Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      State Election Officials Are Under Attack. We Will Defend Them.

      by

      Tucked into many of the election laws Republicans are pushing or enacting in states around the country are pernicious provisions threatening punishment of elections officials and workers for just doing their jobs.Laws like those already passed in Republican-controlled states like Georgia and Iowa, no matter their stated intent, will be used as a weapon of intimidation aimed at the people, many of them volunteers, charged with running fair elections at the local and state levels. By subjecting them to invasive, politically motivated control by a state legislative majority, these provisions shift the last word in elections from the pros to the pols. This is a serious attack on the crucial norm that our elections should be run on a professional, nonpartisan basis — and it is deeply wrong.It is so wrong that having once worked together across the partisan divide as co-chairs of the 2013-14 Presidential Commission on Election Administration, we have decided to come together again to mobilize the defense of election officials who may come under siege from these new laws.Bear in mind that this is happening after the 2020 election, run in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic, went off much better than expected. Voter turnout was the highest since 1900. A senior official in the Trump administration pronounced it the “most secure election in American history,” with “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.” Multiple recounts, contests and court cases brought by former President Donald Trump and his allies failed to persuade any courts or state officials to overturn the results of any election.The new laws establish civil penalties for technical infractions and subject officials to threats of suspension and even criminal prosecution. Iowa state election officials are now subject to fines of $10,000 and suspension for any actions that “hinder or disregard the object of the law.” They are also subject to criminal penalties when seeking to address disruptive conduct by partisan poll watchers. In Georgia, an election official threatened with suspension may appeal, but the law restricts state-financed support for the individual’s legal defense. The Georgia secretary of state, the chief election official, has been removed from the chairmanship of the State Elections Board, demoted to nonvoting ex officio status.Other states are considering laws containing similar threats to the impartial administration of elections. It can be no surprise that officials around the country are also experiencing threats and harassment ranging from physical confrontation to social media postings of personal information from their Facebook pages. And this dangerous behavior is spreading throughout the electoral process. Last month, election officials in Anchorage, Alaska, issued a report describing the “unprecedented harassment of election officials” during the conduct of a mayoral runoff election.The partisan efforts to control election outcomes will result in the corruption of our system of government, which is rooted in fair, free elections. We say this as longtime election lawyers from opposing political parties. In jointly leading the presidential commission, we worked with numerous local and state elections officials. We saw firsthand the dedication and professionalism they brought to their jobs. They work hard with inadequate resources and are rarely praised for what goes well and are quickly blamed for what goes wrong.In 2020, after the pandemic struck, these officials performed the near-impossible task of locating replacements for thousands of poll workers, reconfiguring polling places to offer safe voting spaces for voters and poll workers and ramping up effective mail voting where allowed under state law.Now their nonpartisan performance of their duties is under attack — even to the point of being criminalized. So we are committed to providing these officials a defense against these attacks and threats by recruiting lawyers around the country, Democrats and Republicans, to establish a network that would provide free legal support to election officials who face threats, fines or suspensions for doing their jobs. This national network will monitor new threats as they develop and publicly report on what it learns.The defense of the electoral process is not a partisan cause, even where there may be reasonable disagreements between the parties about specific voting rules and procedures. The presidential commission we led concluded that “election administration is public administration” and that whenever possible, “the responsible department or agency in every state should have on staff individuals who are chosen and serve solely on the basis of their experience and expertise.” To serve voters, those officials would require independence from partisan political pressures, threats and retaliatory attacks.These state laws, and the blind rage against our election officials that they encourage or reinforce, will corrode our electoral systems and democracy. They will add to the recent lamentable trend of experienced officials’ retiring from their active and vitally needed service — clearing the way for others less qualified and more easily managed by partisans. Early surveys show that in our nation’s larger jurisdictions, up to a quarter of experienced election officials are planning to leave their jobs. A primary reason they cite: “the political environment.”No requirement of our electoral process — of our democracy — is more critical than the commitment to nonpartisanship in the administration of our system for casting and counting of ballots now being degraded by these state laws. This challenge must be strongly and forcefully met in every possible way by Democrats and Republicans alike.Bob Bauer, a former senior adviser to the Biden campaign, is a professor at New York University School of Law and a co-author of “After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency.” Ben Ginsberg practiced election law for 38 years representing Republican candidates and parties.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

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin’s Nihilistic Bipartisanship

      by

      We are in the eye of the storm of American democratic collapse. There is, outwardly, a feeling of calm. The Biden administration is competent and placid. The coronavirus emergency is receding nationally, if not internationally. Donald Trump, once the most powerful man on earth and the emperor of the news cycle, is now a failed blogger under criminal investigation. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Andrew Yang and Eric Adams Rivalry Takes Center Stage After Debate

      by

      Both candidates, who are considered front-runners, have sharpened their tone, launching attacks on each other during and after Wednesday’s debate.During the 2020 presidential race and for much of the New York City mayor’s race, Andrew Yang has been known as a cheerful optimist.But voters saw a different side of Mr. Yang at the second major Democratic debate on Wednesday night as he fiercely criticized Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president and one of his main rivals.After Mr. Adams knocked him for leaving the city during the pandemic and not voting in city elections, Mr. Yang fought back, depicting Mr. Adams as a corrupt and unprincipled politician who would maintain the status quo. It was a strategic attack that could damage his opponent’s reputation, but the approach was far from Mr. Yang’s exuberant brand.“It was definitely noticeable,” Susan Kang, a professor of political science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said of his change in tone. “His biggest appeal has always been being the affable guy — he seemed so friendly and relaxed despite being attacked.”The tense exchange between Mr. Yang and Mr. Adams continued to make waves on Thursday as the eight leading candidates all tried to claim victory after their first major in-person debate.Mr. Adams continued to draw attention to Mr. Yang’s lack of experience at a virtual town hall for ethnic and community media.“You can examine my record because I have a record,” Mr. Adams said. “We can’t examine the records of those who decided to pop in the city all of a sudden. We can’t examine the records of those who have not been on the ground with us.”Evan Thies, a spokesman for Mr. Adams, doubled down on Mr. Adams’s demand Wednesday night for an apology from Mr. Yang over his accusations of corruption.“Yang is lying to voters about Eric because New Yorkers know the truth about Yang: he’s a fraud,” Mr. Thies said. “Yang should apologize to New Yorkers for spreading falsehoods, abandoning the city during Covid, and not taking this crucial election seriously.”Chris Coffey, one of Mr. Yang’s campaign managers, responded by reiterating Mr. Yang’s concerns that Mr. Adams was corrupt, and said voters were turning “towards the candidate who represents real change.”But Mr. Adams also appeared excited over his momentum going into the Democratic primary on June 22.“We are only 19 days away,” he said. “It almost gives me goose bumps when I think about it.”Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner, celebrated her debate performance with a specialty bagel in Brooklyn. Maya Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, greeted voters at the Park Slope Food Co-op in Brooklyn and highlighted a new endorsement from the New York State Nurses Association. Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller whose campaign was damaged by an allegation of sexual misconduct, held a “Women for Stringer” event.Mr. Adams wasn’t the only one to attack Mr. Yang during the debate. Mr. Stringer said that Mr. Yang was worse than an “empty vessel” — a term used by one of Mr. Yang’s advisers — and that he was a Republican.On Thursday, Mr. Yang was back to his upbeat self on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” arguing that he had momentum in the final weeks of the campaign.“We feel very, very confident going into this homestretch,” he said.Mr. Yang faced another confrontation on Thursday when he tried to hold a news conference outside the Prospect Park YMCA in Brooklyn and was shouted down by protesters. He chose the gym — Mr. de Blasio’s favored workout spot before the pandemic — to make the argument that he is the “best candidate to turn the page on the de Blasio administration.”A group of progressive activists were there to meet him, holding signs that read “Yang = More Cops” and “Hedge Fund Mayor,” and shouting “Don’t rank Yang!” After trying to talk with them, Mr. Yang gave up and left.Mr. Yang’s campaign said in a statement that he did not want to “defund the N.Y.P.D. at a time of soaring gun violence” and blamed the disruption on Mr. Stringer’s camp, calling it “a desperate attempt to distract from his failing campaign.”The organizers of the protest, a progressive super PAC called Our City, denied that they were backing Mr. Stringer. The group has called for voters not to rank Mr. Yang or Mr. Adams and is being led by Gabe Tobias, a former senior adviser to Justice Democrats, which played a key role in helping Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez get elected to Congress in 2018.“Our city deserves so much better than Andrew Yang and Eric Adams,” Mr. Tobias said in a statement. “No Democratic primary voter should rank either Yang or Adams. These are corporate candidates supported by super PACs that are funded by right-wing billionaires.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat in his second term, was not impressed by the debate or by Mr. Yang’s stunt outside his favorite gym.“That’s just a politician being a politician,” Mr. de Blasio told reporters. “I’d much rather people talk about what they’re going to do for New Yorkers and show they actually have some knowledge of this city and how it works.”Many of the candidates gave Mr. de Blasio poor to failing grades during the debate, and Mr. Yang was the only one who said he would accept the mayor’s endorsement.Mr. de Blasio said he had watched the debate and wanted more substance.“Sadly, I don’t think it was much of a debate,” he said. “I don’t think it shed a lot of light and New Yorkers need a lot more information about these candidates. They need a lot clearer vision from these candidates.”Ms. Wiley agreed. She went on the attack during the debate against both Mr. Yang and Mr. Adams. During the frenetic first hour of the debate, Ms. Wiley ignored calls from the moderators to stop talking and continued until she felt she had made her point.“One of the complaints about the debate was substance,” said Ms. Wiley, who explained her strategy after greeting voters outside of Yankee Stadium in the Bronx on Thursday. “Well, how do you get substantive in 30 to 45 seconds? You are basically doing sound bites.”During the debate, Ms. Wiley criticized Mr. Adams for what she believes are regressive views on policing and called out a nonprofit Mr. Yang founded for promising to create 100,000 jobs but only providing 150 in the cities that it targeted.“A two-minute answer is very different from a 45-second or 30-second answer,” she explained. “When I’m able to have a two-minute conversation — that’s all I need.”Both Mr. Adams and Mr. Yang showed a different side of themselves at the debate, said Mitchell L. Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University. Mr. Adams, who is known for making unscripted remarks, was prepared to respond calmly to Mr. Yang’s attacks.“He brushed it off very gracefully,” Mr. Moss said.Mr. Yang decided to go negative, but he also made good points about the city’s growing deficits in the coming years, said Mr. Moss, who advised Michael R. Bloomberg during his 2001 mayoral campaign and donated to Ms. Garcia this year.“Yang’s best message was that we are facing tough financial problems, and we should be discussing them,” Mr. Moss said. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      VP Kamala Harris Asked to Lead on Voting Rights, and It's a Challenge

      by

      Her new role comes as the Senate enters a crucial month in the Democratic drive to enact the most extensive elections overhaul in a generation.WASHINGTON — Vice President Kamala Harris did not come to her role with a list of demands. She wanted to be a generalist, in large part to learn the political rhythms of a president she was still getting to know. In the first few months of her tenure, some of her portfolio assignments were just that: assignments.But on the matter of protecting voting rights, an issue critically important to President Biden’s legacy, Ms. Harris took a rare step. In a meeting with the president over a month ago, she told him that she wanted to take the lead on the issue.Mr. Biden agreed, two people familiar with the discussions said, and his advisers decided to time the announcement of Ms. Harris’s new role to a speech he delivered on Tuesday in Tulsa, Okla. In his remarks, the president declared the efforts of Republican-led statehouses around the country to make it harder to vote as an “assault on our democracy, ” and said Ms. Harris could help lead the charge against them.He also gave a blunt assessment of the task: “It’s going to take a hell of a lot of work.”Back in Washington, the president’s announcement has not clearly illuminated a path forward for Ms. Harris, whose involvement in the issue stands to become her most politically delicate engagement yet. Her new role comes as the Senate enters a crucial month in the Democratic drive to enact the farthest-reaching elections overhaul in a generation, including a landmark expansion of voting rights that is faltering in the Senate.Her office has not yet announced its plans, aside from calls Ms. Harris held with civil rights activists, including Derrick Johnson, the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and a few scheduled meetings with prominent voting rights groups. Her advisers say she will take a wide-ranging approach to the issue by giving speeches, convening stakeholders and using the vice-presidential bully pulpit to raise awareness of the importance of the vote.“The work of voting rights has implications for not just one year down the road or four years down the road but 50 years from now,” Symone D. Sanders, the vice president’s senior adviser and press secretary, said in an interview on Wednesday. “The president understands that and the vice president understands that, and that’s why we will implement a comprehensive strategy.”The voting rights bill faces a more urgent timeline. The vast majority of the party has agreed to make the bill the party’s top legislative priority, and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, vowed to put it up for a vote later this month so any changes could be put into effect before the 2022 elections.With just weeks to go, it remains far from clear if it can actually pass. Because Republicans have locked arms in opposition, the only path forward would require all 50 Democrats — plus Ms. Harris, who serves as the tiebreaking vote in an evenly divided Senate — to support not only the substance of the bill, but changing the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes to approve major legislation, allowing it to pass with a simple majority instead.A handful of Democratic senators have expressed unease about changing the filibuster, while Senators Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have been more adamant in their opposition.Mr. Biden has already pledged to sign the bill, which the House passed with only Democratic votes this spring. Known as the For the People Act, the bill would overhaul the nation’s elections system by creating new national requirements for early and mail-in voting, rein in campaign donations and limit partisan gerrymandering. But with the bill all but stalled in the Senate, Mr. Biden has repeatedly expressed concern over its future in his discussions with Democrats.The announcement that Ms. Harris would be working to move the bill forward took many on Capitol Hill by surprise. Ms. Harris and Mr. Schumer spoke on Tuesday — and had plans to hold a follow-up conversation late Wednesday, a White House official said — but it did not appear Mr. Manchin or Ms. Sinema were given a heads up.In a statement, Mr. Schumer said he welcomed Ms. Harris’s help navigating into law an elections overhaul that was “essential to protecting the future of our democracy.”Proponents of the voting legislation took her involvement as a sign that their attempts to build pressure not just on lawmakers, but the White House, were being felt.Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, said he welcomed Ms. Harris’s help navigating into law an elections overhaul that was “essential to protecting the future of our democracy.”Erin Scott for The New York Times“It’s an interesting move given the long odds of anything getting passed and signed into law,” said James P. Manley, who served as a senior aide to former Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader before Mr. Schumer. “There’s not a lot of cards to play right now, so it shows me they are going to try to raise the public temperature of this thing.”Others pointed out that even though Mr. Biden has decades of experience moving legislation through the Senate, Ms. Harris, the first woman and woman of color to hold her role, comes to the issue with an equally valuable perspective as the country grapples with the ways American policies have marginalized and mistreated Black people.“I think that Vice President Harris herself personifies the need for voting rights to be extended,” the Rev. Al Sharpton, who attended the speech in Tulsa, said in an interview. “When she’s on the phone or walks into an office, we’re looking at the reason we need voting rights.”Michael Waldman, the president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, said that the decision to elevate Ms. Harris as the face of the administration’s work on the issue was a pivotal moment for the Biden White House given the number of voter suppression efforts that were moving forward — 389 bills in 48 states and counting, according to a tracker maintained the Brennan Center.“It has been decades since a Democratic White House has made voting rights and democracy reform a central goal,” Mr. Waldman said, but he added, “the clock is ticking.”Ms. Harris’s impact on the hand-to-hand politics of the Senate is expected to be limited, but she often drew attention to voting rights during her four years as a senator. During her last year in the Senate, Ms. Harris introduced legislation that would expand election security measures, require each state to have early in-person voting periods and allow for an expansion of mail-in absentee ballots.In 2020, Ms. Harris was also a co-sponsor of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would restore a piece of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that relied on a formula to identify states with a history of discrimination and require that those jurisdictions clear any changes to their voting processes with the federal government. The protections were eliminated by the Supreme Court in 2013.Still, Ms. Harris, who spent a chunk of her time in the Senate running for president, was not known for building especially close relationships with colleagues, and Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema are no exceptions.Several Democratic aides who work closely with the senators scoffed on Wednesday at the idea that Ms. Harris, known as a staunch liberal, would be the one to persuade either moderate lawmaker to change the filibuster rule. Nor is Ms. Harris a likely candidate to broker the kind of compromise on the substance of the bill needed to persuade Mr. Manchin, the only Democrat who has not sponsored it, to back it.Ms. Harris’s attempts in February to nudge Mr. Manchin to back the White House’s proposed $1.9 trillion coronavirus rescue package are illustrative.Mr. Manchin was piqued when Ms. Harris appeared, without warning, on a television affiliate in West Virginia to promote the package before he backed it. Though a Democratic aide familiar with the matter, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly, said the episode was now “water under the bridge,” it prompted cleanup by top White House officials.Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema’s offices declined to comment about Ms. Harris’s new role.Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are doing their best to kill the bill and blunt any Democratic attempt to change the filibuster rule, which would leave their party powerless to stop the passage of sweeping liberal priorities well beyond voting rights.At an event in his home state on Wednesday, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, argued that Democrats were inflating the impact of new state voting laws in an attempt to justify an unwarranted and chaotic slew of top-down changes to the way states run elections.“What is going on is the Democrats are trying to convince the Senate that states are involved in trying to prevent people from voting in order to pass a total federal takeover in how we conduct elections,” he told reporters. He said “not a single member” of his party supported the bill.Aware of the daunting path ahead, allies of the White House said that shepherding the bill through Congress was only one piece of the effort. Ms. Harris could be useful in helping ratchet up pressure on private companies, working with civil rights organizations, and engaging local communities over the importance of registering to vote.“She understands the need to engage in what I’d like to call kind of an ‘all of the above approach,’” said Representative Steven Horsford, Democrat of Nevada. “We can’t take anything for granted when we’re talking about having people’s voice heard at the ballot box.” More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Harris Asked to Lead on Voting Rights, and It's a Challenge

      by

      Her new role comes as the Senate enters a crucial month in the Democratic drive to enact the most extensive elections overhaul in a generation.WASHINGTON — Vice President Kamala Harris did not come to her role with a list of demands. She wanted to be a generalist, in large part to learn the political rhythms of a president she was still getting to know. In the first few months of her tenure, some of her portfolio assignments were just that: assignments.But on the matter of protecting voting rights, an issue critically important to President Biden’s legacy, Mr. Harris took a rare step. In a meeting with the president over a month ago, she told him that she wanted to take the lead on the issue.Mr. Biden agreed, two people familiar with the discussions said, and his advisers decided to time the announcement of Ms. Harris’s new role to a speech he delivered on Tuesday in Tulsa, Okla. In his remarks, the president declared the efforts of Republican-led statehouses around the country to make it harder to vote as an “assault on our democracy, ” and said Ms. Harris could help lead the charge against them.He also gave a blunt assessment of the task: “It’s going to take a hell of a lot of work.”Back in Washington, the president’s announcement has not clearly illuminated a path forward for Ms. Harris, whose involvement in the issue stands to become her most politically delicate engagement yet. Her new role comes as the Senate enters a crucial month in the Democratic drive to enact the farthest-reaching elections overhaul in a generation, including a landmark expansion of voting rights that is faltering in the Senate.Her office has not yet announced its plans, aside from calls Ms. Harris held with civil rights activists, including Derrick Johnson, the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and a few scheduled meetings with prominent voting rights groups. Her advisers say she will take a wide-ranging approach to the issue by giving speeches, convening stakeholders and using the vice-presidential bully pulpit to raise awareness of the importance of the vote.“The work of voting rights has implications for not just one year down the road or four years down the road but 50 years from now,” Symone Sanders, the vice president’s senior adviser and press secretary, said in an interview on Wednesday. “The president understands that and the vice president understands that, and that’s why we will implement a comprehensive strategy.”The voting rights bill faces a more urgent timeline. The vast majority of the party has agreed to make the bill the party’s top legislative priority, and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, vowed to put it up for a vote later this month so any changes could be put into effect before the 2022 elections.With just weeks to go, it remains far from clear if it can actually pass. Because Republicans have locked arms in opposition, the only path forward would require all 50 Democrats — plus Ms. Harris, who serves as the tiebreaking vote in an evenly divided Senate — to support not only the substance of the bill, but changing the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes to approve major legislation, allowing it to pass with a simple majority instead.A handful of Democratic senators have expressed unease about changing the filibuster, while Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat of Arizona, have been more adamant in their opposition.Mr. Biden has already pledged to sign the bill, which the House passed with only Democratic votes this spring. Known as the For the People Act, the bill would overhaul the nation’s elections system by creating new national requirements for early and mail-in voting, rein in campaign donations and limit partisan gerrymandering. But with the bill all but stalled in the Senate, Mr. Biden has repeatedly expressed concern over its future in his discussions with Democrats.The announcement that Ms. Harris would be working to move the bill forward took many on Capitol Hill by surprise. Ms. Harris and Mr. Schumer spoke on Tuesday — and had plans to hold a follow-up conversation late Wednesday, a White House official said — but it did not appear Mr. Manchin or Ms. Sinema were given a heads up.In a statement, Mr. Schumer said he welcomed Ms. Harris’s help navigating into law an elections overhaul that was “essential to protecting the future of our democracy.”Proponents of the voting legislation took her involvement as a sign that their attempts to build pressure not just on lawmakers, but the White House, were being felt.Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, said he welcomed Ms. Harris’s help navigating into law an elections overhaul that was “essential to protecting the future of our democracy.”Erin Scott for The New York Times“It’s an interesting move given the long odds of anything getting passed and signed into law,” said James P. Manley, who served as a senior aide to former Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader before Mr. Schumer. “There’s not a lot of cards to play right now, so it shows me they are going to try to raise the public temperature of this thing.”Others pointed out that even though Mr. Biden has decades of experience moving legislation through the Senate, Ms. Harris, the first woman and woman of color to hold her role, comes to the issue with an equally valuable perspective as the country grapples with the ways American policies have marginalized and mistreated Black people.“I think that Vice President Harris herself personifies the need for voting rights to be extended,” the Rev. Al Sharpton, who attended the speech in Tulsa, said in an interview. “When she’s on the phone or walks into an office, we’re looking at the reason we need voting rights.”Michael Waldman, the president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, said that the decision to elevate Ms. Harris as the face of the administration’s work on the issue was a pivotal moment for the Biden White House given the number of voter suppression efforts that were moving forward — 389 bills in 48 states and counting, according to a tracker maintained the Brennan Center.“It has been decades since a Democratic White House has made voting rights and democracy reform a central goal,” Mr. Waldman said, but he added, “the clock is ticking.”Ms. Harris’s impact on the hand-to-hand politics of the Senate is expected to be limited, but she often drew attention to voting rights during her four years as a senator. During her last year in the Senate, Ms. Harris introduced legislation that would expand election security measures, require each state to have early in-person voting periods and allow for an expansion of mail-in absentee ballots.In 2020, Ms. Harris was also a co-sponsor of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would restore a piece of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that relied on a formula to identify states with a history of discrimination and require that those jurisdictions clear any changes to their voting processes with the federal government. The protections were eliminated by the Supreme Court in 2013.Still, Ms. Harris, who spent a chunk of her time in the Senate running for president, was not known for building especially close relationships with colleagues, and Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema are no exceptions.Several Democratic aides who work closely with the senators scoffed on Wednesday at the idea that Ms. Harris, known as a staunch liberal, would be the one to persuade either moderate lawmaker to change the filibuster rule. Nor is Ms. Harris a likely candidate to broker the kind of compromise on the substance of the bill needed to persuade Mr. Manchin, the only Democrat who has not sponsored it, to back it.Ms. Harris’s attempts in February to nudge Mr. Manchin to back the White House’s proposed $1.9 trillion coronavirus rescue package is illustrative.Mr. Manchin was piqued when Ms. Harris appeared, without warning, on a television affiliate in West Virginia to promote the package before he backed it. Though a Democratic aide familiar with the matter, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly, said the episode was now “water under the bridge” it prompted cleanup by top White House officials.Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema’s offices declined to comment about Ms. Harris’s new role.Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are doing their best to kill the bill and blunt any Democratic attempt to change the filibuster rule, which would leave their party powerless to stop the passage of sweeping liberal priorities well beyond voting rights.At an event in his home state on Wednesday, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, argued that Democrats were inflating the impact of new state voting laws in an attempt to justify an unwarranted and chaotic slew of top-down changes to the way states run elections.“What is going on is the Democrats are trying to convince the Senate that states are involved in trying to prevent people from voting in order to pass a total federal takeover in how we conduct elections,” he told reporters. He said “not a single member” of his party supported the bill.Aware of the daunting path ahead, allies of the White House said that shepherding the bill through Congress was only one piece of the effort. Ms. Harris could be useful in helping ratchet up pressure on private companies, working with civil rights organizations, and engaging local communities over the importance of registering to vote.“She understands the need to engage in what I’d like to call kind of an ‘all of the above approach,’” said Representative Steven Horsford, Democrat of Nevada. “We can’t take anything for granted when we’re talking about having people’s voice heard at the ballot box.” More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Crime and Qualifications at Issue in Heated N.Y.C. Mayoral Debate

      by

      The eight Democratic contenders jousted over the economy, education and the fundamental question of who among them was qualified to run New York City.The Democratic candidates for mayor of New York City forcefully attacked their opponents’ records and ethics in starkly personal terms on Wednesday night, tangling over how they would address growing concerns over rising violent crime and the city’s economic recovery.In their first in-person debate of the campaign, the eight leading contenders battled over crime, justice and the power of the police, questions of education and charter schools and, in the debate’s most heated moments, the issue of who is qualified to lead the nation’s largest city.The debate was the first opportunity for the candidates to confront each other face to face, and the setting and the timing — just 20 days before the June 22 Democratic primary — elevated the importance and the tension of the gathering.One of the most heated exchanges unfolded between Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, and Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate — two contenders who have generally been considered the front-runners, though the race is tightening.“Eric, we all know that you’ve been investigated for corruption everywhere you’ve gone,” Mr. Yang charged, accusing Mr. Adams of involvement in a “trifecta of corruption investigations.”“Is that really what we want in the next mayor? he asked. “Did you think you were going to enter City Hall, and it’s going to be different? We all know it’s going to be exactly the same.”Mr. Adams, who defended his integrity, noted Mr. Yang’s lack of past political experience in the city and remarked, “You do not vote in municipal elections at all. I just don’t know — how the hell do we have you become our mayor, with this record like this?”The candidates laid out their ambitions on vital city issues, including how to account for educational losses during the pandemic and the need to boost small businesses.The debate also touched on broader thematic questions: whether New York needed a political outsider with boldly ambitious ideas, or a leader with traditional experience in city government who might be more knowledgeable about how to tackle the staggering challenges that await the next mayor.

      .s-carousel{margin:0;padding:0;max-width:600px;margin:auto}.s-carousel__slides{position:relative;padding-top:min(600px,100%);background:#000}.s-carousel img,.s-carousel video{margin:0;padding:0;width:100%;height:100%;object-fit:contain}.s-carousel figure{margin:0;padding:0;position:relative}.s-carousel__credit{z-index:10;position:absolute;bottom:15px;left:15px;text-align:left;font-family:nyt-franklin,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-weight:500;font-size:.75rem;color:#fff;opacity:.6}.s-carousel figcaption{z-index:10;top:15px;left:15px;width:75%;letter-spacing:.01em;position:absolute;text-align:left;font-family:nyt-franklin,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-weight:700;text-shadow:0 0 10px rgba(0,0,0,.25),1px 1px 1px rgba(0,0,0,.35),-1px -1px 1px rgba(0,0,0,.35);font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#fff}.s-carousel li,.s-carousel ol{list-style:none;margin:0;padding:0}.s-carousel__viewport{width:100%;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;bottom:0;display:flex;overflow-x:scroll;overflow-y:hidden;scroll-behavior:smooth;scroll-snap-type:x mandatory}@media (prefers-reduced-motion){.s-carousel__viewport{scroll-behavior:auto}}.s-carousel__viewport{-ms-overflow-style:none;scrollbar-width:none;scrollbar-color:transparent transparent;-webkit-user-select:none;user-select:none}.s-carousel__viewport::-webkit-scrollbar{width:0;display:none}.s-carousel__viewport::-webkit-scrollbar-track{background:0 0}.s-carousel__viewport::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb{background:0 0;border:none}.s-carousel figure:focus,.s-carousel image:focus,.s-carousel video:focus{outline:0;box-shadow:none}.s-carousel__slide{width:100%;height:100%;position:relative;flex:0 0 100%;scroll-snap-align:start}.s-carousel__slide figure{width:100%;height:100%;display:flex;align-items:center}.s-carousel__tap-to-unmute-overlay{height:100%;width:100%;position:absolute;z-index:100;animation:fade-in .5s ease-out forwards;background-color:transparent;border:none}.s-carousel__tap-to-unmute-icon{pointer-events:none;background-color:#00000099;padding:10px;border-radius:50%;position:absolute;top:15px;right:15px}.s-carousel__tap-to-unmute-icon svg{display:block;fill:#fff;width:20px;height:20px}.s-carousel__tap-to-unmute-icon svg path{stroke:#fff}.s-carousel__kebob{display:flex;justify-content:center;margin-top:15px}.s-carousel__bob{display:inline-block;width:6px;height:6px;background:#121212;opacity:.3;background-clip:content-box;border:3px solid transparent;border-radius:50%;font-size:0;transition:transform .4s}.s-carousel__bob[data-active=true]{opacity:.8}.s-carousel__navigation{margin-top:15px;display:flex;justify-content:space-between;align-items:center}.s-carousel__arrows{width:50px;display:flex;justify-content:space-between;align-items:center}@media (hover:none){.s-carousel__arrows{visibility:hidden}}.s-carousel__arrow{all:unset;cursor:pointer}.s-carousel__arrow svg{pointer-events:none;fill:#333;transition:fill .15s}.s-carousel__arrow:hover svg{fill:#ccc}.s-carousel__closed-captions-container{position:absolute;z-index:11;bottom:35px;margin:0 auto;left:0;right:0;text-align:center}.s-carousel__closed-captions{font-size:1rem;color:#fff;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,.9);padding:5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;visibility:hidden}@media (max-width:600px){.s-carousel figcaption{width:75%;letter-spacing:.01em}.s-carousel__closed-captions{font-size:.8125rem}}Eric AdamsJames Estrin/The New York TimesAndrew YangJames Estrin/The New York TimesMaya WileyJames Estrin/The New York TimesRaymond J. McGuireJames Estrin/The New York TimesShaun DonovanJames Estrin/The New York Timesslide 1slide 2slide 3slide 4slide 5 Mr. Yang, who spent months running as an above-the-fray front-runner who billed himself as a cheerleader for New York City, has demonstrated a growing willingness to lace into his opponents — especially Mr. Adams — in recent days. He is seeking to cast the race as a choice between a change candidate and sclerotic status quo contenders, as he competes against others who have the kind of significant city government experience he lacks.The candidates took the stage at a moment of extraordinary uncertainty in the race, even as the contest nears its conclusion.In recent weeks, Kathryn Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner, has demonstrated real traction in both sparse public polling and more concretely, in fund-raising numbers — potentially joining Mr. Yang and Mr. Adams as front-runners.Those three candidates all have distinct bases, but they are in direct competition over some moderate white voters, and Mr. Yang and Mr. Adams have both criticized Ms. Garcia in recent weeks in a sign of her emerging strength — and a sharp departure from their previous friendly postures toward her.But onstage, the fire was directed more often at Mr. Yang and Mr. Adams than at Ms. Garcia, who pitched herself as a steady and serious government expert. She stayed out of the fray during the debate, but also at times was out of the spotlight.“We don’t need a politician right now,” Ms. Garcia said. “And perhaps from this stage, maybe you will agree with me.”The first hour of the debate, co-hosted by WABC-TV, aired on broadcast television and may have been the biggest stage yet for the mayoral candidates, though the station pre-empted the second hour with a game show, “Press Your Luck,” forcing viewers to switch to another channel or an online stream. After months of staid online forums, the debate on Wednesday took on the trappings of a prize fight, with fans of the candidates holding rallies outside the Upper West Side television studio, waving signs, blaring music and mixing with the contenders.Inside, several of the candidates appeared eager for confrontation. In the tense exchanges between Mr. Yang and Mr. Adams, Mr. Yang suggested that Mr. Adams’s advice about confronting others over the use of illicit fireworks led to a woman’s death, and Mr. Adams said at another point that people of color are “wrongly accused often in this country” and called on Mr. Yang to apologize for his insinuations on corruption.Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller who maintained a low profile in the first debate, issued bitter denunciations of several of his rivals. “As your consultants have told you time and time again, they admit you are an empty vessel,” Mr. Stringer said to Mr. Yang, peering over his podium to address the former presidential candidate directly. “I actually don’t think you are an empty vessel. I think you are a Republican who continues to focus on the issues that will not bring back the economy.”Mr. Stringer, who is casting himself as a progressive with deep government experience, also ripped Maya Wiley, the former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, claiming she had been a “rubber stamp” for the Police Benevolent Association when she chaired the Civilian Complaint Review Board.And he suggested that Mr. Adams and others believe “the only solution to preventing crime is going back to the Giuliani days with stop-and-frisk and a Republican agenda that put a lot of kids in our criminal justice system.”Ms. Wiley, who defended her tenure, slammed Mr. Yang’s record leading Venture for America, the nonprofit he ran before running for president, over its record of job creation and how, records show, he failed to recruit many participants of color. And in one of the most revealing exchanges of the night, she and Mr. Adams had an extended back-and-forth over remarks he made about guns.“Mr. Adams has said he’s carried a gun to church, he has asked off-duty officers to carry guns to church, he’s said he will carry a gun as mayor,” Ms. Wiley said. “Eric, isn’t this the wrong message to send our kids we’re telling not to pick up the guns?”Mr. Adams stressed that he saw a distinction between off-duty officers carrying guns and the proliferation of illegal guns, describing an incident that occurred when he was a transit police officer, and he stopped an anti-Asian hate crime on a subway train..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}“I was off-duty, I was able to stop those armed perpetrators from carrying out the actions while off-duty,” he said. “The state law states that a police officer can carry off-duty because he has to respond 24 hours a day to any crime that is taking place in this city.”“We also had an off-duty officer shoot his friend and murder him carrying his gun,” Ms. Wiley shot back.Ms. Wiley is working to assemble a coalition of both voters of color and white progressives, and she has increasingly billed herself as “the progressive candidate that can win this race,” as she seeks to emerge as the left-wing standard-bearer in the race. On Tuesday, she released a striking ad highlighting the police attacking peaceful protesters, betting that the attitudes around reining in police power that animated Democrats and others following the killing of George Floyd last year remain resonant.Mr. Adams, a Black former police captain who pushed for change from within the system, has in some ways made a very different bet about the mood of the electorate regarding public safety. Amid a spike in shootings, jarring episodes of crime on the subway and a spate of hate crimes around the city, he has argued that public safety is the “prerequisite” to prosperity even as he also presses for policing reforms. He sees a need for more police in the subway system, while Ms. Wiley has said the focus should be on more mental health professionals.“No one is coming to New York, in our multibillion dollar tourism industry, if you have 3-year-old children shot in Times Square,” Mr. Adams said. “No one is coming here, if you have people being pushed on the subway because of mental health illnesses. If we’re going to turn around our economy, we have to make this city a safe city.”“We can’t do safety at the expense of justice,” Ms. Wiley said. In an implicit swipe at Mr. Adams’s positions, she added, “We cannot, and that means we can’t have stop-and-frisk back, or the anti-crime unit.”For much of the race, the battle for the left has been crowded, as Mr. Stringer and Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, sought to engage the most deeply progressive voters in the city along with Ms. Wiley.Mr. Stringer is a well-funded candidate with significant labor support, but an accusation that he made unwanted sexual advances 20 years ago — which he denies — sapped his momentum and appears to have complicated his ability to grow beyond his Upper West Side base. Onstage, though, he was one of the most vigorous combatants.Ms. Morales was a favorite of the activist left, but her campaign has been embroiled in inner turmoil to an extraordinary degree, with a bitter unionization battle spilling into public view.Ms. Wiley’s challenge is to both unite and energize the most liberal voters in the party around her candidacy, and her ability to do so is not yet clear.Shaun Donovan, the former federal housing secretary, and Raymond J. McGuire, a former Citi executive, both took the debate stage as well-funded candidates who have struggled to gain significant traction.In different ways, both Mr. Donovan and Mr. McGuire sought to cast themselves as city government outsiders with serious executive experience who can fix the problems that have daunted others more closely tied to the current administration.“Other candidates on this stage have had a chance, these last eight years, to make progress,” Mr. Donovan said. “I would leave New York in a new and better direction.”Or as Mr. McGuire put it, borrowing from President Barack Obama, “I’m the change that you can vote for. I’m the change that you can believe in.”Emma G. Fitzsimmons More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Will Cuomo Run for a 4th Term? A $10,000-a-Plate Fund-Raiser Says Yes.

      by

      The event on June 29 will be the first fund-raiser for Mr. Cuomo since overlapping investigations engulfed his administration earlier this year.Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo will host a fund-raiser for the first time since overlapping scandals engulfed his administration and prompted calls for his resignation — the latest indication that he is gearing up to run for re-election.The fund-raiser, which will take place on June 29 at an undisclosed location in New York City, was advertised as a “summer reception” in a campaign email to supporters, who will need to fork over $10,000 per person, or $15,000 for two people, to attend.The mere act of holding a high-dollar, in-person fund-raiser after the end of the legislative session inflamed Mr. Cuomo’s critics, even as it underscored his everything-is-normal strategy in the face of several federal and state investigations into his personal conduct and the actions of his administration.The fund-raiser comes as Mr. Cuomo’s poll numbers have stabilized in recent months and he has dedicated most of his time to shoring up public support. Mr. Cuomo, a third-term Democrat, has a sizable $16.8 million cash on hand, according to campaign filings from January, and he appears intent on adding to it before the next filing in July.Still, few donors or lobbyists who were invited to the event were interested in discussing their plans publicly on Wednesday. Of eight invitees, only two said they planned to go. But none doubted that the governor, a prolific fund-raiser, would be able to attract enough takers for the event to raise its expected amount. (Similar events in the past — one asked couples to pay $25,000 — have aimed to raise $500,000, according to a person familiar with the governor’s fund-raising efforts.)“The pitch is, ‘I’m governor and I’m governing, head down, straightforward,’” said one person who received an invitation and requested anonymity to discuss it. The person did not plan to attend the fund-raiser.While Mr. Cuomo could use campaign contributions to mount a bid for a fourth term in 2022, he could also, in theory, use the money to pay for legal expenses related to the inquiries he is confronting, should he choose to hire his own lawyer, as some state officials have done.He has ignored the calls to resign that accompanied the investigations into sexual harassment claims from several women, his administration’s handling of nursing home deaths during the pandemic and his $5.1 million deal to write a memoir about the coronavirus outbreak.At a news conference on Wednesday, Mr. Cuomo said that he has not hired private counsel to represent him in the investigations, relying instead on outside lawyers paid for by the state, and that he had no plans “at this time” to use campaign funds for personal legal expenses.When Mayor Bill de Blasio faced state and federal inquiries into his campaign fund-raising activities during his first term, he used city funds to pay for the bulk of the legal fees. But he announced that he would personally pay a portion of the fees, about $300,000 that pertained to his “nongovernmental work.” (Mr. de Blasio has yet to settle that debt.)Last week, the state comptroller office approved a $2.5 million contract for Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello, a Manhattan law firm, to represent the administration in a federal investigation, overseen by the Eastern District of New York, into nursing home deaths and questions related to the publication of the governor’s book, “American Crisis.”The firm is also handling state and federal inquiries into the preferential access to coronavirus testing afforded to Mr. Cuomo’s family and other influential people, according to a partner there, Elkan Abramowitz.“The executive chamber has retained counsel, and that is a state expense,” Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday. “It has been in every investigation, so that’s where we are now.”As the inquiries have multiplied, so has state spending on legal representation for Mr. Cuomo and his aides. In the case of Mr. Abramowitz’s firm alone, the state went from a $1.5 million in initial precontract paperwork in March to the approved $2.5 million just over two months later.And there are several other firms representing Mr. Cuomo, his aides and other state officials.A separate request for the state to contract with Mitra Hormozi, a lawyer with Walden Macht & Haran LLP, which is representing the executive chamber on an investigation overseen by the state attorney general into the sexual harassment claims, is under review, according to the state comptroller office.Another contract for Paul J. Fishman, a partner at Arnold & Porter, a firm which is also representing the governor’s office on the sexual harassment accusations, has not been submitted to the comptroller office.Mr. Cuomo is being represented individually by another attorney, Rita Glavin, who started her own firm this year.“We are in the process of finalizing these contracts subject to approval by the comptroller’s office,” Richard Azzopardi, a senior adviser to Mr. Cuomo, said in a statement. “We are abiding by all applicable rules and standards, and in matters like this it is not uncommon for legal representation to begin while the contracts are simultaneously being drafted for submission and approval. Doing it the other way could potentially leave the chamber and its employees without representation.”Mr. Cuomo could take on private counsel of his own apart from the lawyers being paid for by the state. Were he to do so, he could use campaign funds to pay for that representation.However the governor plans to spend the money, the June 29 fund-raiser would be the first test of his ability to gather contributions, something Mr. Cuomo has been effective at throughout his tenure.Even as most fund-raisers were canceled or went virtual during the pandemic, Mr. Cuomo raised more than $4 million during the latter half of 2020 and the first two weeks of 2021, during which the state confronted the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic and he promoted his pandemic memoir.His top-dollar contributors, who gave up to $69,700 each during that time period, included Larry Robbins, a hedge fund manager; Eric Schmidt, the billionaire former chief executive of Google; Frank McCourt, the businessman and former owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers; and Robert Hale, a co-owner of the Boston Celtics.Real estate developers Gary Barnett, Daniel Brodsky, Jeffrey Gural, Harrison LeFrak and Larry Silverstein each gave $20,000 or more, while the billionaire leaders of the Estée Lauder Companies, Leonard A. Lauder and William Lauder, collectively contributed $82,000. More