Elections

The election this week of the sister of Jo Cox, a lawmaker who was killed in 2016, was seen as a victory for Labour’s leader in a region where Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservatives had made big inroads.LONDON — Britain’s opposition Labour Party on Friday scored an unexpected if narrow victory in a battle for an open Parliament seat that was widely seen as a critical test for the party’s leader, Keir Starmer, who has been under pressure for failing to revive the party’s fortunes.Many had expected that the Conservatives would take the seat, which Labour has held since 1997, because of the spoiler campaign of George Galloway. The victory will be a big relief for Mr. Starmer, who faced criticism in May when his party lost a by-election in Hartlepool, another former stronghold in the north of England.That result added weight to the idea that support for Labour had collapsed in the “red wall,” former industrial areas of England in which Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservatives have been making big inroads.Results announced early Friday gave the Labour candidate, Kim Leadbeater, a win of just 323 votes over her Conservative Party rival, Ryan Stephenson, after an acrimonious contest in Batley and Spen, one of Labour’s traditional heartland seats in northern England.Voting in the by-election took place on Thursday after a campaign marred by claims of intimidation, including one episode in which Ms. Leadbeater was heckled aggressively and another that led to the arrest of a man on suspicion of assault in connection with an attack on Labour supporters.Ms. Leadbeater acknowledged that it had been “a grueling few weeks” but added, “I am absolutely delighted that the people of Batley and Spen have rejected division and they voted for hope.”Labour fought hard to retain Batley and Spen, which was represented in Parliament by Ms. Leadbeater’s sister, Jo Cox, until she was murdered by a far-right fanatic in 2016.Ms. Leadbeater’s narrow path to victory was a complicated one. She was competing not only against the Conservative candidate, Mr. Stephenson, but also against Mr. Galloway, a former lawmaker and veteran left-wing campaigner who sought to divert support from Labour.Although Labour held off the challenge from Mr. Galloway, its share of the vote in Batley and Spen was lower than in the 2019 general election.Since the Brexit referendum in 2016, Mr. Johnson’s Conservative Party has succeeded in winning over many of Labour’s core voters in working-class communities in the north and middle of England.Before the result in Batley and Spen, there had been news media speculation that Mr. Starmer would be vulnerable to a leadership challenge if Ms. Leadbeater lost, as many were expecting.Most analysts believed that Mr. Starmer would have been safe regardless of the result, because there is no credible alternative waiting in the wings. But the victory — narrow as it was — will be especially welcome news for the party leaders, because the contest could have been avoided.The by-election was triggered in May when the area’s former Labour lawmaker, Tracy Brabin, was elected to another job as West Yorkshire mayor, requiring her to step down from Parliament. Mr. Starmer was accused of mismanaging the situation and putting the seat at risk by allowing her to run for the mayoral position.Since he took the job of leader last year, Mr. Starmer, a former top prosecutor, has tried to unite the party after it was routed in 2019 parliamentary elections under the stewardship of Jeremy Corbyn, its left-wing leader at the time.Mr. Starmer’s critics have accused him of a lack of charisma and of failing to set out a convincing alternative policy agenda to that of the Conservatives.His defenders have appealed for patience and have contended that the pandemic has made it hard for the opposition to impress voters whose attention is focused on government efforts to bring Covid-19 restrictions to an end.In his election literature, Mr. Galloway had called on voters to abandon Labour to increase pressure on Mr. Starmer and force him out of his job.When the count was completed early Friday, Ms. Leadbeater won 13,296 votes, Mr. Stephenson was in second place with 12,973 and Mr. Galloway third with 8,264.Labour “won this election against the odds,” Mr. Starmer said. “And we did so by showing that when we are true to our values — decency, honesty, committed to improving lives — then Labour can win.” More

.interactive-content { max-width: 100%; width: 100%; } .opinionlabel { text-transform: uppercase; color: #D0021B; font: 700 0.9375rem/1.1rem “nyt-cheltenham”, georgia, “times new roman”, times, serif; letter-spacing: 0.07em; } .secondary{ color: white; } .opinionlabel.secondary:after { content: “”; display: block; width: 65px; height: 1px; background-color: white; margin: 20px auto 0; } h1.headline.nosecondary:before { content: “”; display: block; width: 65px; […] More

The Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, now a tight race among Eric Adams, Kathryn Garcia and Maya Wiley, will be decided by absentee ballots.Fresh off a vote-counting debacle that caught national attention, the chaotic New York City Democratic mayoral primary is moving into a new phase: the wait for absentee ballots.A preliminary, nonbinding tally of ranked-choice votes on Wednesday showed a highly competitive race, with Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, holding a lead of about two percentage points over Kathryn Garcia, a former city sanitation commissioner. Under the ranked-choice elimination-round process, Maya Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, finished just behind Ms. Garcia, trailing by fewer than 350 votes.But those results do not account for the roughly 125,000 Democratic absentee ballots submitted, and the race might look different once all eligible ballots have been accounted for.No one knows with any certainty how the absentee ballots will shape the outcome, though many political junkies and campaign officials are trying to game that out. Here is a look at what the data suggests, and a guide to what to watch for as New York moves closer to determining the Democratic nominee.When will we know who won?Final results are expected to arrive the week of July 12.Before that happens, the Board of Elections needs to finish counting the absentee ballots, a process that began on Monday. Those ballots that have been counted by July 6 will then be factored into a new ranked-choice tally that will be released on that date.The city’s new ranked-choice voting system allows voters to rank up to five candidates on their ballots in preferential order. Because Mr. Adams did not receive more than 50 percent of first-choice votes, the winner must be decided by a process of elimination: Lower-polling candidates are eliminated in separate rounds, with their votes distributed to whichever candidate those voters ranked next. The process continues until there is a winner.The board must also consider absentee ballots that were initially deemed invalid, as well as affidavit ballots that were filed on Primary Day by voters who were told they were ineligible, but cast provisional ballots that would be counted if they were later deemed eligible.So is it officially a two-person race?No. While Mr. Adams and Ms. Garcia were the last two candidates standing in the latest round of results released on Wednesday, those numbers were preliminary and could change as more absentee ballots are accounted for. Ms. Wiley remains in the mix.In Wednesday’s tally of ranked-choice voting, Kathryn Garcia took slightly more of Andrew Yang’s redistributed votes than Eric Adams.Andrew Seng for The New York TimesDid the campaigns push absentee voting?Yes.Advisers for all three of the leading campaigns said that they engaged in so-called ballot-chasing efforts: direct follow-ups with voters who had requested absentee ballots, reminding those voters to return the ballots. The results in coming weeks will offer a sense of who ran the most sophisticated campaign on that front.As voters requested absentee ballots, the Adams campaign sent them personalized letters — regardless of whether they believed those voters were ranking Mr. Adams as their first choice — and added those voters to their broader communications strategy, following up by email and phone, as well as by mail.Mr. Adams may also benefit from his significant institutional support. He was backed by several major labor unions, an often-important dynamic in turnout efforts, and his consulting firm has particular experience with absentee ballots: It assisted the Queens district attorney, Melinda Katz, in her 2019 race against Tiffany Cabán — a contest decided by absentee votes.The Wiley campaign used phone-banking and texting to urge Democrats who requested absentee ballots to send them in, focusing on absentee voters who they believed might support Ms. Wiley.The Garcia campaign also sought names of voters who requested absentee ballots and followed up with them by mail and phone. Absentee voting was also a factor in shaping the timing of outreach strategies like digital engagement, a Garcia adviser said.Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, held a lead of about two percentage points over Ms. Garcia after a preliminary, nonbinding ranked-choice tally.Sarah Blesener for The New York TimesCould Mr. Adams still lose?In the first round of votes, among people who voted in-person early and on Primary Day, Mr. Adams was in first place, leading Ms. Wiley by 9.6 percentage points, and Ms. Garcia by 12.5 points. But when the preliminary ranked-choice tabulation was conducted, Ms. Garcia narrowly moved into second place and trailed Mr. Adams by only two points.It seems clear that the race is still an open three-way contest, but a final ranked-choice contest between Mr. Adams and Ms. Garcia, compared with Mr. Adams and Ms. Wiley, might play out very differently.Sparse polls and interviews with party strategists and voters have suggested that Ms. Wiley’s voters — especially in places like Brownstone Brooklyn — often ranked Ms. Garcia on their ballots. But Ms. Garcia’s voters, especially the more moderate ones, were not always inclined to rank Ms. Wiley as high. That dynamic, if it holds, could make it more challenging for Ms. Wiley to pull ahead of Mr. Adams, even if she did surpass Ms. Garcia.Ms. Wiley, who emerged as the favorite of younger left-wing voters, may have also found it more difficult to connect with some who vote by mail, a group that has traditionally included older voters.Still, she had a burst of momentum in the final weeks of the race, and the absentee ballots from her strongholds could help boost her numbers. While Ms. Garcia was the favorite in vote-rich Manhattan, Ms. Wiley came in second in the first round of votes, and could see her numbers rise in some neighborhoods as absentee ballots come in.She emphasized that the contest was far from over.“It is a wide-open race,” she said on Thursday. “We’ve known it was a wide-open race since Primary Day, and it remains a deeply competitive race.”“We’ve known it was a wide-open race since Primary Day,” Maya Wiley said on Thursday. Jose A. Alvarado Jr. for The New York TimesManhattan had the most absentee ballots. Whom does that help?Many of those ballots are likely to benefit Ms. Garcia, who, in the first round of voting, was dominant in Manhattan.For example, many people voted by mail in the affluent, well-educated neighborhoods that border Central Park — and among in-person returns, Ms. Garcia pulled off strong showings in those areas. Ms. Garcia, with her emphasis on competence over any ideological message, may have also been an especially strong fit for some types of absentee voters.“Historically, absentee ballots have tended to come from older, more highly educated, more affluent voters,” said Bruce Gyory, a veteran Democratic strategist who has closely studied the city’s electorate. He pointed to Garcia-friendly neighborhoods in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. “Those are the kinds of voters who, particularly in Manhattan but also in the Brownstone belt, places like Riverdale, seem to have favored Garcia.”But on the first round of voting, Mr. Adams appeared to be the clear favorite in neighborhoods where many working-class Black and Latino voters live, and he also demonstrated some ability to connect with white voters with more moderate views.His allies argue that Ms. Garcia would have to pull in significant margins in Manhattan to cut into his expected lead in other parts of the city. The assembly districts where Mr. Adams had his strongest showings did cast fewer absentee ballots. But he led in more districts, and by higher margins, than Ms. Garcia overall.“It’s a fairly narrow path, and she would really have to overperform even in districts where she did well, in Queens and Brooklyn, and really run up the score in Manhattan,” said Neal Kwatra, who led a pro-Adams independent expenditure effort associated with a union representing hotel workers.Is there another key battleground?The second-largest number of absentee ballots were cast in Queens, where several candidates showed strength in the first round of voting.Mr. Adams, who won every borough but Manhattan in the first round, is likely to benefit from absentee ballots cast by Black homeowners in Southeast Queens, who tend to be more moderate. Ms. Wiley, who came in second place in Queens in the first round, was strong in Western Queens in particular, where many younger left-wing voters live; Ms. Garcia did well in places that are home to many white voters with more moderate views.Here is where ranked-choice voting may come into play.Andrew Yang, a former presidential candidate who has since dropped out of the race, did especially well in Asian American neighborhoods in Queens and elsewhere in the city. He spent the last days of the race campaigning with Ms. Garcia — but some voters may have cast their absentee ballots before that apparent alliance was struck.In Wednesday’s tally of ranked-choice voting, Ms. Garcia took slightly more of Mr. Yang’s redistributed votes than Mr. Adams. Ms. Garcia also took the vast majority of Ms. Wiley’s voters when her votes were reallocated.If those circumstances play out again, does that help Ms. Garcia significantly in Queens as well as in Brooklyn, where many absentee ballots are outstanding and where Ms. Wiley came out ahead of Ms. Garcia on the tally of first-place votes?“Queens seems to favor Adams, Manhattan favors Garcia — we don’t know who that balance is going to ultimately benefit,” Mr. Gyory said, allowing for the possibility that Ms. Wiley could pull ahead, too. Until the absentee ballots are “processed, opened and fully counted, I don’t think anybody should presume how they’re going to vote,” he added.Charlie Smart, Emma G. Fitzsimmons and Dana Rubinstein contributed reporting. More

The revelations, which dealt with a Russian espionage campaign, came after President Biden demanded that President Vladimir V. Putin rein in more destructive ransomware attacks.WASHINGTON — Two weeks after President Biden met President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and demanded that he rein in ransomware attacks on U.S. targets, American and British intelligence agencies on Thursday exposed the details of what they called a global effort by Russia’s military intelligence organization to spy on government organizations, defense contractors, universities and media companies.The operation, described as crude but broad, is “almost certainly ongoing,” the National Security Agency and its British counterpart, known as GCHQ, said in a statement. They identified the Russian intelligence agency, or G.R.U., as the same group that hacked into the Democratic National Committee and released emails in an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald J. Trump.Thursday’s revelation is an attempt to expose Russian hacking techniques, rather than any new attacks, and it includes pages of technical detail to enable potential targets to identify that a breach is underway. Many of the actions by the G.R.U. — including an effort to retrieve data stored in Microsoft’s Azure cloud services — have already been documented by private cybersecurity companies.But the political significance of the statement is larger: It underscored the scope of hacking efforts out of Russia, which range from the kind of intelligence gathering engaged in by the G.R.U. and the intelligence agencies of many states to the harboring of criminal groups like the one that brought down Colonial Pipeline. The company provides much of the gasoline, jet fuel and diesel used on the East Coast, and when it was attacked, it shut down the pipeline for fear that the malicious code could spread to the operational controllers that run the pipeline.Ever since the pipeline attack, the Biden administration’s focus on cyberattacks shifted, homing in on the potential for disruption of key elements of the nation’s economic infrastructure. It has focused on Russia-based criminal groups like DarkSide, which took credit for the Colonial attack, but then announced it was shutting down operations after the United States put pressure on it. The F.B.I. later announced it had recovered some of the more than $4 million in ransom that Colonial paid the hackers to unlock the company’s records.Whether those ransomware attacks abate will be the first test of whether Mr. Biden’s message to Mr. Putin at the summit in Geneva sunk in. There, Mr. Biden handed him a list of 16 areas of “critical infrastructure” in the United States and said that it would not tolerate continued, disruptive Russian cyberattacks. But he also called for a general diminishment of breaches originating from Russian territory.“We’ll find out whether we have a cybersecurity arrangement that begins to bring some order,” Mr. Biden said at the end of the meeting, only minutes after Mr. Putin declared that the United States, not Russia, was the largest source of cyberattacks around the world. Mr. Biden also repeatedly said that he was uncertain Mr. Putin would respond to the American warning or the series of related financial sanctions imposed on Moscow over the past five years.According to administration officials, the White House or intelligence agencies did not intend the advisory as a follow-up to the summit. Instead, they said, it was released as part of the National Security Agency’s routine warnings, said Charlie Stadtlander, an agency spokesman, “not in response to any recent international gatherings.”But that is unlikely to matter to Mr. Putin or the G.R.U., as they try to assess the steps the Biden administration is willing to take to curb their cybercampaigns — and in what order.For now, it is the ransomware attacks that have moved to the top of the administration’s agenda, because of their effects on ordinary Americans.Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, said days after the summit that it might take months to determine whether the warning to Mr. Putin resulted in a change in behavior. “We set the measure at whether, over the next six to 12 months, attacks against our critical infrastructure actually decline coming out of Russia,” he said on CBS. “The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, so we will see over the course of months to come.”It was unclear from the data provided by the National Security Agency how many of the targets of the G.R.U. — also known as Fancy Bear or APT 28 — might be on the critical infrastructure list, which is maintained by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. At the time of the attacks on the election system in 2016, election systems — including voting machines and registration systems — were not on the list and were added in the last days of the Obama administration. American intelligence agencies later said Mr. Putin had directly approved the 2016 attacks.But the National Security Agency statement identified energy companies as a primary target, and Mr. Biden specifically cited them in his talks with Mr. Putin, noting the ransomware attack that led Colonial Pipeline to shut down in May, and interrupted the delivery of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel along the East Coast. That attack was not by the Russian government, Mr. Biden said at the time, but rather by a criminal gang operating from Russia.In recent years, the National Security Agency has more aggressively attributed cyberattacks to specific countries, particularly those by adversarial intelligence agencies. But in December, it was caught unaware by the most sophisticated attack on the United States in years, the SolarWinds hacking, which affected federal agencies and many of the nation’s largest companies. That attack, which the National Security Agency later said was conducted by the S.V.R., a competing Russian intelligence agency that was an offshoot of the K.G.B., successfully altered the code in popular network-management software, and thus in the computer networks of 18,000 companies and government agencies.There is nothing particularly unusual about the methods the United States says the Russian intelligence unit used. There is no bespoke malware or unknown exploits by the G.R.U. unit. Instead, the group uses common malware and the most basic techniques, like brute-force password spraying, which relies on passwords that have been stolen or leaked to gain access to accounts.The statement did not identify the targets of the G.R.U.’s recent attacks but said that they included government agencies, political consultants, party organizations, universities, and think tanks.The attacks appear to mostly be about gathering intelligence and information. The National Security Agency did not specify ways that the Russian hackers damaged systems.The recent wave of G.R.U. attacks has gone on for a relatively long time, beginning in 2019 and continuing through this year. Once inside, the G.R.U. hackers would gain access to protected data and email — as well as to cloud services used by the organization.The hackers were responsible for the primary breach of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 which resulted in the theft, and release, of documents meant to damage the campaign of Hillary Clinton.On Thursday, the National Security Agency released a list of evasion and exfiltration techniques the G.R.U. used to help information technology managers identify — and stop — attacks by the hacking group.That lack of sophistication means fairly basic measures, like multifactor authentication, timeout locks and temporary disabling of accounts after incorrect passwords are entered, can effectively block brute force attacks. More

As the former president weighs another run for the White House, he’s confronting various investigations and lawsuits. Here’s a rundown.Donald Trump hit the campaign trail again last weekend, and he certainly seemed happy to be back in the spotlight. He bashed President Biden and undocumented immigrants, repeated his false claims of a stolen 2020 election, and hinted at a possible run for the presidency again in 2024.But as he contemplates a return to politics, he has a more immediate question to contend with: Will he be able to stay out of legal trouble?On Thursday, the Manhattan district attorney’s office charged the former president’s real estate company, the Trump Organization, with running a 15-year scheme to help executives avoid taxation. A top Trump executive, Allen Weisselberg, was accused of dodging taxes on $1.7 million in income; he surrendered to the D.A.’s office on Thursday morning.Mr. Weisselberg’s was the first indictment to come out of a lengthy investigation that is being conducted by that office, and it could signal a turning point. If he agrees to testify against the former president, Mr. Weisselberg would be a powerful witness: He has long been one of Mr. Trump’s closest financial advisers, and Mr. Trump once praised him for his willingness to do “whatever was necessary to protect the bottom line.”After the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Mr. Trump was impeached for a second time — something that hadn’t happened to any previous U.S. president. If he were to be indicted on a criminal charge, that too would be a first for a former president.Ed Rollins, the chairman of the Great America PAC, which backed Mr. Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns but has not pledged to support him in 2024, said that Mr. Trump remained the presumptive front-runner for the Republican nomination. Still, he said in an interview, the threat of criminal prosecution “certainly makes it more difficult” for Mr. Trump to claim the party’s mantle.“You have to be adding people, adding players, convincing people that, ‘My loss was detrimental to the country,’” Mr. Rollins added. “People are going to be saying: ‘Tell me why I should go back to you. Why should I put money into your campaign?’”And the Manhattan D.A.’s investigation is only one of a smattering of legal obstacles that Mr. Trump may need to overcome, as he considers a possible return. Here’s a look at the many investigations and lawsuits that he’s currently fighting — touching on his business dealings, accusations of misconduct toward women, and his role in drumming up the Capitol riot.Taxes and financial affairsMr. Weisselberg was indicted as part of a long-running investigation by Cyrus Vance, the district attorney for Manhattan. At Mr. Weisselberg’s arraignment on Thursday afternoon, prosecutors described a 15-year tax fraud scheme and leveled 15 felony counts against him, the Trump Organization and Trump Payroll Corporation.Mr. Vance has assembled a grand jury and is in the process of determining whether to bring charges against Mr. Trump; the body has already questioned a number of the former president’s associates. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Weisselberg’s personal tax and financial records, as well as those of his daughter-in-law.Letitia James, the New York attorney general, also opened a parallel investigation into whether the Trump Organization had manipulated property values to avoid taxes and gain other financial benefits. In May, Ms. James’s office announced that its investigation, which began as a civil concern, had expanded into the criminal realm and would join Mr. Vance’s inquiry.The former president’s niece, the psychiatrist and author Mary Trump, has also sued him for fraud. Last year, she filed a suit claiming that Mr. Trump had defrauded her out of tens of millions of dollars. She had claimed that when her father, Fred Trump Jr., died, she was prevented from accessing her stake in his will, and that her share was slowly depleted by Donald Trump and other family members. After Fred Trump Sr. died, the remaining Trump siblings sought to exclude Mary from the family holdings entirely, she said.She accepted a settlement in 2001, but after a 2018 Times investigation drew back the curtain on the family’s finances, she filed a lawsuit accusing her uncle and his siblings of fraud and breaching fiduciary trust. The suit is still pending.Defamation claimsThe most high-profile lawsuit against Donald Trump may be the one brought by E. Jean Carroll, a journalist and advice columnist, whose 2019 book accuses him of raping her in the 1990s. After Mr. Trump publicly denied the allegation and said Ms. Carroll was “not my type,” she sued him for damaging her reputation and career.When Mr. Trump was still in office, the Justice Department sought to stanch the lawsuit by arguing that he was legally protected from defamation suits filed over things he said while executing his duties as president. A federal judge ruled against the administration, but the agency’s lawyers appealed.Under Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Biden’s Justice Department has continued the appeal, saying that Mr. Trump’s remarks should be protected under the Federal Tort Claims Act.Another woman, Summer Zervos, sued Mr. Trump in 2017, days before he took office, saying that he had damaged her reputation and her financial well-being when he denied her accusation of sexual assault. The dispute stems from her time as a contestant on “The Apprentice,” when she claims he groped and kissed her against her will.Because he made the statement in question before becoming president, Mr. Trump’s remarks aren’t protected under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The suit is currently before the New York Court of Appeals.His actions on Jan. 6Members of Congress and Capitol Police officers have filed separate suits seeking to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his role in organizing and riling up the rioters who stormed the government building on Jan. 6.Representatives Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Eric Swalwell of California, both Democrats, have both filed suits arguing that Mr. Trump violated the so-called Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era law that makes it a crime for people to conspire to prevent elected officials from discharging their duties.In a different suit, a pair of Capitol Police officers who were injured on Jan. 6 are seeking damages from Mr. Trump for his part in the events of that day. The officers, James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, say in the suit that they were hit with bear spray, assaulted with flagpoles and crushed against a door by the attackers as they tried to fight them back.The attorney general of Washington, D.C., Karl Racine, has also opened an investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s incendiary language rose to the level of criminal incitement.On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at [email protected]. More

The Republican-led, pandemic-fueled campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom of California got an official election date on Thursday, as the state’s lieutenant governor announced that voters would head to the polls on the issue on Sept. 14.The date, just 75 days away and the soonest that county officials said they could manage to pull together a special election, was released shortly after the California secretary of state formally certified the recall petition. And it came after Mr. Newsom’s fellow Democrats in the State Legislature decided to expedite the process.California is overwhelmingly Democratic and Mr. Newsom is widely expected to prevail, particularly as the state has emerged from the coronavirus crisis. The conventional wisdom among his advisers and allies has been that he will benefit from a swift decision, while Californians are still basking in relief from the reopening of the state’s economy, and before the autumn wildfires begin in earnest.The timeline, set by a fellow Democrat, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, also severely restricts the ability of prospective challengers to get onto the ballot, leaving only about two weeks for them to join the race to replace Mr. Newsom. More than 50 candidates are already on the ballot, with a handful of well-funded Republicans seriously campaigning.Expected to cost some $276 million, the special election will be the second time in state history that Californians have voted on whether to recall a sitting governor. The first resulted in the ouster of Gray Davis and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003.Mr. Newsom and his supporters, who have derided the recall campaign as a last-ditch ploy for relevance by right-wing extremists, said on Thursday that they welcomed the decision of voters.“This Republican recall is a naked attempt by Trump Republicans to grab control in California — powered by the same Republicans who refused to accept the results of the presidential election,” said Juan Rodriguez, the leader of the governor’s campaign organization.Kevin Faulconer, the former mayor of San Diego and one of the Republican contenders, countered that “this movement is powered by Californians from every community — Democrats, Republicans and Independents.”Mr. Faulconer added, “Change is coming for California and retirement is coming for Gavin Newsom.”Recall attempts are not uncommon in California, with every governor since 1960 facing at least one. But getting a recall onto the ballot is rare.The campaign against Mr. Newsom languished for months before a series of pandemic-related missteps, judicial decisions and voter fury landed the governor — a liberal in a Democratic state who was elected in 2018 in a landslide — in a perfect political storm. More

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to offer a slot to the Wyoming Republican was an effort to bring a veneer of bipartisanship to an investigation the G.O.P. has denounced as one-sided.Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday named Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming to a newly created special committee to investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, choosing a Republican who has blamed former President Donald J. Trump for fomenting the assault to help conduct an inquiry that the rest of her party has fought to block at every turn.The appointment drew an angry response from the top House Republican, who suggested that Ms. Cheney — already ousted from party leadership for her insistence on calling out Mr. Trump’s election lies — could face fresh retribution for agreeing to help Democrats investigate the deadliest attack on Congress in centuries.The reaction was the latest bid by Republican leaders to turn public attention away from the assault on the Capitol and punish those who insist on scrutinizing the riot. It came as a fuller picture is emerging of how violent extremists, taking their cues from Mr. Trump, infiltrated the seat of American democracy just as Congress was meeting to validate President Biden’s election.A New York Times visual investigation published this week revealed in vivid detail how members of extremist groups incited others to riot and assault police officers, and underscored how the former president’s words resonated with the mob in real time as it staged the attack.Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California and the minority leader, responded angrily to Ms. Cheney’s decision to accept the post, calling it “shocking” and implying that she could lose her seat on the Armed Services Committee as payback.“I don’t know in history where someone would get their committee assignments from the speaker and then expect to get them from the conference as well,” Mr. McCarthy said.Should he follow through with the threat, it would be a striking move for Mr. McCarthy, who has declined to penalize Republicans who have made anti-Semitic comments, called for the imprisoning of their Democratic colleagues or spread false conspiracy theories about the origins of the assault on the Capitol.It would also be the second time in two months that Mr. McCarthy punished Ms. Cheney for insisting that Congress should scrutinize the attack and Mr. Trump’s role in spreading the falsehoods about voting fraud that inspired it. In May, Mr. McCarthy led the charge to oust Ms. Cheney from her post as the No. 3 House Republican, saying her criticisms of Mr. Trump and efforts to sound the alarm about the riot were undermining party unity and hurting its chances of reclaiming the House in the 2022 elections.“My oath, my duty is to the Constitution, and that will always be above politics,” Ms. Cheney told reporters in the Capitol on Thursday, appearing alongside the seven Democrats Ms. Pelosi had selected for the 13-member panel.According to its rules, Mr. McCarthy has the right to offer five recommendations for Republican members, but he declined on Thursday to say whether he would do so.The select committee was established at Ms. Pelosi’s behest after Senate Republicans blocked the formation of a bipartisan commission to scrutinize the riot. It will investigate what its organizing resolution calls “the facts, circumstances and causes relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack.” The committee is also charged with reporting its findings, conclusions and recommendations for preventing such attacks in the future.The panel’s creation comes as some far-right House Republicans have stepped up their efforts to deny or distort the riot, including by spreading misinformation about it. They have sought to portray it as a mostly peaceful event and voted against honoring police officers who responded. One House Republican accused a U.S. Capitol Police officer of “lying in wait” to carry out an “execution” of a rioter. Another compared the events of that day to a “normal tourist visit” to the Capitol. Still others have amplified the baseless theory that the F.B.I. was secretly behind the siege.Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, called Ms. Cheney’s decision to accept the post “shocking.”Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesOn Thursday, Mr. Trump amplified those narratives, releasing a one-sentence statement questioning the killing of Ashli Babbitt. Ms. Babbitt was shot as she tried to break into an area off the House floor where several lawmakers were taking cover, and her death has become a rallying cry of the far right.In taking the unusual step of giving one of her seats on the panel to a member of the opposing party, Ms. Pelosi was making a tactical move that appeared intended to drive a wedge among Republicans while putting a veneer of bipartisanship on an investigation that most of them have already dismissed as politically motivated and one-sided.The selection also all but ensures that Ms. Cheney, a prominent conservative from a storied Republican family, remains a high-profile voice countering her party’s attempts to downplay and deny the horrors of the attack, risking her political career to do so.For weeks, Republican leaders have tried to silence and ostracize Ms. Cheney, but she has remained undeterred. On Thursday, said she was “honored” to serve on the committee.“Those who are responsible for the attack need to be held accountable, and this select committee will fulfill that responsibility in a professional, expeditious and nonpartisan manner,” she said.Ms. Pelosi called Ms. Cheney personally on Thursday morning to offer her the post, and Ms. Cheney accepted on the spot, according to aides to both lawmakers. The two had not spoken previously about the prospect, the aides said, although Ms. Pelosi had let it be known this week that she was weighing naming a Republican to her side of the panel.Ms. Cheney’s selection was announced during Ms. Pelosi’s Thursday morning news conference, when she laid out a list of powerful lawmakers who would carry out the inquiry. The panel is to be led by Representative Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. It includes two other committee leaders, Representatives Adam B. Schiff of the Intelligence Committee and Zoe Lofgren of the Administration Committee, both of California.Speaker Nancy Pelosi also selected, from left, Representatives Adam B. Schiff, Zoe Lofgren and Bennie Thompson to serve on the committee.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesAlso included are Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the lead prosecutor in the impeachment case against Mr. Trump for “incitement of insurrection,” and Representative Pete Aguilar of California, a member of the party leadership. Ms. Pelosi also chose two moderate Democrats, Representative Elaine Luria of Virginia and Representative Stephanie Murphy of Florida, the leader of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Mr. Thompson pledged to deliver “a definitive accounting of the attack — an undertaking so vital to guarding against future attacks.”“We have to get to the bottom of finding out all the things that went wrong on Jan. 6,” he said.He also said the panel would hold a hearing in which “Capitol Police officers themselves could be able to testify about their experiences” during the attack.Several congressional investigations into the assault are already underway, but none have a mandate to look comprehensively at the event similar to how fact-finding commissions scrutinized the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941; and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.The F.B.I. has arrested nearly 500 people involved in the Capitol breach and is pursuing potentially hundreds more. Two Senate panels carrying out a joint investigation into the riot produced a report outlining large-scale failures that contributed to the assault. And several inspectors general have begun their own inquiries, finding lapses and miscalculations around the most violent attack on the Capitol since the War of 1812.But those inquiries, which have mostly focused on security failures, are no substitute for a select committee that can focus solely on investigating the attack and its root causes, Ms. Lofgren said.“It’s not a substitute for finding out what happened here,” Ms. Lofgren said. “What caused a mob of Americans to think they were somehow supporting the Constitution when they tried to disrupt the constitutional process of counting the Electoral College votes? Who paid for it? How was it organized? We need to find that out to keep the country safe.”The measure that created the panel was adopted on Wednesday over the opposition of nearly every Republican. Only Ms. Cheney and one other Republican, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, supported it.“We cannot ignore what happened on January 6th; we cannot ignore what caused it,” Mr. Kinzinger wrote Thursday on Twitter, appending the hashtag “TheBigLie.” He pointed to the visual investigation The Times published on Wednesday, which provided the most complete picture to date of how supporters of Mr. Trump planned and carried out the deadly assault.Mr. McCarthy faces a challenge in deciding whom to recommend for the panel. Republicans, many of whom initially called for a full investigation, have long since lost their appetite for scrutinizing the assault, following Mr. Trump’s lead.Even without Mr. McCarthy’s appointments, however, the committee would have enough members to proceed with its work.Mr. McCarthy initially denied on Thursday that he would penalize any Republican for accepting an appointment to the panel from Ms. Pelosi, saying he was “not making any threats” on the matter.But he then appeared to do just that, saying that no Republican should expect to keep committee posts granted by the G.O.P. after accepting an appointment from the other party. He noted with displeasure that Ms. Cheney had not talked to him before taking Ms. Pelosi’s offer.“Maybe she’s closer to her than us,” Mr. McCarthy said. More

The author and venture capitalist will vie for the Republican nomination in one of the most wide-open 2022 Senate races.J.D. Vance, an author and venture capitalist whose best-selling memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” focused on the social and economic underpinnings of former President Donald J. Trump’s appeal to the white working class, said on Thursday that he would seek the Republican nomination for the Senate in Ohio.Mr. Vance, 36, enters the campaign as a well-known and well-financed first-time candidate facing an open field. The Republican incumbent, Senator Rob Portman, is retiring after two terms. The race is one of a few in next year’s midterm elections that could determine which party controls the upper chamber of Congress, which is now split 50-50.At his campaign kickoff event at a steel parts factory in Middletown, the city north of Cincinnati where he grew up, Mr. Vance made his backstory as a son of the Rust Belt central to his identity as a candidate.He spoke at length about his upbringing, including how his “mamaw” had “kept him on the straight and narrow” as a youth, before diving into his political pitch. He staked out populist positions on issues like inequality and Big Tech and more conservative ones on matters like immigration and abortion.“If you look at every issue in this country,” Mr. Vance said, “every issue I believe traces back to this fact: On the one hand, the elites in the ruling class in this country are robbing us blind, and on the other, if you dare complain about it, you are a bad person.”Mr. Vance will benefit from $10 million pledged toward his campaign by the billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel. Mr. Thiel was an early backer of Mr. Vance who hired him and later invested in the fund Mr. Vance now runs. But in the Republican primary, Mr. Vance will face a number of candidates who are well known in Ohio G.O.P. politics, including Josh Mandel, a former state treasurer, and Jane Timken, a former chair of the state Republican Party.Mr. Trump won Ohio twice by comfortable margins. Courting his voters — thousands of whom showed up for a rally he held last weekend outside Cleveland — will be crucial to winning a statewide Republican primary contest. Mr. Vance attended the event, Mr. Trump’s first since his supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, but he did not speak there.After the 2016 publication of “Hillbilly Elegy,” Mr. Vance leveraged his fame into a part-time career as a fixture on the speaking circuit and as a media commentator. Lately, he has staked out a position among the more populist voices in his party who are targeting social media companies, China and the left wing of the Democratic Party.The arc of Mr. Vance’s short time as a quasi-political figure has followed the prevailing mood among Republican office holders since Mr. Trump won in 2016. At first, he was deeply critical of the former president, calling him “noxious” and saying he worried Mr. Trump was “leading the white working class to a very dark place.”But today Mr. Vance is a prolific tweeter and occasional Fox News guest who has adopted Trumpian culture war language, denouncing “wokeness” and calling for more restrictive immigration policies.His Republican opponents have already started dusting off his old anti-Trump statements as a way of suggesting that he is insincere and has lost touch with working-class Ohio.Mr. Vance today is in a much different place than the young man he describes in “Hillbilly Elegy,” who struggled to overcome adversity; a mother who had a long history with substance abuse; family members who could not control their anger; and opioid-addicted friends and neighbors.He served in the Marines, graduated from Yale Law School and joined Mr. Thiel’s venture capital firm. “Hillbilly Elegy” was made into a movie directed by Ron Howard that was released last year. More