Democratic Party

Subterms

    Latest story

    75 Shares17 Views

    Mallory McMorrow Enters Michigan Senate Race

    by

    The 38-year-old Democratic state lawmaker says that her party needs a generational shift.State Senator Mallory McMorrow of Michigan, a Democrat from the Detroit suburbs, jumped into her state’s U.S. Senate race on Wednesday, becoming the first prominent candidate to enter the contest, which will help decide control of the chamber next fall.The seat opened after Senator Gary Peters, a Democrat, announced his retirement, and the race — in a state that has often favored Democratic senators but twice voted for President Trump — will be among the most closely watched in the country next year.“We need new leaders,” Ms. McMorrow, 38, said in her announcement video. “The same people in D.C. who got us into this mess are not going to be the ones to get us out of it.”Ms. McMorrow won Democrats’ acclaim several years ago for defending liberal values while identifying herself as a “straight, white, Christian, married suburban mom,” and her announcement video featured national pundits remarking on the speech. She flipped a Republican-held district in 2018 and is the first woman to become State Senate majority whip, her campaign has noted, in Michigan’s history.She is unlikely to have the Democratic lane to herself for long.Democrats who have signaled that they are eyeing the Senate race include Representative Haley Stevens, a moderate from suburban Detroit; Representative Kristen McDonald Rivet, a Democrat who won a challenging House district in Michigan last year; and Abdul El-Sayed, an outgoing health director in Wayne County and a progressive who ran unsuccessfully against now-Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, in the 2018 primary.Ms. Whitmer, who is term-limited, has said she is uninterested in running for Senate. Pete Buttigieg, the former transportation secretary and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, has also taken himself out of contention.Whoever emerges from the Democratic primary, the race is expected to be competitive in the general election.Republicans who could or are expected to run include former Representative Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost to Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat, in November, and Representative Bill Huizenga. Tudor Dixon, who lost the governor’s race to Ms. Whitmer in 2022, and Kevin Rinke, who lost that Republican primary, could look at runs for Senate or governor. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares32 Views

      in Elections

      Susan Crawford Wins Wisconsin Supreme Court Election, Despite Elon Musk’s Millions

      by

      Susan Crawford defeated Brad Schimel for a State Supreme Court seat in a race that shattered spending records and maintained a liberal majority on the court.Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate for a pivotal seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, overcame $25 million in spending from Elon Musk and defeated her conservative opponent, The Associated Press reported, in a totemic contest that became a critical test of the nation’s prevailing political winds.Judge Crawford, who serves in Dane County, handily defeated Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, who ran on his loyalty to President Trump and was powered by record spending in the race from Mr. Musk, the president’s billionaire policy aide. The barrage of spending in the race may nearly double the previous record for a single judicial election. With over 70 percent of the vote counted on Tuesday evening, Judge Crawford held a lead of roughly 10 points.“Today, Wisconsinites fended off an unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections and our Supreme Court,” she said in her victory speech on Tuesday night. “Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale.”For Democrats, the result is a jolt of momentum. They have been engaged in a coast-to-coast rhetorical rending of garments since Mr. Trump returned to the White House in January and embarked with Mr. Musk on an effort to drastically shrink federal agencies, set aside international alliances and alter the government’s relationships with the nation’s universities, minority groups, immigrants and corporate world.Coming on the heels of Democratic triumphs in special elections for state legislative seats in Iowa and Pennsylvania and the defeat of four Republican-backed state referendums in Louisiana, Judge Crawford’s victory puts the party on its front foot for the first time since last November. Her win showed that, at least in one instance, Mr. Musk’s seemingly endless reserves of political cash had energized more Democrats than Republicans.The victory for Judge Crawford maintains a 4-to-3 majority for liberals on the court, which in coming months is poised to deliver key decisions on abortion and labor rights.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesWe 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

    • 200 Shares30 Views

      in Elections

      Johnson Moves to Block a Bill Allowing New Parents in the House to Vote by Proxy

      by

      A long-simmering fight over whether to allow members of Congress to vote remotely after the birth of a new child is coming to a head on Tuesday afternoon, when Speaker Mike Johnson’s behind-the-scenes efforts to quash the majority-supported change to the chamber’s rules will be tested on the House floor.The quiet push from a bipartisan group of younger lawmakers and new parents started more than a year ago, when Representative Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida, began agitating for a change to House rules that would allow new mothers to designate a colleague to vote by proxy on their behalf for up to six weeks after giving birth. Ms. Luna landed on the idea after her own child was born.There is no maternity or paternity leave for members of Congress, who can take time away from the office without sacrificing their pay but cannot vote if they are not physically in the Capitol. Proponents of the change have called it a common-sense fix to modernize Congress, where there are more women and more younger members than there were 200 years ago.Democrats including Representatives Brittany Pettersen of Colorado, who gave birth to her second child earlier this year, and Sara Jacobs of Colorado joined Ms. Luna’s effort, expanding the resolution to include new fathers and up to 12 weeks of proxy voting during a parental leave.But Mr. Johnson has adamantly opposed them at every turn, arguing that proxy voting is unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court refused to take up a Republican-led lawsuit challenging pandemic-era proxy voting rules in the House. Mr. Johnson and his allies have argued that any accommodation that allow members to vote without being physically at the Capitol, no matter how narrow, creates a slippery slope for more, and that it harms member collegiality.“I do believe its an existential issue for this body,” Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina and chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said on Tuesday. “Congress is defined as the ‘act of coming together and meeting.’” Changing that, she said, “undermines the fabric of that sacred act of convening.”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

    • 100 Shares35 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Sue Trump Over Executive Order on Elections

      by

      Nearly every arm of the Democratic Party united in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday night, arguing that a recent executive order signed by the president seeking to require documentary proof of citizenship and other voting reforms is unconstitutional.The 70-page lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., accuses the president of vastly overstepping his authority to “upturn the electoral playing field in his favor and against his political rivals.” It lists President Trump and multiple members of his administration as defendants.“Although the order extensively reflects the president’s personal grievances, conspiratorial beliefs and election denialism, nowhere does it (nor could it) identify any legal authority he possesses to impose such sweeping changes upon how Americans vote,” the lawsuit says. “The reason why is clear: The president possesses no such authority.”The lawsuit repeatedly argues that the Constitution gives the president no explicit authority to regulate elections, noting that the Elections Clause of the Constitution “is at the core of this action.” That clause says that states set the “times, places and manner” of elections, leaving them to decide the rules, oversee voting and try to prevent fraud. Congress may also pass federal voting laws.As Democrats debate how best to challenge the Trump administration’s rapid expansion of executive power, the lawsuit represents one of the first moments where seemingly every arm of the party is pushing back with one voice.Such unity is further evidence that Democrats still view the issue of democracy as core to their political brand, as well as a key issue that can help them claw back support with voters as they aim to build a new coalition ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In February, Democrats sued the Trump administration over attempts to control the Federal Election Commission. Weeks earlier, the D.N.C. joined a lawsuit over new voting laws in Georgia.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 Shares36 Views

      in Elections

      White House Takes Highly Unusual Step of Directly Firing Line Prosecutors

      by

      Two longtime career prosecutors have been suddenly fired by the White House, in what current and former Justice Department officials called an unusual and alarming exercise of presidential power.In recent days, the prosecutors, in Los Angeles and Memphis, were dismissed abruptly, notified by a terse one-sentence email stating no reason for the move other than that it was on behalf of the president himself.The ousters reflected a more aggressive effort by the White House to reach deep inside U.S. attorney offices across the country in a stark departure from decades of practice. While it is commonplace and accepted for senior political appointees at the Justice Department to change from administration to administration, no department veteran could recall any similar removal of assistant U.S. attorneys.A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.Asked about the ousters and whether others had been let go in a similar fashion, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said, “The White House, in coordination with the Department of Justice, has dismissed more than 50 U.S. attorneys and deputies in the past few weeks.”She added, “The American people deserve a judicial branch full of honest arbiters of the law who want to protect democracy, not subvert it,” offering no explanation for how either of the two fired prosecutors might have done that. Prosecutors are part of the executive, not judicial, branch of government.During his campaign, Mr. Trump vowed to drastically reshape the ranks of career Justice Department officials, aggrieved by the investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia in his first term and the four criminal indictments between his presidencies.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 Shares42 Views

      in Elections

      Spartz, Republican Lawmaker, Faces Anger at Town Halls Over Musk Cuts and Hegseth

      by

      House Republicans have been told by their party’s leadership to avoid town halls after Democrats and others began to seize on the events to vent frustration with the Trump administration.Representative Victoria Spartz, a third-term Republican from suburban Indianapolis, decided not to heed the warning this weekend — and was met with fury over cuts to the federal government’s services and work force.On Friday and Saturday, Ms. Spartz hosted gatherings with constituents. And each day, she found herself in hostile territory.She was booed, jeered and scolded over the Signal scandal at the Defense Department (she acknowledged the Trump administration needed to do a “better job”), and the Homeland Security Department’s efforts to deport immigrants without due process (she declared that unauthorized immigrants were entitled to “no due process”). And she was accused of standing idly by as Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency steered cuts to government services (she said the Trump administration was trying to stop fraud).She faced chants of “Do your job!” At times, the events turned into shouting matches. Some of the exchanges have circulated widely on social media.“You don’t have to scream,” she pleaded at a crowded town hall in Westfield, Ind., on Friday night. The event lasted for two interruption-filled hours.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

    • 100 Shares60 Views

      in Elections

      Ro Khanna Wants to Take On JD Vance

      by

      Ro Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, sees the vice president — a likely heir to President Trump’s political movement — as a unique threat to the constitutional order.Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, has been busy in the early months of 2025 trying out ways to make himself a counterweight to the Trump administration.In a social-media skirmish in February over the administration’s hiring and firing of an official who had written racist posts, Mr. Khanna drew the ire of Vice President JD Vance, who told him, “You disgust me.” More recently, Mr. Khanna has been staging town halls in Republican districts across California with a parade of progressive co-sponsors.Now, he is planning to shine an even brighter spotlight on Mr. Vance — and on himself — with speeches aimed directly at the vice president in April in Ohio, Mr. Vance’s home state, and at their shared alma mater, Yale Law School.In an interview, Mr. Khanna, 48, said he intended to cast Mr. Vance as a unique threat to America’s constitutional order, and argued that there was no time to waste in building the case against Mr. Vance, a likely heir to President Trump’s right-wing political movement.His speaking tour of several cities in Ohio, and on Yale’s campus in New Haven, Conn., is also an effort to nudge himself into the national conversation about the Democratic Party’s future.For Mr. Khanna, who has represented much of Silicon Valley since unseating a Democratic incumbent in 2016, that has been a long-term project. He makes a cascade of cable news appearances and travels widely; his repeated trips to New Hampshire before the 2024 election included appearances as a surrogate for former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and an unusual debate with Vivek Ramaswamy. At last year’s Democratic convention, he arranged to meet with delegates from 15 states.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 Shares70 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Democrats Seek Answers on Firing of Justice Dept. Official

      by

      After a disagreement about giving gun rights back to the actor Mel Gibson, a pardon attorney was fired. Senate Democrats are asking for details, including records or emails, that relate to the decision.Senate Democrats pressed Justice Department officials on Wednesday to explain the firing of the pardon attorney, Elizabeth G. Oyer, who was dismissed amid a disagreement with her superiors about whether to restore the actor Mel Gibson’s right to own guns.Ms. Oyer was one of a number of senior career officials at the Justice Department who were abruptly ousted this month. No reason was cited for the dismissals, but Ms. Oyer told The New York Times that senior department officials pressured her to add Mr. Gibson, an outspoken supporter of President Trump, to a list of people with past convictions who could nevertheless have their gun rights returned to them.The campaign, she said, incited fears that she could be fired over it. Senior Justice Department officials have said the dispute was not the reason for her dismissal.Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, including Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi seeking answers about Ms. Oyer’s firing. Her dismissal, they added, was “particularly troubling in light of the Trump administration’s purge of public servants, seemingly based on whether they are willing to carry out the president’s agenda of political retribution against his perceived enemies.”Senate Democrats are now asking Ms. Bondi to provide an explanation for Ms. Oyer’s firing, the names of the people involved in the move and any records or emails that relate to the decision.“It is vitally important that D.O.J. attorneys be permitted to pursue justice for the United States of America and the American people,” the Democrats wrote, “not serve as the personal law firm to President Trump, handing out legal favors to his rich and famous friends.”Mr. Gibson has not been able to buy a firearm since he pleaded no contest in 2011 to misdemeanor battery against a former girlfriend.The Trump administration has decided that the Justice Department should create a path for gun rights to be restored to some people with convictions. During internal department conversations on the subject, Ms. Oyer said she was particularly worried about giving gun rights to people with domestic violence convictions.“This isn’t political,” she said. “This is a safety issue.”Last week, the department moved forward with its plan to restore gun rights to some convicts, publishing a notice in the Federal Register about the initiative. Still unclear is exactly what criteria will be used to decide who is eligible. A senior Justice Department official has suggested this is only the first of a number of steps the administration plans to make on guns, including making it easier for people to buy silencers, also known as suppressors. More

    • 50 Shares81 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats: Still Under Construction

      by

      More from our inbox:Domestic EnemiesNew housing under construction in Georgetown, Texas.Mike Osborne for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “There Is a Liberal Answer to the Trump-Musk Alliance,” by Ezra Klein (column, March 9):Mr. Klein gets some things right about government efficiency and some things absolutely wrong. I agree that Democrats should pursue policies of abundance rather than policies of constraint. But Democrats did make that argument repeatedly and provided real policy solutions — for example, an expanded child tax credit that reduced child poverty roughly by half within a two-year period.Mr. Klein underestimates the power of the media’s constantly hammering on the message of division and the false assumption that taking care of the poorest will disadvantage working- and middle-class white people. He also contrasts housing construction policy in California and Texas, blaming overregulation for California’s lack of progress in meeting needs. Earthquakes? Wildfires? Coastal erosion? Access to adequate water? Mr. Klein ignores those constraints. And has he been to Texas lately?I am from a large Texas family and lived in California for 40 years. “Accessible housing” in Texas has led to endless sprawl, long commutes, increasing air pollution alerts and limited access to amenities to improve the quality of life. With its diminishing investment in public goods like schools and parks, its poor family support and hostility to women and diverse people, and one of the most corrupt administrative and legislative governments in the United States, Texas is hardly a model.Terry L. AllisonMontrealTo the Editor:Ezra Klein suggests that “a politics of abundance” can defeat the “politics of scarcity” that fuels the fear driving people into the arms of authoritarians like Donald Trump. While I agree from a philosophical standpoint, I must ask: How can we pull that off in a world where more and more of our planet is becoming uninhabitable because of climate change?Climate change is at the root of most of the challenges we face today. Millions of people displaced by famine, fire or flood will move to the quickly dwindling parts of the planet that are habitable. People in these still habitable locations sense this at their deepest core, and thus the politics of scarcity are born — not from propaganda but from actual crisis.We cannot even begin to project any sense of “abundance” while this indisputable fact remains true. The only way to save not only our political representation but also our planet is to face this existential crisis squarely, so that maybe one day “abundance” becomes a word that we can use truthfully, and joyfully, once again.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