Elections

Black elected officials in several states, from Congress down to the counties, have been drawn out of their districts this year or face headwinds to hold onto their seats.More than 30 years ago, Robert Reives Sr. marched into a meeting of his county government in Sanford, N.C., with a demand: Create a predominantly Black district in the county, which was 23 percent Black at the time but had no Black representation, or face a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act.The county commission refused, and Mr. Reives prepared to sue. But after the county settled and redrew its districts, he was elected in 1990 as Lee County’s first Black commissioner, a post he has held comfortably ever since.Until this year.Republicans, newly in power and in control of the redrawing of county maps, extended the district to the northeast, adding more rural and suburban white voters to the mostly rural district southwest of Raleigh and effectively diluting the influence of its Black voters. Mr. Reives, who is still the county’s only Black commissioner, fears he will now lose his seat.“They all have the same objective,” he said in an interview, referring to local Republican officials. “To get me out of the seat.”Mr. Reives is one of a growing number of Black elected officials across the country — ranging from members of Congress to county commissioners — who have been drawn out of their districts, placed in newly competitive districts or bundled into new districts where they must vie against incumbents from their own party.Almost all of the affected lawmakers are Democrats, and most of the mapmakers are white Republicans. The G.O.P. is currently seeking to widen its advantage in states including North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia and Texas, and because partisan gerrymandering has long been difficult to disentangle from racial gerrymandering, proving the motive can be troublesome.But the effect remains the same: less political power for communities of color.The pattern has grown more pronounced during this year’s redistricting cycle, the first since the Supreme Court struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and allowed jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to pass election laws and draw political maps without approval from the Justice Department.How Maps Reshape American PoliticsWe answer your most pressing questions about redistricting and gerrymandering.“Let’s call it a five-alarm fire,” G.K. Butterfield, a Black congressman from North Carolina, said of the current round of congressional redistricting. He is retiring next year after Republicans removed Pitt County, which is about 35 percent Black, from his district.“I just didn’t see it coming,” he said in an interview. “I did not believe that they would go to that extreme.”Redistricting at a GlanceEvery 10 years, each state in the U.S is required to redraw the boundaries of their congressional and state legislative districts in a process known as redistricting.Redistricting, Explained: Answers to your most pressing questions about redistricting and gerrymandering.Breaking Down Texas’s Map: How redistricting efforts in Texas are working to make Republican districts even more red.G.O.P.’s Heavy Edge: Republicans are poised to capture enough seats to take the House in 2022, thanks to gerrymandering alone.Legal Options Dwindle: Persuading judges to undo skewed political maps was never easy. A shifting judicial landscape is making it harder.A former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Butterfield said fellow Black members of Congress were increasingly worried about the new Republican-drawn maps. “We are all rattled,” he said.In addition to Mr. Butterfield, four Black state senators in North Carolina, five Black members of the state House of Representatives and several Black county officials have had their districts altered in ways that could cost them their seats. Nearly 24 hours after the maps were passed, civil rights groups sued the state.Representative G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina said he was retiring next year after Republicans removed Pitt County, which is 35 percent Black, from his district.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesAcross the country, the precise number of elected officials of color who have had their districts changed in such ways is difficult to pinpoint. The New York Times identified more than two dozen of these officials, but there are probably significantly more in county and municipal districts. And whose seats are vulnerable or safe depends on a variety of factors, including the political environment at the time of elections.But the number of Black legislators being drawn out of their districts outpaces that of recent redistricting cycles, when voting rights groups frequently found themselves in court trying to preserve existing majority-minority districts as often as they sought to create new ones.“Without a doubt it’s worse than it was in any recent decade,” said Leah Aden, a deputy director of litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc. “We have so much to contend with and it’s all happening very quickly.”Republicans, who have vastly more control over redistricting nationally than Democrats do, defend their maps as legal and fair, giving a range of reasons.Kirk Smith, the Republican chairman of Lee County’s board of commissioners, said that “to say only a person of a certain racial or ethnic group can represent only a person of the same racial or ethnic group has all the trappings of ethnocentric racism.”In North Carolina and elsewhere, Republicans say that their new maps are race-blind, meaning officials used no racial data in designing the maps and therefore could not have drawn racially discriminatory districts because they had no idea where communities of color were.“During the 2011 redistricting process, legislators considered race when drawing districts,” Ralph Hise, a Republican state senator in North Carolina, said in a statement. Through a spokesperson, he declined to answer specific questions, citing pending litigation.His statement continued: “We were then sued for considering race and ordered to draw new districts. So during this process, legislators did not use any racial data when drawing districts, and we’re now being sued for not considering race.”In other states, mapmakers have declined to add new districts with majorities of people of color even though the populations of minority residents have boomed. In Texas, where the population has increased by four million since the 2010 redistricting cycle, people of color account for more than 95 percent of the growth, but the State Legislature drew two new congressional seats with majority-white populations.And in states like Alabama and South Carolina, Republican map drawers are continuing a decades-long tradition of packing nearly all of the Black voting-age population into a single congressional district, despite arguments from voters to create two separate districts. In Louisiana, Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, said on Thursday that the Republican-controlled State Legislature should draw a second majority-Black House district.Allison Riggs, a co-executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a civil rights group, said that the gerrymandering was “really an attack on Black voters, and the Black representatives are the visible outcome of that.”Efforts to curb racial gerrymandering have been hampered by a 2019 Supreme Court decision, which ruled that partisan gerrymandering could not be challenged in federal court.Though the court did leave intact Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial gerrymandering, it offered no concrete guidance on how to distinguish between a partisan gerrymander and a racial gerrymander when the result was both, such as in heavily Democratic Black communities.Understand How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More

China’s crackdown has driven most of the city’s popular pro-democracy candidates either into police custody or exile. Officials are urging the public to vote, but turnout is expected to be low.HONG KONG — On the surface, Hong Kong’s legislative election on Sunday is like any such poll the city has held, but its differences are stark. This time, candidates have been vetted by national security bodies. Several people have been arrested after calling for a boycott. Dozens of veteran pro-democracy figures, either in jail or in exile, are absent from the campaign trail.The election will be the first since Beijing imposed a drastic overhaul of the political system to allow only “patriots” to run, tightening the governing Communist Party’s grip over the territory and leaving space only for the barest semblance of an opposition.While the rules of Hong Kong’s elections were always in favor of Beijing’s allies, the new system eliminates even the slightest uncertainty of previous campaigns, and the establishment’s near-total control of the legislature is now guaranteed.Still, the government is sparing no effort to show that the election is legitimate, even threatening foreign newspapers that suggest otherwise. Officials have exhorted voters to show up, but polls suggest that turnout could sink to a record low.The opposition has been devastated by Beijing’s crackdown.Supporters of the pro-Beijing candidate Stanley Ng Chau-pei at a street booth in Hong Kong on Wednesday.Billy H.C. Kwok for The New York TimesThe last time Hong Kong held an election, the pro-democracy camp won a stunning victory, taking nearly 90 percent of the seats in the November 2019 vote for district councils. The vote, after months of antigovernment street protests, was a dramatic rebuke of Beijing’s authority.The Communist Party has been determined not to see a repeat.In January, the police arrested dozens of Hong Kong’s most well-known democracy advocates, saying their election platform amounted to a subversive plot against the government. Fourteen have been granted bail, but 33 remain in custody awaiting a trial that is not expected to begin until the second half of next year. Other opposition politicians have gone into exile, fearing arrest. Understand the Hong Kong ElectionsHong Kong’s legislative election on Dec. 19 will be the first since Beijing imposed a drastic overhaul of the island’s political system.What to Know: New electoral rules and the crackdown on the opposition have eliminated even the slightest uncertainty of previous elections.An Unpopular Leader: Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, appears to relish the new state of affairs.Seeking Legitimacy: The outcome is already determined, but the government is pressuring opposition parties to participate. A Waning Opposition: Fearing retaliation, pro-democracy politicians who had triumphed in the 2019 local elections have quit in droves.Those who have remained in the city’s pro-democracy parties were not participating in Sunday’s election. Some said they did not want to lend legitimacy to the process. The Democratic Party, the largest opposition group, said its members had no enthusiasm to run.The few democracy backers on the ballot have toed Beijing’s line.Mock polling stations set up by the government on Thursday for voters to familiarize themselves with the facilities ahead of the election.Billy H.C. Kwok for The New York TimesOnly a few of all the candidates running this year have described themselves as “pro-democracy,” and they share one thing in common: They observe Beijing’s red lines.They have avoided the sort of political stances that could lead to their disqualification or even imprisonment, such as calling for independence for Hong Kong or foreign sanctions against Hong Kong officials. In Hong Kong’s new electoral landscape, the absence of the mainstream opposition has resulted in an odd political twist: Such outside candidates are being given some help by Beijing’s representatives and allies, who would in normal circumstances be their rivals. But the support is limited to helping them pass the rigorous nomination process to get on the ballot, not to winning votes on Election Day. One pro-democracy candidate, Wong Sing-chi, said he believed it was important to fight for democracy by pursuing office, even if the system was flawed. If elected, he said, he would call for an amnesty for nonviolent protesters who have been sentenced to prison and a scaling back of the use of a national security law that has quashed dissent.Mr. Wong, a former member of the Democratic Party, said he was asked twice this year by the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government, Beijing’s increasingly assertive arm in the city, about whether he would run. But he said he made the decision to run on his own. After he did so, he was given a powerful boost by Lo Man-tuen, a prominent pro-Beijing voice on the election committee, who helped him secure enough nominations from the body to run.“I am absolutely not their cup of tea, but they also want me to run so there will be some other voices,” said Mr. Wong.Adrian Lau, who won a seat on the district councils during a pro-democracy wave in 2019, said he was running for the legislative council because some voters did not have faith in pro-Beijing politicians.“They need at least one or two Legco members who would really help them,” he said.Turnout is expected to be low, but Hong Kong’s leader says it’s OK.“I think the turnout rate does not mean anything,” said Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, in an interview with Global Times, a newspaper controlled by the Communist Party of China.Lam Yik/ReutersWith the establishment’s control of the legislative council a foregone conclusion, the biggest question in this race is whether the voters will turn out. That has emerged as something of an informal referendum on the new electoral system.“Low voter turnout is clearly an indicator of Hong Kong society that is deeply divided,” said Sonny Lo, a Hong Kong political analyst. “The political wounds from the 2019 protests were deep and the scars still remain.”The government has been aggressive in encouraging voters to participate, setting up polling stations at the border with mainland China for Hong Kong residents who want to vote without going through quarantine. Top government officers have called on citizens to turn out.But Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, has argued that a low number of voters could be a sign of satisfaction with the government.“There is a saying that when the government is doing well and its credibility is high, the voter turnout will decrease because the people do not have a strong demand to choose different lawmakers to supervise the government,” she told Global Times, a newspaper controlled by the Communist Party of China. “Therefore, I think the turnout rate does not mean anything.”Regina Ip, a pro-Beijing lawmaker and government adviser, criticized the logic of Mrs. Lam’s analysis, noting that in the 2019 district council election, a record number of voters had turned out.“Does that reflect a failure of her governance?” Mrs. Ip said at an election forum hosted by The South China Morning Post, a local newspaper. “If we pursue her argument to the logical end, one would draw that conclusion.”The mere mention of boycotts has been met with arrests and threats.A poster for legislative council candidates in Hong Kong this week. A recent survey showed that about 50 percent of respondents planned to vote in the election.Billy H.C. Kwok for The New York TimesThe police have arrested at least 10 people, accusing them of encouraging people to not participate in the election or cast spoiled ballots.Hong Kong courts have issued warrants for at least seven activists and politicians who now live overseas, including the former lawmakers Ted Hui and Nathan Law. Mr. Law, who is in Britain, is accused of making a speech at a web conference on Dec. 3 in which he urged voters to ignore the election. Mr. Hui, who is in Australia, urged voters to cast blank ballots.The Hong Kong authorities also warned The Wall Street Journal that it may have broken the law with a November editorial that called the election a “sham vote.” The newspaper had said that “boycotts and blank ballots are one of the last ways for Hong Kongers to express their political views.” The government sent a similar warning letter to The Sunday Times of London over an article titled, “China shows its true colours — and they’re not pretty.”The head of Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption, which enforces the election law, warned that survey results from a prominent polling organization about potential turnout might also be illegal.The organization, the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute, had been attacked by government supporters after a recent survey showed that about 50 percent of respondents planned to vote in the election, the lowest-ever figure since the institute started asking the question in the early 1990s. More

For those who spend their days operating within the constraints of empirical reality, the long-running voter-fraud scam peddled by right-wing con artists poses a dilemma: Respond to their claims and give them the veneer of legitimacy they crave. Ignore them, and risk letting transparent lies spread unchecked.I used to err on the side of responding as often as possible, in the belief that persistent fact-checking and debunking was the best way to inoculate the American public against a virulent campaign of deception. But it became clear to me, probably later than it should have, that this was always a fool’s game. The professional vote-fraud crusaders are not in the fact business. While they pretend to care about real election crimes, their purpose is not to identify whether voters are actually committing such crimes; it is to concoct a world in which the votes of certain people (and it always seems to be the same people) are presumptively invalid. That’s why they are not chastened by data demonstrating — again and again and again and again — that there is essentially no voter fraud anywhere in this country.Thanks to their efforts, about three quarters of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen, and they won’t be convinced by evidence to the contrary.That evidence continues to grow. Earlier this week The Associated Press released an impressively thorough report examining every potential case of voter fraud in six decisive battleground states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — where Donald Trump and his allies challenged the result in 2020. Voters in these six states cast a combined 25.5 million votes for president last year, and chose Joe Biden over Mr. Trump by 311,257 votes. The total number of possible cases of fraud the A.P. found? Fewer than 475, or 0.15 percent of Mr. Biden’s margin of victory in those states.Many of those cases the A.P. identified turned out not to be fraud at all. Some involved a poll worker’s error or a voter’s innocent confusion, such as the Trump supporter in Wisconsin who mistakenly thought he could vote while on parole. (“The guy upstairs knows what I did,” the man said after a court appearance. “I didn’t have any intention to commit election fraud.”)In the few instances of clear fraud — for example, a Pennsylvania man who cast two ballots, one for himself and, later in disguise, one for his son — local authorities were quick to act. In Arizona, officials investigated 198 cases of potential fraud, most involving double-voting. They invalidated virtually all of the second votes and have so far charged nine people with voting fraud crimes.That’s the thing about voter fraud: Not only is it rare, it’s generally easy to catch, especially if it happens on a larger scale. In 2019, North Carolina officials ordered a do-over of a congressional election after the winning candidate’s campaign was found to have financed an illegal voter-turnout effort. That candidate was a Republican, as were two of three residents of the Villages, a Florida retirement community, who were arrested and charged with double voting in the 2020 election earlier this month. (The third had no party affiliation.)Given how much Republicans bang on about the dangers of voter fraud, a little schadenfreude is in order here. But it misses the bigger point: To the extent there is any fraud, it is almost entirely an individual phenomenon. The A.P. report confirmed this, finding no evidence anywhere of a coordinated effort to commit voter fraud. That’s no surprise. Committing a single case of fraud is hard enough; doing so as part of a conspiracy is essentially impossible, once you consider how many people would need to be in on the scheme. “It’s a staggeringly inefficient way to affect an outcome,” said David Daley, the author of “Unrigged: How Americans Are Battling Back to Save Democracy.” “It simply doesn’t work.”To sum up once more for the folks in the cheap seats: Voter fraud is vanishingly rare. It is virtually never coordinated. And when it does happen, it is often easily discovered and prosecuted by authorities.I hold no illusions that any of these truths will matter to those who have invested themselves in tales of widespread fraud. After all, they weren’t moved when both Republican and Democratic officials in states around the country reaffirmed, in some cases multiple times, the accuracy and integrity of their vote counts. Even Bill Barr, the former attorney general and one of Mr. Trump’s most reliable bootlickers, could not bring himself to repeat the lie that there was any meaningful fraud in 2020.Alas, Republican voters don’t listen to Bill Barr. They listen to Donald Trump, who dismissed the A.P.’s report by doing his standard Mafia don impression. “I just don’t think you should make a fool out of yourself by saying 400 votes,” the former president told the news organization, insisting that the true number of fraudulent votes in 2020 was in the “hundreds of thousands.” His evidence? An unreleased report by a source he refused to name.This is how it goes with the vote-fraud fraudsters. The damning evidence is always right around the next corner, or the one after that. Recall that Mr. Trump established a voter-fraud commission soon after he entered office, with the goal of rooting out the supposedly massive fraud that led him to lose the popular vote by nearly three million votes. (Like everyone else, he knew that true democratic legitimacy comes not from the Electoral College, but from a majority of the American people.) The commission was led by Kris Kobach, the indefatigable vote-fraud warrior whom Mr. Daley once called “an Inspector Clouseau who gazes into his mirror and sees Sherlock Holmes.” In Mr. Kobach’s previous job as Kansas’s secretary of state, he spent years hunting for widespread vote fraud and won only nine convictions, most of them of older Republican men who had double voted. Under Mr. Kobach’s leadership, the Trump voter-fraud commission disbanded after less than a year of chaos and controversy, without having made any findings.That’s because, as the A.P. report affirms once again, there was nothing to find. American voters aren’t cheating, and certainly not in any coordinated way.And here lies the deepest irony of this strange, fragile moment we are living in. A very real threat is, in fact, looming over America’s electoral integrity. But it’s not coming from voters; it’s coming from the people braying the loudest about the importance of election integrity.Donald Trump turned fact-free charges of voter fraud into an art form, but the exploitation of the predictable public fear generated by that sort of rhetoric has been a central feature of the Republican playbook for years. Back in 2013, the then-North Carolina lawmaker Thom Tillis explained why Republicans in the Legislature were passing their strict voter-ID law. “There is some evidence of voter fraud, but that’s not the primary reason for doing this,” said Mr. Tillis, now a U.S. senator. “There are a lot of people who are just concerned with the potential risk of fraud.” Why are they so concerned? Because their leaders have been feeding them a steady diet of lies.That diet became an all-you-can-eat buffet in the Trump years, culminating in the “Stop the Steal” rallies after the 2020 election and then, horrifically, in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Now the same people who subscribed to the lies about election fraud are running for, and often winning, jobs overseeing the running of elections across the country. They are representative of a new generation of Republicans, raised in the fever swamps of Fox News and other purveyors of disinformation, who believe elections are valid only when their candidate wins.The goal of the voter-fraud brigade, it turns out, was never to identify fraud that might have happened in the past; it was to indoctrinate voters with the terror of stolen elections, and to pave the way for a hostile takeover of American democracy in the future.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

A judge on Thursday rejected an attempt by the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News Media to dismiss a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems over the network’s coverage of the company’s role in the 2020 presidential election.In the ruling, Judge Eric M. Davis of the Superior Court of Delaware, where Fox is incorporated, wrote that he had denied Fox News Media’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit because it was “reasonably conceivable that Dominion has a claim for defamation.”Dominion, an election technology company, sued Fox News Media in March, accusing it of advancing lies that devastated its reputation and business. More than two dozen states, including several carried by former President Donald J. Trump, made use of Dominion, a Denver company founded in 2002, in last year’s election.Along with another vote tabulating company, Smartmatic, Dominion was at the center of a baseless pro-Trump conspiracy theory about rigged voting machines that gave the election to President Biden. The false claims were promoted by the president and his advisers, including Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who appeared on Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network.In May, Fox filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Dominion’s lawsuit threatened the news media’s First Amendment right to chronicle and assess newsworthy claims.Recent Developments at Fox NewsJan. 6 Texts: Three Fox News hosts texted Mark Meadows during the Jan. 6 riot urging him to tell Donald Trump to try to stop it.Chris Wallace Departs: The anchor’s announcement that he was leaving Fox News for CNN came as right-wing hosts have increasingly set the channel’s agenda.Contributors Quit: Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes quit the network in protest over Tucker Carlson’s “Patriot Purge” special.In his ruling, Judge Davis disputed the arguments put forth by Fox, including that its employees were reporting in a neutral manner on statements made by advisers of the then-president and that claims made on its channels were opinion, and thus constituted protected speech.The judge wrote that he was not persuaded by Fox’s “neutral reportage” and “opinion” arguments. He added that the company either “knew its statements about Dominion’s role in election fraud were false” or that it “had a high degree of awareness that the statements were false.”Judge Davis also noted that Dominion had objected in writing to Fox’s coverage, seemingly to no avail. The allegations made by Dominion in its complaint, he wrote, “support the reasonable inference that Fox intended to keep Dominion’s side of the story out of the narrative.”A Dominion spokeswoman said in a statement: “We are pleased to see this process moving forward to hold Fox accountable.”In a statement on Thursday, a Fox spokeswoman said, “We remain committed to defending against this baseless lawsuit and its all-out assault on the First Amendment.”The 52-page ruling included examples of statements made on shows hosted by Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, whose Fox Business Network program was canceled in February.The judge wrote that those hosts had provided platforms to people who were spreading the false narrative of election fraud involving Dominion and that the hosts’ own statements sometimes lent weight to the baseless claims. Also figuring in the court’s decision to allow the case to go forward was the fact that other Fox journalists had publicly stated the claims of widespread vote fraud were false.“The nearby presence of dissenting colleagues thus further suggests Fox, through personnel like Mr. Dobbs, was knowing or reckless in reporting the claims,” Judge Davis wrote.Barring a successful appeal of the ruling, Dominion now has the power to compel Fox to produce internal documents related to the issues raised in the suit and to have its employees testify in deposition.Don Herzog, who teaches First Amendment and defamation law at the University of Michigan, said in an interview that Fox faced a decision: It could settle, which might be seen as an admission of wrongdoing, or it could go through the discovery process, which could eventually make its internal communications public.Timothy Zick, a professor at William & Mary Law School who specializes in First Amendment law, said that Fox would be more incentivized to settle the suit than it previously was. “The danger for them is that a lot of embarrassing email correspondence and other documents will come out, if they don’t settle the case,” he said. Mr. Zick added that Dominion might not be willing to settle.The prospect of the publication of Fox’s internal communications concerning its coverage of the 2020 election follows the recent disclosure of text messages sent by its hosts to Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s final White House chief of staff, during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. On their shows this week, the hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham vociferously defended the messages, which made vivid the close relationship between the network and Mr. Trump’s administration. Mr. Hannity and Ms. Ingraham said that nothing in their text messages differed from their public statements.Fox faces another high-stakes legal battle over its election coverage because of a defamation lawsuit filed in February by Smartmatic.The day after Smartmatic filed its suit, Fox Business Network abruptly canceled “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” Mr. Dobbs, a loyal supporter of Mr. Trump, was the host of the channel’s most-watched show.In its suit, Smartmatic cited a false claim made by Ms. Powell on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that Hugo Chávez, the former president of Venezuela, had a hand in the creation of Smartmatic technology, designing it so that the votes it processed could be changed undetected. (Mr. Chávez, who died in 2013, did not have anything to do with Smartmatic.) Mr. Dobbs had also referred to the supposed vote conspiracy as “cyber Pearl Harbor,” borrowing a phrase that had been used by Ms. Powell. More

As the panel continues to take testimony, it is looking to do more analysis of social media and possible foreign efforts to sow discord in the U.S. before the Capitol riot.WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault at the U.S. Capitol is weighing whether to hire staff members who can analyze social media posts and examining the role foreign adversaries played in sowing divisions among Americans over the outcome of the presidential election, according to two people briefed on the committee’s decision making.The new avenues of inquiry come as the committee, which currently has about 40 staff members, continues to subpoena testimony and documents. Witnesses this week included William J. Walker, the former commander of the D.C. National Guard, who has said military leaders delayed the guard response on Jan. 6, and the conservative activist Dustin Stockton, whose lawyer said he is turning over a “treasure trove” of documents that would have senior Trump allies and lawmakers “quivering in their boots.”Mr. Stockton and his fiancée, Jennifer L. Lawrence, assisted in organizing rallies after the election advancing false claims about its outcome. But Mr. Stockton has said he was concerned that a march to the Capitol on Jan. 6 while Congress was certifying the election would mean “possible danger,” and that his urgent concerns were escalated to Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff at the time, according to the committee.The political operative Roger J. Stone Jr., a close ally of former President Donald J. Trump, appeared before the committee for a deposition on Friday. But he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to each of the panel’s questions because, he said, he feared that Democrats would fabricate perjury charges.Understand the U.S. Capitol RiotOn Jan. 6, 2021, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol.What Happened: Here’s the most complete picture to date of what happened — and why.Timeline of Jan. 6: A presidential rally turned into a Capitol rampage in a critical two-hour time period. Here’s how.Key Takeaways: Here are some of the major revelations from The Times’s riot footage analysis.Death Toll: Five people died in the riot. Here’s what we know about them.Decoding the Riot Iconography: What do the symbols, slogans and images on display during the violence really mean?“I did my civic duty and I responded as required by law,” Mr. Stone said after the deposition. He then criticized the investigation as “Witch Hunt 3.0,” and accused the government of hiding potentially exculpatory video evidence about the attack on the Capitol.Mr. Stone has claimed that he was leaving town as rioters stormed the Capitol. “I did not march to the Capitol. I was not at the Capitol,” he said, adding that he believed the violence was “illegal and politically counterproductive.”But Mr. Stone promoted his attendance at the rallies on Jan. 5 and 6, solicited support to pay for security through the website stopthesteal.org and used members of the Oath Keepers militia group as personal security guards while he was in Washington. At least two of those members have been indicted on charges that they were involved in the Capitol attack.To bolster the public’s understanding of the attack, the committee is considering hiring several new staff members to analyze the vast amount of information that Mr. Trump’s supporters posted on sites like Twitter, Facebook, Parler and YouTube in the weeks before and after the attack. These digital footprints could help congressional investigators connect players and events, or bring to light details that witnesses might not know or remember.Federal prosecutors have relied on hundreds of thousands of pieces of digital evidence to identify and support charges against more than 700 defendants who have been arrested in nearly every state for their part in the attack.The committee’s investigators are also seeking to understand whether foreign governments were able to exploit and deepen social divisions created by Mr. Trump’s refusal to concede his election loss. Foreign adversaries have long tried to damage America’s national security interests by exacerbating social unrest and polarization.Key Figures in the Jan. 6 InquiryCard 1 of 9The House investigation. More

In an early political setback for Eric Adams, Adrienne Adams emerged from a hard-fought race with the votes she needed to be council speaker.The race for New York City Council speaker, the second-most powerful government post in the nation’s largest city, ended Friday with Adrienne Adams, a member from Queens, securing the votes needed from her colleagues to win the job, and Mayor-elect Eric Adams’s blessing as well.Ms. Adams said that 32 fellow members of the incoming Council had agreed to choose her as the body’s next leader, well above the 26 she needed.The resolution of what was a complex campaign of insider jockeying came a few days after four of the candidates who had been vying for the job threw their support to Ms. Adams, who declared herself victorious, only to have her main challenger, Francisco Moya of Queens, assert that he had won the race.“I am honored to have earned the support and the trust of my colleagues to be their speaker,” Ms. Adams said in a statement on Friday. “Our coalition reflects the best of our city. We are ready to come together to solve the enormous challenges we face.”Mr. Moya conceded to his fellow Democrat on Friday, saying in a statement that “it is clear that I do not have a path to victory” and calling Ms. Adams a “dedicated and thoughtful leader” who he expected would work well with all Council members.Ms. Adams is now virtually assured of becoming the first Black woman to lead the City Council. As speaker, she will help set the city’s agenda and negotiate with Mr. Adams over a municipal budget that, at $100 billion, is larger than those of all but a few states. A formal vote installing her as speaker will be held in January after the incoming City Council is sworn in.Mr. Adams had publicly vowed to stay out of the race. But he and his allies had made it clear in private conversations meant to build support for Mr. Moya that they preferred him for the job. In backing Mr. Moya, Mr. Adams expended valuable political capital and risked putting himself at odds with key members of the coalition that helped elect him, making Ms. Adams’s victory a notable political setback for the incoming mayor.Mr. Adams was nonetheless quick to congratulate Ms. Adams, calling her “the best choice to lead our City Council forward” a day after he had spoken warmly about her while emphasizing that he believed that they could work together effectively.Ms. Adams’s victory declaration on Friday capped nearly two weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations and frantic calls that created tension among members of the city’s congressional delegation and early endorsers of Mr. Adams.The acrimony spilled into public view when The New York Post published an article featuring anonymous criticism of Representative Gregory Meeks, the Queens Democratic leader, for aligning with “anti-Israel socialists” to support Ms. Adams. Mr. Meeks, the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, is a longtime supporter of Israel and has had strong disagreements with democratic socialists in his party.Incoming N.Y.C. Mayor Eric Adams’s New AdministrationCard 1 of 4Schools Chancellor: David Banks. More

The prime minister’s Conservative Party lost a seat it had held for more than a century, a loss that could hamper his efforts to address the Omicron variant now sweeping Britain.LONDON — In the pre-dawn hours of Friday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson learned that his Conservative Party had crashed to defeat in a district it had represented for more than a century. Twelve hours later, Britain reported more than 90,000 new cases of Covid-19 as the Omicron variant engulfed the country.Each of those events would be daunting enough on its own. Together, they pose a uniquely difficult challenge to Mr. Johnson as he struggles to navigate his nation through the latest treacherous phase of the pandemic.The electoral defeat exposed the vulnerability of a prime minister who built his career on his vote-getting skills. Normally reliable Conservative voters turned on the party in striking numbers, disgusted by a steady drip of unsavory ethics disclosures and a growing sense that the government is lurching from crisis to crisis.The defeat came on top of a mutiny in the ranks of Conservative lawmakers, around 100 of whom voted against Mr. Johnson’s plan to introduce a form of Covid pass in England earlier in the week. Having been politically rebuked, he now has less flexibility to impose new restrictions to curb a virus that is spreading explosively.Mr. Johnson is betting he can avert a full-blown crisis by massively accelerating Britain’s vaccine booster program. But so far, the rate of infections is outrunning the percentage of people getting their third shots. With the variant doubling every 2.5 days, epidemiologists warn that some type of lockdown might ultimately be the only way to prevent an untenable strain on hospitals.Waiting for vaccinations at a center in London. Mr. Johnson is betting he can avert a full-blown crisis by massively accelerating Britain’s vaccine booster program.Andrew Testa for The New York Times“What on earth is the prime minister going to do if the rising Covid numbers means he is getting strong scientific advice to take further restrictive measures?” said Jill Rutter, a senior research fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, a research institute. Mr. Johnson was able to pass his recent measures thanks to votes from the opposition Labour Party. But that dramatized his political weakness, Ms. Rutter noted, and resorting to it again would further antagonize his own rank and file. “That’s politically a terrible place for the prime minister to be,” she added.Indeed, Mr. Johnson needs to worry about fending off a leadership challenge — a once-remote scenario now suddenly plausible as Conservative lawmakers worry that the calamitous result in North Shropshire, a district near England’s border with Wales, could translate into defeat in the next general election.The victorious Liberal Democrat candidate, Helen Morgan, overturned a majority of almost 23,000 won by the former Conservative lawmaker, Owen Paterson, at the last general election, in 2019. Mr. Paterson, a former cabinet minister who had held the seat since 1997, resigned last month after breaking lobbying rules, despite an unsuccessful effort by Mr. Johnson to save him.Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat lawmaker, won a seat held by the Conservative party for more than a century.Jacob King/Press Association, via Associated PressAbout the only reprieve for Mr. Johnson is that Parliament recessed for the Christmas holiday on Thursday. That will temper the momentum behind any possible leadership challenge, at least until Conservative lawmakers return to Westminster after the New Year and assess the state of their party and the country. A prime minister who just a week ago was promising to save Christmas may now need Christmas to save him.“I totally understand people’s frustrations,” Mr. Johnson said on Friday. “In all humility, I’ve got to accept that verdict.” But he also blamed the news media, telling Sky News, “some things have been going very well, but what the people have been hearing is just a constant litany of stuff about politics and politicians.”Mr. Johnson’s standing has been weakened by claims, widely reported in the papers, that his staff held Christmas parties in Downing Street last year at a time when they were forbidden under coronavirus restrictions.The cabinet secretary, Simon Case, had been investigating those allegations but on Friday evening, he abruptly withdrew after a report surfaced that he was aware of a separate party held in his own office last year. Though another civil servant, Sue Gray, will take over the investigation, the latest disclosure is only likely deepen to public suspicion about the government’s behavior.Even before the election loss in North Shropshire, there was speculation that Mr. Johnson could face a formal challenge to his leadership, little more than two years after he won a landslide election victory in December 2019.Mr. Johnson could face a challenge to his leadership from within his own party. Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament, via Associated PressTo initiate a no-confidence vote, 54 lawmakers would have to write to the chairman of the committee that represents Conservative backbenchers, Graham Brady. Such letters are confidential, but analysts do not believe that prospect is close.Even so, Friday’s result will increase jitters in Downing Street. North Shropshire was one of the Conservative Party’s safest seats, in a part of Britain that supported Brexit, Mr. Johnson’s defining political project. Many Labour Party voters and others hostile to the Conservatives coalesced around the Liberal Democrats, the party deemed most likely to defeat the Tories in that region — a practice known as tactical voting.Were this to be repeated nationally in the next general election it could deprive the Conservatives of perhaps 30 seats and, in close contest, affect the outcome, said Peter Kellner, a former president of the polling firm YouGov.“Tactical voting has a chance to make a material difference to the politics of Britain after the next general election,” he said.In recent weeks, Labour has moved ahead of the Conservatives in several opinion surveys, which also recorded a steep drop in Mr. Johnson’s approval ratings. Political analysts said that could also put the prime minister in a vulnerable position, given the transactional nature of his party.“The Tory Party is a ruthless machine for winning elections,” said Jonathan Powell, a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Tony Blair. “If that is continuing into an election cycle, the party will get rid of him quickly.”A memorial to victims of the coronavirus in London this week.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesBut while the political climate remains volatile, most voters are more preoccupied by the effect of the Omicron variant as they prepare for the holiday season. Scientists said it was too soon to say whether the variant was less severe than previous ones, but they warned that even if it was, that would not necessarily prevent a swift rise in hospital admissions, given the enormous number of infections.“If you have enough cases per day, the number of hospitalizations could pose potentially great challenges for any hospital system,” said Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London, whose frightening projections about the virus prompted Mr. Johnson to impose his first lockdown in March 2020.Ms. Rutter said Mr. Johnson could yet emerge unscathed if the variant is milder than feared, hospitals are not overwhelmed, and the booster program is effective. Earlier this year, his fortunes revived when Britain’s vaccination rollout was fast and effective, allowing him to remove all restrictions in July.By weakening Mr. Johnson’s position, however, the defeat in North Shropshire is also likely to embolden his rivals, among them the chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, and the foreign secretary, Liz Truss. Any resulting tensions within the cabinet are likely to erode Mr. Johnson’s authority further.All of that is a dangerous recipe for a prime minister who may find himself forced to return to Parliament to approve further restrictions.“In March 2020, he had massive political capital coming off the back of that fantastic election victory,” Ms. Rutter said. “He’s managed in that time to pretty much squander that political capital, certainly within his party.” More

The governing party lost to the Liberal Democrats a district that it had represented for more than a century.LONDON — Britain’s Conservative Party on Friday crashed to an election defeat in a district it had represented for more than a century, dealing a second stinging blow to Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a week of political turmoil that has shaken his leadership.In a contest on Thursday to select a new member of Parliament for North Shropshire, a district near the border with Wales, to the northwest of London, voters abandoned the Conservatives in favor of the centrist Liberal Democrats in one of the biggest voting upsets of recent years.The victorious Liberal Democrat candidate, Helen Morgan, overturned a majority of almost 23,000 won by the former Conservative lawmaker Owen Paterson at the last general election, in 2019. Mr. Paterson, a former cabinet minister who had held the seat since 1997, resigned last month after breaking lobbying rules despite an unsuccessful effort by Mr. Johnson to save him.The defeat follows a rebellion on Tuesday in which about 100 of Mr. Johnson’s own lawmakers refused to support government plans to control the rapid spread of the Omicron coronavirus variant. As well as embarrassing Mr. Johnson, the mutiny forced him to rely on the support of the opposition Labour Party to pass the measures, sapping his authority.Prime Minister Boris Johnson faced a mutiny from Conservative lawmakers who refused to support government plans to control the rapid spread of the Omicron variant.Jessica Taylor/Agence France-Presse, via Uk Parliament/Afp Via Getty ImagesMr. Johnson’s standing has also been weakened by claims that his staff held Christmas parties in Downing Street last year at a time when they were forbidden under coronavirus restrictions. The cabinet secretary, Simon Case, is investigating those allegations and his report is expected soon.When the results in North Shropshire were announced early Friday, Ms. Morgan had secured 17,957 votes; Neil Shastri-Hurst, the Conservative, had gotten 12,032; and Ben Wood, for Labour, had received 3,686. The vote counting for Thursday’s election took place overnight.“Tonight the people of North Shropshire have spoken on behalf of the British people,” Ms. Morgan said after her victory. “They have said loudly and clearly, ‘Boris Johnson, the party is over.’”She added that the voters had decided that Mr. Johnson was “unfit to lead and that they want a change.” She thanked Labour supporters who had given her their votes saying, “Together, we have shown that we can defeat the Conservatives not with deals behind closed doors, but with common sense at the ballot box.”Although the Liberal Democrats had hoped to pull off a surprise victory, the size of their majority was striking and unexpected. Ed Davey, the leader of the party, described the result as “a watershed moment,” adding in a statement, “Millions of people are fed up with Boris Johnson and his failure to provide leadership throughout the pandemic, and last night, the voters of North Shropshire spoke for all of them.”On Friday, Mr. Johnson said he accepted responsibility for the result. “I totally understand people’s frustrations,” he said. “I hear what the voters are saying in North Shropshire. In all humility, I’ve got to accept that verdict.”However, in an interview with Sky News, he also appeared to blame the news media, saying that “in the last few weeks, some things have been going very well, but what the people have been hearing is just a constant litany of stuff about politics and politicians.”Oliver Dowden, the chairman of the Conservative Party, also acknowledged the scale of the defeat. “I know that voters in North Shropshire are fed up, and I know that they have given us a kicking,” he told the BBC, adding that he and his party had “heard that message from them loud and clear.”Even before the loss of the seat, there was speculation that Mr. Johnson could face a formal challenge to his leadership little more than two years after he won a landslide general election victory in December 2019.To initiate a no-confidence vote, 54 of Mr. Johnson’s lawmakers would have to write to Graham Brady, the chairman of the committee that represents Conservative backbenchers. Such letters are confidential, but analysts do not believe that prospect is close. Parliament is now in recess, giving the prime minister a short political breathing space.Even so, Friday’s result is likely to increase jitters in Downing Street because North Shropshire was one of the Conservative Party’s safest seats, in an area of Britain that supported Brexit, Mr. Johnson’s defining political project.Despite their pro-European stance, the Liberal Democrats — who finished well behind Labour in North Shropshire in the 2019 general election — successfully presented themselves as the only credible challengers to the Tories in the constituency.Election staff counting votes in the  by-election on Thursday in Shrewsbury, England.Christopher Furlong/Getty ImagesBy doing so, they appeared to have persuaded a significant number of Labour’s voters to switch to them in order to defeat the Conservatives. Earlier in the year, the Liberal Democrats caused an upset when they won a seat from Mr. Johnson’s party in the well-heeled district of Chesham and Amersham, northwest of London.To some extent, the circumstances of Mr. Paterson’s resignation always made the North Shropshire seat hard to defend for the Conservative Party. But critics say that Mr. Johnson was the main architect of that situation through his unsuccessful efforts to save Mr. Paterson last month.In addition to the furor over the Christmas parties, Mr. Johnson also faces questions about whether he misled his own ethics adviser over what he knew about the source of funding for an expensive makeover of his Downing Street apartment.Roger Gale, a veteran Conservative lawmaker and a critic of Mr. Johnson, told Sky News that the prime minister had about three weeks over the holiday period to regroup, but would have to do so very fast. “We’ve had two strikes: First of all, the Conservative Party in the House of Commons earlier this week, now this result,” Mr. Gale said. “One more strike, and I think he’s out.”In recent weeks, Labour has moved ahead of the Conservatives in several opinion surveys, which also recorded a drop in Mr. Johnson’s approval ratings. Political analysts said that could put the prime minister in a vulnerable position, given the transactional nature of his party.“The Tory Party is a ruthless machine for winning elections,” said Jonathan Powell, a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Tony Blair. “If that is continuing into an election cycle, the party will get rid of him quickly.”But, while the political climate remains volatile, most voters are probably more preoccupied by the effect of the Omicron variant as they prepare for the holiday season.Mr. Johnson has placed his hopes of political recovery on a speedy roll out of coronavirus vaccine boosters. Earlier this year, his fortunes revived when Britain’s initial vaccination effort proved fast and effective, allowing the country to remove all restrictions in July.Antivaccination protesters outside Parliament on Monday.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesSpeaking before the North Shropshire result, Matthew Goodwin, a professor of politics at the University of Kent, said that Mr. Johnson could recover but may also be in danger of handing the next election to Labour through his errors.“I don’t think it’s over for Johnson,” Professor Goodwin said. “I think this is salvageable.” But, he added, “Johnson has entered that territory whereby oppositions don’t necessarily win elections because governments end up losing them.” More