. Trump was required to leave the documents, letters and gifts in the custody of the federal government so the National Archives could store them.After the F.B.I., during the 2016 presidential campaign, investigated Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified material while she was secretary of state, Mr. Trump assailed her, helping make the issue pivotal in the outcome of that race. In that case, the intelligence community’s inspector general had made a national security referral to the F.B.I., prompting the investigation of Mrs. Clinton.But during Mr. Trump’s administration, top White House officials were deeply concerned about how little regard Mr. Trump showed for sensitive national security materials. John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, tried to stop classified documents from being taken out of the Oval Office and brought up to the residence because he was concerned about what Mr. Trump may do with them and how that may jeopardize national security.Similar to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and daughter Ivanka used personal email accounts for work purposes. And even after being warned by aides, Mr. Trump repeatedly ripped up government documents that had to be taped back together to prevent him from being accused of destroying federal property.Now Mr. Trump faces questions about his handling of classified information — a question that is complicated because as president he had the authority to declassify any government information. It is unclear whether Mr. Trump had declassified materials the National Archives discovered in the boxes before he left office. Under federal law, he no longer maintains the ability to declassify documents after leaving office.He invoked the power to declassify information several times as his administration publicly released materials that helped him politically, particularly on issues like the investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia.Toward the end of the administration, Mr. Trump ripped pictures that intrigued him out of the President’s Daily Brief — a compendium of often classified information about potential national security threats — but it is unclear whether he took them to the residence with him. In one prominent example of how he dealt with classified material, Mr. Trump in 2019 took a highly classified spy satellite image of an Iranian missile launch site, declassified it and then released the photo on Twitter.If Mr. Trump was found to have taken materials with him that were still classified at the time he left the White House, prosecuting him would be extremely difficult and it would pit the Justice Department against Mr. Trump at a time when Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is trying to depoliticize the department.The department and the F.B.I. also still have significant scars from its investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton mishandled classified information, as the bureau was accused of unfairly tarnishing her and interfering in the 2016 election.Katie Benner More

Peter Navarro, a White House adviser to former President Donald J. Trump, has written and spoken about his work on a plan to get Congress to reject the results of the 2020 election.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol issued a subpoena on Wednesday to Peter Navarro, a White House adviser to former President Donald J. Trump who was involved in what he called an “operation” to keep Mr. Trump in office after he lost the 2020 election.The subpoena was the committee’s latest attempt to obtain information about efforts underway in Mr. Trump’s White House to invalidate the election. In his book, titled “In Trump Time,” and in interviews with The New York Times and other outlets, Mr. Navarro has said that he worked with Stephen K. Bannon and other allies of Mr. Trump to develop and carry out a plan to delay Congress’s formal count of the 2020 presidential election results to buy time to change the outcome.Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee, highlighted how openly and proudly Mr. Navarro has discussed those machinations, saying he “hasn’t been shy about his role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and has even discussed the former president’s support for those plans.”Mr. Navarro has insisted that the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was not part of his plans, which he said included having Vice President Mike Pence reject electors for Joseph R. Biden Jr. when Congress met in a joint session to formally count them.“To pull off an operation Bannon has dubbed the Green Bay Sweep — and thereby keep President Trump in the White House for a second term — we must have only peace and calm,” Mr. Navarro wrote in his book.On Wednesday, he said he would not comply with the committee’s subpoena, citing Mr. Trump’s invocation of executive privilege.“It is not my privilege to waive,” Mr. Navarro said. He also berated Mr. Pence for failing to go along with Mr. Trump’s demands that he unilaterally throw out electoral votes for Mr. Biden. And he insulted Marc Short, Mr. Pence’s former top aide who has cooperated with the panel; Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff; and the two Republicans on the committee, Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois.“Pence betrayed Trump. Marc Short is a Koch Network dog. Meadows is a fool and a coward. Cheney and Kinzinger are useful idiots for Nancy Pelosi and the woke Left,” Mr. Navarro wrote in an email.In his book, Mr. Navarro wrote that the idea was for Mr. Pence to be the “quarterback” of the plan and “put certification of the election on ice for at least another several weeks while Congress and the various state legislatures involved investigate all of the fraud and election irregularities.”There has been no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election, though Mr. Trump continues to claim that it was “stolen” from him.Mr. Navarro also wrote a 36-page report alleging election fraud as part of what he called an “Immaculate Deception.” In an interview with The Times, he said he relied on “thousands of affidavits” from Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York police commissioner, to help produce the report, which claimed there “may well have been a coordinated strategy to effectively stack the election deck against the Trump-Pence ticket.”The Jan. 6 committee described the claims in Mr. Navarro’s report as having been “discredited in public reporting, by state officials and courts.”Mr. Navarro said that he made sure Republican members of Congress received a copy of his report and that more than 100 members of Congress had signed onto the plans. (Ultimately, 147 Republican members of Congress objected to certifying at least one state for Mr. Biden.)Latest DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3A G.O.P. resolution. More