Subterms
Lauren Justice for The New York TimesConservatives have controlled the court since 2008. Though the court upheld Wisconsin’s 2020 election results, last year it ruled drop boxes illegal, allowed a purge of the voter rolls to take place and installed redistricting maps drawn by Republican legislators despite the objections of Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. More
A hearing will be held to determine whether the report will be made public. Any criminal charges would have to be brought by a regular grand jury.ATLANTA — Eight weeks into Donald J. Trump’s latest run for president, a special grand jury investigating Mr. Trump and his allies for possible election interference in 2020 concluded its work on Monday. But the panel’s findings remain private for now, including whether it recommended criminal charges against the former president.The special grand jury was dissolved days after producing a report that was reviewed by the 20 judges on the Superior Court of Fulton County, which encompasses most of Atlanta. Its members were sworn in last May.“The court thanks the grand jurors for their dedication, professionalism and significant commitment of time and attention to this important matter,” Judge Robert McBurney, who oversaw the panel, wrote in an order dissolving it.A hearing will be held on Jan. 24 to determine whether the report will be made public, as the special grand jury is recommending, according to the judge’s order. Special grand juries cannot issue indictments, so any criminal charges would have to be sought from one of the regular grand juries that consider criminal matters in the county.Regular grand jury terms last two months. Defendants who are indicted can request speedy trials that begin by the close of the term that follows the two-month period in which they are indicted. Because of those protocols, most charges would most likely be brought at the beginning of the next grand jury term in early March, or further down the road.Understand Georgia’s Investigation of Election InterferenceCard 1 of 5An immediate legal threat to Trump. More
The country’s president warned the far-right incoming minister of national security that he was raising alarms at home and abroad over racism, discrimination and undermining democracy.JERUSALEM — Israel’s incoming prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, concluded coalition agreements on Wednesday to form the most right-wing and religiously conservative government in the country’s history, a day ahead of an expected vote in Parliament to install the new leaders.The coalition pledged to expand Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, a move that will deepen the conflict with the Palestinians. And its members agreed to prioritize potentially far-reaching changes that would curb the power and influence of the independent judiciary, one of a number of measures that critics warn risk damaging Israel’s democratic system and paving the way for racism and discrimination against minorities.Even before the swearing-in ceremony on Thursday, a broad public backlash against the government prompted an unusual intervention by Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, who reflected the alarm in some constituencies at home and abroad over the most contentious clauses in the coalition agreements.Mr. Herzog summoned Itamar Ben-Gvir, the leader of Jewish Power, an ultranationalist party, and the incoming minister of national security, for a meeting and conveyed “voices from large sections of the nation and the Jewish world concerned about the incoming government,” the president’s office said. He urged Mr. Ben-Gvir “to calm the stormy winds.”The president is a largely ceremonial figurehead who has no legal authority to influence the new government, but his voice carries moral weight and is supposed to unify Israelis.Mr. Ben-Gvir told Mr. Herzog that he and the new government “will pursue a broad national policy for the sake of all parts of Israeli society,” according to the statement from the president’s office.The meeting came the same morning that the coalition agreements reached between the partners of the incoming government were presented to Parliament on Wednesday, a final step required a day before the vote in Parliament to approve the new coalition.What to Know About Israel’s New GovernmentNetanyahu’s Return: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, is set to return to power at the helm of the most right-wing administration in Israeli history.The Far Right’s Rise: To win election, Mr. Netanyahu and his far-right allies harnessed perceived threats to Israel’s Jewish identity after ethnic unrest and the subsequent inclusion of Arab lawmakers in the government.Arab Allies: Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right allies have a history of making anti-Arab statements. Three Arab countries that normalized relations with Israel in 2020 appear unconcerned.Worries Among Palestinians: To some Palestinians, the rise of Israel’s far right can scarcely make things worse. But many fear a surge of violence.The government’s guidelines began with a declaration of the Jewish people’s “exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel” and pledged to bolster Jewish settlement in all areas, including the occupied West Bank — a statement that reflected this government’s abandonment of the internationally recognized formula for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.“We have achieved the goal,” Mr. Netanyahu told his Likud party lawmakers on Wednesday as the intense coalition negotiations came to an end nearly two months after the Nov. 1 election.“A huge public in Israel — more than two million Israelis — voted for the national camp led by us,” he said. “We will establish a stable government that will last its full term and serve all the citizens of Israel.”Israel’s incoming prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, of the Likud party, campaigning in the city of Sderot in October. Mr. Netanyahu is set to return to office 18 months after he was ousted.Amit Elkayam for The New York TimesBut the agreements were already causing strains with the Jewish diaspora, and particularly with the largely non-Orthodox community in North America, and are raising concerns regarding Israel’s international standing.More than a hundred retired Israeli ambassadors and senior Foreign Ministry officials signed a letter to Mr. Netanyahu on Wednesday expressing their “profound concern” at the potential harm to Israel’s strategic relations, first and foremost with the United States, arising from the apparent policies of the incoming government.In an interview with CNN, King Abdullah II of Jordan said he was “prepared to get into a conflict” if Israel crossed red lines and tried to change the status of a Jerusalem holy site revered by Muslims and Jews, and over which Jordan has custodianship. Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1994, but relations between King Abdullah and Mr. Netanyahu have long been tense.Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving prime minister, is set to return to office 18 months after he was ousted. On trial for corruption, he has grown ever more dependent on his hard-line allies because the more liberal parties refuse to sit in a government led by a premier under criminal indictment.One of the most controversial elements of the new government’s plans is the prioritization of changes to the judiciary, including legislation that will allow Parliament to override Supreme Court rulings. This would limit the influence of the independent judiciary, which has played an important role in preserving minority rights in a country that lacks a formal constitution, and would give more unchecked power to the political majority.But coalition agreements are not binding, and many of their clauses remain on paper, never materializing. The clauses about the judiciary are vague and provide little detail about what will be changed, how or by when. The proposal to allow Parliament to override Supreme Court rulings, for example, does not specify whether a simple Parliamentary majority of 61 of the 120 lawmakers will be enough to strike down a Supreme Court decision or if a special majority will be required.Mr. Ben-Gvir was convicted in the past on charges of inciting racism and of support for a terrorist group and ran in the election on a bullish ticket of fighting organized crime and increasing governance, particularly in areas heavily populated by members of Israel’s Arab minority.This week, Parliament passed legislation expanding ministerial powers over the police in a way that critics say will allow Mr. Ben-Gvir to politicize the force’s operations. The coalition agreement states that he will have the authority to change open-fire regulations, potentially allowing the police a freer hand that could fuel tensions with Arab citizens of Israel.Mr. Ben-Gvir and his allies have insisted that the coalition agreements include promises to amend the current anti-discrimination law, which applies to businesses and service providers, to allow them to refuse to provide a service that is contrary to their religious beliefs and to hold gender-segregated events.Israelis demonstrating against the new government of Mr. Netanyahu this month in Jerusalem.Mostafa Alkharouf/Anadolu Agency, via Getty ImagesFar-right lawmakers suggested this week that meant that doctors could refuse to provide treatments that go against their religious conscience — for example, providing fertility treatment to a person in a same-sex relationship — or that hoteliers could turn away certain customers.Their statements set off a public uproar and forced Mr. Netanyahu to issue clarifications saying that no discrimination will be tolerated against the L.G.B.T.Q. community or any other sections of Israeli society, even though his conservative Likud party is a signatory to the coalition agreements.Israeli banks, insurance companies, medical professionals, legal experts and business leaders have denounced the proposed amendments and stated that they will not cooperate with any discriminatory conduct in their fields.Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting from Rehovot, Israel. More
“The most important case for American democracy” in the nation’s history — that’s how the former appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig described Moore v. Harper, an extraordinary lawsuit that the Supreme Court considered in oral arguments Wednesday morning. Judge Luttig, a conservative and a widely respected legal thinker, is not one for overstatement. Yet most Americans aren’t paying attention to the case because it involves some confusing terminology and an arcane legal theory. It is essential that people understand just how dangerous this case is to the fundamental structure of American government, and that enough justices see the legal fallacies and protect our democracy.First, the back story on the case: In 2021, North Carolina lawmakers redrew their congressional maps. The state had 13 districts at the time, and its voters were more or less evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. But the Republicans who are in control of North Carolina’s legislature didn’t want fair maps; they wanted power. In one of the most egregious gerrymanders in the nation, they drew 10 seats intended to favor themselves.The North Carolina courts were not amused. A panel of three trial judges found that the 2021 maps were “intentionally and carefully designed to maximize Republican advantage” — so much so that Republicans could win legislative majorities even when Democrats won more votes statewide. The State Supreme Court struck down the maps, finding they violated the North Carolina Constitution’s guarantees of free elections, free speech, free assembly and equal protection.That should have been the end of it: A state court applying the state Constitution to strike down a state law. But North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers appealed, arguing that the U.S. Constitution does not give state courts authority to rule on their congressional maps — even though the legislature had passed a law authorizing the courts to review redistricting plans like these. Instead, the lawmakers are relying on an untested theory that asserts that state legislatures enjoy nearly unlimited power to set and change rules for federal elections.In 2000 the chief justice at the time, William H. Rehnquist, proposed the idea in his concurring opinion on Bush v. Gore, and the independent state legislature theory has been floating around the fringes of right-wing legal circles ever since.To be clear, this is a political power grab in the guise of a legal theory. Republicans are trying to see if they can turn state legislatures — 30 of which are controlled by Republicans — into omnipotent, unaccountable election bosses with the help of the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. The theory has no basis in law, history or precedent. The idea that state lawmakers exist free of any constraints imposed by their constitution and state courts makes a mockery of the separation of powers, which is foundational to the American system of government. By the North Carolina lawmakers’ logic, they possess infinite power to gerrymander districts and otherwise control federal elections. It is a Constitution-free zone where no one else in the state — not the governor, not the courts, not the voters through ballot initiatives — has any say.On Wednesday morning, Justice Elena Kagan rejected the theory out of hand, saying it “gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country. And you might think that it gets rid of all those checks and balances at exactly the time when they are needed most.”In practice, the theory that the petitioners in the case are seeking to use would turn hundreds of state constitutional provisions into dead letters in federal elections. For instance, 48 states affirmatively guarantee a right to vote in their constitutions. (The federal Constitution still does not.) Most state constitutions guarantee free, fair, equal or open elections. Even the secret ballot — so fundamental to American democracy — is a creature of state constitutions. If the justices accept the most aggressive version of the independent state legislature theory that the petitioners want them to and even if they accept a weaker version, provisions like these could become invalid overnight, because the theory holds that state constitutions have no authority to impose any regulations on federal elections. (The Constitution and federal law remain supreme, so challenges to state legislative actions could still be brought in federal courts.)Some of the justices insist that they don’t — they can’t — pay attention to the real-world outcomes of their rulings. They’re just interpreting law. By that logic, this case should be rejected on its merits.First, the theory is based on bad legal interpretation. The Constitution uses the word “legislature” in describing who has the power to regulate federal elections. Because of this word, the theory’s supporters claim, state legislatures have nearly unlimited power in that realm. But as Judge Luttig has noted, the theory has “literally no support” in the Constitution. To the contrary, the framers who wrote the Constitution were concerned that state legislatures had too much power, not too little. The text they wrote makes many references to the powers of those legislatures and of Congress, but it never says or implies that they are immune to review by the judicial branch.Second, the theory is based on bad history. The best evidence its supporters offer is a two-century-old document that has long been known to be fraudulent. Written in 1818 by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, a founding father, it is purported to be a replica of the plan for government that he introduced three decades earlier at the Constitutional Convention. But what he submitted in 1818 was not the real deal. James Madison suspected this immediately, as have virtually all historians to examine it in the years since.When the theory’s supporters sought to claim that the practices of early state legislatures proved that their side should win, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded, “Yes. If you rewrite history, it’s very easy to do.”Third, if the Supreme Court accepts this theory, it will create a logistical nightmare in states across the country. That’s because the theory applies only to federal elections, not state elections, in which state courts unquestionably have a role to play. As a result, there would be two sets of rules operating at the same time, one for federal elections and one for state elections. Chaos and confusion would reign.Most important, the Supreme Court has already implicitly rejected the theory many times over. In precedents stretching back decades, the court has made clear that state courts have the power to set limits on what lawmakers can do when it comes to federal elections. As recently as 2019, the court rejected a plea for it to stop the extreme partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and other states. In doing so, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that this is exactly the role that state courts should play. “Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply,” he wrote.At Wednesday’s argument, Justice Samuel Alito appeared to reject that premise. He accused elected state court judges, like those in North Carolina, of being political actors themselves. “There’s been a lot of talk about the impact of this decision on democracy,” said Justice Alito, who has given openly partisan speeches to outside groups and voted consistently in alignment with Republican policy priorities. “Do you think that it furthers democracy to transfer the political controversy about districting from the legislature to elected supreme courts where the candidates are permitted by state law to campaign on the issue of districting?”Another way to appreciate the absurdity of the theory is to consider who has come out for and against it. On one side, a large and bipartisan group of judges, government officials, former lawmakers, leading historians and constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum have rejected it. These include a co-founder of the right-wing legal group the Federalist Society, the chief justices of all 50 states, multiple Republican former governors and secretaries of state and civil rights organizations.On the other side, you will find a far smaller and less bipartisan cast of characters — among them, the Republican National Committee, a group of Republican state attorneys general and John Eastman, a former law professor last seen helping Donald Trump plan an illegal and unconstitutional coup to stay in office (an act that has exposed Mr. Eastman to a real risk of criminal prosecution).That so many justices would take the theory seriously is bad enough. Three of them — Justices Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — appear to favor the independent state legislature theory, as they suggested in an opinion in an earlier stage of the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has also indicated his openness to it. It’s worse when the public trust in and approval of the court have fallen to historic lows, thanks largely to aggressively partisan recent opinions, as this board has argued.There’s an old saying that only close cases make it to the Supreme Court. If they weren’t close, they would have been resolved in the lower courts. But Moore v. Harper isn’t a remotely close case. A ruling for the North Carolina lawmakers would flood the federal courts with election litigation that normally plays out in the states, upending the balance of federalism that defines American government. That’s not a conservative result; it’s a dangerously radical one.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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More
Here’s what to know about a court case that could change the way Americans vote — and who decides how they do.For months, my inbox has been bombarded by anxious Democrats and election experts wanting to talk about a once-obscure legal theory that could fundamentally alter the way Americans vote.Known as the independent state legislature doctrine, it holds, in its purest form, that state constitutions have little to no ability to constrain state legislatures. The doctrine emerged from a novel interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, which grants states the authority to set the “time, places and manner” of federal elections.At the core of the dispute is whether the framers intended the word “legislature” in the document to be understood strictly, or whether they meant that other institutions — like state courts, governors and secretaries of state — also had important roles to play in setting and interpreting the rules around elections and voting.A fringe version of the doctrine entered the public discussion last year when it emerged that one of Donald Trump’s lawyers, John Eastman, had written a memo arguing that it even allowed state lawmakers to send their own slate of presidential electors to Washington.The Supreme Court has traditionally been gun-shy about encroaching on state courts, especially when they are interpreting their own constitutions.But a more mainstream conservative position, embraced by the Republican Party and rejected by Democrats, started gaining support on the right amid legal battles over the accommodations some states made for voters during the pandemic, like the expansion of mail voting.If adopted, the doctrine would, among other things, bar state courts from ensuring that state laws comply with a requirement, common in many state constitutions, that elections be “free and fair” — with potentially vast implications for rules on redistricting, citizen-led commissions and voting. Understand the U.S. Supreme Court’s New TermCard 1 of 6A race to the right. More
Nearly two years ago, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff won runoff elections in Georgia that allowed the new vice president, Kamala Harris, to be the Senate’s tiebreaking vote. Those victories were critical to unleashing a remarkable wave of legislation and spending.Without Mr. Warnock and Mr. Ossoff, President Biden could not have made substantial investments in roads, bridges, public transportation and semiconductor chip manufacturing. He could not have permitted Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs. He could not have taken tangible steps to combat climate change. The 2021 tranche of federal pandemic aid, today criticized for contributing to inflation, offered critical bailouts for local governments that headed off crippling layoffs and brutal cuts to public schools.Now Mr. Warnock is locked in another runoff on Dec. 6, this time against Herschel Walker, the former football star. The stakes feel lower for this one: Democrats are already guaranteed a Senate majority. And no matter the outcome in Georgia, Congress will be divided, with the House in the hands of Republicans.Yet the outcome of Mr. Warnock’s contest matters significantly, for Democrats and Republicans alike — but especially for Democrats. They need Mr. Warnock in power for at least two overriding reasons: to safeguard their gains in the judiciary and to bolster their national bench.Under President Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell was venerated — or denounced — for his efficient and cutthroat approach to ramming through Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court picks and confirming federal judges.In four years, Mr. McConnell’s Senate majority confirmed three right-wing justices and 234 new judges overall, many of them youthful conservatives rubber-stamped by the Federalist Society. These Trump appointees can serve for the rest of their lives; it is plausible that some of them will still be remaking federal law 30 or 40 years from now. Most of these judges are avowed originalists, fiercely opposed to the “living Constitution” school that dominates liberal jurisprudence and allowed for all sorts of social progress that is now being turned back. The overturning of Roe v. Wade is the exemplar.Since Democrats retook the Senate majority in 2021, Mr. Biden has undertaken his own successful counteroffensive, in tandem with Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader. Mr. Schumer’s Senate has actually confirmed federal judges at a faster rate than Mr. McConnell’s at the time of the first midterm election. So far, over 85 judges appointed by Mr. Biden have been confirmed, including a new Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson. The judges, overall, are traditional liberals, many of them younger and nonwhite. Mr. Biden and Mr. Schumer were willing to elevate judges who were former public defenders, an unlikely prospect in the law-and-order 20th century.If Mr. Warnock wins, the Senate can move more rapidly and seek judges who are perhaps more progressive in their worldviews — the sort who could hit a snag if someone like Joe Manchin, the centrist from West Virginia, or Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona is the deciding vote.Democrats must evenly split committee members in the 50-50 Senate, giving Republicans the power to delay votes on judges. A 51-49 majority would be much more dominant: Committees like the judiciary would be stacked with Democrats, greatly speeding up the confirmation process. There are about 75 vacancies on U.S. District Courts and nine at the appellate level. That number is bound to grow as more judges retire in the next two years.Democrats, with Mr. Warnock, could also be in position to replace a Supreme Court justice. The 6-3 conservative majority makes this seem less pressing, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death was a lesson that Stephen Breyer, who retired this year, seemed to heed: Once you’re of retirement age, it’s best to leave the court if an ideologically friendly president and Senate majority are in control.Sonia Sotomayor is 68 and Elena Kagan is 62. Both can serve for decades, but Democrats have to think seriously about the practical advantage of installing liberal justices who are in their 40s or early 50s. Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed at 48; Neil Gorsuch was 49. Justice Breyer wisely gave way to Justice Jackson. Perhaps Justice Sotomayor, at least, should give thought to stepping aside with Mr. Biden in the White House and Mr. Schumer guiding the Senate. With 51 votes, Mr. Schumer could steer through a judge who is as progressive as either Justice Sotomayor or Kagan, helping to nurture a liberal minority that could theoretically expand someday.And then there’s 2024. If Mr. Walker defeats Mr. Warnock, Republicans will have an enormous advantage in their quest to not only flip the Senate but also build a durable majority that could last a generation or more. The 2024 map is foreboding for Democrats: Assuming they run for re-election, three incumbents represent states that Mr. Trump handily carried in 2020. Mr. Manchin, resented by the left, will have to find a way to win in deep-red West Virginia (Mr. Trump carried the state in 2020 with nearly 70 percent of the vote). Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio (who has stated he will run) will have to win a state that has now twice voted for Mr. Trump and is sending J.D. Vance to Washington. Jon Tester of Montana has the daunting task of trying to win a rural state that has in recent years become inhospitable to Democrats for statewide offices.A 51-49 majority is a better hedge against such a possible wipeout. It also gives Mr. Warnock a chance to shine on the national level and demonstrate whether he can become a formidable member of an expanding Democratic bench, the kind of senator who could end up president someday.It’s tantalizing to consider whether the Georgia senator holds answers to the various major and minor crises looming over the future of the party. Mr. Warnock, like Barack Obama, is a Black politician who has proved he can weave together multiracial coalitions, retaining working-class support in communities of color while attracting some right-leaning voters and independents, many of them white. To finish just ahead of Mr. Walker in November, Mr. Warnock had to win over a sizable number of Georgians who were voting to re-elect the Republican governor, Brian Kemp. Mr. Warnock boasted repeatedly of his bipartisan bona fides — his campaign is still actively courting Kemp voters, even as the governor stumps for Mr. Walker — while retaining enthusiasm from the Democratic base. He did this in part by being a reliable supporter of the Biden policy agenda in Washington, avoiding the posture of needless antagonism that made both Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema enemies of the left for much of the past two years.Mr. Warnock enters the final stretch with three times as much cash on hand as Mr. Walker, who is lately trying to fend off a deluge of negative TV ads and allegations of carpetbagging. Once more, America’s fate is bound up in Georgia, and Mr. Warnock’s own political star may yet shine much brighter in the weeks to come.Ross Barkan, a novelist, is a contributor to New York Magazine and The Nation.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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More
A lawyer who made light of a legal document’s error was convicted of contempt of court, in a sign of the island nation’s eroding civil liberties.MELBOURNE, Australia — It was an error that could have happened to anyone, especially two years into a pandemic: In a court document, a judge in Fiji twice wrote “injection” when he meant “injunction.”And so, in a gently mocking Facebook post back in February, Richard Naidu, one of the most senior lawyers in the Pacific nation, pointed out the mistake, concluding with a “thinking face” emoji. He now faces up to six months in prison.With Fiji facing a pivotal election on Dec. 14, the case is the latest example of government criticism being met with the strong arm of the law, over seemingly trivial issues.Outside of the region, Fiji is perceived as a Pacific haven: the palm-fringed paradise emblazoned on high-end bottled water, with golden beaches and endless azure waters. Yet to its smaller neighbors, it is a powerhouse to be reckoned with — and one that often portends their own shifts toward or away from human rights and democratic freedoms.Fiji is one of the largest Pacific island nations, with a population of around a million people, a powerful military and a G.D.P. many multiples those of Samoa, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. But its image of picture-perfect vistas and dreamy vacation homes belies a turbulent electoral history and what analysts describe as a growing disregard for civil liberties, which have together elevated tensions ahead of a critical election next month that many fear may devolve into unrest.Peaceful transitions of power have not always come easily to Fiji, which has experienced four coups d’état since 1987, and which is often described as a “conditional democracy.” Its Pacific neighbors have also struggled to reconcile traditional power structures with respecting the voice of the people.This year’s election comes as divisions deepen between those Pacific nations that have allied with China and those that retain close ties to Australia, New Zealand and the United States.An official drawing of ballot numbers in Suva last week ahead of the coming election.Pita Simpson/Getty ImagesFiji’s relationship to China has been evolving. After an initial burst of investment from Beijing after Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, 68, took power in a coup in 2006, Fiji’s government has become more selective in its partnerships with the Chinese government and Chinese companies. But it’s not clear how Beijing would respond to a change in government, or unrest after a disputed result.“An unstable Fiji is bad for the region, because it creates an opportunity for China to exert its influence,” said Dominic O’Sullivan, a professor of political science at Charles Sturt University in Australia. He added: “It makes it difficult for Australia and New Zealand to remain on friendly terms, because they’ll — at least to some degree — try to defend democracy.”Fiji, a British colony from 1874 until its independence in 1970, was once seen as a standard-bearer for human rights in the Pacific. But over the past two decades or so, protections around civil liberties and freedom of speech have gradually eroded. Rights advocates now warn that the judiciary is far from independent, and that freedom of the press is at a worrying low.“If you criticize government, the implicit message out there is, you could still get prosecuted under several different laws,” said Kate Schuetze, a researcher on the Pacific for Amnesty International.In 2014, eight years after he came to power, Mr. Bainimarama reintroduced democratic elections, which he and his party, FijiFirst, won with around 60 percent of the vote. Four years later, in 2018, the party barely achieved an absolute majority. This year, as Fiji contends with rising inflation as well as the shock of the pandemic to its tourism industry, coffers and health system, polling suggests his victory is far from assured.So clear is the call for a fresh face that even the incumbent government is running on a platform of reform, with the slogan “We are the change.”The ruling party’s increasingly repressive moves to retain power and its gradual constriction of liberties have together created an environment where speaking out against the government comes with significant risks, sometimes months down the line.Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama of Fiji, left, with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand, center, at the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva in July. New Zealand and Australia have resisted criticizing Fiji’s increasing repression out of fear of pushing it closer to Beijing.Pool photo by William WestFor Mr. Naidu, a partner at a leading law firm, there was no immediate official response to his Facebook post, which garnered a few dozen likes and featured a screen shot of examples of the injunction/injection error in two consecutive instances, along with the comment “Maybe our judges need to be shielded from all this vaccination campaigning.”As the months passed, Mr. Naidu appeared at rallies for the opposition, fueling speculation that he planned to run for office himself. In July, around five months after publishing his post, he was suddenly charged with contempt of court, after Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, the country’s powerful attorney general and a government cabinet minister, said the post aimed to “ridicule the presiding judicial officer and the Fijian judiciary as a whole.”Mr. Naidu was found guilty of contempt of court on Wednesday. His sentencing will be in January, when he faces the prospect of a heavy fine, or three to six months in prison. He declined to comment.Other opposition figures have experienced similar clampdowns. Biman Prasad, the leader of an opposition party, was charged last month with two counts of “insulting the modesty” of a person after he greeted the wife of a former political colleague with a hug and a kiss on the cheek. (The charges were subsequently dropped.)The use of the courts to restrict criticism has become more common in Fiji, which passed legislation making it easier to prosecute people for what they post online.“We’re seeing that spread across many countries in the Pacific,” said Josef Benedict, a researcher covering the Asia Pacific region for the civic-action nonprofit Civicus.The United States and other democracies in the region, especially New Zealand and Australia, have been reluctant to criticize the assaults on freedoms in Fiji, for fear of pushing the country toward China.Now, with three weeks to the election, many analysts fear a disputed result that could lead the military to intervene either for Mr. Bainimarama or his main opponent, Sitiveni Rabuka, 74, who led Fiji’s first coup in 1987.“The challenge is going to be, in terms of ensuring political stability and peace and security for individuals, in making sure that the military’s role is clearly defined, and that it doesn’t have a role in terms of interfering, overturning, or having a say in the government’s politics of the day,” said Ms. Schuetze, of Amnesty International. “That’s going to be the biggest test of this election.” More
Mark Meadows, a former White House chief of staff, has been fighting to avoid testifying about efforts to keep former President Donald J. Trump in power after he lost the 2020 election.PICKENS, S.C. — Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff who was deeply involved in efforts to keep former President Donald J. Trump in power after the 2020 election, was ordered on Wednesday to travel to Atlanta to testify in a criminal investigation into election meddling.Mr. Meadows, 63, has been fighting to avoid appearing before a special grand jury that has been investigating election interference in Georgia by Mr. Trump and his allies. The inquiry is being led by Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga.Mr. Meadows’s lawyer, James Bannister, said he would appeal the decision. He is employing a legal strategy that has been used in Texas, the home of three witnesses who were summoned by Fulton County but have not appeared. After a legal challenge by one of the three witnesses, a majority of judges on Texas’ Court of Criminal Appeals expressed the view that the Georgia grand jury was not a proper criminal grand jury because it lacked indictment authority, and thus probably lacked standing to compel the appearance of witnesses from Texas.The strategy could have implications for a number of out-of-state witnesses whose testimony is still being sought by the special grand jury, including Michael Flynn and Newt Gingrich, a native Georgian who now lives in Virginia — not to mention Mr. Trump, if his testimony is sought by Ms. Willis’s office. However, the district attorney could elect to conduct depositions of witnesses in their home states if their local courts refuse to produce them.Mr. Meadows, a South Carolina resident, did not appear at the hearing Wednesday morning. In court, Mr. Bannister tried to persuade Circuit Court Judge Edward W. Miller that the special grand jury in Georgia was not criminal in nature.But the South Carolina judge noted that the judge in Fulton County, Robert C.I. McBurney, who is overseeing the Atlanta proceeding, had considered the question, and recently ruled that the special grand jury was indeed criminal in nature. More
