Elections

In her 1990 book “Fear of Falling,” Barbara Ehrenreich detailed how the widely broadcast violence at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago led to an immediate, dramatic paradigm shift in media coverage. In the month before the event, Mayor Richard Daley had denounced the various anti-Vietnam War protest groups who were planning to converge outside the city’s International Amphitheater. When those protesters arrived, Daley fought back with his police force who, on Aug. 28, attacked protesters in Grant Park.In scenes that would be echoed a half-century later during the George Floyd protests, the police beat, detained and intimidated everyone from the Yippies to the Young Lords to Dan Rather. In both 1968 and 2020, the press heightened its critique against the police and the mayor once they saw their own being attacked in the streets.Then came the reckoning. Ehrenreich writes:Polls taken immediately after the convention showed that the majority of Americans — 56 percent — sympathized with the police, not with the bloodied demonstrators or the press. Indeed, what one could see of the action on television did not resemble dignified protest but the anarchic breakdown of a great city (if only because, once the police began to rampage, dignity was out of the question). Overnight the press abandoned its protest. The collapse was abrupt and craven. As bumper stickers began to appear saying “We support Mayor Daley and his Chicago police,” the national media awoke to the disturbing possibility that they had grown estranged from a sizable segment of the public.Media leaders moved quickly to correct what they now came to see as their “bias.” They now felt they had been too sympathetic to militant minorities (a judgment the minorities might well have contested). Henceforth they would focus on the enigmatic — and in Richard Nixon’s famous phrase — silent majority.The following months would provide even more evidence that the media had misjudged the moment. A New York Times poll conducted a day after showed an “overwhelming” majority supported the police in Chicago. CBS reported that 10 times as many people had written to them disapproving of their coverage of the events as had written in approval.In response, the media class spent the next few years, in Ehrenreich’s words, examining “fearfully and almost reverently, that curious segment of America: the majority.” The problem, of course, was that the same people who had just believed the world ended at the Hudson were the same people who now would be tasked with discovering everything beyond its banks. As a result, the media’s coverage of “the silent majority” was abstract and almost mythic, which allowed it to be shaped into whatever was most convenient.There are a couple of obvious questions here: A year after the nationwide George Floyd protests, has mass media, which I’ll define here as the major news outlets and TV networks, undergone a similar paradigm shift? And if there is a new “silent majority” whose voices must be heard, who, exactly, is it?Are we seeing a media backlash to the summer of 2020?A quick caveat before we go much further into this: I am generally skeptical of the types of historical matching games that have become popular these days, especially on social media, where false symmetries can be expressed through heavily excerpted screenshots or video. Just because something looks vaguely like something that happened in the past doesn’t mean that the two events are actually analogous. More important, I do not see the need to take every current injustice by the hand and shop it around to a line of older suitors — if nothing else, the act of constant comparison can take away from the immediacy of today’s problem.But regardless of whether the comparison between 1968 and 2020 is apt, plenty of people made it. Most notably, Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, who, after what was seen as a disappointing result in a handful of House races, compared the slogan “defund the police” to “burn, baby, burn” from the 1965 Watts riots and said such talk was “cutting the throats of the party.” Omar Wasow’s work on voting patterns during the civil rights movement and how the public and media responded to different images of violence also became a central part of opinion discourse.As was true in 1968, we’ve also seen a shift in public opinion polls, perhaps confirming Wasow’s claim that while images of law enforcement committing violence against protesters will generate a significant upsurge in sympathy, images of looting and rioting will have the opposite effect. A Washington Post-Shar School poll conducted in early June of 2020 found that 74 percent of respondents supported the protests, including 53 percent of Republicans­­ — stunning results that suggested a radical shift in public opinion had taken place — and the media followed suit with an enormous amount of coverage.Writing in The Washington Post, Michael Heaney, a University of Glasgow lecturer, wrote, “Not since the Kent State killings, in which National Guard troops shot and killed four student protesters in May 1970, has there been so much media attention to protest.” Heaney also pointed out that the coverage had been “generally favorable.” But as of this summer, polling of white Americans on support for Black Lives Matter and policing reform had reverted to pre-2020 levels. Has media coverage followed suit?We might look at coverage of the recent New York City mayoral race as a kind of case study. The campaign of Eric Adams, a former N.Y.P.D. officer who largely positioned himself against his more progressive opponents on public safety and school issues, was cast as a referendum on last summer. The media attributed Adams’s victory in the Democratic primary almost entirely to his pro-police platform. In June, a Reuters headline read, “Defying ‘Defund Police’ Calls, Democrat Adams Leads NYC Mayor’s Race.” In July, The Associated Press wrote that Adams’s win was part of a “surge for moderate Democrats” and said the centerpiece of his campaign was a rejection of activists’ calls to defund the police.This echoed the coverage of Clyburn’s declarations after the election and fell in with a spate of media coverage about the shift in opinions on policing. So, some regression of media sympathy toward the summer of 2020 does seem underway — although we shouldn’t believe the media underwent some fundamental change during the summer of 2020, or, for that matter, in the months leading up to the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Those moments should be seen, instead, as flare-ups that subsequently shamed the media into seeking out “the real America” or whatever.Who is the silent majority in 2021?In 1968, the turn in opinion came mostly at the expense of Black radicals and young protesters in favor of what was largely then assumed to be white working-class voters.Today’s silent majority certainly does include white voters, but this time, recent coverage suggests that the media is reproaching itself for a somewhat different failing: neglecting the perspective of more-moderate voters of color.The post-mortem of the 2020 election — in which more immigrants than anticipated, whether Latinos in Florida and Texas or Asian Americans in California, voted for Donald Trump — coincided with the need to make some sense of what had happened to public opinion after last summer. Connections were made. By the time Adams gave his victory speech, a narrative about the diverse silent majority had taken hold: People of color supported the police, hated rioting and wanted more funding for law enforcement. They did not agree with the radical demands of the Floyd protests — in fact, such talk turned them off.There’s a lot of truth to the concerns about how much the mass media actually knows about minority voters. When the Latino vote swings from Texas and Florida came to light on election night, Chuck Rocha, a political strategist who specializes in Latino engagement, went on a media tour and placed the blame on “woke white consultants” who believed that a broad message of antiracism would work for “people of color.” As I wrote in a guest essay, a similar pattern held in Asian American communities — it turns out that Vietnamese refugees who reside in Orange County, Calif., might have different opinions on Black Lives Matter, capitalism or abortion rights than, say, second-generation Indian Americans at elite universities.These mistakes came from a grouping error: Liberal white Americans in power, including members of the media, tended to think of immigrants as huddled masses who all shook under the xenophobic rhetoric of the Republican Party and prayed for any deliverance from Donald Trump. They did not see them as distinct populations who have their own set of political priorities, mostly because they took their votes for granted.So, if the media is actually overlooking an entire population and sometimes misrepresenting them, what’s the big deal if it’s now correcting for this?A few things can be true at once: Yes, the media overwhelmingly misconstrued the actual beliefs of minority voters, particularly in Latino and Asian American communities. Yes, those voters tend to have more moderate view on policing.The problem isn’t one of description, but rather of translation. The media took a normal regression in polling numbers, mixed it with some common sense about how minority populations actually vote and created a new, diverse “silent majority.” This is a powerful tool. These unheard, moderate minorities carry an almost unassailable authority in liberal politics because of the very simple fact that liberals tend to frame their policies in terms of race. If those same objects of your concern turn around and tell you to please stop what you’re doing, what you’ve created is perhaps the most powerful rebuttal in liberal politics. Over the next few years, I imagine we will see an increasing number of moderate politicians and pundits hitch their own hobbyhorses to this diverse silent majority. The nice thing about a vaguely defined, still mysterious group is that you can turn it into anything you want it to be.Some version of this opinion engineering, I believe, is happening with the police and public safety. There’s not a lot of evidence that Latino and Asian voters care all that much either way about systemic racism or funding or defunding the police. (Black voters, on the other hand, listed racism and policing as their top two priorities leading up to the 2020 election.) Polls of Asian American voters, for example, show that they prioritize health care, education and the economy. Latino voters listed the economy, health care and the pandemic as their top three priorities. (“Violent crime” ranked about as high as Supreme Court appointments.) If asked, a large number of people in both of these groups might respond that they support the police, but that’s very different from saying they base their political identity on the rejection of, say, police abolition. If they’re purposefully voting against the left wing of the Democratic Party, it’s more likely they are responding to economic or education policy rather than policing.And so it may be correct to say that within the new, diverse “silent majority,” attitudes about the police and protest might be much less uniform than what many in the mass media led you to believe in the summer of 2020. It may also be worth pointing out that reporters, pundits and television networks should probably adjust their coverage to accurately assess these dynamics, just as I’m sure there were legitimate concerns with media bubbles in 1968. But it also seems worth separating that assessment from the conclusion that the media should now see the summer of 2020 as political kryptonite and cast the millions of people who protested in the streets as confused revolutionaries who had no real support.After 1968, the mass media’s turn away from the counterculture of the ’60s and its indifference to the dismantling of Black radical groups narrowed the scope of political action. This constriction would be aided over the next decade by lurid, violent events that all got thrown at the feet of anyone who looked like a radical. When Joan Didion wrote of the Manson murders, “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on Aug. 9, 1969, at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true. The tension broke that day. The paranoia was fulfilled,” she was saying that all the fears of the so-called silent majority had come to pass.We are living through some version of that today. But what seems particularly telling about this moment is that the retreat no longer requires Charles Manson, the fearmongering over Watts or the police riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Those images hover above the public’s consciousness as evergreen cautionary tales; the paranoia they fulfilled will do just fine.The question at the outset of this post, then, has a split answer: Yes, we seem to be reliving a moment of media revanchism in the name of the (diverse) silent majority, but it is also a replay of a replay, akin to filming a television screen with your phone’s camera, with all of its inherent losses in resolution, clarity and immediacy.What I’m Reading and Watching“Everyone Knows Your Mother Is a Witch” by Rivka GalchenA beautifully written, hilarious novel set during a witch hunt in 17th-century Germany. The sentences, as in all of Galchen’s work, go beyond the sometimes dull, narcissistic boundaries of modern fiction and still manage to feel extremely relevant.“Louis Armstrong: Master of Modernism” by Thomas BrothersThe second of Brothers’s big books on Louis Armstrong and the early years of jazz. Like the first book, “Louis Armstrong’s New Orleans,” this isn’t so much a blow-by-blow retelling of Armstrong’s life, but an ethnography of how his music came to be.Have feedback? Send a note to [email protected] Caspian Kang (@jaycaspiankang) writes for Opinion and The New York Times Magazine. He is the author of the forthcoming “The Loneliest Americans.” More

SEOUL — Iván Duque swept into Colombia’s presidency in 2018 as a young, little-known technocrat riding a surging right-wing movement. He tapped public anger against a peace deal that he said had treated the country’s deadly insurgents too softly. And he warned that the proposals of his left-wing opponent could stifle steady growth.Three years and a global pandemic later, it is Mr. Duque who is presiding over high unemployment and an angry electorate — and who is on the defensive about the steps he has taken to tame persistent violence by militants.Mr. Duque contends his policies have opened opportunities for the middle- and low-income classes, encouraged entrepreneurship and paved the way for Colombia to return to its prepandemic growth. He also touted social policies that could address issues of police conduct and social inequality that led to violent clashes this year, killing dozens.Mr. Duque after he won office in 2018, riding a surging right-wing movement. Three years into his term, he is presiding over high unemployment and an angry electorate.Andres Stapff/Reuters“The three pillars of our overall plan of government, which were legality, entrepreneurship and equality, have been producing results,” Mr. Duque said last week in an interview in South Korea with The New York Times. “Obviously, they were affected by the pandemic. But I think we have demonstrated our resilient spirit.”Mr. Duque’s legacy — and that of his patron, the firebrand former President Álvaro Uribe, who still dominates Colombian politics — is on the line. Colombian voters go to the polls in May, when Gustavo Petro, a former presidential candidate, previous mayor of Bogotá and a onetime guerrilla member, could become the country’s furthest-left leader in its history at a time when leftists are again claiming victories across South America.Mr. Duque can’t run again because of term limits, and his party’s candidate hasn’t been determined. Still, his government faces some of the lowest approval ratings of his presidency. Colombia’s economy, trade and investment from abroad were hit hard by the coronavirus, which exacerbated long-running social tensions over stark wealth inequality and police conduct.Colombia’s economy, trade and investment from abroad were hit hard by the coronavirus, which exacerbated long-running social tensions.Federico Rios for The New York TimesHe has also come under increased pressure to tame Colombia’s armed insurgencies and hasten the fulfillment of the government’s peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known by the Spanish acronym FARC, despite his criticism of the terms of the deal on the 2018 campaign trail.In South Korea, Mr. Duque was seeking trade and investment opportunities, such as expansions by Korean manufacturers and increased sales of Colombian coffee, avocados and bananas. He even cited the filming of a South Korean movie — Mr. Duque has long championed creative investments in areas like the arts and research — in Bogotá.The president is trying “to get South Korean investors interested in playing big ball,” said Sergio Guzmán, of the Bogotá-based consulting firm Colombia Risk Analysis.The challenge for Mr. Duque, Mr. Guzmán added, is that a victory by Mr. Petro could undo what he and his predecessors had accomplished.“He’s a weak president,” said Mr. Guzmán. “He’s a lame-duck president. He’s a president whose most important legacy will be for his successor not to be able to undo his own policies.”FARC rebels in the mountains of Colombia in 2018. Mr. Duque has come under increased pressure to tame Colombia’s armed insurgencies.Federico Rios for The New York TimesMr. Duque disputed that, saying that his efforts — including wage subsidies and a proposal to widen university access — could help put the economy back on track. Though a protégé of Mr. Uribe, the charismatic leader who revved up the government’s offensive against FARC nearly two decades ago, Mr. Duque never fully fit the populist mold. Born into a politically prominent family, the 45-year-old president worked for years in development banking. He speaks in clipped, think-tank English: “I will give you very concise numbers,” he said at one point before doing exactly that.He was elected after campaigning on increasing economic growth and changing the terms of the peace accord with FARC, but he quickly ran into challenges. In 2019, frustration over the lack of opportunities and possible pension changes sparked mass protests. So did a tax proposal this year meant to close a fiscal hole exacerbated by the pandemic.Mr. Duque’s tax proposal had merit, said Luis Fernando Mejía, director of the Colombian research institute Fedesarrollo, but he seemed unable to sell it to the public.The firebrand former President Álvaro Uribe, who still dominates Colombian politics.Federico Rios for The New York Times“It was a very, very good reform,” he said, “but he was not able to consolidate political capital and to create an adequate strategy to push through a reform that I think had been very important.”Mr. Duque is also trying to thread the policy needle in a polarized time, making it increasing difficult to please both his party’s base and unhappy voters.The tax protests became part of broader unrest over inequality and police violence. Some police used brutal and deadly force on demonstrators.In the interview, Mr. Duque cited his efforts to increase scrutiny on the police and to equip them with body cameras. But he said some of the demonstrators had been spurred by “people producing fake news” and other instigators to elevate the violence.His trickiest balancing act may be enacting the peace accord with FARC. In 2019, his effort to alter the terms, including tougher sentencing for war crimes, failed on legal grounds. Internationally, he is under intense pressure to carry out the accord, but domestically, his party and other conservatives continue to criticize it.Students protesting against changes to the tax code in Bogotá, the capital, in 2019.Juan Barreto/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJust weeks ahead of the deal’s five-year anniversary, more than half of its measures have not been applied or have barely begun, according to the Kroc Institute at the University of Notre Dame, an independent entity charged with oversight of the deal. Opposition groups and some of the electorate say Mr. Duque missed a critical window to push it forward.Mr. Duque and his supporters point to the accord’s time frame, which calls for its tenets to be enacted over 15 years. In the interview, he said that he had done more than his predecessor, Juan Manuel Santos, to put in place the peace deal’s landownership overhauls and development plans that would give poor farmers and former rebels jobs and opportunities.“We have been not only implementing, but the issues that we have been implementing are going to be decisive for the evolution of the accords,” he said, adding, “We have made a good progress.”Mr. Duque must balance competing interests overseas, as well. Tensions have risen between the United States — Colombia’s longtime ally — and China, a growing source of business for the country. China, Colombia’s second-largest trading partner after the United States, has invested in mines in the country and successfully bid on engineering contracts.A temporary hospital set up in April to house Covid patients in Bogotá.Federico Rios for The New York TimesMr. Duque said that the Chinese companies had won the work in open bids and that relations with the United States remained warm. “We try to build our relationship with our partners based on investment and trade and common opportunities. But usually I have to highlight that in the case of the United States, our alliance has been existing for almost 200 years, and we will continue to see the United States as No. 1.”With the United States, relations hit an awkward moment last year when members of Mr. Duque’s party endorsed Donald J. Trump and Republicans in the election, provoking a rare rebuke from the U.S. ambassador.“I think that was unwise,” Mr. Duque said. “I think that should have not been done.”These examples of polarization, he said, have complicated efforts to fix deep-rooted problems. The world is polarized, he said, as people “connect demagoguery and populism with violent sentiments and algorithms and people producing fake news and manipulating the truth.”He added, “That’s why we have concentrated in our administration not to promote polarization, but to move the country to the right direction.”Gustavo Petro, center, during a protest against tax changes in 2019. A former presidential candidate, he could become the country’s furthest-left leader in its history.Juan Barreto/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesCarlos Tejada More

Sydney Harper, Eric Krupke More

In her first acts as New York’s new governor, Ms. Hochul has sought to distance herself from her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, who resigned under pressure.ALBANY, N.Y. — In her first days as governor of New York, Kathy C. Hochul has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that whatever kind of leadership style she might adopt, it will be far from that of her disgraced predecessor, Andrew M. Cuomo.She immediately began providing a more complete coronavirus death toll in New York, releasing figures used by the C.D.C. that put the total at roughly 55,400, which is 12,000 more than the state figures that the Cuomo administration had regularly cited.She introduced a new ethics training requirement for all state employees, and pointedly said the state’s sexual harassment training would have to be done in person — a subtle jab at Mr. Cuomo following allegations that he never completed the state-mandated training.She replaced most of Mr. Cuomo’s inner circle with top staffers of her own. She made a point of meeting with elected officials who warred with Mr. Cuomo, including Mayor Bill de Blasio, even posting a picture on Twitter showing her laughing with the mayor over pastries.In her first week in office, Ms. Hochul has moved intently to disassociate herself from Mr. Cuomo, pursuing policies and a style of governing that cast her as the revitalizing antithesis of her predecessor.She has even gone so far as to avoid his name in her 11-minute public address on Tuesday, and, in the subsequent media blitz, has made mention of Mr. Cuomo by name only three times since taking office.Ms. Hochul, the state’s first female governor, seems focused on carving out her own space as she fills out the remainder of Mr. Cuomo’s term, which expires at the end of 2022. But Ms. Hochul may also be driven by political reasons: Future opponents, including Republicans and Democratic primary challengers, are likely to portray her as an entrenched member of the Cuomo machinery and argue that voters deserve a clean break from him.But Ms. Hochul clearly intends to portray herself as the clean-break candidate.“It’s no secret that the governor and I were not close,” Ms. Hochul told NY1 on Thursday, an assertion she has made several times this week. “He had his own tight inner circle. I created my own space.”Ms. Hochul, a Democrat and former congresswoman from Buffalo who served as Mr. Cuomo’s lieutenant governor since 2015, succeeded Mr. Cuomo when he resigned following a state attorney general investigation that concluded that he sexually harassed several women.Almost immediately, Ms. Hochul promised to open a new chapter of transparency and collaboration in state government. That broad proclamation was seen as an inherent rebuke of Mr. Cuomo, who ruled Albany with a heavy hand, using the power and influence he had amassed over more than a decade.How exactly she intends to do that remains to be seen.Ms. Hochul has so far been cautious in setting expectations for the first few months of her administration. She has singled out a handful of immediate problems she can be seen as taking decisive action on during a time of crisis — such as instituting a mask mandate in schools, or helping to expedite getting stalled relief money to struggling renters, landlords and undocumented immigrants.“She’s been smart about thematically separating herself from Cuomo without having to take any big lifts,” said John Kaehny, the executive director at Reinvent Albany, a government watchdog. “They’re picking simple things that the public can understand that are pretty unassailable from the policy perspective, like the mask mandate and releasing the C.D.C. data, and that is going to get her applause.”Ms. Hochul said that she consulted with teachers, school boards, superintendents and parent-teacher associations before issuing a mask mandate for students.Sarah Blesener for The New York TimesIndeed, Ms. Hochul did not unveil a grand vision of government or sweeping policy agenda in her first address on Tuesday. Instead, she outlined a narrow, yet urgent, set of priorities she would tackle: responding to the coronavirus and its fallout, and bringing more accountability to Albany. The actions she took this week on those fronts were seen as swift, but also as not-so-subtle admonishments of Mr. Cuomo.Richard N. Gottfried, the longest-serving member of the Assembly and the chairman of its health committee, called the expanded disclosure of Covid deaths “a very refreshing change.” Mr. Gottfried said he received a call from Ms. Hochul’s office to brief him on what the governor would announce in her first address, something he said was unimaginable under Mr. Cuomo.“Maybe it was only symbolic, but symbols at this point are what we go on,” said Mr. Gottfried, a Democrat who has served under nine governors. “Getting a call like that was an unusual and welcome experience.”Despite the early symbolic and stylistic changes, Ms. Hochul still faces hurdles in ridding the State Capitol of the last vestiges of the Cuomo era.One of the main rallying cries among Republicans, and even some Democrats, has been for Ms. Hochul to dismiss Mr. Cuomo’s top health official, Dr. Howard A. Zucker, for his potential involvement in obscuring the nursing home death toll and stonewalling health data from the Legislature last year.Ms. Hochul has not said whether she would retain Dr. Zucker, saying only that she would take up to 45 days to interview Mr. Cuomo’s cabinet officials before making a determination. The decision is complicated by the thorny optics of removing a health commissioner during a pandemic and the practical concerns of finding a replacement since so many health officials have left the state Health Department in recent months.For his part, Dr. Zucker said this week that he was “thrilled” to have Ms. Hochul as governor, suggesting that he was constrained under Mr. Cuomo from publicly disclosing certain death data.“Her leadership allowing me and all of D.O.H. to get the data out is refreshing,” Dr. Zucker said on Thursday. “Her commitment, as she has said, to transparency is revitalizing.”Another holdout from the Cuomo administration is his budget director, Robert Mujica, a close ally of Mr. Cuomo’s who has helmed the state’s finances with an iron grip since 2016 and would play a crucial role as Ms. Hochul prepares to assemble her first state budget.Mr. Mujica is lauded by supporters for his experience and competence, but derided by critics for the opaque manner in which they say he has managed the state’s coffers. His influence in state government is far-reaching: He sits on more than 30 state boards, including the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.It remains unclear whether Mr. Mujica will remain in the Hochul administration, but he has worked closely with some of Ms. Hochul’s recently recruited staffers, including her transition director, Marissa Shorenstein, and her counsel, Elizabeth Fine.State Senator Jessica Ramos, a Democrat from Queens, who has met with Ms. Hochul three times since Mr. Cuomo announced his resignation, including at a private meeting Ms. Hochul held with Latino legislators on Thursday, said Ms. Hochul had a “completely different and distinct approach to government.”The outreach by Ms. Hochul, who represented a Republican-leaning district in Congress and is regarded as a Democratic centrist, was noteworthy.“That goes to show, because, ideologically, I would argue I’m actually much more closely aligned with Cuomo than Hochul,” said Ms. Ramos, a member of the party’s left wing. “Unfortunately, her predecessor had chosen to isolate himself and hardly interacted with New Yorkers, whereas Kathy Hochul clearly likes people, and wants to talk to people and walks our streets to do so.”Before Ms. Hochul ordered a universal mask mandate in schools statewide — a divisive issue that Mr. Cuomo was seen as wanting to avoid and had left up to school districts — she held an hourlong Zoom meeting to hear from teachers, school boards, superintendents and parent-teacher associations statewide.Andrew Pallotta, president of the New York State United Teachers union, who was on the call, said Ms. Hochul had “opened up lines of communication,” describing her approach as “a breath of fresh air.”“You can’t ask for more,” Mr. Pallotta said. “It wasn’t, ‘Let me get somebody to be on this call, and then they’ll get back to me and we’ll put 12 committees together.’ It wasn’t that way at all. It was, ‘Here’s the person leading the state actually listening and responding.’”That sentiment was echoed by some county executives, who often learned about Mr. Cuomo’s coronavirus directives through his televised briefings rather than directly from his office.Anthony J. Picente Jr., the executive of Oneida County, who crossed party lines to endorse Mr. Cuomo in 2014, said the consensus among his colleagues was that there would be a “better relationship, at least in terms of communication and openness.”“We carry out what the state Health Department requires and yet were never consulted, never talked to, never a part of the overall discussions and left to pick up the pieces,” he said. “I really believe that’s not going to be the case with Governor Hochul.”Taken together, Ms. Hochul’s first moves as governor could notch her short-term policy wins, earn her good will among stakeholders and differentiate her from Mr. Cuomo to voters still getting to know her, especially as she prepares to run for governor next year.But while union leaders and legislative leaders have welcomed Ms. Hochul’s self-described collaborative approach, some government watchdogs have been more skeptical, expressing cautious optimism while waiting to see just how far Ms. Hochul will go to root out graft in Albany.“It’s a good start,” Mr. Kaehny, the government watchdog director, said. “But everything she’s doing is building up for the June 2022 primary and we’re seeing things through that prism.”Republicans, including one of their leading candidates for governor, Representative Lee Zeldin, have been less forgiving. They have sought to directly link Ms. Hochul to Mr. Cuomo’s cloud of scandals, arguing that it was disingenuous of her to distance herself from him after promoting and supporting his agenda as his second in command.“Ms. Hochul needs to look as though she’s ushering in a new era in Albany, but there will be reminders all along the way that she was, at least ostensibly, Andrew Cuomo’s partner in government for going on seven years,” said William F. B. O’Reilly, a Republican political consultant in New York. “His musk won’t dissipate quickly.”The business community appears encouraged by the team Ms. Hochul has so far assembled. Karen Persichilli Keogh, her top aide, who most recently worked at JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Ms. Fine, who advised President Bill Clinton, are both seasoned political hands with experience in New York and Washington.“She has hit the ground running, acting like a governor, not a politician, which is what we need right now,” said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, an influential business lobbying group. “Yes, a clean break from Cuomo, but continuity where it is necessary for government to meet the health and economic challenges.” More

Here’s everything you need to know to vote in the California gubernatorial recall election on Sept. 14.The two questions Californians have been asked are simple: Should Gov. Gavin Newsom be removed from his job? And if so, who should take his place?But as the Sept. 14 special election date to decide Mr. Newsom’s political fate comes into clearer view, many of the state’s 22 million registered and active voters have found themselves with questions — about what’s at stake and how to ensure their voices are heard.Here’s what voters need to know:When is the recall election?Officially, the recall election is on Sept. 14. But because it is happening under an extension of pandemic rules that were created during the 2020 presidential election, that’s really more of a deadline than it is an Election Day in a more traditional sense.Ballots returned by mail must be postmarked by Sept. 14. (You don’t need to add a stamp; you should have a return envelope.) Voters can also return their ballots to a secure drop box by Sept. 14 at 8 p.m. (Look up the ones closest to you here.)Finally, voters can cast ballots in person — and in many places early voting is available. (You can find early voting locations here.)How can I vote in the recall election?All registered and active California voters should have received a ballot by mail in the past couple of weeks. You can mail that ballot back or drop it in a drop box. You can also vote in person.Where can I drop off my ballot?Carrying a box of ballots for sorting at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters office in San Jose, Calif., on Wednesday.Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesYou can look up ballot drop boxes near you on the California secretary of state’s website. You can also mail the ballot back.How do I check to see if I’m registered to vote?You can check whether you’re registered to vote here. If you’re not registered within 14 days of an election, in California, you can also register the day of the vote. (So, in this case, on Sept. 14.) You can learn more about same-day voter registration here.Who are the candidates vying to replace Governor Newsom?There are 46 candidates listed on the ballot, a mix of politicians, entertainers and business people that includes the Olympian and reality television star Caitlyn Jenner; the businessman John Cox, who is campaigning with a Kodiak bear; and Kevin Paffrath, a YouTube personality who in a debate suggested he’d solve California’s water problems with a pipeline to the Mississippi River..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Also on the ballot are the pink Corvette-driving Hollywood enigma Angelyne and a Green Party candidate, Dan Kapelovitz, whose official candidate bio says, simply, “Can you dig it?”San Diego’s former mayor Kevin Faulconer, who is considered a moderate Republican, is also running and is a serious contender. Analysts say his candidacy may also be part of a broader effort to boost his profile ahead of a run for governor during the regular election next year.Kevin Kiley, a Republican state assemblyman and frequent antagonist of the governor, is also on the ballot. About half of the candidates are Republicans.But it is the conservative talk radio host Larry Elder who has emerged as a front-runner almost overnight, leveraging national name recognition. He has drawn criticism from both Democrats and Republicans but has a large and fervent base of fans.The Republican Doug Ose, a former congressman, will appear on the ballot, but he has stopped campaigning and has endorsed Mr. Kiley after having a heart attack.Can you write in a replacement candidate?You can, but if it’s Gavin Newsom, it won’t count. Your write-in vote also will not count unless your preferred write-in candidate is on the state’s certified list of write-in candidates.Can Newsom run as a replacement candidate?No, and you can’t write him in. (See above.) California law prohibits the incumbent from being listed in a recall as a replacement candidate.If I oppose the recall, can I still pick a candidate to replace him?Yes.Who has Newsom recommended as a replacement candidate?The conservative talk radio host Larry Elder emerged as a front-runner almost overnight.Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated PressNo one. In fact, Mr. Newsom has encouraged voters to skip that question entirely. (Just as long as they vote “No” on the question of whether he should be recalled.)Do I have to answer both questions on the ballot?No — your vote will count even if you answer just one.Will there be any other statewide measures on the ballot?No, only the recall. There wasn’t enough time for any ballot initiatives to qualify.When will we know the results of the election?After Election Day, county election officials have to complete their work receiving and counting ballots, although we may have some idea of the vote by then, since more than two million ballots have already been returned and more are expected to come in as we get closer.Thirty-eight days after the election, if the recall is successful, the California Secretary of State will certify the election results and the new governor will be sworn in.What if Governor Newsom is recalled, but he still has more support than any challenger on the ballot?It doesn’t matter. The recall question is determined by majority vote. If more than 50 percent of the voters vote yes on the recall, Mr. Newsom must step down as governor.The replacement question is determined by who gets the most votes among the challengers on the ballot. So 49.9 percent of the voters can back Mr. Newsom, and he can still lose to someone who is supported by only, say, 20 percent of the electorate. On the replacement question, the winner does not need a majority to be named the next governor.If Governor Newsom is recalled, how long will the new governor be in office?The new governor would be in office for the remainder of Mr. Newsom’s term, which would be through Jan. 2, 2023. (California has a regularly scheduled election for governor next year.)What are the key issues driving the recall?Recall supporters in Carlsbad, Calif., in June.Mike Blake/ReutersInitially, the Republicans who started the recall disagreed with Mr. Newsom on issues like the death penalty and his opposition to President Donald Trump’s policies. The effort was widely viewed as a long shot.Then two particular factors boosted the campaign: A judge allowed more time for leaders of the recall to gather signatures because of pandemic lockdowns. And growing frustration among some Californians over health restrictions came to a head when Mr. Newsom was seen dining maskless with lobbyists at an expensive, exclusive Napa Valley restaurant called the French Laundry after asking Californians to wear masks and stay home.As the pandemic dragged on, recall supporters focused their arguments on the governor’s response, criticizing it as overly restrictive. Prolonged school closuresdrew ire during the last school year, as did pandemic unemployment fraud.More recently, proponents have argued that broader social ills such as homelessness have worsened during Mr. Newsom’s tenure, that Democrats have de facto one-party rule in California and that the high cost of living is driving Californians out.Mr. Newsom’s Democratic allies charge that the effort is an undemocratic far-right power grab by Trumpian extremists who would otherwise never see a Republican elected to California’s top state office.They also note that if U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s term ends prematurely, the governor will appoint her replacement, which could flip the balance of power in the U.S. Senate and allow Republicans to block, for example, President Biden’s nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.Mr. Newsom’s supporters have lauded the governor’s handling of the pandemic, citing California’s relative success in controlling the virus, record state aid for families and businesses hurt by the pandemic and California’s swift rebound to economic health.Who is funding the campaigns for and against the recall?The recall is being funded mostly by conservative and Republican donors. Geoff Palmer, a Southern California real estate developer and Donald Trump supporter, for instance, has donated more than $1 million. John Kruger, an Orange County charter school supporter who objected to pandemic restrictions on religious gatherings, donated $500,000 to the recall at an early key point. The Republican Party has pumped money into the effort, as have national figures such as Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor.California law treats the recall question as a ballot issue, which means the campaigns for and against the recall can accept unlimited donations. The replacement candidates, however, must abide by a $32,400-per-election limit on individual contributions.Among individual campaigns with the most money, those who have donated the maximum to Mr. Elder largely reflect the recall’s broader funding, with substantial contributions from conservative and Trump-supporting Republicans. Mr. Faulconer’s top donors include more moderate Republicans such as William Oberndorf, a major G.O.P. donor who opposed Mr. Trump’s election, and a variety of business interests. Mr. Cox, a Republican who lost in 2018 to Mr. Newsom, has largely self-funded his campaign.The recall opposition is being funded mostly by establishment interests and Democrats. The founder of Netflix, Reed Hastings, has donated $3 million to defend Mr. Newsom, for example. Show business and Silicon Valley have heavily donated against the recall. Labor groups — unions for teachers, prison guards, health workers and other public employees — have made major donations. So have tribal organizations in the state and major business groups such as the California Association of Realtors and chambers of commerce. All the donations to replacement candidates, put together, are still smaller than the governor’s war chest.Do California newspapers endorse the recall?The Los Angeles Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Mercury News, The San Francisco Chronicle and The Sacramento Bee have urged voters to vote no on the recall, arguing that, at a cost of some $276 million, it is a waste of money or that the time to vote for or against the governor is next year, when he runs for re-election.The Orange County Register, which is traditionally a right-of-center opinion page, recommends a yes vote and endorsed Mr. Elder in an editorial that was picked up by some suburban papers under the same ownership in Southern California.The Bakersfield Californian recommends a yes vote and endorsed Mr. Faulconer.How do I track my ballot?You can track when your vote-by-mail ballot is mailed, received and counted at california.ballottrax.net/voter.Where can I get more detailed information?Here is an expanded explainer. Here is the California secretary of state’s guide to the recall.Here is a guide from the nonprofit, nonpartisan news site CalMatters to Governor Newsom’s record. And here is a recent debate among Mr. Paffrath, Mr. Cox, Mr. Kiley and Mr. Faulconer.Here are interviews with Mr. Elder, Mr. Kiley, Mr. Cox and Mr. Paffrath by CalMatters, a Fox News interview with Caitlyn Jenner; and an interview that The Sacramento Bee did with Mr. Faulconer. More

The subject line of a recent fund-raising email from Gavin Newsom, the politically embattled governor of California, reads like the wheedling apologia of a busted boyfriend: “Can I please have a chance to explain?”What Mr. Newsom wants to explain is why he desperately needs donations to fight the “partisan, Republican-led recall” in which he is currently embroiled — and that polling suggests he could very well lose.California has way more registered Democrats than Republicans, and the latter are indeed driving this recall effort. But Republicans are all revved up about the fight, making the to-recall-or-not-to-recall split among likely voters uncomfortably close. Depending on who bothers to participate in the Sept. 14 election, Mr. Newsom could soon find himself out of a job. If that happens, his likely successor looks to be a right-wing, outrage-peddling misogynistic radio host who opposes abortion rights, mask mandates and any type of minimum wage.So much for America’s political dynamics getting less weird after Donald Trump.How did Mr. Newsom, the Democratic governor of deep-blue California, find himself in this pickle? Like any leader, he has had his share of stumbles. He has also been hammered by forces largely beyond his control — a deadly pandemic, raging wildfires, economic turmoil and an energized, MAGA-fied Republican Party seeking payback for Mr. Trump’s electoral thumping last year, to name just a few.All elected officials, of course, must contend with unhappy constituents and partisan passions. But California leaders face an additional challenge: an out-of-touch recall system adopted more than a century ago that invites frequent, even frivolous, attempts to oust officials for any perceived offense. Every California governor since 1960 has endured at least one recall attempt. In his first term, Mr. Newsom has faced five. The only Republican to capture the state’s governorship in the past two decades was Arnold Schwarzenegger, who won as part of the 2003 recall of the Democrat Gray Davis.Why fret now about a process that has been around so long and, while promiscuously used, rarely succeeds? For starters, it is undemocratic — some say even unconstitutional. It is also ripe for abuse by a Republican Party that has grown increasingly anti-majoritarian and antidemocratic. Nationwide, the G.O.P. has basically given up trying to build winning electoral majorities and instead focused on tilting the playing field in its favor. Refusing to consider a Democratic president’s Supreme Court nominee? Check. Trying to meddle with the census? Check. Passing restrictive voting laws? Check. Trying to overturn a free and fair presidential election? Check. And so on. There is no reason for California to allow its flawed recall system to facilitate this ignoble mission.No question, Mr. Newsom has made mistakes — most memorably, last year’s French Laundry fiasco. It would have been bad enough for him to be caught gallivanting at a posh restaurant during a lethal, economically crushing pandemic. But to get spotted doing so without a mask, even as he was lecturing others to mask up and stay home? Pure idiocy. Small wonder that his rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me display turbocharged a previously plodding recall effort originally organized by conservatives miffed about his handling of issues like immigration.Hypocritical, entitled cluelessness notwithstanding, Mr. Newsom, like many governors, is an obvious focus for all the rage and frustration percolating as the pandemic drags on. This might not be quite so problematic if everything else in the state were hunky-dory. But it’s wildfire season again, meaning that even areas not threatened with flaming destruction are plagued by smoke-clogged air and creepy-colored skies. Then there are the crises of homelessness and a rise in homicides. It’s enough to make anyone crabby. And crabby voters, even many Democrats, might not feel moved to head to the polls or even mail in their ballots to save him.Mr. Newsom’s conservative critics, by contrast, are highly motivated to kick him to the curb. Aware of this enthusiasm gap, the governor has been begging Democrats to “wake up” and see this race as a referendum not on his leadership so much as on Trumpism. As Mr. Newsom frames it, his ouster would be a blow to the national Democratic Party and the entire cause of liberal democracy.Whatever the governor’s fate, his battle has spotlighted the peculiarities in a recall system that many feel is overdue for reform. For starters, the state has an unusually low signature hurdle for recall petitions: enough registered voters to equal 12 percent of the turnout in the previous election for governor — in this case, close to 1.5 million. Most recall states have higher thresholds: 15, 25, 30, even 40 percent. As The Los Angeles Times noted in a recent pro-reform editorial, 12 percent “might have been a high bar in 1911, when the population was scattered across the 770-mile length of the state, but is it too low in 2021, when petitions for ballot measures are gathered en masse by paid staff in parking lots?”The voting process itself is also troubling. The question of whether to recall an incumbent and the question of who should replace him or her appear on the same ballot. The incumbent must clear 50 percent to remain in office. Failing that, whichever replacement candidate pulls the most votes wins, no matter how tiny the plurality. For this recall, there will be 46 aspiring replacements on the ballot. If Mr. Newsom pulls, say, 49.5 percent of the vote, then whichever challenger does slightly better than the rest will become the leader of the most populous state in the nation and the fifth-largest economy in the world.“In other California elections,” The Los Angeles Times pointed out, “a candidate cannot win without the support of a majority of voters. If a candidate doesn’t win outright, the top two vote-getters compete in a runoff.” This helps protect the system from manipulation by daffy or dangerous fringe groups and candidates with narrow but intense appeal. Why should recalls be any different?Many California voters seem to agree. While the vast majority of likely voters support having a recall process (86 percent), two-thirds believe it should be reformed, according to a July survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. Among the more popular potential changes are raising the signature requirement to 25 percent (55 percent support), requiring a runoff if no replacement candidate receives a majority (68 percent) and establishing standards that limit the reasons for which an incumbent may be recalled to illegal or unethical behavior (60 percent).These are hardly the only issues to consider, prompting some political observers to call for the creation of a bipartisan commission to explore possible reforms.Mr. Newsom is correct that this fight is about more than his political future. It should also serve as a wake-up call for Californians to improve an outdated system that is undemocratic and that gives too much sway to the swampy fringes of America’s political ecosystem.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

From voting rights to the culture wars, state legislatures controlled by Republicans are playing a role well beyond their own state borders.With the release of the 2020 census last month, the drawing of legislative districts that could in large part determine control of Congress for the next decade heads to the nation’s state legislatures, the heart of Republican political power.Increasingly, state legislatures, especially in 30 Republican-controlled states, have seized an outsize role for themselves, pressing conservative agendas on voting, Covid-19 and the culture wars that are amplifying partisan splits and shaping policy well beyond their own borders.Indeed, for a party out of power in Washington, state legislatures have become enormous sources of leverage and influence. That is especially true for rural conservatives who largely control the legislatures in key states like Wisconsin, Texas and Georgia and could now lock in a strong Republican tilt in Congress and cement their own power for the next decade. The Texas Legislature’s pending approval of new restrictions on voting is but the latest example.“This is in many ways genuinely new, because of the breadth and scope of what’s happening,” said Donald F. Kettl, a scholar of state governance at the University of Texas at Austin. “But more fundamentally, the real point of the spear of Trumpism is appearing at the state and local level. State legislatures not only are keeping the flame alive, but nurturing and growing it.”He added that the aggressive role played by Republican legislatures had much further to run.“There’s all this talk of whether or not Republicans are a party that has any future at this point,” he said, “but the reality is that Republicans not only are alive and well, but living in the state legislatures. And they’re going to be pushing more of this forward.”The next battle, already underway in many states, is over the drawing of congressional and state legislative districts. Republicans control 26 of the legislatures that will draw political maps, compared with 13 for Democrats. (Other states have nonpartisan commissions that draw legislative districts, or have just one seat.)Democrats have embraced their own causes, passing laws to expand voting rights, raise minimum wages and tighten controls on firearms in the 18 states where they control the legislatures.But Republican legislatures are pursuing political and ideological agendas that dwarf those of their opponents. This year’s legislative sessions have spawned the largest wave of anti-abortion legislation since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Many Republican legislatures have seized power from Democratic-leaning cities and counties on issues including policing, the coronavirus and tree preservation. They have made base-energizing issues like transgender rights and classroom teaching on race centerpieces of debate.Most important, they have rewritten election and voting laws in ways that largely hinder Democratic-leaning voters and give Republicans more influence over how elections are run — and, critics say, how they are decided. And in some states, they are eyeing their own versions of the Arizona State Senate’s brazenly partisan review of the 2020 vote, a new and, to many, dangerous attack on the nonpartisan underpinnings of American elections.Anti-abortion demonstrators outside the Texas State Capitol in Austin in May.Sergio Flores/Getty Images One reason for the new activism is obvious: With Republicans out of power in Washington and Congress largely gridlocked, states are the party’s prime venues for setting policy.“I don’t know how long it’s been since Congress has even passed a budget,” said Bryan Hughes, a Republican state senator who sponsored Texas’ latest voting bill. “So yes, clearly more responsibilities have fallen to states.”Many Democratic legislators say Republicans are shirking those responsibilities.“We’re one of four states with no pre-K education,” said State Representative Ilana Rubel, an Idaho Democrat. “We have a major housing crisis. We have a property-tax crisis. Those were the things we thought would be discussed. Instead, we found ourselves in a Fox News fever dream where all they wanted to do was get into these manufactured crises at the national level.”The national role being played by state legislatures reflects in part the sorting of Americans into opposing partisan camps. Thirty years ago, 15 of the 50 state legislatures were split between Republican and Democratic control. Today, only Minnesota’s House and Senate are divided.And the system favors partisanship. Few pay attention to state assembly races, so roughly four in 10 seats nationwide are uncontested in general elections, said Gary Moncrief, a co-author of the standard work on state politics, “Why States Matter.”“That means the real decisions are made in the primaries,” he said, where voters tend to be hard-liners.Gov. Tate Reeves signed a bill in March that would bar transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams.Rogelio V. Solis/Associated PressAt first blush, state assemblies seem ill-suited to wield influence. Most are part-time affairs run by citizen lawmakers. But the minor-league image is not entirely deserved. State lawmakers control $2 trillion a year in spending and have a plate of issues, from prisons to schools to the opioid crisis, that can get lost in the whir of Washington politics.And increasingly, top Republican strategists and well-funded conservative groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, have poured in money and resources and policy prescriptions, figuring that legislation with no chance of getting through Congress could sail through friendly statehouses.“From where I stand, they have a far greater impact on the life of ordinary citizens than Congress,” Tim Storey, the executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said of the state-level bodies.If there is one area where state legislatures have the potential to shape the nation’s politics to a degree that goes well beyond established boundaries, it is voting.Following former President Donald J. Trump’s false claims of a stolen election, at least 18 states tightened voting rules, often in ways that most affect Democratic-leaning constituencies. Contractors examined and recounted ballots as part of an audit ordered by the Arizona Senate in Phoenix in May.Pool photo by Matt YorkMost glaringly, they also gave the party more power over the mechanisms of administering elections and counting ballots. Arkansas empowered the State Elections Board to investigate local elections and “take corrective action” against suspected irregularities, purportedly to give Republicans a fair shake. Iowa and other states would levy fines and even criminal penalties for missteps by local election officials, raising concerns that punishments could be used for partisan gain.Georgia’s legislature gave itself control over most appointments to the State Election Board and allowed it to investigate and replace local election officials. Already, lawmakers are seeking an inquiry in Fulton County, a Democratic stronghold, although procedural hurdles in the law raise questions about how easily it could be used for partisan ends.The legislature also gave elected county commissioners sole power to appoint local election board members, a change that has already enabled the removal of at least 10 members of those boards, most of them Democrats.Republicans say they are seeking to deter fraud and ensure that elections are better run. Many experts and most Democrats call the laws worrying, given efforts by G.O.P. legislators and officials in at least 17 states to halt or overturn the election of President Biden and their continuing calls for often partisan ballot reviews of long-settled elections. Many fear that such failed tactics are being retooled to succeed as early as 2024.“That is the absolutely last step toward an authoritarian system,” said Thomas E. Mann, a co-author of two books about the implications of Republicans’ rightward drift, “and they’re just hellbent on getting there.”The Republican speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives, David Ralston, rejected that. Claims that his state’s laws open back doors to sway election results, he said, amount to “hysteria.”Compared to voting laws in Democratic bastions like New York or Delaware, he said, “we’re much more ahead of the game.” And while Republican claims of fraud dominated Georgia’s 2020 elections, he noted that the voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams, who ran as a Democrat, had also refused to accept her loss in the 2018 race for governor, claiming voter suppression.Democrats from the Georgia House protested a restrictive voting law outside the State Capitol in March.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesLawmakers also pushed through legislation overriding or banning actions by local officials, generally urban Democrats. Among the targets were measures like mask requirements and proposals to reduce police department budgets in response to last summer’s unrest.Some see brakes on how far to the right Republican legislatures can go.Opponents are already taking the latest Republican initiatives to court. The federal Justice Department has sued to block portions of Georgia’s new voting law and has warned that partisan meddling with election reviews like the one in Arizona risk violating federal laws.Lawyers for Democrats and voting-rights advocates are taking aim at other voting measures. And in some states, Democratic governors like Roy Cooper of North Carolina are serving as counterbalances to Republican legislatures.“This state would look very, very different if Roy Cooper had not been governor,” said Christopher Cooper, a scholar of state politics at Western Carolina University, who is not related to the governor. “He’s vetoed more bills than any governor in North Carolina history.”Others doubt vetoes and court decisions will settle much. “I don’t see any solution from litigation,” said Richard Briffault, a Columbia University expert on state legislation. “If there’s going to be a change, it’s going to be through the political process.”And some say legislatures have the power to enact policy and a base that revels in what a few years back seemed like overreach. Why would they stop?“This has become the new normal,” said Trey Martinez Fischer, one of the Texas Democrats who fled the state in July to block passage of the restrictive voting bill. “And I would expect, with a Biden administration and a Democratic Congress, that we’re likely to see more.”Nick Corasaniti contributed reporting. More

Through one employee of Dominion Voting Systems, a Times Magazine article examines the damage that false accusations can inflict.Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.As Susan Dominus, a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, approached her reporting for an article on the attacks on Dominion Voting Systems, a business that supplies election technology, she wanted to tell the story of one of the Dominion employees who was being vilified by supporters of President Trump.She zeroed in on one man: Eric Coomer, whose anti-Trump social media posts were used to bolster false allegations that Dominion had tampered with the election, leading to death threats. Her article, published on Tuesday, is a case study in what can happen when information gets wildly manipulated. In an edited interview, Ms. Dominus discussed what she learned.How did you come upon Eric Coomer — did you have him in mind all along? Or did you want to do something on Dominion and eventually found your way to him?The Magazine was interested in pursuing a story about how the attacks on Dominion Voting Systems — a private business — were dramatically influencing the lives of those who worked there, people who were far from public figures. Many employees there were having their private information exposed, but early on, a lot of the threats were focusing on Eric Coomer, who was then the director of product strategy and security at Dominion. Eventually, people such as the lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and the president’s son Eric Trump were naming him in the context of accusations about Dominion fixing the election.What was the biggest surprise you came across in your reporting?I was genuinely surprised to find that Mr. Coomer had expressed strong anti-Trump sentiments, using strong language, on his Facebook page. His settings were such that only his Facebook friends could see it, but someone took a screenshot of those and other divisive posts, and right-wing media circulated them widely. The posts were used in the spread of what cybersecurity experts call malinformation — something true that is used to support the dissemination of a story that is false. In this case, it was the big lie that the election was rigged. I think to understand the spread of spurious information — to resist its lure, to fight it off — these distinctions are helpful to parse. Understanding the human cost of these campaigns also matters. We heard a lot about the attacks on Dominion, but there are real people with real lives who are being battered in a battle they had no intention of joining, whatever their private opinions.There were so many elaborate theories of election fraud involving Dominion. How important were the accusations against Eric Coomer in that bigger story?It’s hard to say. But Advance Democracy Inc., a nonpartisan nonprofit, looked at the tweets in its database from QAnon-related accounts and found that, from Nov. 1 to Jan. 7, Eric Coomer’s name appeared in 25 percent of the ones that mentioned Dominion. Coomer believes the attacks on Dominion were somewhat inevitable but considered his own role as “an accelerant.”Trump’s Bid to Subvert the ElectionCard 1 of 4A monthslong campaign. More