Elections

Updated March 20, 2020 Candidate Pct. Trujillo Gus Trujillo 6,995 42.2% Sagan Greg Sagan 5,752 34.7% Gassaway Timothy Gassaway 3,825 23.1% 16,572 votes, 359 of 359 precincts reporting Advances to runoff More

Like Babe Ruth pointing a bat over a fence, Donald Trump last month called his shot.
“I think this will end up in the supreme court,” Trump told reporters, referring to the election. “And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices. I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation.”
Earlier this week, Trump got his ninth justice, with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the seat vacated by the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
But is the 2020 presidential election really headed for the supreme court? Here’s a look at the situation:
Can Barrett hand Trump the election?
Probably not. The most likely scenario is that American voters alone will decide the election.
For all its flaws and added complications this year from the coronavirus pandemic, the US elections system has basic features to ensure a high correlation between the vote that is cast and the result that is announced.
It is highly decentralized, with thousands of jurisdictions staffed by members of each major party, all using different technologies and independently reporting results, which can be reviewed or recounted, with both sides and the media watching out for irregularities before, during and after election day. It might take awhile, and the tragic story of disenfranchisement in the United States continues, but elections officials have vowed to deliver an accurate count.
Sometimes, however, US elections are very close, and in an era of nihilistic partisanship, court fights during elections are becoming increasingly common. Such disputes might land with increasing frequency before the supreme court.
It is extremely rare for a presidential election to land before the supreme court. In 1876, five justices sat on a commission that decided the 1876 race for Rutherford B Hayes over Samuel Tilden.
In the modern era, it has happened just once, in 2000, after the Florida state supreme court ordered a recount in a razor-thin race that the Republican secretary of state said George W Bush had won. Republicans challenged the recount order and the case went to the supreme court, which sustained the challenge and stopped the recount.
How might a 2020 election-supreme court scenario unfold?
The supreme court has already issued two significant rulings in the election, one that allowed ballots received in Pennsylvania up to three days after election day to be counted, and a second blocking ballots received in Wisconsin after election day from being counted. Lower courts have issued numerous decisions on issues around voting and counting.
Republicans in Pennsylvania have vowed to renew their challenge to ballots received after election day, and if they can push the case back to the supreme court, they might find victory this time with Barrett making a majority.
But if the supreme court ends up getting involved in a major way in the presidential election, it would likely be to weigh in on a question that is not yet clear because we don’t know what legal conflicts will play out in which states.
In Bush v Gore (2000), lawyers on the Republican side argued that the state supreme court had usurped the legislature’s authority by ordering a recount. The supreme court stopped the recount, not by relying on the argument about the court bigfooting the legislature, but by finding that different standards for vote-counting in different counties violated the equal protection clause.
Is there a chance Barrett would recuse herself from any case involving a president who appointed her so recently?
At her confirmation hearing, Barrett dodged just this question. “I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal,” she said. “And part of the law is to consider any appearance questions. And I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can’t offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.” More

MedicareTrump issued an executive order, not immediately enforceable, to require Medicare to pay the same prices for drugs as other wealthy countries do and expanded telemedicine coverage.Biden wants to lower the eligibility age to 60, let the government negotiate drug prices and expand coverage where that is fiscally possible. More

Even now, four years later, it feels like a joke. The joke we played on ourselves.No one thought it more ridiculous than the candidate himself. Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former consigliere, tells us that the 2016 campaign was supposed to be a branding opportunity, a means to an end, to be sure — but that end was never intended to be the White House.So when he won the election, the joke was on Donald Trump. But also on all of us.Michael Wolff — remember when his book “Fire and Fury” was so shocking? — wrote that election night left Mr. Trump and his circle dumbfounded and afraid. Don Jr. told a friend that his father “looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears — and not of joy.” Steve Bannon, according to Mr. Wolff, described Mr. Trump as disbelieving, and then horrified.Many of the people who voted for him probably thought it was a joke, too, at least until he won. He was our very own all-American Boaty McBoatface.If you have somehow avoided Twitter for the last four-plus years (and if so, lucky you!), Boaty McBoatface was the result of Britain’s Natural Environment Research Council decision to let the internet name its new polar research vessel.More serious suggestions included Shackleton, Endeavour and Falcon. But the winner, with nearly 125,000 votes, was Boaty McBoatface, a name submitted by a former BBC radio host as a joke. The name the council finally selected, Sir David Attenborough, came in fifth, just behind It’s Bloody Cold Here.To get Boaty McBoatfaced means that you’ve made the critical mistake of letting the internet decide things. In other words, as much as we revere democracy, there are times — and they do typically involve the internet — when one’s fellow citizens deliberately make their choices not in order to foster the greatest societal good, but, instead, to mess with you.Because they want to send a message. Because they think it might be kind of funny. And above all, you know: because they can.Sometimes a Boatfacing seems all in good fun: The city of Austin, Texas, got McBoatfaced, for example, when it asked the internet to name its waste management service. The internet obliged by suggesting it be named in honor of Fred Durst, the frontman of the rock band Limp Bizkit.Taylor Swift and VH1 got McBoatfaced when they asked the internet to choose a location for her forthcoming concert. The internet obliged by choosing the Horace Mann School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. (Ms. Swift, proving once and for all that she is a good sport, donated $10,000 to the school, before settling on another venue.)But sometimes these episodes can take a darker turn. Mountain Dew got McBoatfaced when it asked the internet to name its new flavor. The internet — largely driven by members of the message boards Reddit and 4chan — obliged by naming the new flavor “Hitler Did Nothing Wrong.”And in 2016, when America asked its citizens to take seriously the business of choosing a president — that was the darkest turn of all. (Donald Trump happened to be the favorite candidate of the 4chan politics board.)There are a lot of reasons people chose Mr. Trump in 2016. Some voters just loathed Hillary Clinton. Others genuinely yearned for the traditional Republican agenda: cutting taxes, appointing conservative judges. But surely there was another group who chose Mr. Trump forthelulz. Because a system that had given them choices they despised was a system that deserved to be trolled.It’s enough to give disruption a bad name.In some ways there is nothing more American than pranking the country for a good cause — or no cause at all. The comedian Pat Paulsen (a regular on the “The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour”) ran for president many times between 1968 and 1996, using the slogan, “We’ve Upped Our Standards, Now Up Yours!”In 1940, the comedian Gracie Allen ran as the nominee of the Surprise Party, whose mascot was a kangaroo. (The campaign slogan: “It’s in the bag!”) That fall she received a few thousand write-in votes.The snake-wielding musician Alice Cooper has run every year since 1972, the year he released “Elected,” a song which he’s rereleased for this year’s campaign. (Lyrics: “Everybody has problems, and personally, I don’t care.”)And then there’s Vermin Supreme (yes, it’s his legal name), who describes himself as a “perennial symbolic protest candidate.“ In 2016, his platform included mandatory toothbrushing laws as well as free ponies. In 2020 he came in third in the Libertarian Party’s primaries; he currently supports that party’s nominee, Jo Jorgensen.In an email exchange last week, I asked Mr. Supreme (yes, I do love typing “Mr. Supreme”) about his many candidacies, and the role that disruption can and should play in our political life. He wrote, “Humor is a tool that has allowed me to amplify my voice and channel my anger into something that inspires.” He’s now founded the Vermin Supreme Institute, which he says uses “humor, direct action and mutual aid to uplift the disaffected, disenfranchised and disempowered.”It’s hard to argue with any of that, and quite frankly, a platform of free ponies sounds a lot better than what Donald Trump has given us for the last four years. I love the spirit of anarchy and joy that Vermin Supreme brings to politics. I’d even vote for him, to tell you the truth, as long as I knew he would not win.Which is probably what a lot of people thought about Donald Trump last time round.All of which is to say, I’m saving the anarchy and joy for my daily life. In the voting booth, I’m going to be serious. How serious? Like the fate of the country is literally on the line. Which it is.This month, Britain’s polar research vessel, the Sir David Attenborough, began sea trials, in preparation for its maiden voyage to Antarctica next year. What is the name of the vessel’s robotic mini-sub, you ask? Why, that would be Boaty McBoatface.Did they give any consideration to naming the sub It’s Bloody Cold Here? You have to admit it’d be amusing, at least at first.But some jokes get less funny, the more times you hear them. If you ask me, four years is enough.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

First Dog on … President Raccoon! More

After four years in which the Kremlin loomed large over US politics, the topics of collusion, Russian meddling or Ukrainian scandals have been largely absent from the campaign agenda as election day draws close.
It may be that Moscow still intends to interfere: the FBI director Christopher Wray said last month that the bureau has seen “very active efforts by the Russians to influence our election in 2020” – mainly involving misinformation with the primary goal of denigrating Joe Biden. And the US indictment of six Russian military intelligence hackers last week served as a reminder of the potential threat.
However, as Biden enters the final days of the campaign with a significant lead, Putin appears to be hedging his bets. The Russian president pointedly declined to amplify Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated allegations about Biden’s son, Hunter, and his past business dealings in Ukraine, noting he did not “see anything criminal” in them. Putin has also pointed to possible common ground with the Democrats on social democratic ideology and arms control.
The Russian leader and the former vice-president certainly know each other well from past encounters, though the relationship lacks any of the warmth that Trump claims infuses his bond with the Russian leader.
“I’m looking into your eyes, and I don’t think you have a soul,” Biden told Putin at a 2011 meeting, according to an account he gave the New Yorker. “He looked back at me, and he smiled, and he said: ‘We understand one another.’”
Biden has not dwelled on the well-worn topics of Trump’s soft spot for Putin or Kremlin meddling – in part because coronavirus has cast such a long shadow over the election and the Biden team feel that voters are tired of hearing about Russia.
“The most resonant issues for American voters right now are Trump’s mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic, the economy, and the dangers of white nationalism; by contrast, Russian election interference in 2016 seems more distant for those just trying to make ends meet,” said Michael Carpenter, a foreign policy adviser during Biden’s time as vice-president who remains in touch with the campaign.
It is possible, too, that “Russiagate” was never a major vote-winning issue: Trump’s supporters dismissed the charges as “fake news” and many of his opponents were more focused on other issues.
“Russia is a media and a Washington conversation. My students don’t care about Russia; they care about Black Lives Matter and MeToo,” said Nina Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at the New School in New York.
Questions over the business dealings of Biden’s son in Ukraine have failed to resonate much beyond Trump’s core base, with a recent attempt to reopen allegations of Biden’s alleged wrongdoing in Ukraine largely falling flat.
If Moscow did indeed help put Trump in the White House, their man has done little to improve the the bilateral relationship over the past four years, despite his personal praise for Putin. But his disdain for western alliances and naked America-first self-interest is something that the Kremlin appreciates – and may explain why officials in Moscow want to see Trump win a second term.
“Putin and people around him might like Trump because he fits very nicely with their view of the world. He’s a graphic illustration of their logic that the world is moving away from liberal values and multilateralism and towards sovereignty and traditional values,” said Andrey Kortunov, of the Russian International Affairs Council.
He said that while Putin genuinely does not understand politicians such as Angela Merkel or Emmanuel Macron – and believes their talk of values to be hollow and cynical – with Trump there is a recognition of a kindred spirit, even if there is little affection for him as a person. The two men share “scepticism of international bodies, emphasis on sovereignty, a transactionalist approach to foreign policy and a feeling that discussions about values are mere hypocrisy”, said Kortunov.
Putin earlier this month noted Biden’s history of “sharp anti-Russian rhetoric” and contrasted it with Trump’s oft-stated desire for better ties with Moscow.
“Biden’s approach to Russia would involve supporting a dialogue on arms control, strategic stability, crisis management and risk reduction from a position of strength,” said Carpenter, saying it was simplistic to see the question of Russia policy as a black-and-white hawk or dove calculation.
Kortunov said that Russia, unlike Germany, Israel or China, is in the “privileged position” that the outcome of the election is likely to have little effect on bilateral relations. “But the bad news is that this is because it will be bad either way. Almost anything that could be broken is already broken,” he said. And there is little prospect of improvement.
Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, who was reportedly an intermediary for informal contacts with members of the Trump entourage after his 2016 victory, declined to say whether he favoured a Trump or Biden victory. But he said either way it was hard to imagine how things could get worse. “We are at the lowest point ever in the history of US-Russian relations so going even lower would be difficult,” he said.
Russia still denies all accusations of meddling in the 2016 election, whether it be the hacking of Democratic party servers or armies of internet trolls stirring up trouble on Facebook and Twitter.
But Fiona Hill, who was the national security council director for European and Russian affairs for three years of the Trump administration and testified at Trump’s impeachment hearing, said hawkish Russian security official Nikolai Patrushev and other top officials all but admitted Russia’s interference in the 2016 vote when she confronted them.
“The Russians said to us: ‘You guys left yourselves open.’ They were admitting it essentially. They said it’s on you that this got so out of hand.”
The officials suggested that the US had left Russia an open goal with its divisive politics – and she felt they had a point: “We were providing the raw materials, making our own mistakes,” she said. The Russian interference “wouldn’t have resonated without our deep polarisation and our structural issues”.
This time round, there are new allegations of Russian attempts to influence the political landscape, such as a rightwing site apparently set up by Russians and meant to influence US voters. But there is less attention now, perhaps because with the amount of disinformation flowing from the White House, the Russian efforts appear to be a drop in the ocean.
“The biggest risk to this election is not the Russians, it’s us,” said Hill. More

“MAGA” hat? Easy: Trump supporter. A Biden-Harris tote is also an obvious giveaway. But Coffee mate? Loose eggs? We wondered if it was possible to identify Trump and Biden voters based on what’s inside their refrigerators. So we teamed up with Lucid, an online survey platform, to ask a representative sample of U.S. residents whom […] More

This is my last regular column before Election Day, so what is there left to say? Instead of giving you an answer, let me leave you with a question, which I think is the question. What would you do if your kid came home from school and said:“Mom, Dad, my teacher said President Obama ordered the killing of the U.S. Special Forces team that supposedly killed Osama bin Laden. My teacher said Bin Laden is actually still alive, that the guy the Navy SEALs killed was a ‘body double.’ He also claimed that Obama’s aides got Iran to send Bin Laden to Pakistan so Obama could have a ‘trophy kill.’ What’s a trophy kill? My teacher said he had heard all of this somewhere on the internet and he just thought he’d pass it along to our class. Mom, Dad, is this true?”I know how I’d respond. I’d immediately call the school principal and ask how someone peddling such vile and fraudulent conspiracy stuff could be teaching in any classroom in America. Who wouldn’t? It violates the most basic judgment and norms of decency that we expect of anyone teaching in public school or serving in public office.And that is really the question Donald Trump’s voters can’t ignore: Why would you be ready to fire your kid’s teacher for passing along such disgusting nonsense but be willing to rehire the nation’s teacher in chief — our president, the man with the most-read blackboard in the world — after he peddled exactly these crazy conspiracy theories to some 87 million people on Twitter the other day? Is there anything more warped?On Oct. 13, “Trump retweeted a post from an account linked to QAnon, a collective of online conspiracists, which has since been suspended,” reported CNN. “The tweet alleged ‘Biden and Obama may have had SEAL Team 6 killed,’ that Osama bin Laden was still alive, and that the man killed in the Obama-directed raid led by SEAL Team 6 was actually a body double. Later that night, Trump retweeted a post claiming top Obama administration officials colluded to bring Bin Laden from Iran to Pakistan for ‘Obama’s trophy kill.’”The CNN story continued: “Trump’s initial retweet was rebuked by one of the Navy SEAL members of the raid, who is very much still alive. ‘Very brave men said goodby (sic) to their kids to go kill Osama bin Laden,’ Robert J. O’Neill tweeted following Trump’s retweet. ‘We were given the order by President Obama. It was not a body double.’“O’Neill, who has previously expressed support for Trump, told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that the promotion of these conspiracy theories for the purpose of politics is ‘really trampling on the graves of some of the best heroes I have ever personally worked with.’”When NBC News’s Savannah Guthrie asked Trump why he would spread such a lie, Trump shrugged: “That was a retweet, I’ll put it out there. People can decide for themselves.”In other words, Trump sees as part of his job as president — with the world’s best global intelligence network at his disposal — not to discredit malicious conspiracy theories, so Americans can better navigate a confusing world, but rather to spread this bile, without even asking the C.I.A. or the F.B.I. if it’s true. Let people sort it out for themselves, he says — as if their resources match his.I understand that many Americans stand by Trump because of his policies on immigration, taxes, political correctness or selection of judges, or because they feel he gives voice to their grievances against elites who may look down on them. None of that resonates with me, but those are legitimate positions shared by some 40 percent of the country.But our president is not just a policy robot. He’s also a role model, whether he or we like it or not. So, for all of you who plan to cast your ballot for Trump, I beg you to ask yourselves: How can you tolerate behaviors in a president that you would never tolerate in your kid’s seventh-grade teacher or babysitter?Trump has so redefined decency down that we have forgotten what is normal, let alone optimal, in an American president. We have forgotten what it is like to have a truth-teller, a healer, in the White House, someone who starts his day with at least the inclination to unite the country and to project America at its best for the world — not someone who has lived every day in office aspiring to be president only of his base, while offering anyone at home or abroad looking to the United States for inspiration just one message: Show me the money.As I was reflecting on all this last weekend, my friend Elena Park, an executive producer for Stanford Live, sent me a YouTube video — an incredible performance the other day by the singer Meklit and the Kronos Quartet of “The President Sang Amazing Grace.”The song was written by Zoe Mulford about the 2015 murder of nine people at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, S.C., by a white supremacist. It was debuted by Mulford in 2017, telling in song how a different president, Barack Obama, came down to that church for a memorial service and during his eulogy for the Rev. Clementa Pinckney sang “Amazing Grace,” one of the most moving and healing moments of his presidency.Listen to Meklit sing it:We argued where to lay the blameOn one man’s hate or our nation’s shameSome sickness of the mind or soulAnd how those wounds might be made wholeBut no words could say what must be saidFor all the living and the deadSo on that day and in that placeThe President sang Amazing GraceMy President sang Amazing GraceSo, there’s your choice in a nutshell, folks. You can vote for a president who retweets sick conspiracy theories — claiming that his predecessor murdered U.S. Navy SEALs. Or you can vote for Biden, a man who, like Obama, will strive each day to make our wounds whole, and do it, I’m sure, with dignity and grace.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