Elections

¿Los demócratas dieron por sentado el voto hispano en 2020? Algunos en el partido creen que sí y que no pueden permitirse los mismos errores en el futuro.En la primavera, Alejandra Gomez quedó sorprendida, pero agradecida, por la avalancha de llamadas telefónicas de la Casa Blanca que le ofrecían información actualizada sobre sus labores encaminadas a una reforma de inmigración. Los funcionarios también le preguntaron qué pensaba su grupo de defensoría de Arizona acerca de su trabajo con respecto al derecho al voto y cómo el paquete de ayuda por la pandemia estaba afectando ese estado.“Es totalmente diferente de lo que hemos visto antes”, señaló Gomez, al comparar esos esfuerzos con gobiernos demócratas anteriores, los cuales por lo general solo empezaban a establecer contacto durante las campañas de reelección.No era la única. Los líderes de la Asociación Nacional de Funcionarios Latinos Electos y Designados se quedaron estupefactos cuando tanto el presidente como la vicepresidenta se comprometieron a pronunciar un discurso en su convención de junio, la primera vez en las décadas que tiene de historia el evento en que los principales funcionarios de la Casa Blanca habían aceptado participar en un año no electoral.También en Wisconsin, los miembros de Voces de la Frontera, un grupo que representa a los trabajadores inmigrantes de bajos ingresos, quedaron encantados cuando la Casa Blanca se comunicó con ellos para organizar un diálogo con el secretario del Trabajo Marty Walsh durante una gira que hizo por Milwaukee.“Tuvimos la oportunidad de que todos nuestros miembros fueran a escucharlo y de que él nos escuchara”, señaló Christine Neumann-Ortiz, directora ejecutiva de la organización. “Es una buena señal que no se hayan olvidado de nosotros después de las elecciones”.Durante años, los activistas y organizadores latinos se quejaron de que los esfuerzos de los demócratas por conquistar a sus comunidades casi siempre parecían una idea tardía, un conjunto heterogéneo de anuncios en español, literatura de campaña traducida de manera descuidada y un puñado de miembros del personal de divulgación añadido a las campañas.Sin embargo, después de las elecciones del año pasado, cuando los republicanos obtuvieron una cantidad significativa de votos latinos en todo Estados Unidos, los líderes demócratas están viendo la posibilidad de tener un acercamiento más activo.Encabezado por una Casa Blanca que ha contratado a organizadores latinos importantes en los puestos de alto nivel del gabinete y con una primera dama, Jill Biden, que tiene un interés especial por llegar a los votantes latinos, este nuevo esfuerzo construye un puente en el partido e integra la política, las comunicaciones y la organización política. Este acercamiento incluye una amplia cantidad de líderes comunitarios y estrellas de redes sociales, como, por ejemplo, el cómico mexicano Eugenio Derbez, así como reuniones con líderes religiosos hispanos.Estos esfuerzos reflejan cuán importantes son los electores latinos para el éxito del Partido Demócrata, pero también la magnitud del trabajo que se necesita para volver a ganar a un grupo que representa casi el 20 por ciento de la población. Desde hace mucho tiempo, los demócratas han visto a estos electores —un grupo diverso que incluye docenas de diferentes países de origen y una amplia variedad de niveles socioeconómicos— como un bloque casi monolítico que podía darse por sentado y operaban como si el factor más importante fuera solo la participación; la lógica era que, si los electores latinos votaban, lo harían por los demócratas.Sin embargo, el año 2020, con una cifra histórica de 18,7 millones de votos emitidos por latinos, fue una prueba de lo equivocada que estaba esa teoría. Pese a que más o menos el 60 por ciento votó por el presidente Joe Biden, la inclinación hacia Donald Trump hizo que los demócratas entraran en un periodo de examen de conciencia.Aunque no ha habido un análisis detallado y concluyente, las encuestas de salida y los grupos de muestra de ambos partidos señalan que Trump ganó los votos de los latinos sin formación universitaria que criticaron los mandatos de cierre de actividades en medio de la pandemia y que creían que el expresidente sería un mejor administrador de la economía. Los republicanos también ganaron votos de los cubanos, los venezolanos y los colombianos del sur de Florida que consideraban que los demócratas apoyaban el socialismo, así como de los mexicoestadounidenses del sur de Texas y otras regiones que respaldaban sus políticas fronterizas. Los evangélicos conformaron una parte significativa de los latinos seguidores de Trump por su rechazo al aborto.Ahora, el Partido Demócrata está intentando usar los datos para entender mejor a los electores latinos y tratar de ampliar un conocimiento más detallado de cómo los diversos orígenes de nacionalidad, el nivel económico y otros factores cambian el comportamiento en las votaciones.Como candidato y presidente electo, Biden ha tenido un éxito desigual en su comunicación con los latinos. En las elecciones primarias a principios de 2020, siguió de cerca a su rival Bernie Sanders entre los electores latinos. Altos funcionarios latinos se frustraron durante su campaña el año pasado por la ausencia de representantes hispanos en su círculo más cercano.Algunos activistas califican en voz baja los nuevos esfuerzos como mediocres y señalan que, aunque la comunicación ha aumentado, no ha habido ninguna victoria importante de la política en torno a un asunto primordial como una reforma de inmigración. Pero reconocen que hay una aceptación cada vez mayor de que para ganar los votos latinos se necesitará más que hacer visitas en taquerías e insertar frases, en un mal español, en los discursos de campaña.“En términos de su compromiso, están haciendo un trabajo mucho mejor en este momento que durante el primer gobierno de Barack Obama”, dijo Arturo Vargas, el director ejecutivo de la Asociación Nacional de Funcionarios Latinos Electos, que recientemente informó a los miembros del personal de la Casa Blanca sobre las prioridades políticas de la organización. “No tuvimos este tipo de acercamiento con Obama”.“Espero que se haya aprendido la lección de que no se puede dar por sentado el voto latino”, añadió Vargas. “Llevamos décadas diciéndolo, y creo que ahora llegó a oídos más dispuestos”.Los esfuerzos de los demócratas también se ajustan para convencer a los votantes de que vean los beneficios de las políticas del partido, sobre todo en lugares claves como el sur de Florida y el Valle del Río Grande, donde un mayor abandono podría costarles escaños en el Congreso.Arturo Vargas, director ejecutivo de la Asociación Nacional de Funcionarios Latinos Electos, dijo que el acercamiento del gobierno de Biden hasta ahora era una mejora sobre el primer mandato del presidente Barack Obama.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesDesde que Biden tomó posesión, la Casa Blanca ha celebrado decenas de reuniones, muchas de ellas virtuales, con dirigentes de todo el país. También está encontrando maneras de comunicarse de modo directo con los votantes latinos y no depender solo de los grupos de defensoría.Hay reuniones bisemanales con las organizaciones de latinos acerca de las labores de vacunación y las políticas económicas, así como reuniones cara a cara y sesiones informativas sobre temas más específicos. Durante varios meses, los funcionarios responsables de la contratación sostuvieron reuniones semanales con organizaciones externas a fin de ayudar a desarrollar una cartera de candidatos latinos para puestos en el gobierno. El esfuerzo ha tenido éxito: ahora, una gran cantidad de organizadores y estrategas latinos tienen puestos de alto nivel en la Casa Blanca y el gabinete.Los asesores de la Casa Blanca afirman que muchas de las prioridades más importantes de la política serán beneficiar a los electores latinos de manera significativa; por ejemplo, el crédito tributario por hijos podría tener un efecto impactante en la población latina desproporcionadamente joven. En una encuesta privada de votantes latinos compartida con The New York Times, Building Back Together, un grupo administrado por aliados de Biden, se descubrió que los asuntos económicos y de salud pública estaban situados en los dos primeros lugares y que la inmigración estaba en el tercero.El gobierno tiene cubierta la televisión en español y se ha acercado a las publicaciones en español y en inglés que leen los votantes latinos, incluso en zonas a menudo olvidadas de Oklahoma, Luisiana y Minnesota. Un alto funcionario del gobierno aparece en Al Punto, el programa matutino de los domingos presentado por Jorge Ramos, dos veces al mes.Animada por su jefa de gabinete latina a intensificar su participación, la doctora Biden hizo su primera aparición matutina en televisión en Hoy Día, un programa de noticias de Telemundo, y una serie de paradas en barrios latinos desde Salt Lake City hasta Osceola, Florida.Hay llamadas quincenales con organizaciones latinas sobre los esfuerzos de vacunación y las políticas económicas, así como reuniones individuales y sesiones informativas sobre cuestiones más específicas. Los funcionarios responsables de la contratación mantuvieron durante meses llamadas semanales con organizaciones externas para ayudar a desarrollar una cantera de candidatos latinos para los puestos en el gobierno. El esfuerzo ha tenido éxito: varios organizadores y estrategas latinos ocupan ahora puestos de alto nivel en la Casa Blanca y el gabinete.Los asesores de la Casa Blanca afirman que muchas de las principales prioridades políticas beneficiarán significativamente a los votantes latinos; la desgravación fiscal por hijos, por ejemplo, podría tener un impacto enorme en una población latina que es desproporcionadamente joven. En un sondeo privado de votantes latinos compartido con The New York Times, Building Back Together, un grupo dirigido por aliados de Biden, encontró que las preocupaciones económicas y la salud pública eran los temas más importantes, con la inmigración en tercer lugar.Los altos asesores afirmaron que estaban especialmente contentos de que, al parecer, sus esfuerzos de vacunación hayan rendido frutos, ya que se ha reducido la brecha entre los latinos y los estadounidenses blancos que han recibido la vacuna. A los latinos les ha afectado la pandemia de manera particular, en parte porque conforman una cantidad desproporcionada de los trabajadores esenciales y porque su esperanza de vida está disminuyendo mucho.“En definitiva es intencionado”, señaló Emmy Ruiz, directora de estrategia política de la Casa Blanca, “en todo lo que hacemos, hay un latino involucrado”.Es un planteamiento que difiere del pasado. Durante el gobierno de Obama, gran parte del acercamiento venía después de las elecciones intermedias y se enfocaba principalmente en la legislación sobre la atención médica y la Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia, la cual permitía a los inmigrantes jóvenes que ingresaron al país de manera no autorizada vivir y trabajar en Estados Unidos.Sin embargo, los esfuerzos no son suficientes para lo que muchos líderes latinos esperan ver, sobre todo a raíz de las elecciones del año pasado, cuando los votos de los latinos tomaron por sorpresa a muchos funcionarios demócratas.“En este momento se requiere un gran esfuerzo”, comentó Carlos Odio, cofundador de Equis Labs, un grupo de investigación que ha pasado los últimos meses analizando los cambios entre los electores latinos durante el último ciclo electoral. “Me preocupa que exista la creencia de que el año pasado fue anómalo y de que solo tiene que regresar a la normalidad. Eso es inquietante sobre todo si los republicanos regresan a hacer campaña para obtener esos votos”.Parte del empuje es preventivo, diseñado para asegurar que los votantes latinos reconozcan que los demócratas están al menos tratando de aprobar una revisión de la inmigración.Hay un amplio apoyo a la legislación para conceder a los dreamers un camino hacia la ciudadanía, incluso entre los republicanos latinos. Incluso entre los votantes latinos que no ven la inmigración como su principal problema, la mayoría dice que no votaría por un candidato que se oponga a dicha legislación, según las encuestas de Building Back Together.Seguidores del entonces presidente Donald Trump vitorean en un mitin durante la noche de las elecciones en el barrio de la Pequeña Habana de Miami en noviembre.Scott McIntyre para The New York TimesEntre los demócratas latinos, existe la creencia generalizada de que el país está mejorando, incluso para los propios latinos. Pero los republicanos hispanos dicen que la situación en Estados Unidos ha empeorado en el último año, según una encuesta reciente del Pew Research Center.“Los demócratas están en código rojo: lo ven, lo entienden y se apresuran a poner todas las manos en la masa”, dijo Daniel Garza, director ejecutivo de Libre, un grupo latino conservador.Los estrategas demócratas, que todavía están lidiando con los resultados de 2020, han culpado a varios factores de las pérdidas: la preocupación por la delincuencia, el miedo al socialismo avivado por la campaña de Trump e incluso el machismo de los hombres latinos.Para tratar de evitar una nueva caída de apoyos durante las elecciones de mitad de mandato, los comités de campaña demócratas ya invierten millones para instalar organizadores en distritos con gran presencia de latinos en Florida, Texas, Arizona y Georgia.“Cuando tienes un grupo que es tan nuevo, tan grande y que está creciendo a tasas tan altas, requiere una conversación constante”, dijo Matt Barreto, un encuestador demócrata que se ha centrado en los votantes latinos durante décadas y está involucrado en los esfuerzos de Building Back Together. “Queremos tener años de conversación para que, cuando llegue una campaña, no estemos tratando de gritarle a la gente”.Jennifer Medina es reportera de política estadounidense que cubrió la campaña presidencial de Estados Unidos de 2020. Originaria del sur de California, anteriormente pasó varios años reporteando sobre la región para la sección National. @jennymedinaLisa Lerer es una corresponsal política nacional que cubre campañas electorales, votaciones y poder político. @llerer More

Less than a month ago President Biden promised a “summer of joy,” a return to normal life made possible by the rapid progress of vaccinations against Covid-19. Since then, however, vaccination has largely stalled — America, which had pulled ahead of many other advanced countries, has fallen behind. And the rise of the Delta variant has caused a surge in cases all too reminiscent of the repeated Covid waves of last year.That said, 2021 isn’t 2020 redux. As Aaron Carroll pointed out Tuesday in The Times, Covid is now a crisis for the unvaccinated. Risks for vaccinated Americans aren’t zero, but they’re vastly lower than for those who haven’t gotten a vaccine.What Carroll didn’t say, but is also true, is that Covid is now a crisis largely for red states. And it’s important to make that point both to understand where we are and as a reminder of the political roots of America’s pandemic failures.Just to be clear, I’m not saying that only Republicans are failing to get vaccinated. It’s true that there are stark differences in attitudes toward the vaccines, with one poll showing 47 percent of Republicans saying they are unlikely to get a shot, compared with only 6 percent of Democrats. It’s also true that if we compare U.S. counties, there’s a strong negative correlation between Donald Trump’s share of the 2020 vote and the current vaccination rate.That said, vaccination rates among Black and Hispanic Americans remain persistently lower than among the non-Hispanic white population, an indication that issues like lack of information and trust are also inhibiting our response.But simply looking at who remains unvaccinated misses what may soon become a crucial point: The danger from Covid’s resurgence depends not just on the number of cases nationwide but also on how concentrated those cases are geographically.To see why, it may help to remember all the talk about “flattening the curve” early in the pandemic.At that point effective vaccines seemed a distant prospect. This in turn made it seem likely that a large fraction of the population would eventually contract the virus whatever we did. Prevaccine, it seemed as if the only way to avoid long-run mass infection was the New Zealand strategy: a severe lockdown to reduce cases to a very low level, followed by a test-trace-isolate regime to quickly put a lid on any flare-ups. And it seemed all too clear that the U.S. lacked the political will to pursue such a strategy.Yet there was still good reason to impose social distancing rules and mask requirements. Even if most people would eventually get the virus, it was important that they not all get sick at once, because that would overload the health care system. This would cause many preventable deaths, not just from Covid-19 but also because other ailments couldn’t be treated if the hospitals, and especially intensive care units, were already full.This logic, by the way, was why claims that mask mandates and distancing guidelines were attacks on “freedom” were always nonsense. Do we think people should be free to drive drunk? No, not just because in so doing they endanger themselves, but even more because they endanger others. The same was true for refusing to wear masks last year — and for refusing to get vaccinated now.As it turned out, masks and social distancing were even better ideas than we realized: They bought time until the arrival of vaccines, so that a great majority of those who managed to avoid Covid in 2020, and have since been vaccinated, may never get it.But there are regions in America where large numbers of people have refused vaccination. Those regions appear to be approaching the point we feared in the early stages of the pandemic, with hospitalizations overwhelming the health care system. And the divide between places that are in crisis and those that aren’t is starkly political. New York has five Covid patients hospitalized per 100,000 people; Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis barred businesses from requiring that their patrons show proof of vaccination, has 34.So, will Covid’s resurgence stop America’s much-awaited return to normalcy? In much of the country, no. Yes, vaccination has stalled far too soon even in blue states, and residents of those states should be a bit more cautious, for example by resuming mask-wearing when indoors (which many people in the Northeast never stopped). But so far it doesn’t look as if the Delta variant will prevent continuing recovery, social and economic.There are, however, places that really should put strong measures into effect — mask mandates for sure, and maybe even partial lockdowns — to buy time while they catch up on vaccinations.Unfortunately, these are precisely the places that will almost surely do no such thing. Missouri is experiencing one of the worst current Covid outbreaks, yet on Tuesday the St. Louis County Council voted to end a mask mandate introduced by the county executive.In any case, it’s crucial to understand that we aren’t facing a national crisis; we’re facing a red-state crisis, with nakedly political roots.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

Republicans in Georgia’s General Assembly have requested a performance review of the top election official in Fulton County, the first step in a possible takeover of the county’s electoral process that could give the Republican-led legislature more control over an area with the largest concentration of Democratic voters in the state.The request, submitted in a letter on Tuesday by State Senator Butch Miller and signed by about two dozen other Republican state senators, calls for a panel review of Richard Barron, the county election director, over what the lawmakers described as a failure to properly perform risk-limiting audits, a process that helps ensure the correct results and security, after the 2020 election.“We do so as a measure of last resort, having failed to adequately assuage the concern that we, as elected officials, have regarding the integrity of the Fulton County elections process,” Mr. Miller wrote in the letter.Fulton County, which includes much of Atlanta, has a record of problems with its elections. Most recently, its June 2020 primary contest was marred by voting machine difficulties that were exacerbated by the small size and poor training of its staff, causing lines to stretch for hours across the county.But the November general election and the January runoff elections in the county ran relatively smoothly on each Election Day, with few reports of lengthy waits or other complications. There were no legitimate questions about the accuracy of the results in any of the three recent elections. In the presidential race, President Biden carried the county with more than 72 percent of the vote and more than 380,000 votes.The review process for local election officials is a newly critical element to Georgia elections after state Republicans passed a sweeping new voting law in April. It includes several provisions that lay the groundwork for an extraordinary takeover of election administration by partisan lawmakers.Under the new law, the State Elections Board is permitted to replace county election board members after a performance review or investigation. But the new law also restructures the state board, stripping the secretary of state of his authority and giving the legislature the ability to appoint members, including the chair.The letter, which was earlier reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, was signed by three Republican members of the Fulton County delegation in the State Senate. The letter’s authors said they expected members of Fulton County’s House delegation to join them, which would automatically begin the review.State Representative Chuck Martin, a Republican member of the Fulton County House delegation, said he supported the request for the performance review. Jan Jones, the speaker pro tempore and another member of the delegation, said that she would send a letter on Friday to the State Elections Board requesting a performance review of Fulton County elections officials, and that it would be signed by four members of the Fulton delegation.“Mine is not with an eye on taking over elections,” Mr. Martin said in an interview on Thursday. “This just seems to be the only way we can get data to get answers for the people we represent.”Mr. Barron, the Fulton County election director, did not respond to requests for comment.Democrats quickly denounced the move, warning that it undermined the sanctity of future elections.“After giving themselves unprecedented power under Senate Bill 202, Republicans wasted no time in waging an anti-democratic, partisan power grab, attempting to seize control of elections in Georgia’s largest county, home to the greatest number of voters of color in the state,” said Lauren Groh-Wargo, the chief executive of Fair Fight Action, a Democratic voting rights group based in Georgia. “Their partisan efforts risk election subversion.”Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state, supported the review.“I have called repeatedly for change in Fulton’s elections leadership, so I’m glad Republican legislators are joining me in this effort,” he said in a statement. “After Fulton’s failures last June, I required Fulton to accept a monitor during the general election and runoffs, and forced the county into a consent agreement to start fixing their management problems.” More

A review of 2020 election ballots cast in Arizona’s largest county, billed as strictly nonpartisan when Republicans in the Arizona State Senate ordered it late last year, has been financed almost entirely by supporters of former President Donald J. Trump, according to a statement released late Wednesday by the private firm overseeing the review.The firm, Cyber Ninjas, said that it had collected more than $5.7 million from five pro-Trump organizations for the widely disparaged review, in addition to $150,000 that the State Senate had allotted for the project. An Arizona county court had ordered the sources of the audit’s funding released after Republicans in the Senate resisted making them public.The review of 2.1 million ballots in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix and roughly 80 percent of the state’s population, has covered only votes last November for president and for the state’s two seats in the United States Senate, all of which were won by Democrats. The president of the State Senate, Karen Fann, said this week that results of the audit should be released next month.Ms. Fann and other senators said the recount, whose findings have no authority to change the winners of any race, was needed to reassure supporters of Mr. Trump that the vote was fairly conducted. But the effort has come under growing attack in the wake of disclosures that the chief executive of Cyber Ninjas and other purported experts involved in the review had ties to the “stop the steal” movement spawned by Mr. Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud.Election experts have called the recount amateurish and error-ridden, and ridiculed its efforts to verify allegations by conspiracy theorists that fake ballots could be identified by traces of bamboo fibers or invisible watermarks. One Republican senator withdrew his backing of the effort in May, calling it an embarrassment, and a second senator accused Ms. Fann last week of mismanaging the process, and said its results could not be trusted.It had been apparent since the review began in April that supporters of Mr. Trump were both donating money to the effort and recruiting volunteers to work on it. But the sources and size of the donations had not been disclosed until Wednesday.According to the Cyber Ninjas statement, the largest donation, $3.25 million, was made by a newly created group, America Project, led by Patrick M. Byrne, the former chief executive of the Overstock.com website and a prominent proponent of false claims that the November election was rigged.Mr. Byrne resigned his post at Overstock in 2019 after it was disclosed that he had an intimate relationship with Maria Butina, a gun-rights activist who was jailed in 2018 as an unregistered foreign agent for Russia and later deported. He later said he had contributed $500,000 to the Arizona review, and produced a film featuring the Cyber Ninjas chief executive, Doug Logan, that alleged that the November election was fraudulent.The statement said that another pro-Trump group, America’s Future, contributed $976,514 to the review. An additional $605,000 came from Voices and Votes, a group organized by Christina Bobb, an anchor for the pro-Trump television network One America News, who solicited donations for the review while covering it. More

Representative Nydia Velázquez reminded Eric Adams to treat everyone with respect, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez echoed her comments.When Eric Adams arrived on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, he received a warm welcome from members of the state’s congressional delegation — but also a pointed reminder about the importance of unity.At a closed-door meeting of New York Democratic elected officials, Representative Nydia M. Velázquez advised Mr. Adams, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, to avoid any appearance of criticizing members of the delegation, according to seven people familiar with the exchange.“I said I wanted to remind him that in the age of social media and communications, that we needed to be careful as to what we say and that it is important that we treated everyone with respect,” said Ms. Velázquez, an emerging leader of the party’s progressive wing in the state, confirming the account.Her remarks came a day after The New York Post reported that Mr. Adams cast the Democratic Socialists of America as an archenemy at a recent fund-raiser. He did not mention Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by name, the report said. But some nevertheless saw his remarks as implicit criticism of the congresswoman, who is closely associated with the democratic socialist group, particularly given Mr. Adams’s rebuke of her policing positions during the primary.“It was important to clear the air,” Ms. Velázquez said. “I said, ‘Look, we have disagreements, and we have different approaches, and we have different philosophies, but that doesn’t entitle anyone to be disrespectful to anyone.’ And I want for him to know that I am prepared to call people out when those things happen.”Rep. Nydia Velázquez has become an influential power broker in the Democratic Party’s progressive wing.Pool photo by Susan WalshIn a brief interview Wednesday evening, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez declined to discuss the meeting with Mr. Adams specifically but offered him a piece of advice.“It is always a good idea for any mayor to respect all of the members that are responsible for representing the delegation, and not just to respect us as individuals but to respect the communities that we represent,” she said. “I think it’s important to preserve that on a higher note.”The gathering illustrated both opportunities and perils for Mr. Adams, the brash Brooklyn borough president who is almost certain to become mayor of New York City, where registered Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans. He has a penchant for hyperbole and can veer into strikingly sharp criticism of opponents, as he sometimes did during the mayoral primary campaign. Ms. Velázquez’s admonition was a reminder that in her view, he risked doing a disservice to New York if he were to antagonize members of its delegation.But for now, delegation members and other national Democrats appear eager to embrace Mr. Adams, and several attendees said he reciprocated with strong interest in engaging with Washington and in resetting relationships after a bruising primary.“After Election Day, we’re no longer campaigning,” Mr. Adams said. “We’re governing.”Mr. Adams stressed to reporters after the meeting that he had not singled out Ms. Ocasio-Cortez by name as a political foe.The delegation meeting marked a significant day for Mr. Adams, who met with some of the highest-ranking Democrats in the nation, including Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 House Democrat; Representative Hakeem Jeffries, New York’s top House Democrat; and the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer.“Eric is going to be a mayor for all New Yorkers, regardless of party or ideology,” said Evan Thies, Mr. Adams’s campaign spokesman. He did not dispute the attendees’ accounts of Mr. Adams’s exchange with Ms. Velázquez.Several lawmakers said that Mr. Adams approached the meeting hoping to engage Democratic lawmakers across the ideological spectrum, including those who opposed him in the primary.It was a chance, they said, to build strong working relationships as New York City navigates staggering challenges concerning public health, safety, education and the economy.Representative Ritchie Torres, an early backer of Andrew Yang’s mayoral campaign, said Mr. Adams “recognizes that the partnership between the New York City congressional delegation and the mayor is indispensable.”“He essentially said that he cannot succeed without the delegation,” said Mr. Torres outside the event. “The delegation is united in enabling him to govern New York as effectively as possible. Everything else is secondary.”Mr. Torres and others in attendance said Mr. Adams demonstrated humility and a clear eagerness to collaborate.Representative Jamaal Bowman, a left-wing lawmaker, dismissed primary season disagreements as “water under the bridge,” though he said he supported Ms. Velázquez’s remarks in the meeting. He said he and Mr. Adams found common ground around issues of education and ensuring students receive sufficient support. “We’ve got to work together to meet the needs of the city,” he said.Ms. Velázquez emphasized that they had also discussed issues including affordable housing, and she pledged to work with Mr. Adams “because it’s about the city of New York.”Mr. Adams, who also attended a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus, was invited to the delegation gathering by Representative Jerrold Nadler, the dean of the congressional delegation, both men said.After the meeting, Mr. Adams said in a statement that attendees discussed issues including combating gun violence, doubling federal investment in the New York City Housing Authority, improving education and child care and battling climate change.He took several questions from the news media, flanked by Mr. Jeffries; Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, the chairman of the House Democratic campaign arm; and Representatives Adriano Espaillat and Thomas Suozzi, two significant endorsers.Mr. Adams, a former police captain who sought to combat police misconduct from within the system, ran for office promising to battle both violent crime and racial injustice. In the primary, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Maya Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio who called for a narrower role for the police in public safety. After Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement, Mr. Adams claimed that she and Ms. Wiley “would endanger the lives of New Yorkers” with their policies.After several of Ms. Wiley’s most progressive rivals for the nomination faltered, many left-wing New Yorkers coalesced behind her. Some of those Democrats looked askance at Mr. Adams’s policy positions, including his embrace of the business and real estate sectors and his support for charter schools. A former senior adviser to Justice Democrats, an organization that played a key role in elevating Ms. Ocasio-Cortez to Congress, led a small super PAC that campaigned for Ms. Wiley, and against Mr. Adams.As Mr. Adams’s meeting with the delegation wrapped up, there was one more show of unity between Ms. Velázquez and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez: Ms. Ocasio-Cortez put her arm around Ms. Velázquez, and they walked off in an extended embrace.Nicholas Fandos and Chris Cameron contributed reporting from Washington. More

This essay is part of a series exploring bold ideas to revitalize and renew the American experiment. Read more about this project in a note from Ezekiel Kweku, Opinion’s politics editor.

.seriestext {
width: 600px;
margin: 0 auto 20px;
max-width: calc(100% – 40px);
font-family: nyt-imperial;
line-height: 1.5;
font-size: 20px;
border-top: 0;
padding-top: 0;
border-bottom: 1px solid #e2e2e2;
padding-bottom: 25px;
font-style: italic;
text-align: left;
}

section#endorsement-promotext {
margin: 25px auto; max-width: calc(100% – 40px); } .seriestext a:link { text-decoration: underline; text-decoration-color: #ccc; color: inherit; } @media screen and (max-width: 720px){ .seriestext { font-size: 18px; line-height: 25px; max-width: calc(100% – 40px); } .seriestext br{ display:none; } }
Washingtonians love to complain about taxation without representation. But for me and my fellow noncitizens, it is a fact of political life that we submit to unquestioningly year after year, primary after primary, presidential election after presidential election. Nearly 15 million people living legally in the United States, most of whom contribute as much as any natural-born American to this country’s civic, cultural and economic life, don’t have a say in matters of politics and policy because we — resident foreign nationals, or “aliens” as we are sometimes called — cannot vote.Considering the Supreme Court’s recent decision undermining voting rights, and Republicans’ efforts to suppress, redistrict and manipulate their way to electoral security, it’s time for Democrats to radically expand the electorate. Proposing federal legislation to give millions of young people and essential workers a clear road to citizenship is a good start. But there’s another measure that lawmakers both in Washington and state capitals should put in place: lifting voting restrictions on legal residents who aren’t citizens — people with green cards, people here on work visas, and those who arrived in the country as children and are still waiting for permanent papers.Expanding the franchise in this way would give American democracy new life, restore immigrants’ trust in government and send a powerful message of inclusion to the rest of the world.It’s easy to assume that restricting the franchise to citizens is an age-old, nonnegotiable fact. But it’s actually a relatively recent convention and a political choice. Early in the United States’ history, voting was a function not of national citizenship but of gender, race and class. As a result, white male landowners of all nationalities were encouraged to play an active role in shaping American democracy, while women and poor, Indigenous and enslaved people could not. That wholesale discrimination is unquestionably worse than excluding resident foreigners from the polls, but the point is that history shows how readily voting laws can be altered — and that restrictive ones tend not to age well.Another misconception is that citizen voting rights have always been the prerogative of the federal government. In fact, states have largely decided who had a say in local, state and national elections. Arkansas was the last state to eliminate noncitizen voting in 1926, and it wasn’t until 1996 that Congress doubled down with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which made voting in federal elections while foreign — already not permitted because of state-level rules — a criminal, and deportable, offense. (This means that congressional Democrats working on immigration and election reform can reverse the 1996 sanctions the same way they voted them in.)The strongest case for noncitizen voting today is representation: The more voters show up to the polls, the more accurately elections reflect peoples’ desires. The United States already has plenty of institutions that account for noncitizens: The census aims to reach all residents because it believes everyone, even aliens, matters. Corporations enjoy free speech and legal personhood — and they’re not even people. Would it be such a stretch to give a noncitizen resident a say in who gets elected to their state legislature, Congress or the White House?What’s more, allowing noncitizens to vote in federal, state and municipal elections would help revitalize American democracy at a time when enthusiasm and trust are lacking. While 2020 was considered a “high turnout” election, only about 65 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. Compare that to Germany, where turnout was 76 percent in the last general election.Democrats are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of this change — at least at first. But it could have interesting ripple effects: Elected Republicans might be induced to appeal to a more diverse constituency, or perhaps to enthuse their constituents so deeply that they too start to vote in greater numbers.It’s also just good civics: Allowing people to vote gives them even more of a sense of investment in their towns, cities, communities and country. There’s a detachment that comes with not being able to vote in the place where you live. Concerns about mixed loyalties, meanwhile, are misplaced. The United States not only allows dual citizenship but also allows dual citizens to vote — and from abroad. Is there any reason to think resident foreigners should be less represented?Voting is, in a sense, a reward for becoming an American. But in truth, it’s often much harder to get a visa or green card than to then become a naturalized citizen. It took me 15 years and over $10,000 in legal fees (not to mention the cost of college) to obtain permanent residency. The citizenship test and oath feel comparatively like a piece of cake.It shouldn’t be this onerous to emigrate. But given that it is, it would make much more sense to make residents provide proof of voter registration as a requirement for naturalization, rather than the other way around. We will have more than “earned” it. And what better way to learn about American life than to play an active role in deciding its elections?In the absence of federal- or state-level action, local lawmakers are already free let noncitizens decide on things like garbage pickup, parking rules and potholes. Some do. Since 1992, Takoma Park, Md., has allowed all residents to vote, regardless of their citizenship. Nine additional Maryland towns, as well as districts in Vermont and Massachusetts, have voted to re-enfranchise noncitizens. The cities of Chicago, Washington and Portland are also considering the idea, and a bill that would give New York City’s authorized immigrants voting rights has a new supermajority in the City Council.I’ve lived in New York since 2004, but haven’t once had a chance to cast a ballot here. Last fall, I grew so frustrated that I started mailing ballots to my hometown in Switzerland. But voting in a place I haven’t lived in since I was a minor makes about as little sense as not voting in the city where I’ve lived my entire adult life.I’m looking forward to City Council giving me, and the other million or so friendly aliens living here, the right to vote for New York’s officials. But we should be able to vote for our representatives in Washington, too. I hope that Democrats seize their chance, and realize the power and the enthusiasm of their potential constituents. They — and we — will not regret it.Atossa Araxia Abrahamian (@atossaaraxia) is the author of “The Cosmopolites: The Coming Global Citizen.” She is working on a second book about weird jurisdictions.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.hed More

The department said that auditors could face criminal or civil penalties if they flouted elections laws.WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Wednesday sent another warning shot to Republican state legislatures that have initiated private audits of voting tabulations broadly viewed as efforts to cast doubt on the results of the presidential election.The department warned that auditors could face criminal and civil penalties if they destroy any records related to the election or intimidate voters in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and federal laws prohibiting voter intimidation.The admonishment came in election-related guidance documents issued as part of the department’s larger plan to protect access to the polls, announced by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in June. Another document released on Wednesday outlined federal laws on how ballots are cast and said that the department could scrutinize states that revert to prepandemic voting procedures, which may not have allowed as many people to vote early or by mail.The warning was the Justice Department’s latest effort to alert state lawmakers that their audits could run afoul of federal law. Department officials cautioned the Republican-led Arizona State Senate in May that its audit and recount of the November election in Maricopa County, widely seen as a partisan exercise to fuel grievances over Donald J. Trump’s election loss, may be in violation of the Civil Rights Act.Last month, the Justice Department also sued Georgia over its recently passed, sweeping voting law, accusing the state’s Republican-led legislature of intentionally trying to violate the rights of Black voters in crafting the legislation.The lawsuit, particularly its attempt to prove lawmakers’ intent, was the Biden administration’s most aggressive effort yet to expand or preserve voter protections. But it comes as Senate Republicans have stymied efforts to pass federal voter protection laws and the Justice Department has acknowledged that Supreme Court rulings have limited its own ability to prevent discriminatory voting laws from being enacted in states.While the department can sue over state voting laws it deems discriminatory or over audits that violate federal statutes, multiple election cycles will play out before those cases are resolved in the courts.The Arizona audit is led by a private contractor called Cyber Ninjas whose owner, Doug Logan, has shared conspiracy theories that voting machines were rigged and that the election was stolen from Mr. Trump.A county judge in Arizona recently ruled that the state’s Republican senators must make public information about Cyber Ninjas and other private companies hired to conduct the Maricopa County audit, rejecting their request to keep the documents secret.“It is difficult to conceive of a case with a more compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny,” Judge Michael W. Kemp of Maricopa County Superior Court wrote in the ruling.While the Justice Department did not name the Arizona audit in its guidance documents, it said that it was concerned that some jurisdictions conducting audits could imperil the existence of election records.“This risk is exacerbated if the election records are given to private actors who have neither experience nor expertise in handling such records and who are unfamiliar with the obligations imposed by federal law,” the department said in one document.A Justice Department official speaking to reporters declined to say whether any audits had been found to have violated the Civil Rights Act. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity and did not provide a justification for doing so.The department’s guidance also sought to dispel the false notion that the election was marked by rampant fraud, noting that state and federal officials have called it “the most secure in American history.”The guidance mirrored a statement by Mr. Garland last month that states have justified their postelection audits with voter fraud assertions “that have been refuted by the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of both this administration and the previous one, as well as by every court — federal and state — that has considered them.”Mr. Trump and his supporters have falsely claimed that the election was fraudulently stolen from him, ignoring assertions by his own appointed officials that there was no widespread voter fraud.Nevertheless, Arizona, Georgia and other states have used the specter of election fraud to pass legislation that restricts access to the polls and hire private auditing companies to perform recounts that have helped sow doubts about the veracity of the election results.Mr. Garland said in May that the Justice Department would double the enforcement staff that handles voting issues in part to scrutinize these new laws and audits. At the time, the staff numbered around a dozen people, according to people familiar with it.The department official confirmed on Wednesday that the staff size had doubled, but would not specify its total. More

“Finding the truth and holding leaders responsible for what happened on Jan. 6 should not be a partisan issue,” one reader writes.To the Editor:Re “Beaten, Tased and Crushed by Rioters at Capitol” (front page, July 28):For those who do not believe that there was a violent insurrection on Jan. 6 and that former President Donald Trump instigated it, please listen to and watch Tuesday’s testimony of the heroic officers attacked at the Capitol. Your ears and eyes provide the best evidence that this was an assault on our democracy.Finding the truth and holding leaders responsible for what happened on Jan. 6 should not be a partisan issue. Hats off to the two Republican committee members, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, for reminding us about that.As someone who has followed government investigations for nearly 60 years, I have never seen a more gripping and gut-wrenching congressional hearing — one that should be watched and rewatched by all Americans. When asked what the congressional committee should do, several of the officers said political leaders who played any role in causing the insurrection should be investigated and held accountable.Let us honor the request of these brave officers. Doing anything less is to disrespect the heroic service of these public servants and poses a threat to our fragile democracy.Richard CherwitzAustin, TexasTo the Editor:What the officers’ testimonies revealed was that many participants in the assault on the Capitol actually called and felt themselves to be “patriots.” They moved en masse as true believers trying to right an imagined wrong perpetrated on their country, the illegitimate steal of votes from the rightful leader.While we cannot condone the lawlessness of their action and must bring all the perpetrators to justice, we must also study, understand and address the sociological and psychological realities — the fears, disenfranchisement, loneliness and isolation — that motivated the assailants and fueled the horrendous event, if we are to prevent similar attacks from recurring.Carmine GiordanoLake Worth, Fla.The writer is a psychoanalyst.To the Editor:Let me remind everyone that Donald Trump called the folks at the Capitol “peaceful people” and “great people.” These folks, who participated in a riot intended to overturn the presidential election, were actually, if our former president can be believed, a “loving crowd.”On Jan. 6, that “loving crowd” injured about 140 police officers. That riotous lovefest cost four of the rioters their lives. Just imagine how badly things might have gone — for me, for you, for our country, for our democracy — if the mob had been less loving.John R. ScannellSammamish, Wash.To the Editor:As someone who wishes the Democrats well, I believe that this select committee will always be open to criticism that it is partisan. Had Kevin McCarthy’s choices been accepted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the result would have been a more balanced Republican delegation, with both anti-Trump and pro-Trump members. Having Jim Banks and Jim Jordan on the committee would have also forced them to confront the facts as they unfold.Ms. Pelosi’s arrogant rejection of the delegation now ensures that no matter what emerges from the investigation, the committee will be judged as deeply partisan. That will be good neither for the Democrats nor the country.David ParentWallingford, Conn.To the Editor:Re “Jan. 6 Questions I Want Answered,” by Adam Kinzinger (Opinion guest essay, July 28):That Representatives Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney are the only Republicans who have the courage to seek the truth about what happened on that terrible day says so much to me about the blind loyalty the rest of their party has to the former president.Every day, I wonder exactly why this party has made the gamble to support white supremacists, to engage in wild theories about the 2020 election and to obey the instructions of the person who lost the election. What does he hold over these people that they cannot stand up to him?In the end, the more hopeful side of me believes their actions will fail and the serious nature of Mr. Kinzinger’s and Ms. Cheney’s line of inquiry will succeed. It may take a while, but truth will win out over subversion of our government.Jane CarlinNantucket, Mass. More