Elections

For Democrats, there was much to cheer in the growth of cities and suburbs. But Republicans, imperiled by the falling white population, are still well positioned for redistricting.At first blush, Thursday’s release of census data held great news for Democrats. It painted a portrait of a considerably more urban and metropolitan nation, with increasingly Democratic metropolitan areas bustling with new arrivals and the rural, Republican heartland steadily losing residents. It is a much less white nation, too, with the white non-Hispanic population for the first time dropping in absolute numbers, a plunge that exceeded most experts’ estimates, and the growth in the Latino population slightly exceeding forecasts.But the census paints a picture of America as it is. And as it is, America is not very Democratic.Besides the census, the other great source of data on American politics is the result of the 2020 election, which revealed a deeply and narrowly divided nation. Despite nearly the full decade of demographic shifts shown by the census, Joe Biden won the national vote by the same four-point margin that he won by as Barack Obama’s running mate eight years earlier — and with fewer votes in the Electoral College.Democrats face great challenges in translating favorable demographic trends into electoral success, and the new census data may prove to be only the latest example. While the census shows that Democratic-leaning groups represent a growing share of the population, much of the population growth occurred in the Sun Belt, where Republicans still control the redistricting process. That gives them yet another chance to preserve their political power in the face of unfavorable demographic trends. And they are well prepared to do so.The new data will be used by state legislatures and commissions to redraw electoral maps, with the potential to determine control of Congress and state legislatures across the country in next year’s midterm election.Thursday’s release, the most detailed yet from the 2020 census, depicted a nation that increasingly seems to resemble its future more than its past. The non-Hispanic white share of the population fell to 57.8 percentage points, nearly two points lower than expected, as more Americans identified as multiracial. Vast swaths of the rural United States, including an outright majority of its counties, saw their populations shrink.“Democrats have reason to be happy with this census data set,” said Dave Wasserman, House editor of the Cook Political Report, who cited the higher-than-expected population tallies in New York and Chicago and the steady growth of the nation’s Hispanic population.Many Democrats had feared that Latino and urban voters would be badly undercounted amid the coronavirus pandemic and the Trump administration’s effort to ask about citizenship status.It is still possible that the census undercounted Hispanics, but the results did not leave any obvious evidence that the count had gone awry. The Hispanic share of the population was in line with projections. New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic, showed unexpectedly strong population growth.The surprising decline in the white and rural population is likely to bolster Democratic hopes that demographic shifts might help progressives secure a significant electoral advantage.But the possibility that demographic changes would doom conservatives has loomed over American politics for more than a decade, helping to exacerbate conservative fears of immigration and even to motivate a wave of new laws intended to restrict access to voting. Tucker Carlson, the Fox News television show host, has repeatedly stoked racist fears of “white replacement,” warning his viewers that it is a Democratic electoral strategy.Yet despite the seemingly favorable demographic portrait for Democrats depicted by the 2020 census, the 2020 election returned another closely divided result: a 50-50 Senate, one of the closest presidential elections in history, and a House majority so slender that it might be undone by the very data that Democrats were celebrating on Thursday.The nation’s electoral system — which rewards flipping states and districts — has tended to mute the effect of demographic change. Many Democratic gains in vote margins have come in metropolitan areas, where Democratic candidates were already winning races, or in red states like Texas, where Democrats have made huge gains in presidential elections but haven’t yet won many additional electoral votes.But Democrats haven’t fared much better over the past decade, as one would have expected based on favorable demographic trends alone. It’s not clear they’ve improved at all. Barack Obama and Joe Biden each won the national popular vote by four percentage points in 2012 and 2020. Demographic shifts, thus far, have been canceled out by Republican gains among nonwhite and especially Latino voters, who supported Mr. Trump in unexpectedly large numbers in 2020 and helped deny Democrats victory in Florida.The new census data confirms that the nation’s political center of gravity continues to shift to the Republican Sun Belt, where demographic shifts have helped Democrats make huge inroads over the past decade. Georgia and Arizona turned blue in 2020. Texas, where Hispanic residents now roughly equal non-Hispanic whites, is on the cusp of becoming a true battleground state.Phoenix vaulted ahead of Philadelphia to become the fifth most populated city in the United States since the last census.Juan Arredondo for The New York TimesJust 50.1 percent of Georgians were non-Hispanic whites, according to the new census data, raising the possibility that whites already represent a minority of the state’s population by now.But despite Democratic gains in the Sun Belt, Republicans continue to control the redistricting process in most of the fast-growing states that picked up seats through reapportionment.The relatively robust number of Latino and metropolitan voters will make it more difficult for Republicans to redraw some maps to their advantage, by requiring them to draw more voters from rural Republican areas to dilute urban and metropolitan concentrations of Democratic-leaning voters. It may also help Democrats redraw maps to their favor in Illinois and New York, where they do control the redistricting process.But there are few limits on gerrymandering, and even today’s relatively favorable data for Democrats are unlikely to be enough to overcome the expected Republican advantages in states where they enjoy full control over the redistricting process.The Democrats may be relying on the Republicans’ growing bashful about gerrymandering, said Michael McDonald, a political science professor at the University of Florida.“What the Republicans will have to do is crack the urban areas, and do it pretty aggressively,” he said. “It’s just one of those things we’ll have to see — how aggressive Republicans can be.”Nick Corasaniti More

WASHINGTON — There were 10 days left in the Trump presidency. And John Abowd and Tori Velkoff had a decision to make.Six months earlier, in July 2020, President Donald Trump had ordered the Census Bureau, where they were senior officials, to produce a count of every unauthorized immigrant in the nation, separate from the 2020 census count that was well underway. The Trump administration’s goal was to strip those immigrants from the population count used to divvy up House seats among the states.The move promised to benefit Republicans by sapping electoral strength from Democratic-leaning areas and handing more voting power to older, white and most likely more conservative populations.Mr. Abowd, the bureau’s chief scientist, and Ms. Velkoff, its chief demographer, were obligated by law to carry out the president’s orders. They’d assigned some of their top experts to produce an immigrant count from billions of government records. Mr. Trump had also inserted four political appointees into the bureau’s top ranks since June, in no small part to ensure that the numbers were delivered.But despite months of work, the results, in Mr. Abowd’s and Ms. Velkoff’s view, fell far short of the bureau’s standards for accuracy. Now the agency’s director, Steven Dillingham, was demanding the tallies — accurate or not — before the president left office.Mr. Abowd and Ms. Velkoff went to Ron Jarmin, the deputy director. The trio, who had more than 75 years of experience in the bureau among them, agreed on a response: They would reject the demand unless they could explain in a technical report why the numbers were useless. (In an interview this month, Mr. Dillingham said that he was merely asking for an assessment of the immigrant tabulations, with whatever caveats were necessary. “I said, look over that data and see if any of it is ready,” he said.)Mr. Jarmin then sent a message to three other Census Bureau experts whom he had assigned to assist the political appointees. Stop whatever you’re doing, it said. Any future orders will come from me.That internal struggle, which has not been previously reported, was the breaking point in a battle with the Trump administration over political interference in the census. By now, tales of Trump appointees disrupting, or outright corrupting, the work of federal agencies are familiar. But in this case, the meddling threatened not just to change the allocation of federal power, but also to skew the distribution of trillions of federal tax dollars.It was not a revolt or some sort of deep-state resistance that thwarted that effort. Instead, a slice of the career bureaucracy that keeps the federal government running, day in and day out, stood up for what it saw as the core function of the Census Bureau — to produce the gold standard for data about the nation’s population.“We tried to do what we thought was statistically sound and valid,” Ms. Velkoff said in an interview in June. “If we didn’t have a statistically sound and valid methodology, then we pushed back.”The episode pitting career officials against political appointees raises an important question: Should the Census Bureau be better protected from such political interference in the future?The White House had initially sought to identify unauthorized immigrants by adding a question about citizenship to the census form itself. Mr. Abowd had warned that doing so would harm the quality of the count. In focus groups the bureau conducted, people in various ethic groups expressed an “unprecedented” level of concern about giving the government identifying information, according to a 2017 report on the research. Nonetheless, Wilbur Ross, the secretary of the Commerce Department, which includes the Census Bureau, ordered the agency to go ahead with the citizenship question.But in June 2019, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Ross’s proffered rationale — that adding the citizenship question was necessary to better enforce the Voting Rights Act — calling it “contrived.”With that avenue closed, the administration immediatelyordered the Census Bureau to gather data on unauthorized immigrants by combing through records of some 20 federal agencies.Mr. Abowd, Ms. Velkoff and their colleagues spent the next year collecting immigrant data from the administrative records. Then in July 2020, Mr. Trump ordered the data to be used to remove unauthorized immigrants from the coming census totals that would reapportion the House for the next decade. But to segregate unauthorized immigrants from the census totals for each state, there first had to be a census.And that was a problem. In the summer of 2020, the bureau faced the huge challenge of counting every household in the midst of a pandemic. Despite that, Mr. Ross ordered the agency to finish the count by Sept. 30 and to produce the politically crucial population figures for apportioning House seats among the states by Dec. 31. The deadlines ensured the census totals would be delivered to Mr. Trump whether or not he won the November election.Internally, census officials were aghast. Anyone who thought the agency could meet the December deadline, the day-to-day leader of the census, Timothy Olson, wrote to Mr. Jarmin and other senior census officials, “has either a mental deficiency or a political motivation.”But the anti-immigrant forces within Mr. Trump’s administration kept the pressure on, creating four new political jobs in the bureau’s top ranks — an unprecedented step — beginning in June 2020.Senior bureau officials gave them offices. They also quietly ordered that the appointees be given only rounded numbers — estimates, which could not be labeled official for political or other reasons.The first of the new political appointees was Nathaniel Cogley, a political-science professor at a state university in rural Texas who has specialized in African studies. He was soon joined by the other three, and they reported weekly to an aide to Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff.Mr. Cogley began attacking the bureau’s effort to count a small share of known households that evade the best efforts of census takers. In these cases — 1.2 million people in 2010, but probably many more in pandemic-scarred 2020 — the bureau has long used a statistical method called imputation, looking at nearby households to make educated guesses about who lives in the places the census field operation missed.Some of those households are occupied by right-leaning libertarians who are deeply suspicious of the government. But many are low-income families, members of minorities and unauthorized immigrants, who expand the count for urban areas and thus increase representation for traditional Democratic strongholds.“If you leave out imputations, you leave out African Americans, Hispanics and other hard-to-count people,” Kimball Brace, a demographer and president of a consulting firm that does work on redistricting, said in an interview. Mr. Cogley called him to ask for evidence that imputation was statistically unsound. “I saw Cogley’s view as totally a way of justifying how the Republicans come out on this,” Mr. Brace said. (Mr. Cogley did not respond to calls, texts and emails asking for comment.)Mr. Ross had the power to order the bureau to do as Mr. Cogley wished. But after listening to dueling presentations, he allowed the imputation work to continue — handing the career officials a victory on one of their most important concerns. (Mr. Ross declined to comment on the record.)In early November, when Joe Biden won the presidential election, the 10-week clock for Mr. Trump’s time in office began to tick with new urgency. There would be no second term. Mr. Abowd, Ms. Velkoff and their colleagues raced to meet the Dec. 31 deadline. But the bureau hit a major technical snag: The pandemic had scrambled the locations of tens of millions of people, like college students and agricultural workers, who should have been counted where they studied or worked but instead lived elsewhere temporarily because of the coronavirus.Putting them in their proper place would take time. In late November, census officials told Mr. Dillingham, the bureau’s director, that they could not meet the Dec. 31 deadline and maintain the agency’s standards for accuracy.Mr. Cogley and other political appointees pressed for shortcuts to speed ahead, going so far as to suggest commandeering computers from other agencies to accelerate data processing, an idea the bureau dismissed as impractical. But the political appointees and the White House never answered a basic question about the numbers they most wanted: What definition of “unauthorized immigrant” should the bureau use? Did it include people contesting their deportation in court? Or children whose birthplace was unclear? Or immigrants whose green cards were being processed?In December, the White House tried one last tack: If census experts could not reliably say who should be removed from the state-by-state apportionment totals because they were in the country illegally, then administration officials would decide for them, using whatever tabulations of immigrants the bureau provided.This would take a hammer to the bureau’s standards for accuracy. It would also reverse past practice, in which the Census Bureau calculated the House apportionment and the White House delivered the results to Congress as a formality. In January, Mr. Dillingham told Mr. Jarmin it was the bureau’s No. 1 priority — above the census itself — to turn over figures on undocumented immigrants to the White House by Jan. 15. He acknowledged proposing cash bonuses to those who could make it happen, but said he made sure anyone working on the project “would not be pulled off the 2020 census data.”This last-minute order, which Mr. Dillingham delivered orally rather than in writing, was the breaking point for the career officials who had carried out every other directive. “The integrity of the statistical process that the Census Bureau is ethically committed to was abrogated in serious ways,” Mr. Abowd said.Separately and anonymously, three career officials filed whistle-blower complaints with the Commerce Department’s inspector general. The complaints accused Mr. Dillingham of violating a cardinal rule for the federal government called Statistical Policy Directive 1. “A federal statistical agency,” it states, “must be independent from political and other undue external influence in developing, producing and disseminating statistics.” Mr. Dillingham said this month that when he heard about the complaints to the inspector general, he stopped asking for the immigrant tabulations.On Jan. 18, Mr. Dillingham resigned. Mr. Trump left office two days later without the counts that would have downgraded the status of immigrants and most likely helped more Republicans win election.The census has been wielded as a political weapon before. When the very first count in 1790 fell short (at 3.9 million) of George Washington’s expectations, he didn’t change the number, but he instructed Thomas Jefferson to check it. When Jefferson’s work produced an estimate above four million, he included the higher number in descriptions of the census abroad to make the new country appear stronger.When the 1920 census counted rising population totals in American cities — thanks to an influx of Italians, Poles, Jews and others from outside Northern Europe — Congress refused to reapportion the House until 1929 so that rural areas wouldn’t lose seats.And most notoriously, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Army used census information to round up Japanese Americans for internment. (In 2000, the bureau apologized.)Now a group of officials at the agency are considering how the census could be better protected from political meddling and misuse. In July, a committee of career professionals put in place a new policy on data stewardship, which firms up the rules governing internal as well as external access to confidential data. A bigger idea is to move the bureau out of the Commerce Department to make it more independent, like the National Science Foundation. Congress could also mandate by statute that immigrants who reside in the country must continue to be counted, as they always have been. Lawmakers (or the president, by executive order) also could further strengthen the existing safeguards in Statistical Policy Directive 1.In the end, the delays that frustrated the anti-immigrant ambitions of Mr. Trump’s administration may end up helping his party. The bureau’s release of redistricting numbers on Thursday was several months behind schedule. Republicans, who control more state legislatures and have shown a greater appetite for extreme gerrymandering than Democrats have, could benefit because little time remains to contest maps before the 2022 elections.The newly released numbers will now set the stage for what are likely to be colossal battles over control of the House and State Legislatures.For career professionals, “the highest priority now,” Mr. Abowd said, “is restoring the credibility of the 2020 census and the Census Bureau.”Emily Bazelon is a staff writer at The Times magazine. More

Los cuestionamientos del presidente de Brasil a las máquinas de votos de su país han generado comparaciones a la complicada elección de 2020 en Estados Unidos.RÍO DE JANEIRO — Ante la posibilidad de una derrota aplastante en las urnas el próximo año, el presidente de Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro, está movilizando a sus seguidores para una batalla existencial contra las máquinas de votación.Acosado por el devastador número de víctimas del coronavirus, una economía tambaleante y un rival en ascenso, el presidente ha lanzado un ataque a todo pulmón contra el sistema de votación electrónica en el que Brasil ha confiado durante 25 años. A menos que los electores consigan registrar su elección en boletas impresas, algo que el sistema actual no permite, Bolsonaro ha advertido que las elecciones de 2022 podrían suspenderse.“Una elección fuera de esos parámetros no es una elección”, dijo Bolsonaro a sus partidarios durante un mitin reciente en la ciudad sureña de Florianópolis, en el que convocó a su base de seguidores a prepararse para “luchar con todas las armas”.La posibilidad de un enfrentamiento desestabilizador el año próximo surgió el martes, cuando el gobierno de Bolsonaro organizó un desfile militar en el que tanques blindados circularon frente al Congreso horas antes de que los legisladores tuvieran que debatir un proyecto de ley que requeriría que las máquinas de votación electrónica impriman boletas de papel.El martes a última hora, la Cámara de Diputados de Brasil votó en contra de la propuesta.Sin embargo, la campaña para volver a un sistema de boletas de papel, una vieja obsesión de Bolsonaro, ha alarmado a los líderes del poder judicial, a los legisladores de la oposición y a los politólogos, que ven en sus estrategias los ingredientes de una perpetuación en el poder en la nación más grande de América Latina. Funcionarios electorales y expertos independientes dicen que el sistema de votación electrónica de Brasil, adoptado en 1996, tiene fuertes salvaguardas y un historial impecable.“Enturbiar el debate público con desinformación, mentiras, odio y teorías conspirativas es una conducta antidemocrática”, afirmó en un discurso reciente Luís Roberto Barroso, juez del Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF, por su sigla en portugués) y jefe del tribunal electoral de Brasil.Vehículos militares desfilaron cerca de afiches electorales a favor de Bolsonaro el martesVictor Moriyama para The New York TimesAludiendo al retroceso democrático en Turquía, Hungría, Nicaragua y Venezuela, Barroso dijo que se ha vuelto preocupantemente común que los líderes que llegan al poder a través de las urnas “desmantelen, ladrillo por ladrillo, los pilares de la democracia”.Los críticos temen que, al igual que el expresidente estadounidense Donald Trump convenció a muchos partidarios de que le habían robado la victoria en 2020, Bolsonaro esté sentando las bases para disputar una derrota electoral en octubre de 2022.Fernando Luiz Abrucio, politólogo de la Fundación Getúlio Vargas, dijo que ese escenario podría llevar a un caos mucho mayor en Brasil (donde la democracia apenas se restauró a fines de la década de 1980) que en Estados Unidos.“Si Bolsonaro pierde las elecciones, puede movilizar al ejército, la policía y las milicias”, dijo Abrucio. “El grado de violencia podría ser mucho mayor que el episodio del Capitolio de Estados Unidos”.La exhibición militar del martes desencadenó una serie de declaraciones de condena y memes.Vehículos militares desfilaron por el Congreso el martes.Victor Moriyama para The New York Times“Es inaceptable que las fuerzas armadas hayan permitido que su imagen sea utilizada de esta manera, para plantear la posibilidad del uso de la fuerza en apoyo a una medida antidemocrática golpista defendida por el presidente”, dijeron nueve partidos de la oposición en un comunicado.Bolsonaro comenzó a despotricar contra el sistema de votación hace varios años, cuando era un diputado marginal y ultraconservador con poco poder y visibilidad en la capital.En 2015, propuso una enmienda constitucional que exigía que las máquinas de votación electrónica imprimieran un registro de cada voto, el cual se depositaría en una urna. Bolsonaro argumentó entonces que la redundancia reduciría la “posibilidad de fraude a cero”.El Congreso aprobó la medida, pero el STF determinó que violaba la privacidad y la declaró inconstitucional, por lo que el sistema de votación permaneció sin cambios.El asunto desapareció del radar político hasta que Bolsonaro emergió como el candidato presidencial favorito tras la primera ronda de votación en las elecciones de octubre de 2018. En lugar de celebrar su triunfo, Bolsonaro sorprendió a la clase política al afirmar que le habían robado una victoria absoluta, lo que habría requerido ganar más del 50 por ciento de los votos.Incluso después de haber ganado las elecciones en 2018 con un margen de 10 puntos porcentuales, Bolsonaro siguió afirmando, sin presentar pruebas, que el sistema estaba amañado. Su intento para desacreditar la integridad del sistema electoral se ha vuelto más ruidosa y audaz en las últimas semanas, debido a que Bolsonaro ha caído en las encuestas en medio de la creciente exasperación por el manejo gubernamental de la pandemia de coronavirus.Una encuesta realizada a principios de agosto por la firma Poder Data muestra que uno de cada cinco votantes que apoyó a Bolsonaro en 2018 votaría ahora por su principal rival, el expresidente Luis Inácio Lula da Silva. En un enfrentamiento entre dos candidatos, Da Silva superaría al actual mandatario con un 52 por ciento de los votos contra un 32 por ciento para Bolsonaro, según el sondeo.Los sondeos indican que el expresidente Lula da Silva triunfaría en una contienda contra BolsonaroMiguel Schincariol/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesEl martes Da Silva acusó al presidente de utilizar el debate en torno al voto impreso para desviar la atención de su desempeño en materia de desempleo y pobreza, dos indicadores que han crecido durante la pandemia.“Bolsonaro debe prepararse para enfrentar este hecho: va a perder la elección”, dijo en un comunicado el expresidente Da Silva, presentando la posibilidad de que el titular del ejecutivo se rehúse a participar en las ceremonias de transferencia de mando.Los magistrados del STF se alarmaron ante los ataques de Bolsonaro contra el sistema de votación, que ha expuesto en largas entrevistas con periodistas conservadores y en videos que el presidente difunde en las redes sociales. A principios de este mes, el tribunal abrió investigaciones en torno a las afirmaciones del presidente sobre el fraude en las máquinas de votación.Filipe Barros, un legislador que apoya a Bolsonaro, dijo en una entrevista que las máquinas electrónicas podrían ser manipuladas y que las boletas de papel crearían un mecanismo para certificar de manera independiente el resultado registrado por las máquinas.“Es un riesgo para la democracia”, aseveró.Los expertos afirman que las máquinas de votación en Brasil, donde el voto es obligatorio, cuentan con medidas de seguridad sólidas. No están conectadas a internet, por lo que es prácticamente imposible hackearlas. La identidad de los votantes se verifica mediante un escáner biométrico que escanea la huella dactilar de la persona.Las máquinas de votación de Brasil, que son muy segurasEraldo Peres/Associated PressEl mes pasado, ocho ex procuradores generales emitieron un comunicado en el que calificaban de inconstitucionales los llamados para crear un sistema de sufragio en papel y argumentaban que el paso adicional ponía en riesgo el derecho al voto secreto. En Brasil, es la oficina del procurador general el que está a cargo de investigar los crímenes de índole electoral.Los expertos dicen que antes de que se adoptara el sistema actual, era común que los personeros políticos llevaran a los votantes a las urnas para verificar cómo habían marcado las boletas.“En ningún momento se ha cuestionado el sistema de votación actual, ni ha habido evidencia de que se haya manipulado alguna vez”, dijo Raquel Dodge, una de las signatarias de la carta. “El sistema electoral de Brasil está muy avanzado y creo que necesitamos que esto sea claro y transparente para los votantes brasileños y para el mundo”.El gobierno del presidente Joe Biden también se mostró a favor del sistema actual y Jake Sullivan, asesor de seguridad nacional de Biden, planteó el tema a Bolsonaro durante una reciente visita a Brasilia.Los funcionarios estadounidenses dijeron tener “una gran confianza en la capacidad de las instituciones brasileñas para llevar a cabo unas elecciones libres y justas con las debidas salvaguardas contra el fraude”, declaró el lunes a la prensa Juan González, director principal del Consejo Nacional de Seguridad de Estados Unidos para el Hemisferio Occidental. “Subrayamos la importancia de no minar la confianza en ese proceso”.Ernesto Londoño es el jefe de la corresponsalía de Brasil, con sede en Río de Janeiro. Antes fue escritor parte del Comité Editorial y, antes de unirse a The New York Times, era reportero en The Washington Post. @londonoe | Facebook More

Dylan Howard, known for the “catch and kill” deals during the #MeToo reckoning, teams up with an Italian publisher for a publication aimed at the Hamptons crowd.In late May, the luxury brand Ferragamo threw a launch party to celebrate the Grazia Gazette: The Hamptons — the latest free publication in one of the country’s wealthiest enclaves.Most guests did not know that they were also celebrating a comeback.Grazia’s American operation, Grazia USA, is run by Dylan Howard, the disgraced National Enquirer editor who played a key role in suppressing stories about Donald Trump’s affairs during his presidential campaign, helped Harvey Weinstein dig up dirt on his accusers and, in Jeff Bezos’s telling, threatened the Amazon owner with blackmail.At the party for Mr. Howard’s new venture, young stars and social media influencers mingled while sipping a custom rosé. Some sang along to Olivia Rodrigo’s “Driver’s License.”They knew the lyrics, but not much about the man behind the event.“I have never heard of him,” said Isaac Hindin-Miller, the DJ, in a phone call afterward.“I was more there as a guest of Ferragamo,” said Jenné Lombardo, a marketing consultant who went with her husband, Harvey Newton-Haydon, a model.“I don’t know Howard or anything about him,” Julia Moshy, one of the “Rich Kids of Instagram,” wrote in an email.A Dylan Howard primer: During his time as the top editor of The Enquirer, a job he held for more than five years, Mr. Howard used his position to help suppress coverage of Mr. Trump’s reported extramarital affairs, including buying one woman’s story and then burying it in a journalistic maneuver known as “catch and kill.” The company later admitted that the payment amounted to an illegal campaign contribution, and Mr. Howard emerged unscathed after cooperating with federal prosecutors.Mr. Howard also dispatched a reporter to help collect hostile information on the actress Rose McGowan, who had made veiled references to misconduct by Mr. Weinstein. (Ms. McGowan later said the producer had raped her in a hotel room in 1997 — Mr. Weinstein has denied all allegations of nonconsensual sex.)Soon after leaving American Media last year, Mr. Howard started a new company, Pantheon Media Group. Pantheon later struck a licensing agreement with the Mondadori Group, the biggest publisher in Italy and the backer of the Grazia fashion magazine franchise, to publish Grazia in the United States. The Grazia Gazette: The Hamptons is among the first projects.Madelyn Cline on the cover of the first issue of Grazia Gazette: The Hamptons.Grazia GazetteThe model Ambra Battilana, who had been invited to the party, was aware of Mr. Howard’s background. She said she was relieved she had not attended.Ms. Battilana has accused Mr. Weinstein of sexually assaulting her during a meeting in his TriBeCa office. The next day she recorded Mr. Weinstein apologizing to her. The Enquirer unsuccessfully tried to buy Ms. Battilana’s story at the time. (Mr. Weinstein was found guilty of sex crimes against two women last year and sentenced to 23 years in prison.)Given all that, Mr. Howard’s involvement in the Surf Lodge party did not sit well with Ms. Battilana, who spends most summer weekends in the Hamptons and goes to the Surf Lodge frequently. (Mr. Howard also has a home in Springs, a hamlet in the Hamptons, which he bought for $1.1 million at the end of 2017, according to public records.)“I think this is completely horrendous,” she said. “I will be asking who is connected, because I really want to get to the bottom of understanding who was the person who would allow such a person to get in.”In a statement, a spokeswoman for Ferragamo said: “Salvatore Ferragamo has a longstanding relationship with Grazia titles globally and recently expanded that to partner on the launch issue of the Gazette with a dinner co-hosted by editor in chief David Thielebeule and cover star Madelyn Cline, not Dylan Howard.” (Ms. Cline is an actress and one of the stars of Netflix’s “Outer Banks.”Grazia Gazette: The Hamptons is just one part of Mr. Howard’s reinvention plan. He is trying to raise money to “buy the entire Grazia brand worldwide,” according to a copy of his financing proposal reviewed by The New York Times, with whom Mr. Howard did not wish to discuss his new business ventures. He initially agreed to clarify his future plans over lunch, only to cancel through a publicist, Howard Bragman, several days later.“Mr. Howard would of course like to grow his business, including his successful collaboration with Grazia,” Mr. Bragman said in an email. In a separate email, Mr. Howard’s lawyer, Mitchell Schuster, called The Times’s characterization of Mr. Howard’s fund-raising efforts “not correct as stated and misleading.”Maer Roshan, the editor of Los Angeles Magazine and the former editor of Radar, which Mr. Howard took over in 2009 and transformed into something more akin to the gossip site TMZ, was among those in the media who were incredulous at Mr. Howard’s attempted comeback.How “does this dude come back with this glossy magazine and roster of A-list advertisers?” he wondered.Since leaving American Media when his contract expired on March 31, 2020, Mr. Howard has acquired the website for OK Magazine, as well as Radar Online. Both were formerly owned by American Media.Mr. Howard has also continued a sideline he started in 2018 as an author of true-crime books for Skyhorse, which is distributed by Simon & Schuster. Working in collaboration with other authors, but with his name receiving top billing, he has come out with more than half a dozen books, including, “Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales,” “Covid-19: The Greatest Cover-Up in History” and “Diana: Case Solved.”In an email, Tony Lyons, Skyhorse’s president and publisher, called Mr. Howard a “dogged investigator and a talented storyteller.”There is also podcasting. This month, PodcastOne, the producer of “The Adam Carolla Show,” “The Dan Abrams Podcast” and more than 200 other audio series, announced that it had reached a deal with Mr. Howard’s Empire Media to create six limited series and eight weekly programs.One company that won’t do business with Mr. Howard is the dating app Bumble, which removed his profile earlier this year after a woman complained about his work for Mr. Weinstein, according to two people with knowledge of the matter (Mr. Schuster, the lawyer, said Mr. Howard chose to remove his profile for “unrelated reasons” and said he did not “work for” Mr. Weinstein).Mr. Howard grew up in Geelong, Australia, a city southwest of Melbourne, and started his career at a local paper. From there he became a sports reporter for Channel 7 in Melbourne before coming to the United States in 2009.After a stint as a producer at Reuters in New York, he joined American Media, which owned a number of celebrity gossip sites and publications, including the supermarket tabloid Star and RadarOnline. Under Mr. Howard, RadarOnline turned into a celebrity scoop machine, posting audio recordings of Mel Gibson’s vitriolic tirades and other Hollywood dirt.In 2011, he tied for entertainment Journalist of the Year at the annual Los Angeles Press Club awards. “In the world of celebrity and entertainment news, even mainstream media couldn’t ignore exclusive stories broken under Dylan Howard’s tenure as senior executive editor of RadarOnline,” the judges wrote.Mr. Howard left American Media in 2012. The Associated Press reported that his departure came after an external investigation into his workplace behavior. (The company said he was cleared of any wrongdoing.) The next year he returned to American Media, whose chief executive was David Pecker, a friend of Donald J. Trump, and he soon became the company’s chief content officer. That job gave him oversight of The Enquirer as well as Us Weekly, Globe and OK!, among other publications.Mr. Howard in 2014, when he was the editor in chief of Radar Online.Ilya S. Savenok/Getty ImagesDuring the 2016 presidential campaign, headlines in The Enquirer lionized Mr. Trump and belittled his political rivals. In addition, as The Wall Street Journal was first to report, American Media made a $150,000 payment to the former Playboy model Karen McDougal in return for the rights to her story of an affair with Mr. Trump. The Enquirer never ran that story.Mr. Howard also worked with Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer, on a deal that silenced another woman, Stormy Daniels, who also said she had sex with Mr. Trump, who has denied having sex with either woman.In an email, Mr. Bragman added that Mr. Howard had been “ORDERED BY MANAGEMENT” to help suppress coverage of Mr. Trump’s affairs. But in a follow-up email, Mr. Schuster, Mr. Howard’s lawyer, said that Mr. Bragman’s comment was not authorized by Mr. Howard.“Please disregard Mr. Bragman’s comment and confirm that it will not be included in your article,” he wrote. “Thank you.”American Media ultimately admitted that its payment to Ms. McDougal violated campaign finance law. Mr. Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison. Mr. Howard, along with Mr. Pecker, entered into a nonprosecution agreement with the government and cooperated with its investigation.The agreement remained in effect only if American Media did nothing to break the law for three years. In 2019, Mr. Bezos, the Amazon founder, accused the company of blackmail after it had published an 11-page exposé of his extramarital affair with the former TV personality Lauren Sanchez headlined “Bezos’ Divorce! The Cheating Photos That Ended His Marriage.”The story led to a public spat in which Mr. Bezos accused the tabloid’s leaders of “extortion and blackmail” in a lengthy post on Medium. The multibillionaire quoted from a letter sent to him by Mr. Howard. In the letter, as quoted by Mr. Bezos, Mr. Howard described the supposedly compromising photographs The Enquirer had in its possession, including a “below-the-belt selfie.”No one was charged in the matter. Mr. Schuster called Mr. Bezos’ post on Medium “self-serving and inaccurate,” and said that Mr. Howard’s reporting was “fair and accurate.”Now, a little more than a year since Mr. Howard made his exit from American Media, Grazia Gazette: The Hamptons appeared in stacks along Main Street in East Hampton. Distributed free, it has a lot of competition in a place where there is no shortage of gratis publications aimed at wealthy readers, a boomlet fueled by ad dollars from real estate agencies promoting multimillion-dollar listings.“Most of them are thrown in the garbage,” said the author Steven Gaines, a resident of East Hampton who has written extensively on the area’s history. “Some people pick them up and look at them, but there’s really nothing interesting.”The lucky ones have a rack under an awning, or a place on an indoor windowsill. The unlucky ones get tossed on doorsteps, rained on and thrown away.Lynn A. Scotti, a president and group publisher at Modern Luxury Media, which publishes Hamptons Magazine, is aware of the new entrant in the field. She said she had seen the Grazia Gazette “out wet,” adding: “We welcome healthy competition and I wish him the best.”The editor and publisher Dan Rattiner, who has run Dan’s Papers, a Hamptons local news publication, for more than 60 years, said of the free glossies: “They come and go. There are so many of them, it’s hard to tell one from another.”Mr. Roshan, the editor, expressed surprise that luxury advertisers would sign on with a publication run by Mr. Howard at a time when “people have been canceled and cast out for far less.”But Joseph Montag, the managing director of the Topping Rose House, a hotel and restaurant and a not infrequent filming location for “The Real Housewives of New York City,” suggested that people in the Hamptons were not likely to be bothered by Mr. Howard’s efforts to bury the accounts of the women who had accused Mr. Weinstein of sexual assault or told of their affairs with Mr. Trump.“People out here are used to those sorts of things,” Mr. Montag said, adding that Matt Lauer, the former NBC anchor who was fired by the network after accusations of sexual assault, was still out and about in the Hamptons.Mr. Gaines, the Hamptons chronicler, seemed to be of two minds.“If he wants to reinvent himself, he should go to Miami,” he said. “They forgive everything down there.”But then again, the Hamptons-specific media market is crowded.“If he took his bad-boy reputation out here and he used that, he exploited that, to make a different type of magazine,” Mr. Gaines continued, “I think people would read that.”Jim Rutenberg, Lauren Hirsch and Michael Rothfeld contributed reporting. Susan Beachy contributed research. More

The huge war chest is the most money retained by a departing New York politician in recent memory.Even after his resignation takes effect in less than two weeks, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo will still control the largest pot of campaign cash in New York politics, an $18 million war chest amassed in apparent preparation for a run at a fourth term next year.That prospect now seems remote: Mr. Cuomo, accused of sexually harassing nearly a dozen women, announced Tuesday that he would step down as he faced the threat of impeachment and a chorus of calls for his resignation.But his huge stock of campaign funds — the most money retained by a departing New York politician in recent memory — affords him a range of possibilities, including the chance to attempt an eventual comeback or to play a role in the state’s political life by donating to other candidates.Mr. Cuomo is far from the first top New York elected official to abruptly leave office. What is remarkable, and has drawn attention in Albany political circles, is the magnitude of money still at his disposal. It is more than 10 times as much as Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is poised to take his place, has in her campaign account.When Eliot Spitzer resigned as governor in 2008 in a prostitution scandal, he had most recently reported $2.9 million in the bank. Eric Schneiderman, the former attorney general, had about $8.5 million in his campaign account when he stepped down in 2018 after several women accused him of assaulting them.After each official left office, their campaigns reached out to donors and offered to refund contributions. The Schneiderman campaign did so in emails to major donors who contributed large sums in the months before his resignation, according to a person who worked on the effort, and eventually gave back nearly $1.7 million.When Eliot Spitzer resigned as governor, he had less than $3 million in his campaign fund.Damon Winter/The New York TimesThe Spitzer campaign did so more broadly, emailing every donor and offering to refund as much of their contributions as possible, a top official on the campaign said. Supporters felt betrayed, the person said, and the refunds were a means of trying to make it up to those who had believed in Mr. Spitzer. By the next filing period, his campaign had returned roughly half its remaining campaign funds.Mr. Cuomo raised more than $2 million this year, including during a $10,000-a-plate event in late June — while the state attorney general’s investigation was underway — that drew longtime supporters and union leaders.A person familiar with the governor’s campaign said that so far, there had not been many requests for refunds. The campaign finance director did not respond to requests for comment on refunds or on how Mr. Cuomo intended to use his remaining funds.State campaign finance rules limit how Mr. Cuomo can spend the money, campaign finance experts said. He cannot use the money, for example, to pay himself or purchase a new car or rent a house once he leaves the governor’s mansion later this month.Nor can he use the funds to run for federal office or in New York City, where the campaign finance rules are more stringent. When Mr. Spitzer attempted a political comeback in 2013, running for New York City comptroller, he relied on family money. (He lost.)Mr. Cuomo is permitted to give to nonprofits, provided the groups are registered in New York and he does not have connections to them.He can also make political donations to candidates or to state and local party organizations and has the means to do so in many races. Such contributions can be a way to buttress like-minded candidates and are usually welcomed, particularly in tight races. But candidates may be wary of accepting money from Mr. Cuomo.And he is free to spend the money on anything that would be construed as campaign-related. In that, there can be some room for interpretation, campaign finance lawyers said. He could spend it on an effort at rehabilitating his image or even on travel, so long as the activities could be pegged in some way to his past government service or a future campaign for state office.“The law is not precise when it comes to the use of excess campaign funds,” said Kenneth A. Gross, an expert in campaign finance law. “How they can be used depends on the facts.”What is clear is that Mr. Cuomo could use the campaign funds to conduct polling or create political ads and test the waters for a comeback. Eric Schneiderman, the former attorney general, had about $8.5 million in his campaign account when he stepped down in 2018.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesPeople driven out of Albany amid scandal or criminal investigation have often turned to their campaign coffers to cover legal fees, though campaign finance attorneys said there were limits to the practice.The Path to Governor Cuomo’s ResignationCard 1 of 6Plans to resign. More

Byung J. Pak, a former U.S. attorney in Atlanta, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that his abrupt resignation in January had been prompted by Justice Department officials’ warning that President Donald J. Trump intended to fire him for refusing to say that widespread voter fraud had been found in Georgia, according to a person familiar with his testimony.Mr. Pak, who provided more than three hours of closed-door testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, stepped down with no notice on Jan. 4, saying that he had done his best “to be thoughtful and consistent, and to provide justice for my fellow citizens in a fair, effective and efficient manner.”While he did not discuss Mr. Trump’s role in his decision to resign at the time, he told the Senate panel that the president had been dismayed that Mr. Pak had investigated allegations of voter fraud in Fulton County, Ga., and not found evidence to support them, according to the person familiar with the statements.Mr. Pak testified that top department officials had made clear that Mr. Trump intended to fire him over his refusal to say that the results in Georgia had been undermined by voter fraud, the person said. Resigning would pre-empt a public dismissal.He also described work done by state officials and the F.B.I. to vet Mr. Trump’s claims of voter fraud, and said they had not found evidence to support those allegations.The Senate Judiciary Committee is examining Mr. Pak’s departure as part of its broader investigation into the final weeks of the Trump administration and the White House’s efforts to pressure the Justice Department to falsely assert that the election was corrupt. The Justice Department’s inspector general is also looking at Mr. Pak’s resignation.During a phone call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger of Georgia on Jan. 2, two days before Mr. Pak resigned, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Raffensperger to find enough votes to reverse the state’s presidential election results and described fraud allegations that Mr. Raffensperger said were not supported by facts, according to leaked audio of the call.Mr. Pak had refused to support similar election fraud claims because of the lack of evidence, according to two people familiar with his investigation. “You have your never-Trumper U.S. attorney there,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Raffensperger during their phone call.Audio of that call was leaked to The Washington Post on Sunday, Jan. 3, just hours before Mr. Trump met with top Justice Department officials to discuss the possibility of replacing the acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, with Jeffrey Clark, a department leader who was willing to falsely tell Georgia officials that fraud might have affected the election outcome.While Mr. Rosen and Mr. Clark argued at the meeting about which man should lead the Justice Department and whether the department should intervene in Georgia, Mr. Trump interjected with complaints about the department’s official conclusion that the state election results were valid, according to three people briefed on the meeting. Mr. Trump ultimately decided not to elevate Mr. Clark, and the department did not send Georgia officials a letter seeking to undermine Mr. Biden’s win.Immediately after the Sunday evening meeting in the Oval Office, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, Richard P. Donoghue, sent an email to Mr. Pak at 10:09 p.m. that said, “Please call ASAP,” according to documents that the House Oversight and Reform Committee obtained from the Justice Department and released in June.Trump’s Bid to Subvert the ElectionCard 1 of 4A monthslong campaign. More

Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul is preparing to take the reins of state government, and, like other New York Democrats, already looking toward 2022.On Wednesday, a day after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced his resignation, New York woke up to the prospect of a future without him for the first time in more than a decade. Across the state, Democrats moved urgently to fill the vacuum created by the absence of a man who spent years seeking to exert total control over their party.At the State Capitol in Albany, Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul held her first news conference as governor-in-waiting, sending a message about the importance of maintaining government continuity. Democrats buzzed in private conversations about whom she might appoint to her team, as she promised “turnover” from Mr. Cuomo’s administration after he resigned in disgrace.Many people expressed hope for a stronger working relationship between the executive and legislative branches, following a period during which Mr. Cuomo — who never shied away from using intimidation as a tactic — often had toxic or nonexistent relationships with state lawmakers and sought to govern on his own terms instead.“This is a moment of great opportunity for the executive branch and, frankly, state government to reset,” said State Senator Shelley B. Mayer, a Yonkers Democrat. “Culturally, it’s an opportunity to reset.”But along with a chance for new beginnings once Mr. Cuomo officially departs in less than two weeks, many Democrats were already focusing much deeper into the calendar.In New York City, on Long Island and around the state, conversations among donors, activists and party strategists about the governor’s race next year have accelerated, now that it is clear the contest will not involve challenging Mr. Cuomo and his daunting war chest in a primary.The race begins with Ms. Hochul very likely to seek a full term, and doing so with the notable advantages of incumbency.She has already brought on two political strategists with significant New York and national experience: Meredith Kelly, who has worked for the state’s two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, and has held other high-ranking national political roles; and Trey Nix, a veteran campaign operative who has also served as an official at the Democratic Governors Association. Their hiring underscores Ms. Hochul’s seriousness about running for governor next year.She is a capable fund-raiser and is certain to attract many new donors as she moves up. She has spent years traveling the state. And now, with Ms. Hochul on the cusp of becoming New York’s first female governor, many Democrats are inclined to give her time to get comfortable in the job, eager to find ways to collaborate and move forward after the chaotic final months of Mr. Cuomo’s tenure.That hardly means she will clear the field before the primary next year.“I would suspect that she will take some time to get her footing in the new job, and that other prospective Democratic candidates will not pounce immediately,” said Kathryn Wylde, the head of the Partnership for New York City, an influential business group. “My guess is there will be a big field of potential candidates, and how many actually pull the trigger will depend on how she appears to be doing in the next few months.”Ms. Hochul, who is generally perceived as a relative moderate, is likely to be scrutinized by potential candidates to both the left and right of her politically, gauging not only her fund-raising strength and accomplishments in office, but also whether, in their view, she is politically in step with the Democratic Party’s base.There is a long list of politicians who are thought to be considering a run for governor, a group that could ultimately include local, state and federal lawmakers with varying degrees of name recognition and fund-raising prowess.Some Democrats have suggested that candidates in this year’s New York City mayoral race, including Kathryn Garcia, the runner-up in the party’s primary, and even the city’s current mayor, Bill de Blasio, could explore a run, too. (For his part, Mr. Cuomo strained to protect his legacy and future standing in his resignation speech.)At the moment, the most significant question in the minds of strategists, donors, political observers and even some potential candidates is whether Letitia James, the attorney general, will run.Letitia James, New York’s attorney general. Her office released the damning report that forced Mr. Cuomo’s departure, and she is considered a potential candidate for governor next year.Dave Sanders for The New York Times“She and now Kathy will be the two people that everyone else is watching, to see how they’re doing and what they’re going to do,” Ms. Wylde said.Ms. James, whose office issued the searing report that documented allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Cuomo and ended his governorship, has given no indication that she is planning to run for anything other than re-election. And she has not been known as a prolific fund-raiser.But her allies believe that given her stature as the first woman of color in New York to hold statewide office — and her ability to appeal to Black voters across the ideological spectrum as well as some white progressives — she has time to assess the landscape and make a decision.“It’s considered an open seat,” said State Senator John C. Liu, a Queens Democrat. “Obviously that will coalesce at some point, and a great deal depends on what our beloved attorney general wants to do. I hope she runs for governor.”In the meantime, her supporters are working to keep her options open.L. Joy Williams, a Democratic strategist and an ally of Ms. James’s, noted that a number of governors, including Mr. Cuomo, had ascended to the job from the attorney general’s office.“It’s naïve to think she couldn’t do the same, if not with a broader coalition and energy behind her campaign, if she decides to run,” Ms. Williams said.On the left, Jumaane D. Williams, the New York City public advocate who ran an unsuccessful primary against Ms. Hochul in 2018, has had multiple conversations this year about a possible bid for higher office.He is thought to be exploring a run for governor and could make an announcement about his intentions in the coming weeks, according to a political adviser to Mr. Williams, who stressed that Mr. Williams was most focused now on a smooth transition for Ms. Hochul.If Mr. Williams has been open about his belief that Mr. Cuomo needed a primary challenger, there are many other Democrats who were less likely to have challenged the incumbent governor. They may now view the race differently, even as the prospect of running against New York’s first female governor could introduce a new complicating factor.Jumaane D. Williams, New York City public advocate, challenged Ms. Hochul unsuccessfully in the 2018 primary. He may soon announce whether he plans to seek higher office.Desiree Rios for The New York TimesSeveral Democratic politicians with deep ties to Long Island, an area that Mr. Cuomo won overwhelmingly in his 2018 primary, are thought to be open to a run.Thomas P. DiNapoli, the state comptroller, has not ruled out a bid. Representative Thomas Suozzi has had calls and meetings about the possibility of a run, though he is focused now on negotiations in Congress over the federal deduction for state and local taxes.Steven Bellone, the Suffolk County executive, is strongly considering a run for governor next year, according to a person close to him who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. This person noted that Mr. Bellone had recently hired a high-dollar fund-raiser. Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, recently gave $50,000 to Mr. Bellone’s executive campaign, campaign finance records show.Richard Ravitch, a former lieutenant governor, said he anticipated that Ms. Hochul would offer a significant break from Mr. Cuomo’s often-truculent style, and that whether she succeeds in moving the state forward would be a vital factor in shaping the landscape of the 2022 race.“Whether or not any other candidate emerges is going to be solely a function of whether or not Kathy Hochul can make a dent in the governance and change the image from what Cuomo created,” he said, adding that he had long believed one of Mr. Cuomo’s challenges was a lack of allies.“It’s very tough to succeed when you’re in trouble and you have no friends,’’ Mr. Ravitch said. “I think Kathy Hochul will have friends.” More

Democratic leaders vow to make voting legislation the “first matter of legislative business” in September. But their path remains cluttered with obstacles.WASHINGTON — With deadlines looming ahead of next year’s midterm elections, the Senate adjourned on Wednesday for a monthlong recess with only the slimmest of paths left for passing federal voting rights legislation that Democrats hope can stop a wave of Republican state laws clamping down on ballot access.Before dawn on Wednesday, Senate Republicans blocked last-minute attempts to debate a trio of elections bills, but Democratic leaders vowed that more votes would be the “first matter of legislative business” when they return in mid-September. First up is likely to be a scaled-back version of the party’s far-reaching Senate Bill 1, the For the People Act, or S. 1, that Democrats believe will unite all 50 senators who caucus with them.“Let there be no mistake about what is going on here,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said just after 4 a.m. “We have reached a point in this chamber where Republicans appear to oppose any measure — no matter how common sense — to protect voting rights and strengthen our democracy.”But such outrage did little to clarify how the party plans to get around a wall of Republican opposition in the Senate that has blocked progress since June. Nor did it quiet some of the outspoken and well-financed activists demanding that President Biden and his congressional majorities do everything possible — including scrapping the Senate’s planned vacation and its legislative filibuster rule — to get the job done.Pressed by reporters later on Wednesday to outline how exactly Democrats would reverse their fortunes, Mr. Schumer said he was making progress by “showing very clearly to every one of our 50 senators that Republicans won’t join us.”“As I’ve said before, everything is on the table,” Mr. Schumer said.Advocates of voting rights legislation believe fleshing out Republicans’ opposition will help build a rationale for centrist Democratic senators like Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona to reverse course and support either changing the entire filibuster rule or creating an exemption for elections-related changes to pass with a simple majority, rather than 60 votes.“Biden and Senate Democrats need to tell us what their plan to pass S. 1 is,” said Nita Chaudhary, the head of programming at the liberal advocacy group MoveOn, “before it’s too late.”“We have reached a point in this chamber where Republicans appear to oppose any measure — no matter how common sense — to protect voting rights and strengthen our democracy,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesThe Census Bureau was expected on Thursday to share detailed demographic data with states, kicking off the final stages of the once-in-a-decade process of redrawing congressional districts. Under the current rules, Republicans plan to press their advantages in control of state redistricting processes to draw new maps that tilt the national playing field toward their own candidates, making it easier to retake control of the House next year.The For the People Act, which passed the House this spring, would end partisan gerrymandering by both parties by forcing states to use independent commissions to draw district boundaries. The bill would also mandate that states set up automatic voter registration, 15 days of early voting and no-excuse mail-in voting. It would require political groups to disclose the identity of their big donors.But Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, said Democrats could soon lose their window of opportunity to change the course of the redistricting process and the 2022 election. In time, it could similarly become difficult to stop the effects of new voting laws in more than a dozen Republican states that experts say will make it harder for young people and people of color to vote.“If something passes after states have gone through those processes and the election is underway, it would be much less likely that any congressional requirement could go into effect before the 2024 elections,” Mr. Hasen said of the redistricting process.Still, Democratic leaders insist they are making progress and can pass elections legislation even as they try to sew up two vast infrastructure and social program bills in the fall.Mr. Manchin, the only Democratic senator who does not support the original For the People Act, appears to be on the cusp of endorsing a somewhat narrower alternative that he has spent weeks negotiating with fellow Democrats. The new bill is likely to maintain many of the pillars of the original legislation, but include for the first time a national voter identification requirement and lop off new ethics requirements and a public campaign financing program for senators.Mr. Manchin said this week that he was still trying to win Republican votes for the plan, an unlikely outcome. But his colleagues have another motivation: They believe that Mr. Manchin will be more determined to fight for — and potentially change Senate rules for — a bill he helped write and watched Republicans tank.Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia is the only Democratic senator who does not support the original For the People Act, but he appears close to endorsing a narrower alternative.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times“This is an iterative process,” said Senator Raphael Warnock, a Georgia Democrat pushing party leaders not to let the issue lapse. He acknowledged they were up against a “tight deadline.”The votes early Wednesday morning appeared to be intended to make precisely that point. After hours of debate over Democrats’ separate $3.5 trillion budget blueprint, Mr. Schumer tried to force debates and votes on the original For the People Act, and on narrower bills focused on redistricting and campaign finance disclosure using unanimous consent to waive the normal Senate procedures.Republicans blocked all three, which they said constituted an attempt by Democrats to usurp the states and rewrite election rules for their benefit.“This isn’t going to work,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “It isn’t going to work tonight, and it isn’t going to work when we get back.”Republicans have threatened to grind the Senate to a halt if Democrats ax the filibuster rule. Mr. McConnell also suggested that his vote on Tuesday for Mr. Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure package was in part to show Ms. Sinema and Mr. Manchin — two of its lead architects — that the Senate could still function in a bipartisan way.So far, it has worked.Ms. Sinema told ABC’s “The View” last week that a rules change could backfire and allow Republicans to pass a nationwide ban on mail-in voting when they next control Congress. And in an interview this month, Mr. Manchin appeared to rule out any filibuster exemptions.But Democrats still believe the new state voting laws and Republican efforts to rack up new safely red House seats in the weeks ahead may help move the senators.“They are going to try to use the redistricting process to draw themselves into the majority, not only in the House of Representatives but the state legislatures,” said Eric H. Holder Jr., the former attorney general who leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.Mr. Holder said that as long as Congress passed legislation outlawing the practice by the fall, Democrats could probably use the courts to stop the new maps. If not, he suggested Republicans might be correct when they spoke of locking in “a decade of power.”“That’s what’s at stake,” he said. More