Elections

For this newspaper, the extraordinary events of the past few months have demanded headlines that take up space. More

Jack Dorsey, the chief executive, had reservations about locking the president’s account. But the calls for violence that his tweets provoked were too overwhelming. More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceA Look at the RaceAndrew Yang’s Candidacy5 TakeawaysWho’s Running?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCash Is Pouring Into the N.Y.C. Mayoral Race. Here’s Who Has the Most.Eric Adams and Scott Stringer, two of the best-known candidates, continue to far outpace the rest of the Democratic field in raising money.Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, left, has raised the most money so far in the New York City mayor’s race.Credit…Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesJan. 15, 2021Updated 8:58 p.m. ETFor several months, the New York City mayor’s race seemed to revolve around two presumed front-runners: Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, and Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller.The two Democrats had name recognition, ties to party leaders and established bases of political and financial support. They had far outpaced the rest of the field in raising money, and were the only two candidates who had raised enough to qualify for public matching funds.Another Democratic candidate, Maya Wiley, may have qualified for the matching-funds program on Friday by meeting the criteria of raising at least $250,000 from at least 1,000 donors, according to her campaign.The contours of the race changed this week with a double jolt of news from two other Democrats: Raymond J. McGuire, a former Citigroup executive, reported raising $5 million in three months, and Andrew Yang, a 2020 presidential candidate, officially joined the race.But the fund-raising numbers, which the city’s Campaign Finance Board released late Friday, offered even more shape to the crowded race, which has more than a dozen candidates.Mr. Adams has raised the most money overall so far, $8.6 million, and will have just over $8 million on hand once matching funds are distributed, his campaign said. He raised $438,000 in the most recent period, with $123,000 of it matchable, and expects a $1 million matching funds payment.Mr. Stringer was expected to have raised at least $8.3 million overall, and to have $7.5 million on hand after raising $458,000 in the latest period, keeping pace with Mr. Adams. Mr. Stringer’s campaign said it expects $1.57 million in matching funds. Ms. Wiley a former MSNBC analyst who served as counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, may have solidified her status as a contender by meeting the matching-funds threshold with her latest fund-raising figures. Ms. Wiley raised $715,000, $280,000 of it matchable, qualifying her for $2.2 million in public money, and bringing the total she has raised to almost $3 million, her campaign said.Ms. Wiley’s campaign flooded email inboxes and social media before this week’s deadline with desperate pleas for donations of as little as $10, offering “Maya for Mayor” bumper stickers to contributors and raising questions about whether she would qualify for matching funds.In a message to her supporters, Ms. Wiley celebrated meeting the threshold and said the fund-raising support she received showed that “we gon’ win this race.”.Mr. McGuire, the only mayoral candidate who is not participating in the matching-funds program, raised much of his money from the business community. At least 20 billionaires — including the hedge fund founder John Griffin and Howard Schultz, the former chief executive of Starbucks — appear on Mr. McGuire’s donor list, which also includes people who have been big contributors to Republican candidates. Mr. McGuire had $3.7 million on hand.Because Mr. McGuire has raised so much money, the spending cap for the June primary will probably be increased to $10.9 million from $7.3 million, meaning candidates like Mr. Adams and Mr. Stringer who were close to the spending limit can continue to raise money.The city’s public campaign-finance system is built to withstand that sort of shock because of the emphasis it places on small-dollar donors, said Matthew Sollars, a Campaign Finance Board spokesman.Democratic candidates who failed to meet the matching-funds threshold included Zach Iscol, a nonprofit entrepreneur and former Marine; Shaun Donovan, a former federal housing secretary under President Barack Obama; and Dianne Morales, a nonprofit executive.Mr. Donovan reported raising a total of $1.6 million and had $913,000 on hand. Mr. Iscol reported falling just short of qualifying for matching funds. Ms. Morales said she had missed the threshold by about $70,000. Ms. Morales told supporters that her campaign had raised $340,000 overall and had 4,100 contributors from the city who gave an average of $50. About 30 percent of Ms. Morales’s donors described themselves as unemployed, her campaign said. Ms. Morales’s campaign, which is focused on working-class and poor New Yorkers, expects to qualify for matching funds at the next deadline after a strong showing in raising money in the past week.“If we keep making money the standard for viability then you have to be connected to wealthy networks,” Ify Ike, a senior adviser for Ms. Morales, said. “We are not going to have a billionaire donate to our campaign.”Several other candidates, including Carlos Menchaca, a councilman from Brooklyn; Kathryn Garcia, a former sanitation commissioner; and Loree Sutton, a former veteran affairs commissioner, also failed to qualify for matching funds. Ms. Sutton’s campaign reported a $4,400 deficit.Mr. Yang, who entered the race officially on Thursday, is expected to be competitive with other leading candidates in raising funds. He had 21,000 donors from New York City during his presidential run, giving him a list of potential contributors that he is expected to tap into quickly.Before the pandemic, fund-raising had proceeded at a rapid pace, and face to face. Before he dropped out of the race in November, the City Council speaker, Corey Johnson, held 55 house parties from March 2019 to March 2020. Mr. Stringer held 65 house parties over the same period, including six events in January and February last year.Now, most candidates are holding virtual fund-raisers. Mr. McGuire’s son, Cole Anthony, who plays for the N.B.A.’s Orlando Magic, held a fund-raiser with a teammate, Mo Bamba. Mr. McGuire has had 41 fund-raising events in three months, his campaign said.The Campaign Finance Board could issue almost $5 million in taxpayer money to the three candidates who are accepting, and have qualified for, public funds, according to estimates from the candidates.The board must audit the donations before distributing any money, which it is scheduled to do next month based on the latest filings. Those filings covered money raised from July 12, 2020 to Jan. 11. That would bring the total of public funds to be distributed in the race to close to $14 million. Ioanna Niejelow, Mr. Donovan’s finance director, said was “very different” to be campaigning through a pandemic. Mr. Donovan has been holding hourlong virtual fund-raisers with 50 to 75 people to allow him to interact with attendees.“I know all about grip and grin, and there’s a real beauty to that,” said Ms. Niejelow, a veteran fund-raiser who has worked on campaigns for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. “But given this environment, virtual has been remarkable in terms of getting out there and having great conversations.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

My Pillow founder and Trump supporter Mike Lindell was photographed entering the West Wing of the White House on Friday, carrying notes which seemed to advocate the imposition of martial law.Donald Trump will be replaced as president in five days’ time, by Joe Biden. Trump continues to baselessly claim his election defeat by the Democrat was the result of electoral fraud.The president has now said he disavows the violence he incited at the US Capitol last week when he urged a mob of his supporters to march on the building. The resulting deadly attack on the Capitol led to his second impeachment.Amid proliferating reports of plots to kidnap and kill lawmakers, and with further demonstrations by Trump supporters reportedly planned around inauguration day, Trump remains at the White House unable to use social media and apparently estranged from many of his closest advisers.Lindell has risen to prominence among allies urging the president on in his attempts to deny reality. On his Facebook page on Friday, the mustachioed seller of sleep aids wrote: “Keep the faith everyone! We will have our president Donald Trump 4 more years!’Later a Washington Post photographer caught images of Lindell in which parts of notes he carried were visible. Among visible text were the words “Insurrection Act now as a result of the assault on the”, “martial law if necessary” and “Move Kash Patel to CIA Acting”.The notes also referred to Sidney Powell, an attorney and conspiracy theorist involved in Trump campaign lawsuits meant to overturn election results in battleground states, almost all of which have been unsuccessful.The notes seemed to advocate naming an attorney named Colon, described as “up to speed on election issues” and seemingly based at “Fort Mead”, to a national security role. A current LinkedIn page indicates that a Frank Colon is currently senior attorney-cyber operations for the 780th Military Intelligence Brigade, based at Fort Meade, Maryland.Trump allies, among them the political dirty trickster Roger Stone, have previously advocated the imposition of martial law in the event of electoral defeat.Kash Patel is a Trump loyalist who after the election was moved to the Department of Defense, where he has been accused of obstructing the transition to Biden.The White House pool reporter said Lindell refused to answer questions about his visit on Friday.Earlier, apparently in error, Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani tweeted a message in which he claimed to be “working with the FBI to expose and place total blame on John and the 226 members of antifa that instigated the Capitol ‘riot’”.It was not clear which “John” Giuliani meant. The FBI has rubbished Republican claims that leftwing groups, collectively known as “antifa”, were to blame for the attack on the Capitol. Giuliani himself addressed Trump supporters before the riot, telling them he wanted “trial by combat”.The message Giuliani tweeted ended: “I can see what I can do with Kash, I wish I had.”Biden has picked a senior diplomat, Bill Burns, for CIA director, replacing Gina Haspel.CNN’s chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, said he had spoken with Lindell, who confirmed he had met briefly with Trump and was told to give his documents to White House aides. “Lindell also claimed the phrase ‘martial law’ did not appear on the document despite photos,” Acosta tweeted. More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyLankford Apologizes to Black Voters for Backing Trump’s Election DeceitThe Oklahoma senator, who is up for re-election in 2022, said he had not realized his objection to the election results would be seen as a direct attack on the voting rights of people of color.Senator James Lankford said in a letter that he had never intended to “diminish the voice of any Black American.”Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesJan. 15, 2021Updated 8:24 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, apologized on Thursday to Black constituents who were offended by his decision to join President Trump in trying to discredit the victory of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., saying he had not realized the effort would be seen as a direct attack on the voting rights of people of color.In a letter addressed to his “friends” in North Tulsa, which is predominantly Black, Mr. Lankford, who is white, acknowledged that his initial efforts to upend Mr. Biden’s victory — which he dropped in the immediate aftermath of the deadly assault on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob — had “caused a firestorm of suspicion among many of my friends, particularly in Black communities around the state.”“After decades of fighting for voting rights, many Black friends in Oklahoma saw this as a direct attack on their right to vote, for their vote to matter, and even a belief that their votes made an election in our country illegitimate,” he wrote in a letter first published by the news site Tulsa World and obtained by The New York Times. “I should have recognized how what I said and what I did could be interpreted by many of you. I deeply regret my blindness to that perception, and for that I am sorry.”The letter offered the latest evidence of how the Capitol siege has rocked the Republican Party to its core, prompting some of Mr. Trump’s most loyal supporters to abandon him, alienating some of its crucial constituencies and setting off a painful period of soul-searching that could also have profound political consequences.Mr. Lankford is facing re-election in 2022, and will soon have to decide whether to convict the president in an impeachment trial in which Mr. Trump faces a charge of “incitement of insurrection.”While he did not offer a direct apology for questioning the legitimacy of votes, Mr. Lankford was among the handful of senators who withdrew his objection to counting some Electoral College votes cast for Mr. Biden after a throng of Mr. Trump’s supporters breached the Capitol complex. But it was a striking note of contrition, particularly as several of Mr. Lankford’s Republican colleagues who lodged the challenges, including Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, continue to defiantly defend their efforts to throw out thousands of votes in Arizona and Pennsylvania.The letter came amid calls from Black leaders for Mr. Lankford to resign from the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission, whose mission is to commemorate the racist massacre in the city’s Greenwood district, where a white mob destroyed an affluent Black neighborhood and its Black-owned businesses, and killed up to 300 residents.Among the rioters who rampaged through the Capitol last week were members of white supremacist groups, and one man who carried a Confederate flag has been arrested.Some Black leaders in Oklahoma said the senator’s note of regret betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding of how his actions had helped perpetuate racism.“To use the words like any perceived racism — we’re in 2021 now,” said Greg Robinson II, an organizer and former candidate for Tulsa mayor who is among those who have called for Mr. Lankford and other Republicans to step down. “There has been generations upon generations of systemic racism that has been protected by the sort of white moderate rhetoric that we hear out of white politicians, especially white conservative Republicans.”Mr. Lankford, a former Southern Baptist minister who directed the largest Christian youth camp before an inaugural run for office landed him in the House in 2011, has served in the Senate since 2014. Having burnished his credentials as a conservative Republican and deficit hawk, he muscled through a primary to win a special election and finish the term of former Senator Tom Coburn before a second victory in 2016.In the Senate, Mr. Lankford has been a supporter of Mr. Trump, largely backing his policy initiatives and nominees even as he offered the occasional condemnation of the president’s vulgarity and personal attacks.“I think most of us have a hard time with Donald Trump’s personality, but don’t have a problem with most of his policies,” said Frank Keating, a two-term governor of Oklahoma and veteran of multiple Republican administrations. “You can’t be much more conservative than James Lankford.”But Mr. Lankford has also worked to build relationships with the Black community in Tulsa, speaking about the Tulsa massacre on the Senate floor and advocating the creation of a school curriculum to ensure that the 1921 massacre would be taught. When Mr. Trump announced plans to hold a campaign rally in Tulsa on Juneteenth, an annual holiday celebrated on June 19 that honors the end of slavery in the United States, Mr. Lankford was among the officials who successfully convinced the president it would be more respectful to hold the rally on a different day.All five Oklahoman representatives and Mr. Lankford were among the more than 100 Republicans in both chambers seeking to invalidate the votes of tens of millions of voters in several states — many of them Black citizens living in Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee and Atlanta — even as courts threw out baseless challenges by Mr. Trump and his allies about election malfeasance.His involvement came as a shock to many on Capitol Hill and in Oklahoma, in part because he is regarded by Democrats as a rare, cooperative partner on voting rights. Some speculated privately that it had more to do with the fact that Mr. Lankford must face voters in two years than any actual concern he harbored about the integrity of the election.“That result of that decision is bringing a hailstorm of criticism,” said a state senator, Kevin L. Matthews, founder and chairman of the 1921 commission. In an interview, he said he personally did not believe Mr. Lankford should resign from the commission, but that some members believed it was inconsistent with his drive to invalidate the election results. “There are a lot of people that feel like you can’t stand for both.”Mr. Lankford and other Republicans had claimed that by challenging the election results, they were exercising their independence and acting in the interests of constituents who were demanding answers. In an interview the morning of Jan. 6, he sought to distinguish his argument from Mr. Trump’s false claims that the election could be overturned, saying he had been clear that there was no constitutional way to subvert the will of a majority of American voters.“Everybody’s got their own motives in this, to be able to solve this,” he said. “For me, long term, we’ve got to be able to find a constitutional way to be able to resolve some of these issues.”Less than four hours later, Mr. Lankford would be interrupted in his opening argument by the Senate’s sudden adjournment, as an aide whispered to him that the mob was inside the Capitol building.In a secure location on Capitol Hill, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, recalled pleading with Mr. Lankford and Senator Steve Daines, Republican of Montana, to reverse course and support the counting of votes. The pair later released a joint statement calling on “the entire Congress to come together and vote to certify the election results,” and saying the lawlessness and chaos had caused them to change their minds.“We disagree on a lot of things, and we have a lot of spirited debate in this room,” Mr. Lankford said that evening. “But we talk it out, and we honor each other — even in our disagreement.”Reporting was contributed by More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAtlanta Prosecutor Appears to Move Closer to Trump InquiryThe Fulton County district attorney is weighing an inquiry into possible election interference and is said to be considering hiring an outside counsel.President Trump made several calls to Georgia officials that raised alarms about election interference.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesRichard Fausset and Jan. 15, 2021Updated 8:21 p.m. ETATLANTA — Prosecutors in Georgia appear increasingly likely to open a criminal investigation of President Trump over his attempts to overturn the results of the state’s 2020 election, an inquiry into offenses that would be beyond his federal pardon power.The new Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, is already weighing whether to proceed, and among the options she is considering is the hiring of a special assistant from outside to oversee the investigation, according to people familiar with her office’s deliberations.At the same time, David Worley, the lone Democrat on Georgia’s five-member election board, said this week that he would ask the board to make a referral to the Fulton County district attorney by next month. Among the matters he will ask prosecutors to investigate is a phone call Mr. Trump made in which he pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to overturn the state’s election results.Jeff DiSantis, a district attorney spokesman, said the office had not taken any action to hire outside counsel and declined to comment further on the case.Some veteran Georgia prosecutors said they believed Mr. Trump had clearly violated state law.“If you took the fact out that he is the president of the United States and look at the conduct of the call, it tracks the communication you might see in any drug case or organized crime case,” said Michael J. Moore, the former United States attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. “It’s full of threatening undertone and strong-arm tactics.”He said he believed there had been “a clear attempt to influence the conduct of the secretary of state, and to commit election fraud, or to solicit the commission of election fraud.”The White House declined to comment.Mr. Worley said in an interview that if no investigation had been announced by Feb. 10, the day of the election board’s next scheduled meeting he would make a motion for the board to refer the matter of Mr. Trump’s phone calls to Ms. Willis’s office. Mr. Worley, a lawyer, believes that such a referral should, under Georgia law, automatically prompt an investigation.If the board declines to make a referral, Mr. Worley said he would ask Ms. Willis’s office himself to start an inquiry.Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state, is one of the members of the board and has said that he might have a conflict of interest in the matter, as Mr. Trump called him to exert pressure. That could lead him to recuse himself from any decisions on a referral by the board.Mr. Worley said he would introduce the motion based on an outside complaint filed with the state election board by John F. Banzhaf III, a George Washington University law professor.Mr. Banzhaf and other legal experts say Mr. Trump’s calls may run afoul of at least three state criminal laws. One is criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, which can be either a felony or a misdemeanor.There is also a related conspiracy charge, which can be prosecuted either as a misdemeanor or a felony. A third law, a misdemeanor offense, bars “intentional interference” with another person’s “performance of election duties.”“My feeling based on listening to the phone call is that they probably will see if they can get it past a grand jury,” said Joshua Morrison, a former senior assistant district attorney in Fulton County who once worked closely with Ms. Willis. “It seems clearly there was a crime committed.”He noted that Fulton County, which encompasses much of Atlanta, is not friendly territory for Mr. Trump if he were to face a grand jury there. The inquiry, if it comes to pass, would be the second known criminal investigation of Mr. Trump outside of federal pardon power. He is already facing a criminal fraud inquiry into his finances by the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr. Even Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, does not have the power to pardon at the state level, though it’s not assured that he would issue a pardon anyway, given his frayed relationship with Mr. Trump. Nonetheless, in Georgia, pardons are handled by a state board.The question of whether or not to charge the nation’s 45th president would present a unique challenge for any district attorney. Ms. Willis, who took office only days ago, is a seasoned prosecutor not unaccustomed to the limelight and criticism. A graduate of Howard University and the Emory University School of Law in the Atlanta area, she is the first woman, and the second African-American, to hold the job of top prosecutor in Fulton County, Georgia’s most populous, with more than one million residents.Ms. Willis, 49, is known for the leading role she played in the 2015 convictions of 11 educators in a standardized-test cheating scandal that rocked Atlanta’s public school system. She is taking office at a time when Atlanta, like other big cities, is seeing a rise in crime.She must also deal with the high-profile fatal shooting of a Black man, Rayshard Brooks, by a white police officer in June 2020 and has said she will take a fresh look at charges brought against the officer by her predecessor.Several calls by Mr. Trump to Georgia Republicans have raised alarms about election interference. In early December, he called Mr. Kemp to pressure him to call a special legislative session to overturn his election loss. Later that month, Mr. Trump called a state investigator and pressed the official to “find the fraud,” according to those with knowledge of the call.The pressure campaign culminated in a Jan. 2 call by Mr. Trump to Mr. Raffensperger. “I just want to find 11,780 votes,” Mr. Trump said on the call, during which Mr. Raffensperger and his aides dismissed the president’s baseless claims of fraud. After the Jan. 2 call, a complaint was sent to the election board by Mr. Banzhaf. (Three of his law students once brought a complaint that forced former Vice President Spiro Agnew to pay back to the state of Maryland money he had received as kickbacks.) Mr. Banzhaf has subsequently supplemented his complaint to incorporate the call made to the Georgia election investigator.The complaint was also sent to Ms. Willis, and to Chris Carr, the Republican attorney general; a spokesperson for Mr. Carr could not be reached Friday.Of the three Republicans on the board besides Mr. Raffensperger, one of them, Rebecca N. Sullivan, did not return a phone call, and another, Anh Le, declined to comment. The third, T. Matthew Mashburn, said that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on how he would vote before the motion was presented.However, Mr. Mashburn also said that he was troubled by some of the language Mr. Trump had used in his phone call to Mr. Raffensperger. Mr. Mashburn noted, in particular, a moment when the president told Mr. Raffensperger, “There’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.”“The use of the word ‘recalculate’ is very dangerous ground to tread,” Mr. Mashburn said.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAbbas Announces Palestinian Elections After Years of ParalysisThe decree by President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority was viewed by analysts as a bid to lift his standing with the Biden administration. Skeptics expressed doubt the vote would happen.President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority in September. Mr. Abbas announced plans for presidential and parliamentary elections.Credit…Pool photo by Alaa BadarnehIsabel Kershner and Jan. 15, 2021Updated 8:18 p.m. ETJERUSALEM — Sixteen years after he was elected for what was meant to be a four-year term, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority announced on Friday that presidential and parliamentary elections would be held in the spring and summer.The announcement appeared to be part of an effort to get the divided Palestinian house in order and project at least a semblance of unity as the Palestinian Authority prepares to repair ties with Washington and the incoming Biden administration after a disastrous few years of discord and disconnect under President Trump.The presidential decree stated that the voting for the long-defunct Palestinian Legislative Council would take place on May 22, followed by presidential elections on July 31. Mr. Abbas, 85, the leader of Fatah, the mainstream Palestinian party, was last elected to office in early 2005 after the death of his predecessor, Yasir Arafat.Analysts said they believed that Mr. Abbas was now seeking to renew his legitimacy in the eyes of the international community, especially with the imminent arrival of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the White House, which they said Mr. Abbas hoped would herald a return to negotiations with Israel.“He doesn’t want to hear from anyone that he doesn’t represent the Palestinian people and that he’s not in control of Gaza,” said Jihad Harb, an expert on Palestinian politics.The last time the Palestinians went to the polls, it did not end happily.In 2006 a rival party representing Hamas, the Islamic militant group, trounced Fatah in elections for the Legislative Council, leading to a year and a half of uneasy power sharing.The United States and much of the West refused to work with the unity government because Hamas, which they considered a terrorist organization, would not accept international demands such as renouncing violence and recognizing Israel’s right to exist.A brief civil war between the two groups ensued in the coastal territory of Gaza. It ended in June 2007, with Hamas seizing control there after routing forces loyal to Mr. Abbas and confining his authority to parts of the occupied West Bank.Mr. Abbas responded by forming an emergency government based in the West Bank, but Hamas officials refused to recognize it. The political and geographical schism, as well as the collapse of a series of reconciliation agreements, has since stymied any semblance of a functioning democratic process.Supporters of Hamas celebrated in the southern Gaza Strip after a parliamentary victory in 2006.Credit…Shawn Baldwin for The New York TimesA behind-the-scenes succession race has long been underway in the Palestinian Authority, and Mr. Abbas said a few years ago that he did not want to run again for the presidency.But there was no hint on Friday he intended to step down, and the election announcement was greeted with a degree of skepticism because Mr. Abbas has in the past announced plans for elections that never took place.In February 2011, for example, Mr. Abbas announced that elections would be held in September of that year, but Hamas rejected the idea and they were called off.Hamas welcomed Mr. Abbas’s new decree, saying in a statement that it was keen to make the elections “successful.” It added that work was needed to create an atmosphere for free and fair elections, and that Hamas had shown what it called great flexibility in recent months “out of a belief that the decision belongs to the people.”Still, some analysts expressed significant doubts about whether Mr. Abbas was interested in ultimately allowing the elections to go ahead, and the two rival Palestinian factions have not explained publicly how they will hold elections while the West Bank and Gaza are ruled by the separate groups.“These decrees are just a maneuver to buy time,” said Ghaith al-Omari, a former adviser to Mr. Abbas and a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The deep suspicion between Abbas and Hamas still holds, and the reasons that have prevented elections in the past are still unchanged.”Nabil Amr, a veteran figure in Fatah and a former information minister, described the elections decree as “a preliminary practical step.” But he warned that Palestinians who stood to lose from the elections could work to impede them. “There are Palestinians whose privileges will be taken away if the elections are held, so they will oppose it,” he said.It remains unclear whether Hamas will accept the authority of the court that Mr. Abbas plans to establish to adjudicate election disputes, how freely candidates will be able to campaign and whether Mr. Abbas will agree to allow Hamas’s security forces, which he considers illegitimate, to secure polling booths in Gaza.Israel may also decide to bar Palestinians from voting in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem — a potential obstacle that Mr. Abbas has previously said would prevent elections from going forward.Azzam al-Ahmad, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, said Palestinian officials would ask Israel to refrain from “placing impediments” on the Palestinians voting in East Jerusalem, but added that he expected the Israelis would do so regardless.Both Hamas and Fatah are convinced that they need to hold to elections, said Ghassan Khatib, a political scientist at Birzeit University in the West Bank, but it was unclear what kind of an election it would be.“Will it be a real election, or will it be a staged election that will renew the legitimacy of the same old guards?” he said. “My fear is that it’s a kind of election that is not going to make any change — except that it will give the superficial impression that we are more legitimate now.”More broadly, he wondered how the election could be pulled off after such a long and bitter split.“How are we going to conduct an election where the political system is divided completely into two separate election systems, two judicial systems, two security apparatuses, two everythings?” Mr. Khatib said. “That’s the question everyone is asking.”Patrick Kingsley contributed reporting from Jerusalem and Mohammed Najib from Ramallah, West Bank.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said it is possible that members of Congress could face prosecution if found to have ‘aided and abetted’ the violent attack on the Capitol earlier this month that left five people dead
Nancy Pelosi says lawmakers who aided in Capitol attack may be prosecuted More