Elections

Dos tercios de los californianos apoyan una reforma al procedimiento detrás de la revocatoria.La inminente elección para revocar al gobernador Gavin Newsom ha revelado cierta paradoja entre los californianos: valoramos mucho nuestra capacidad para retirar de su cargo a los líderes electos pero creemos que el proceso para lograrlo es profundamente defectuoso.En las últimas semanas ha habido cada vez más llamados para reformar las leyes de revocatoria del estado así como una demanda (ahora descartada) que indicaba que la próxima votación es inconstitucional. Para el mes de julio, dos tercios de los californianos decían que el proceso exigía un cambio, según una encuesta del Instituto de Política Pública de California.La verdad es que las revocatorias en California son confusas. En esta elección, algunos votantes no están seguros si pueden responder ambas preguntas de la papeleta. A muchos les desconcierta cómo es que alguien que obtenga 10 por ciento de los votos podría convertirse en gobernante de 40 millones de personas.“No es una estructura saludable”, me dijo Raphael Sonenshein, director ejecutivo del Instituto Pat Brown de Asuntos Públicos de la Universidad Estatal de California en Los Ángeles. “Espero que después de esta nos sentemos a decir, ‘Tiene que haber mejores reglas’”.Pero, como tantas otras cosas, se dice fácil. Lo complicado es lograrlo.[Este es un fragmento del boletín California Today, que se envía en inglés de lunes a viernes, con todo lo que necesitas saber sobre la actualidad en el estado dorado. Puedes suscribirte aquí].Los elementos básicos del proceso de revocación de California están planteados en la Constitución del Estado, donde, en 1911, se consagró nuestro derecho a revocar.Y enmendar la Constitución es un proceso complicado de dos pasos:En primer lugar, la Legislatura estatal tendría que aprobar la enmienda propuesta con el apoyo de dos terceras partes de ambas cámaras. (O, los votantes podrían reunir alrededor de un millón de firmas de apoyo, aunque los expertos dicen que es menos probable).Luego, la enmienda aparecería en una boleta para todo el estado, donde requeriría una mayoría simple para convertirse en ley.“Los grandes temas que tienen a la gente liada, todas esas cosas están en la Constitución”, me dijo Matt Coles, profesor de Derecho en la Universidad de California, Hastings.Hay otros cambios menos fundamentales que podría aprobar la Legislatura que no necesitan la anuencia de los votantes, como la prohibición de pagar por reunir firmas. Pero las ideas que con más frecuencia he escuchado requerirían enmiendas constitucionales.Los presento a continuación:Más firmas para aparecer en la papeletaPara lograr una revocatoria la Constitución de California requiere que los partidarios recolecten firmas equivalentes al 12 por ciento del total de votos emitidos en la elección anterior para gobernador.Se trata de uno de los umbrales más bajos del país y parte del motivo por el que California es la capital no oficial de la revocatoria en Estados Unidos, dicen los expertos.“Solo en 2020, al menos 14 gobernadores enfrentaron intentos de revocatoria, pero solo el intento de California procedió a las urnas”, escribió el consejo editorial del Times el jueves, al decir que eso se debía “en parte a que esos otros estados tienen umbrales más elevados”.En la encuesta del Instituto de Políticas Públicas de California, más de la mitad de los californianos apoyaron elevar el límite al 25 por ciento, un nivel común en otros estados.El senador estatal Josh Newman, demócrata por Fullerton que fue revocado en 2018, me dijo que se proponía presentar una ley el año entrante para elevar el umbral a 20 por ciento.El jueves se procesaron las boletas de voto por correo en el condado de Los Ángeles.Frederic J. Brown/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesRestringir las revocatorias a actividades ilegales o poco éticasEn la actualidad, un funcionario electo en California puede ser destituido por cualquier motivo; esta es una disposición explícitamente establecida en la Constitución.Pero el 60 por ciento de los habitantes del estado están a favor de reglas que permitan la destitución solo en caso de que haya comportamiento ilegal o inmoral, según una encuesta reciente.Reemplazar al gobernador destituido con el vicegobernadorEn algunos estados, como Oregón y Michigan, el vicegobernador reemplaza automáticamente a un gobernador que ha sido revocado por los votantes.Pero en California, así como en la mayoría de los 19 estados que permiten la revocación de funcionarios estatales, la elección queda en manos de los votantes.Newman me dijo que planeaba proponer una enmienda constitucional a principios del año entrante para modificar esa disposición, lo que eliminaría la pregunta sobre el reemplazo en la papeleta.“Eso es lo que crea un incentivo para llevar a cabo una votación revocatoria”, dijo. “Alguien podría colarse con una pluralidad muy reducida” de votos.El senador estatal Ben Allen, demócrata por Santa Mónica, tiene una solución diferente. Allen también ha presentado una enmienda constitucional que permitiría que un funcionario que enfrenta la revocatoria también se postule como candidato de reemplazo.Otros han sugerido que la elección por el reemplazo se lleve a cabo en una fecha distinta a la elección por la revocatoria. Y se explora la posibilidad de llevar a cabo una segunda vuelta entre los dos candidatos de reemplazo más votados.Pero, una vez más, todos estos cambios requerirían modificar la Constitución de California. More

Berlin has protested to Moscow after identifying repeated attempts to steal politicians’ private information before the election this month that will decide Angela Merkel’s successor.BERLIN — The federal prosecutor’s office in Germany said Friday it was investigating who was responsible for a spate of hacking attempts aimed at lawmakers, amid growing concerns that Russia is trying to disrupt the Sept. 26 vote for a new government.The move by the prosecutor’s office comes after Germany’s Foreign Ministry said this week that it had protested to Russia, complaining that several state lawmakers and members of the federal Parliament had been targeted by phishing emails and other attempts to obtain passwords and other personal information.Those accusations prompted the federal prosecutor to open a preliminary investigation against what was described as a “foreign power.” The prosecutors did not identify the country, but they did cite the Foreign Ministry statement, leaving little doubt that their efforts were concentrated on Russia.In their statement, the prosecutors said they had opened an investigation “in connection with the so-called Ghostwriter campaign,” a reference to a hacking campaign that German intelligence says can be attributed to the Russian state and specifically to the Russian military intelligence service known as the G.R.U.Russia was found to have hacked into the German Parliament’s computer systems in 2015 and three years later, it breached the German government’s main data network. Chancellor Angela Merkel protested over both attacks, but her government struggled to find an appropriate response, and the matter of Russian hacking is now especially sensitive, coming in the weeks before Germans go to the polls to select a successor after her nearly 16 years in power.Moscow denied that it was involved in the hacking efforts.“Despite our repeated appeals through diplomatic channels, our partners in Germany have not provided any evidence of Russia’s involvement in these attacks,” the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said at a briefing on Thursday.She called calling the German allegations “an extraordinary P.R. story,” and said the suspicions appeared to be the work of “individual politicians” intent on showing they would “not allow gaps in trans-Atlantic solidarity,” in an apparent reference to Germany’s strong ties with the United States.Andrea Sasse, a spokeswoman for Germany’s Foreign Ministry, said on Wednesday of the hacking attempts, “The German government regards this unacceptable action as a threat to the security of the Federal Republic of Germany and to the democratic decision-making process, and as a serious burden on bilateral relations.” She continued, “The federal government strongly urges the Russian government to cease these unlawful cyber activities with immediate effect.”Ms. Merkel is not running for re-election and will leave office after a new government is formed, meaning the election will be crucial in determining Germany’s future — and shaping its relationship with Russia.Of the three candidates most likely to replace Ms. Merkel, Annalena Baerbock of the Greens, who has pledged to take the toughest stance against Moscow, has been the target of the most aggressive disinformation campaign.From left, the top candidates for chancellor at a televised debate in Berlin in August: Annalena Baerbock of the Greens, Armin Laschet of the Christian Democrats, and Olaf Scholz of the Social Democrats.Pool photo by Michael KappelerThe other two candidates — Armin Laschet of Ms. Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, and Olaf Scholz of the Social Democrats, currently Ms. Merkel’s vice-chancellor and finance minister — have served in three of the four Merkel governments, and neither is expected to change Berlin’s relationship to Moscow.Ms. Merkel enacted tough economic sanctions against Moscow after the 2014 invasion of Ukraine despite some pushback in other capitals and at home, but she has also worked hard to keep the lines of communication open with Moscow.The two countries have significant economic links, not least in the energy market, where they most recently cooperated on construction of a direct natural gas pipeline, which the Russian energy company Gazprom announced had been completed on Friday.U.S. intelligence agencies believe that “Ghostwriter,” a Russian program that received its nickname from a cybersecurity firm, was active in disseminating false information about the coronavirus before the 2020 U.S. presidential election, efforts that were considered to be a refinement of what Russia tried to do during the 2016 campaign.But attempts to meddle in previous German election campaigns have been limited, partly because of respect for Ms. Merkel, but also because the far-right and populist parties that have emerged in France and Italy have failed to gain as much traction in Germany.German intelligence officials nevertheless remain concerned that their country, Europe’s largest economy and a leader in the European Union, is not immune to outside forces seeking to disrupt its democratic norms.Russia’s state-funded external broadcaster, RT, runs an online-only German-language service that for years has emphasized divisive social issues, including public health precautions aimed at stemming the spread of the coronavirus and migration.During a visit to Moscow last month, Ms. Merkel denied accusations that her government had pressured neighboring Luxembourg to block a license request from the station, which would have allowed it to broadcast its programs to German viewers via satellite.Valerie Hopkins More

The campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom has been going well for the governor lately. Less so for Tag the bear.“Animal rights people are suing us,” said Keith Bauer, the longtime trainer for the 1,000-pound Kodiak who became famous this year as part of a campaign stunt for John Cox, one of the four dozen or so candidates challenging Mr. Newsom. “It’s ridiculous.”Mr. Cox, a San Diego Republican who lost to Mr. Newsom in a landslide in 2018, garnered attention this spring when he began making appearances with the bear to underscore his campaign theme that Mr. Newsom was a privileged “beauty” while Mr. Cox was a powerful “beast.”Bryan Pease, a lawyer who leads the board of the Animal Protection and Rescue League in San Diego, said the nonprofit group sued to enjoin Mr. Cox and the bear’s owner from bringing Tag back to San Diego.The complaint, filed in San Diego Superior Court in May, notes that, other than in the zoo, municipal code bans bears and other wild animals from the city. It also alleges that drugs and electrical wires were used to keep the bear docile during appearances, citing an email from Steve Martin’s Working Wildlife, the Kern County supplier of show business animals that owns the bear and rents him for events and commercials.“They said Tag was drugged because he was so nice at personal appearances,” said Mr. Bauer, who was not named in the suit, which he called “groundless.”“Tag is just nice,” he added. “What do you want me to do? Pinch him in the butt to make him mean?”A spokesperson for Mr. Cox’s campaign blamed “liberal activists playing politics through the courts” for the lawsuit and denied that the bear was mistreated.Mr. Pease said his animal rights group was “an equal opportunity assailant,” noting that it recently sent out a mass email condemning Representative Juan Vargas, a San Diego Democrat, for holding a fund-raiser at the Del Mar racetrack.In any case, Tag’s trainer said, he and the bear have had little luck monetizing their campaign close-up.“We’ve gotten a couple of jobs,” Mr. Bauer said, taking a break on Thursday from a job in Pittsburgh, where he was working with a trained squirrel named Nut Nut.“But it hasn’t changed anything.” More

He was the mayor of San Diego, California’s second-largest city, for the better part of a decade until he reached his term limit last year, praised in some quarters for being an increasingly rare moderate Republican in a state where the G.O.P. has struggled.But many Californians could not pick Kevin Faulconer out of a lineup.That has been a bit of a problem for Mr. Faulconer, who is one of more than 40 candidates vying to take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s place in Tuesday’s recall election. One recent poll shows Mr. Faulconer at a very distant second place to Larry Elder, the conservative radio host and Republican front-runner.Unlike the other candidates, though, Mr. Faulconer has experience in government. In recent weeks, Democratic strategists and The Los Angeles Times’s editorial board have urged Californians to vote no on the recall question, and — rather than leave blank the question on which candidate should replace Mr. Newsom if he is recalled — “hold your nose and select” Mr. Faulconer.Mr. Faulconer’s candidacy in the recall has been widely viewed as a chance to get his name in front of voters before running in the regular race for governor next year, which he announced early this year that he would join — regardless of whether a recall took place.Mr. Faulconer said in an interview he was adamant that his collaborative “common-sense” approach to governance and focus on policy will resonate with Californians weary of partisan tribalism. And that, he said, is what he hopes will set him apart.“My one goal is continuing to get out my message of someone who’s ready to lead, has the experience and will actually bring real solutions to California,” he said. “And somebody who knows how to bring people together.”Here’s what else he had to say, lightly edited and condensed:I’ll jump right into it: If you’re elected governor, would you keep mask, vaccine or other pandemic-related mandates in place?I would say, first of all, I want everyone to get the vaccine. Every opportunity I get, I stress that — my family is vaccinated. That is the best way for us to get on the other side of this pandemic.But you can’t mandate your way out of Covid-19. So I do not support mandates or bans, either way.You have to let local health officials make those determinations based upon the facts on the ground in their area. Los Angeles is going to be different than Sacramento, which is going to be different than the Bay Area. So my policy is one of education, education, education.Kevin Paffrath, a Democrat, and the Republicans John Cox, Kevin Kiley and Kevin Faulconer at a debate in August.Pool photo by Scott StrazzanteSo would you be in favor of lifting vaccine mandates for educators?I’m a big believer in letting the local facts on the ground dictate the proper steps to take based upon the health conditions in that community.You would leave that up to district officials or local public health officials?I would leave that to local public health officials. I think we saw 90 percent of educators had gotten vaccinated without a mandate. Again, I think that speaks to the power of education.What would you say to people in communities where public health officials have been threatened for doing their jobs and imposing restrictions, and where residents opposed to mask mandates have successfully pushed back against them?I would say the science doesn’t change based on politics. And I again urge you to trust the science and the local conditions in that community.So would you immediately reverse all the mandates that apply to state workers?I would allow local officials to make those decisions for themselves. I believe that testing is a responsible solution. Again, I want everyone to get vaccinated, and I absolutely believe that helps reduce the vaccine hesitancy if you’re not mandating everything.You’ve talked a lot about better addressing homelessness than Governor Newsom. What would your priorities be?We took very significant action in San Diego to change the dynamics. It was compassionate and it was firm. I did not allow tent encampments on the sidewalks in San Diego and in our public spaces because I believe if you let somebody live in an unsafe, unclean, unsanitary environment, you’re condemning them to die there. And we’re better than that.We were the only big city in California where we actually reduced homelessness by double digits. I set up a series of shelters in San Diego, and I made a deal with the community. I said, “It’s going to be cleaner and safer with this shelter than before it was there.”I created a new division of the San Diego Police Department called the Neighborhood Policing Division and it made a dramatic difference. These were officers, so our police officers, but in khaki pants and blue polo shirts. They became the No. 1 entity to refer people to the shelters.I’m going to lead by example as governor and do the same thing. I believe that every human being has a right to shelter. I also believe that when we provide that shelter, you have an obligation to use it, and I enforced that.During your tenure as mayor, San Diego pushed forward some of the most aggressive laws in the state for creating accessory dwelling units on single-family lots. And the state’s Senate Bill 9 just passed, which allows duplexes in single-family neighborhoods. Do you think the state should go further? Do you support S.B. 9?We need to produce more housing, period. And one of the things that this governor has completely ignored is reforming the California Environmental Quality Act, which is used to stop housing projects in California. It takes too much time. It takes too much extra dollars. It makes it more expensive.But really quickly, what’s your stance on S.B. 9?I believe our best opportunity is in our multifamily zones. What you don’t want to do is eliminate all single-family zoning, as some in the Legislature are advocating. I think our biggest opportunity to have the density where you want it is along our transit zones. And that’s exactly what we did in San Diego, with our Complete Communities that we passed.So do you support S.B. 9?You can’t eliminate single-family zoning. No.In 2016, you opposed former President Donald Trump. In 2020, you supported him. Where do you stand now?I did in 2020, and my vote was based upon the economy. I haven’t interacted with him since I was mayor.I think Gavin Newsom wants to make this campaign all about the former president. I think what Californians want is a governor who’s going to focus on California. The former president didn’t call himself the homeless czar like Gavin Newsom. It’s not the former president who’s not moving forward on water storage in California, wildfire reduction. This recall is really a referendum on Gavin Newsom’s failures.Mr. Faulconer boarding his campaign bus after an event at MacArthur Park in Los Angeles in August.Damian Dovarganes/Associated PressThe former president, as you said, is not in charge of California. At the same time, he is clearly influencing the Republican Party across the country. What do you think the Republican Party stands for now? And what do you align with, if not former President Trump?I believe we need to make it more affordable for families in California. That’s why I put forward the largest middle-class tax cut in California history.People are voting with their feet. They’re leaving our state because it’s too expensive. I believe we need to make it easier to build and start a small business. It’s not having a carbon copy of the national party. I call myself a California Republican.What does that mean to you? Democrats have a huge advantage in terms of registration in California — how does the California Republican Party need to shift?The registration in the city of San Diego mirrors that of California as a whole. How do you win in California? You win by focusing on issues and common sense. You have to build coalitions. That’s exactly what I did as mayor.That’s what this campaign has been built on, which is if you’re a Republican, I want your vote. If you’re a Democrat, I want your vote. If you’re an independent, I want your vote. And I think nobody else who’s running has also had to work with a legislature or, in my case, a majority-Democrat City Council.And so all of the housing reforms that you and I have just talked about, all of the homeless action that we took, all of the action on public safety, which I was very proud of, all of my budgets — every single one had to be approved by a majority-Democrat legislature.How did you feel about extending pandemic aid to undocumented workers, many of whom were essential. And would you reverse any legislation that gives undocumented people access to health care or driver’s licenses?My focus would have been obviously on Californians.You don’t think undocumented residents of California are Californians?I do, but like I said, legal citizens would have been my focus.I think that our immigration policy is completely broken at the federal level. And I’ve supported comprehensive immigration reform very loudly for a very long time. As governor I would advocate for that, because we know that the effects of a broken immigration policy affect us so incredibly much here in California.If you don’t become governor in the recall, you’re planning to run again next year.I was absolutely planning to run in 2022 when I started. I wouldn’t be running if I didn’t think that California was ready for a change, that we should have a competition of ideas. We’ve had one-party rule in California now for over a decade. And I believe that that has led to just a state going in the wrong direction. More

What happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was not a coup attempt. It was half of a coup attempt — the less important half.The more important part of the coup attempt — like legal wrangling in states and the attempts to sabotage the House commission’s investigation of Jan. 6 — is still going strong. These are not separate and discrete episodes but parts of a unitary phenomenon that, in just about any other country, would be characterized as a failed coup d’état.As the Republican Party tries to make up its mind between wishing away the events of Jan. 6 or celebrating them, one thing should be clear to conservatives estranged from the party: We can’t go home again.The attempted coup’s foot soldiers have dug themselves in at state legislatures. For example, last week in Florida State Representative Anthony Sabatini introduced a draft of legislation that would require an audit of the 2020 general election in the state’s largest (typically Democratic-heavy) counties, suggesting without basis that it may show that these areas cheated to inflate Joe Biden’s vote count.Florida’s secretary of state, a Republican, knows that an audit is nonsense and has said so. But the point of an audit would not be to change the outcome (Mr. Trump won the state). The point is not even really to conduct an audit.The obviously political object is to legitimize the 2020 coup attempt in order to soften the ground for the next one — and there will be a next one.In the broad strategy, the frenzied mobs were meant to inspire terror — and obedience among Republicans — while Rudy Giuliani and his co-conspirators tried to get the election nullified on some risible legal pretext or another. Republicans needed both pieces — neither the mob violence nor an inconclusive legal ruling would have been sufficient on its own to keep Mr. Trump in power.True to form, Mr. Trump was able to supply the mob but not the procedural victory. His coup attempt was frustrated in no small part by a thin gray line of bureaucratic fortitude — Republican officials at the state and local levels who had the grit to resist intense pressure from the president and do their jobs.Current efforts like the one in Florida are intended to terrorize them into compliance today or, short of that, to push such officials into retirement so that they can be replaced with more pliant partisans. The lonely little band of Republican officials who stopped the 2020 coup is going to be smaller and lonelier the next time around.That’s why the Great Satan for the Republican Party right now is not Mr. Biden but Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of a small number of Republicans willing to speak honestly about Jan. 6 and to support the investigation into it — and willing to contradict powerful people like Kevin McCarthy of California, who has falsely (and preposterously) claimed that the F.B.I. has cleared Mr. Trump of any involvement in Jan. 6.The emerging Republican orthodoxy on Jan. 6 is created by pure political engineering, with most party leaders either minimizing, halfheartedly defending or wholeheartedly celebrating the coup, depending on their audience and ambitions. Pragmatic party leaders like Mitch McConnell, and others like him who were never passionately united with Mr. Trump but need his voters, are hoping that the memory of the riot gets swept away by the ugly news from Afghanistan and the usual hurly-burly. But other Republicans have praised the rioters: Representative Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina insisted that those who have been jailed are “political prisoners” and warned that “bloodshed” might follow another “stolen” election. The middle-ground Republican consensus is that the sacking of the Capitol was at worst the unfortunate escalation of a well-intentioned protest involving legitimate electoral grievances. More

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who called the snap election two years ahead of schedule, was repeatedly attacked by the other four candidates.OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to call an election two years ahead of schedule has not worked out as planned.Polls have consistently tracked a decline in voter support for his Liberal Party and a rise in backing for its nearest rivals, the Conservatives, leaving the parties in a statistical tie.The bulk of the 36-day campaign, the shortest allowed by law, came during Canada’s all-too-brief summer, when many voters’ minds were far from politics. The Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, where the Canadian military fought, further distracted the public’s attention.So for Mr. Trudeau and his rivals, particularly Erin O’Toole of the Conservatives, the debates this week in each of Canada’s official languages were crucial opportunities to define the campaign before Election Day, Sept. 20.Mr. Trudeau faced off not only against Mr. O’Toole, who is leading his party in an election for the first time, but also against Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the left-of-center New Democratic Party; Annamie Paul, who heads the Green Party; and Yves-François Blanchet of the Bloc Québécois, a regional party that endorses Quebec’s independence. With the five leaders receiving equal time, it was difficult for any to break through with a detailed message.The French-language debate on Wednesday often focused on issues of interest to Quebec. With English being the language of three-quarters of Canadians, the debate on Thursday in that language was considered the more important of the two.Trudeau struggled to justify his pandemic election.Mr. Trudeau said he called an election because he needed a new mandate to put pandemic recovery measures in place swiftly.Blair Gable/ReutersIn both debates, Mr. Trudeau’s rivals relentlessly challenged him for calling what they viewed as an unnecessary election in the middle of the pandemic. The subject came up 13 times during the French-language debate.In 2019, the Liberals under Mr. Trudeau failed to secure a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. That forced him to rely on votes from opposition parties, usually the New Democrats, to pass legislation and allowed the opposition parties to pool their votes in committees to tackle subjects embarrassing to the government.Mr. Trudeau said he needed a new mandate with a majority in order to put pandemic recovery measures in place swiftly. His opponents, however, repeatedly pointed out that none of Mr. Trudeau’s major objectives had been blocked during the past two years — although some important bills had been delayed and then died with the call for an election.In the Thursday debate, Mr. O’Toole challenged Mr. Trudeau’s decision to call for the election just as efforts to repatriate Canadians in Afghanistan and to aid Afghans who had worked for the Canadian military were in a critical phase.“You put your own political interests ahead of the well-being of thousands of people,” Mr. O’Toole said. “Mr. Trudeau, you should not have called this election; you should have gotten the job done in Afghanistan.”A complex format and a crowded stage limited debate.Mr. O’Toole, the Conservative leader, with Mr. Trudeau, who leads the Liberals. Justin Tang/The Canadian Press, via Associated PressThe two-hour debate had a complex structure. The moderator, Shachi Kurl, the president of the Angus Reid Institute, a nonprofit polling organization, asked questions written by a committee, with questions also posed via video by members of the public and at the site by journalists.Ms. Kurl assiduously enforced rules that prevented the candidates onstage from speaking out of turn or responding to questions not addressed to them. There were no closing statements.Duane Bratt, a professor of political science at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta, said that the formula worked against Mr. Trudeau, who was constantly targeted by the four other leaders, and that it aided Mr. O’Toole.“O’Toole could talk about his climate plan in 30 seconds and then just move on to another subject, which is, I think, what he wanted,” Professor Bratt said. “The formula didn’t allow Trudeau time to really dig into some of O’Toole’s weaknesses.”But voters, Professor Bratt added, were the debate’s clear losers.“If this was the first time that you’re paying attention to the election, you were not well served tonight,” he said.Climate change and Indigenous issues got their due.Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Singh, who leads the left-of-center New Democratic Party.Pool photo by Sean KilpatrickClimate change, in particular, stood out as an issue, although no leader made a compelling case that his or her party offered the best approach, said Cara Camcastle, who lectures on political science at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia.“It’s good to see that all the leaders think it’s an important issue,” she said. “But none of them have the solutions of our own.”Mr. Trudeau was repeatedly attacked, particularly by Mr. Singh, for the rise in carbon emissions in Canada during each of the six years the prime minister has held office. Mr. Trudeau responded that his government’s climate measures, including the introduction of a national carbon price, had put Canada on a path to not just meeting but also exceeding its emissions commitment under the Paris Accord, which has a target date of 2030.Partly because of the organizer’s themed approach to the debate, reconciliation with Indigenous people received an unusual amount of attention.While all the other leaders picked apart Mr. Trudeau’s record — he has made Indigenous issues a top priority — they all agreed with his position that the process of replacing the 19th- century laws governing Indigenous people must be led by their communities rather than by the government.Guns and child care were largely absent in the English debate.Mr. O’Toole’s plan to scrap a Trudeau program under which several provinces provide child care for 10 Canadian dollars a day or less with a tax credit was prominent in the French debate but was largely bypassed on Thursday.Similarly, Mr. O’Toole’s backtracking on an earlier promise to eliminate Mr. Trudeau’s ban on 1,500 types of assault-style semiautomatic rifles received limited attention.The verdict: ‘A meaningless waste of time’?Professor Bratt and Dr. Camcastle said they believed that the two debates would not give form to what had been a largely shapeless campaign that lacked a clear issue — aside from Mr. Trudeau’s decision to call it.Frank Graves, president of EKOS Research Associates, a polling firm in Ottawa, offered a blunt assessment on Twitter.“Let me spare you the speculation of who won, lost, what impact,” he wrote. “It was a meaningless waste of time. Possibly the most vacuous and tedious debate in Canadian political history.”Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet, left, and Green Party Leader Annamie Paul, taking part in the federal election English-language Leaders debate in Gatineau, Canada, on Thursday.Pool photo by Adrian WyldVjosa Isai More

Banished from social media and deprived of his national platform, former President Donald J. Trump has been clamoring for attention and trying to exploit the series of foreign and domestic crises that are testing the Biden administration.This week has been one of his most frenetic periods yet.As Mr. Trump seeks to pounce on President Biden’s handling of the military withdrawal in Afghanistan, he has highlighted the deaths of American service members in an attack at the Kabul airport, going so far as to contact several family members of those killed, The Washington Post reported.At the same time, Mr. Trump undercut his patriotic solemnity with the announcement that he would spend the evening of the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks providing commentary at a boxing match at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Hollywood, Fla. (Mr. Trump’s team has not yet revealed plans to commemorate the anniversary in any other way.)And Mr. Trump continued to stoke the country’s racial divisions, issuing an almost ostentatiously provocative statement denouncing the removal on Wednesday of a towering statue of Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general, in Richmond, Va.Praising Lee as a brilliant strategist and statesman, Mr. Trump speculated that, “except for Gettysburg,” Lee “would have won the war.” He added: “If only we had Robert E. Lee to command our troops in Afghanistan, that disaster would have ended in a complete and total victory many years ago.” Mr. Trump also called Lee “perhaps the greatest unifying force after the war was over.”Lee, whose leadership of Southern forces prolonged the Civil War, has long been held up as a hero of the Lost Cause, which celebrates the pro-slavery Confederacy’s secession from the United States in a conflict that left hundreds of thousands of Americans dead.Gregory Downs, a professor of history at the University of California, Davis, said Lee was not the unifying postwar force that Mr. Trump suggested he was. While Lee accepted defeat, Dr. Downs said, he also actively resisted the terms under which a meaningful reunion could take place and spoke against granting basic rights for Black people. “He is somewhere between an active campaign against a just reconciliation and a passive resistance,” the professor added.Mr. Trump’s allies have increasingly floated the possibility that he will jump early into the 2024 presidential campaign, though predicting the volatile former president’s moves has always been risky. This week, Mr. Trump announced that he intended to return to Iowa in October for a rally, visiting a state that presidential hopefuls often frequent given its importance in the early stages of a campaign cycle.Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, who speaks to him regularly, said last week that he expected a Trump bid, though Mr. Trump has been unwilling to commit publicly when pressed in recent interviews. More

California’s process for recalling its governor is so broken, some Democratic strategists are encouraging a vote for a Republican former San Diego mayor because “he’s not insane.” Millions of mail-in ballots were already cast before the state even released a list of qualified write-in candidates to potentially replace the sitting governor, Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, leaving voters to choose from a list of 46 mostly gadflies and wannabes.Voters are asked to answer two questions: First, do they want to recall Mr. Newsom, and second, if he is recalled, whom do they want to replace him? The governor can be recalled through a simple majority vote. His replacement needs only a plurality, no matter how small. This means that Mr. Newsom could win the support of 49 percent of voters and still be recalled. A candidate vying to replace him could be elected with half of that support, or even less.Election rules don’t allow for Mr. Newsom’s name to appear on the ballot, as is the case in a number of other states with recall rules, or for him to serve if he wins as a write-in candidate. That structure may amount to unconstitutional disenfranchisement. Another wrinkle: In order for votes for write-in candidates to count, the person written in must have filed paperwork to qualify. The list of qualified write-in candidates wasn’t made public until last Friday, less than two weeks before polls close on Sept. 14 — but weeks after mail-in ballots were sent out.Scrapping the century-old recall system altogether would deny California voters an important check on their top elected official. Whatever the result of the Newsom recall effort, however, the process is well past due for an overhaul.For starters, California’s recalls can happen in off-years, which makes them ripe for manipulation by the minority party. There have been at least 179 recall attempts in California since the measure was adopted by voters in 1911, and every governor since 1960 has faced at least one.The timing also means a far smaller electorate ends up determining who is the state’s leader. Special elections will always draw fewer voters, but for something as consequential as the governorship of the country’s most populous state, every effort should be made to increase turnout, including potentially requiring them to be held during regularly scheduled votes. Voters in off-cycle elections generally skew older, whiter and more conservative, a recent study led by the University of California, San Diego, found. In other words, not very representative of California’s population.Early polling suggested that as few as one-third of the state’s 22.3 million registered voters may participate this time — and they are facing a dizzying array of choices for Mr. Newsom’s potential successor. The slate is a ragtag bunch including the former Olympian Caitlyn Jenner, YouTube star Kevin Paffrath and mononymous billboard personality Angelyne. Kevin Faulconer, a former San Diego mayor, is among the few with any prior political experience.The leading candidate is the Republican talk-radio host Larry Elder, whose conservative policy positions — including his opposition to mask mandates, abortion rights and a minimum wage, as well as his troubling views on women’s rights and climate change — aren’t in line with any statewide election result in California for decades.Yet polls show he is the top candidate with the support of just 20 percent of likely voters. In California’s recall scheme, he could assume the governor’s office with well under two million votes, compared with the 7.7 million votes Mr. Newsom won in the regular 2018 election.“The system as it’s designed allows a minority faction that really has no hope of winning statewide election to get a recall on the ballot,” said Chris Elmendorf, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, who studies elections.Some Californians point to the last recall election, in 2003, as evidence that the system works. That year, voters booted Gray Davis, a Democrat, and replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. While Mr. Schwarzenegger fell short of winning an outright majority, at least more people voted for him than voted to keep Mr. Davis.But is that good enough? There are numerous ways that California should reform its recall system.First, it ought to shift the burden of winning majority support from the incumbent — who was, after all, duly elected by the voters — and put it on the recall effort. There is a reason that impeaching and removing the president requires not only a majority vote in the House but also a supermajority in the Senate. In a democracy, the results of a regularly scheduled election should not be overturned before the next election except in the most extraordinary circumstances.Other states with recall provisions, like Minnesota and Washington, require an act of malfeasance or a conviction for a serious crime for the recall to proceed. Mr. Newsom’s maskless dinner at a high-end restaurant to celebrate a lobbyist’s birthday, which buttressed the recall effort, was certainly hypocritical and tone-deaf, but it shouldn’t alone be grounds for early eviction from office.Another needed reform is to make it harder to get a recall on the ballot in the first place. Among the 18 other states with voter recall measures, none have a lower threshold than California’s. It takes signatures equal to just 12 percent of the total votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election to initiate a recall in California. In many other states, the threshold is 25 percent. In Kansas, the bar is 40 percent. In 2020 alone, at least 14 governors nationwide faced recall efforts, but only California’s attempt proceeded to a ballot, according to Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at Wagner College’s Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform and the author of a recent book on recall elections. That’s due in part to those other states’ higher thresholds. California already has a more stringent 20 percent standard for recalls of state lawmakers and judges. That would make sense for governors as well.Finally, California’s system discourages the sitting governor’s party from backing a replacement candidate for fear of bolstering the recall effort. That’s why Mr. Newsom asked voters to vote “no” on the recall and leave the second question blank. Doing so makes it even more likely that a candidate from the opposing party will win.Another fix would be to hold the vote on the recall itself on a different day than the vote on a successor, as several other states do. That would give replacement candidates time to put together a campaign on the issues, rather than just on the recall itself.Alternatively, lawmakers should consider requiring a recalled governor’s seat to be turned over to the democratically elected lieutenant governor, who would otherwise assume the post if the governor died, resigned or was impeached.Properly conducted, recalls can serve an important function in representative democracies, a salve for buyer’s remorse in extreme circumstances. But it should be in the state’s interest to have the broadest and most diverse electorate possible. That’s not now the case in California, where many people aren’t even aware the recall election is happening, even though ballots were sent to all registered voters in the state.A system that allows a legitimately elected governor to be replaced with a fringe candidate winning only a small fraction of the vote is in desperate need of reform. California voters should vote no on the recall question, and the Legislature should, at last, begin the work of revising the state’s recall elections.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