Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares187 Views

      in Elections

      13 Law Enforcement Unions Endorse Eric Adams in N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race

      by

      Mr. Adams, who was elected on a law-and-order campaign message, is seeking to portray Zohran Mamdani, this year’s Democratic nominee, as weak on crime.Four years ago, Eric Adams used a law-and-order campaign message to help propel himself into City Hall. On Thursday, many of those responsible for law and order in New York City came together to try to keep him there.Thirteen law enforcement unions endorsed Mayor Adams’s third-party bid for re-election, filling the steps of City Hall in a show of support. The participants were not in uniform, but held aloft signs displaying the seals or badges of their unions. Others waved American flags. One person held a handwritten sign: “Make Adams Great Again.”The show of support helped mask some of the turbulence surrounding Mr. Adams’s leadership of the Police Department.He cycled through three police commissioners before Jessica Tisch’s appointment in November, the first mayor to have that many in a single term since the 1930s. On Wednesday, one of those former commissioners filed a lawsuit accusing Mr. Adams and top police officials of running the Police Department like a criminal enterprise.The mayor, however, has tried to focus attention on the city’s receding crime numbers as a rallying point to bolster his bid for a second term, and as an argument against the candidacy of Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee and a democratic socialist. Mr. Adams argued that Mr. Mamdani’s progressive policies will hurt businesses and make the city less safe.Mr. Mamdani, for example, supports a plan to reduce the number of people held in the Rikers Island jail complex and replace it with borough-based jails. He also in 2020 questioned whether the city should use police officers to respond to domestic violence calls.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares187 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Legislature Special Session Will Answer Questions About Redistricting, Floods

      by

      A special session of the Texas Legislature will address the deadly floods in Hill Country, but the fireworks will come from President Trump’s demand for a newly gerrymandered House map.A special legislative session in Texas, set to begin on Monday in the wake of the flood in Texas Hill Country, is shaping up to be an emotionally raw diversion into what Democrats say is the gerrymandering the state’s House districts.Lawmakers will also take up questions about the handling of the devastating July 4 floods, which killed more than 130 people, including at least 37 children. Nearly 100 Texans remain missing.But that bipartisan imperative will be complicated by a hard-edge partisan agenda for the session, dominated by President Trump’s push for the Legislature to redraw the state’s congressional district maps to be more favorable for Republicans. He wants his party to gain five seats in Texas in the 2026 midterm elections to help retain control of the U.S. House.Gov. Greg Abbott has asked lawmakers to also consider a dozen other items during the 30-day special session, including new hard-line conservative proposals to ban mail-order abortion pills, lower property taxes and regulate intoxicating hemp. And he wants lawmakers to consider a state constitutional amendment that would empower the state attorney general to prosecute election crimes.“It’s a wild situation,” said State Representative Jon Rosenthal, a Houston-area Democrat. “The past sessions I’ve been a part of have been of a very limited scope.”Most Texans’ attention will probably lie with the July 4 flood and what can be done to improve warning systems, such as placing outdoor sirens along flood-prone waterways like the Guadalupe River, where most of the deaths occurred.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares177 Views

      in Elections

      The UK Plans to Lower the Voting Age to 16. Here’s What to Know.

      by

      The plan has been described as the largest expansion of voting rights in Britain in decades.The British government said on Thursday that it would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, in what it called a landmark moment for democracy and some of its opponents decried as an attempt to tilt the electoral playing field.Britain has more than 1.6 million people of age 16 or 17, in a total population of roughly 68 million, and the plan has been described as the country’s largest expansion of voting rights in decades. The last nationwide reduction in voting age, to 18 from 21, came more than 50 years ago.“Declining trust in our institutions and democracy itself has become critical, but it is the responsibility of government to turn this around and renew our democracy, just as generations have done before us,” the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, wrote in an introduction to a policy paper that included the announcement.The plan also includes promises to tighten laws on foreign donations to political parties, and to simplify voter registration.Here’s a guide to the change and its implications.Do many places give 16-year-olds the vote?Several nations do, including Austria, Malta and Brazil, while in Greece the voting age is set at 17. Others allow 16-year-olds to participate only in some elections: In Germany and Belgium, they can help choose members of the European Parliament, but they cannot vote in federal elections. Britain has been in that category: Elections for the separate parliaments that control many policy areas in Scotland and Wales already had a voting age of 16.Is this change a surprise?No. The center-left Labour Party has backed votes for 16-year-olds for some time, and the idea was part of the official platform on which it won last year’s general election. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares178 Views

      in Elections

      Elissa Slotkin Wants Democrats to Reclaim Their ‘Alpha Energy’

      by

      In a wide-ranging interview, the junior senator from Michigan took stock of her party’s deep-seated woes, warning Democrats not to be “so damn scared.”As Democrats battle over age, ideology and how to wrest back power, they increasingly agree on one idea: Their party needs an affirmative vision.That is where the consensus ends.So Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan, is trying to help her party fill in those details.Ms. Slotkin, who gave the Democratic response to President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in March, is delivering a series of speeches that are part candid diagnosis of her party’s problems, part policy prescription and part political pep talk, sometimes irritating more left-wing Democrats in the process.Last month, she laid out what she called her “economic war plan,” focused on rebuilding the middle class and slaughtering “some sacred cows” in the process.She is planning to give speeches about security and democracy later this year.“You cannot win a game, a war, anything, just by playing defense,” Ms. Slotkin said in an interview this week. “You can’t just point at Donald Trump every day and point out the bad things that he’s doing. You have to show a positive, affirmative vision of what you’re going to do if you’re in power.”In the half-hour interview, Ms. Slotkin discussed her party’s messaging problems, the new fault lines defining Democratic debates and the 2028 presidential race.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares158 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Morally Offensive and Fiscally Reckless’: 3 Writers on Trump’s Big Gamble

      by

      Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Nate Silver, the author of “On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything” and the newsletter Silver Bulletin, and Lis Smith, a Democratic communications strategist and author of the memoir “Any Given Tuesday: A Political Love Story,” to discuss the aftermath of the passage of President Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill.Frank Bruni: Let’s start with that megabill, the bigness of which made the consequences of its enactment hard to digest quickly. Now that we’ve had time to, er, chew it over, I’m wondering if you think Democrats are right to say — to hope — that it gives them a whole new traction in next year’s midterms.I mean, the most significant Medicaid cuts kick in after that point. Could Trump and other Republicans avoid paying a price for them in 2026? Or did they get much too cute in constructing the legislation and building in that delay and create the possibility of disaster for themselves in both 2026 and 2028, when the bill’s effect on Medicaid, as well as on other parts of the safety net, will have taken hold?Lis Smith: If history is any guide, Republicans will pay a price for these cuts in the midterms. In 2010, Democrats got destroyed for passing Obamacare, even though it would be years until it was fully implemented. In 2018, Republicans were punished just for trying to gut it. Voters don’t like politicians messing with their health care. They have been pretty consistent in sending that message.I’d argue that Democrats have an even more potent message in 2026 — it’s not just that Republicans are messing with health care, it’s that they are cutting it to fund tax cuts for the richest Americans.Nate Silver: What I wonder about is Democrats’ ability to sustain focus on any given issue. At the risk of overextrapolating from my home turf in New York, Zohran Mamdani just won a massive upset in the Democratic mayoral primary by focusing on affordability. And a message on the Big, Beautiful Bill could play into that. But the Democratic base is often more engaged by culture war issues, or by messages that are about Trump specifically — and Trump isn’t on the ballot in 2026 — rather than Republicans broadly. The polls suggest that the Big, Beautiful Bill is extremely unpopular, but a lot of those negative views are 1) among people who are extremely politically engaged and already a core Democratic constituency, or 2) snap opinions among the disengaged that are subject to change. Democrats will need to ensure that voters are still thinking about the bill next November, and tying it to actual or potential changes that affect them directly and adversely.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Faith Leaders Can Now Endorse. Will That Swing the NYC Mayor’s Race?

      by

      The I.R.S. has cleared faith leaders to endorse political candidates to their congregations. New York clergy are wrestling with the choice to use their newfound influence.Four days after his remarkable showing in New York’s Democratic mayoral primary, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani appeared at the Harlem headquarters of a group headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. He acknowledged the leaders and biblical scriptures that fueled his campaign.“Weeping may endure for the night, but joy comes in the morning,” Mr. Mamdani said, a reference to Psalm 30:5, a scripture that is especially popular in Black churches. “And it has been night for far too long in this city.”Mr. Mamdani did not come to the gathering on June 28, for the National Action Network, explicitly seeking an endorsement from the faith leaders in the crowd. But under a new rule change from the I.R.S., he and his opponents in the mayoral race may be able to secure one without tax repercussions.Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee seeking to become the first Muslim mayor of New York City, regularly campaigned at mosques.Shuran Huang for The New York TimesThe I.R.S. said in a court filing last week that houses of worship could endorse political candidates to their congregations without losing their tax-exempt status. The move was initially seen as the agency’s formal termination of a longstanding but spottily enforced rule against campaigning from the pulpit.But in New York, the ruling could also open up a new front in the city’s heated mayoral race, offering candidates the chance to formally consolidate support from not only faith leaders but their congregations.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      N.Y.C. Panel Withdraws Proposal to Switch to Open Primaries

      by

      The panel, created by Mayor Eric Adams, said it would introduce other ballot initiatives, but not a proposal that would allow all voters to participate in primaries regardless of party.The primary elections that New York City uses to pick its mayors will remain unchanged, after a special panel that had been formulating a switch to an open primary system said on Wednesday that it would not put the proposal on the ballot this fall.Under the proposal, all registered voters, regardless of their party affiliation, could participate in primary elections. The 13-member panel, called a Charter Revision Commission, said it had decided not to put the proposal before voters because there was no consensus among civic leaders as to what the new primary model should look like.Richard R. Buery Jr., the chairman of the commission, which was created by Mayor Eric Adams, said in a statement that he was “personally disappointed” in the decision and hoped the issue might be revisited in the future.“I hope civic leaders will build on the progress that we have made this year, develop greater consensus and advance a proposal to voters prior to the next citywide election,” Mr. Buery said.In a 135-page report released earlier this month, which outlined the open-primary plan and other proposals, the commission acknowledged that some members of the panel felt that this year was not the right time to introduce such a major change.One reason to delay a move to an open primary system, the report said, was that New York had only recently enacted a big change to its elections — ranked-choice voting — that some voters still struggled to understand.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares168 Views

      in Elections

      Vance Tries to Sell the Benefits of Trump’s Megabill but Ignores the Costs

      by

      In a visit to Pennsylvania, Vice President JD Vance stressed tax cuts and savings accounts for newborns, with no mention of trims to Medicaid and nutritional assistance programs many Trump voters rely on.Vice President JD Vance traveled to a crucial swing state on Wednesday to sell the Trump administration’s signature domestic policy legislation as a victory for working American families, despite concerns even among some Republicans over its cuts to the safety net in service of benefiting the rich.In what amounted to an attempted brand relaunch of legislation that Democrats have framed as an attack on the middle class, Mr. Vance traveled to a machine shop in eastern Pennsylvania to spotlight provisions in the package that would cut taxes, preserve overtime pay and create $1,000 savings accounts for newborns. Left unmentioned by Mr. Vance were the cuts to Medicaid and the nutritional assistance programs that many of Mr. Trump’s own supporters rely on.“I think this will be transformational for the American people,” Mr. Vance said in front of signs that read “No tax on tips” and “America is back.” The vice president appealed to those in attendance to help the administration sell the package ahead of next year’s midterm elections, arguing that it would benefit Americans like those working in the manufacturing facility serving as his backdrop.“We’re going to invest in American workers and American families every single day,” Mr. Vance added. “That’s my solemn promise to every single person in this room.”Selling the bill is likely to be an uphill climb, particularly after Republicans provided Democrats a series of sound bites expressing concern over how Medicaid cuts would hurt their constituents. While polls show the bill is broadly unpopular, it is difficult to say how much it will influence voters in future elections. Still, six out of 10 Americans find the package unpopular, according to a recent CNN poll. Roughly 58 percent of Americans said Mr. Trump had gone too far in cutting federal programs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More