Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia Law Kicks Off Partisan Battle Over Voting Rights

      by

      Civil rights groups quickly challenged a new law placing restrictions on voting, while President Biden denounced it as “Jim Crow.” Republicans in other states are determined to follow suit with their own measures.The fight over voting rights is emerging as one of the defining conflicts of the Biden era, and Georgia fired the opening shot with a set of new restrictions underscoring the political, legal and financial clashes that will influence whether Republicans retake Congress and the White House.President Biden on Friday called Georgia’s new law an “attack on the Constitution” and said the Justice Department was “taking a look” at Republican voting efforts in the state, without offering any specifics.“This is Jim Crow in the 21st century, it must end,” Mr. Biden said, a day after Gov. Brian Kemp signed the bill into law. “I will take my case to the American people — including Republicans who joined the broadest coalition of voters ever in this past election to put country before party.“If you have the best ideas, you have nothing to hide. Let the people vote.”Civil rights groups immediately challenged the Georgia law in federal court, backed by prominent Democratic voting rights lawyers. Several Black leaders described the legal skirmishes to come as an existential fight for representation, saying the law clearly puts a target on Black and brown voters. Protests against voting restrictions unfolded this week in state capitols like Austin, Texas, and Atlanta, and more lawsuits are expected.In more than 24 states, Republican-led legislatures are advancing bills in a broad political effort that is the most aggressive attack on the right to vote since the civil rights movement of the 1960s. It follows months of Republican efforts to tarnish Mr. Biden’s presidential victory, which scores of high-level G.O.P. officials still refuse to acknowledge as legitimate.Democrats, who have limited power in many state capitols, are looking to Mr. Biden and congressional Democrats for a new federal law to protect voting. Many in the party see the fight over voting as not just a moral cause but also a political one, given their narrow margins of victory in presidential and Senate elections in Georgia, Arizona and other battlegrounds.Georgia’s sweeping new provisions, passed by a Republican-controlled Legislature, represent the most substantive overhaul of a battleground state’s voting system since last November’s election. It would impose stricter voter identification requirements for absentee balloting, limit drop boxes and forbid giving water and snacks to voters waiting in line.But in a state where former President Donald J. Trump tried to persuade Republican election officials to reverse his loss, the measure went even further: It shifts the power and oversight of elections to the Legislature by stripping the secretary of state from chairing the state Board of Elections and authorizing the Legislature to name members to the board. It further empowers the state Board of Elections to have sweeping jurisdiction over county elections boards, including the authority to suspend officials.Mr. Biden on Friday called Georgia’s new voting restrictions “un-American,” and sought to tie them to the Democrats’ push in Washington to enact the federal voting rights bill, which the House passed this month. The measure would put in place a raft of requirements intended to protect voting rights, including weakening restrictive state identification requirements, expanding early and mail-in voting and restoring voting rights to former felons.The president said the new Georgia law was expressly what the House bill was designed to prevent. While Democrats in Congress debate abolishing the filibuster in order to pass the voting rights bill through the Senate, Republican legislators in more than 40 states have introduced hundreds of bills targeting voting access and seizing authority over administering elections.And another crucial conflict looms this fall: the fights over redistricting to account for growing and changing populations, and the gerrymandering that will allow partisan majorities to limit the impact of votes by packing or splitting up population centers.The gerrymandering disputes will determine the look of the House and dozens of state legislatures, in many cases locking in majorities for the next decade.Gov. Bryan Kemp of Georgia signed the voting bill into law hours after it was passed on Thursday.@GovKemp, via ReutersBitter struggles over voting rights loom even in states with Democratic governors who can veto the legislation. In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Republican-controlled legislatures are planning to advance restrictive bills, and new Republican governors would most likely sign them into law if they are elected next year.“The 2020 election is behind us, but the war over the future of our democracy is escalating,” said Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who is the secretary of state in Michigan, where Republicans this week introduced numerous proposed restrictions on voting. “For anyone to believe that they can sit down and rest because the 2020 election is behind need look no further than what happened in Georgia as an indication that our work is far from over.”Republicans, borrowing language from their previous efforts at curtailing voting access, have described the new bills as a way to make voting easier while limiting fraud. Mr. Kemp, upon signing the bill into law, said it would “make it easier to vote and harder to cheat,” even though the state’s own Republican election officials found no substantive evidence of fraud.Mr. Kemp on Friday pushed back at Mr. Biden’s criticism, saying, “There is nothing ‘Jim Crow’ about requiring a photo or state-issued ID to vote by absentee ballot.”“President Biden, the left and the national media are determined to destroy the sanctity and security of the ballot box,” Mr. Kemp said. “As secretary of state, I consistently led the fight to protect Georgia elections against power-hungry, partisan activists.”Jessica Anderson, the executive director of Heritage Action for America, the political arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Georgia would serve as a model for other Republican-run states.“The country was watching closely what Georgia would do,” Ms. Anderson said in an interview. “The fact that they were able to get these reforms through sets the tone and puts Georgia in a leadership role for other states.”The Justice Department was aware of Georgia’s voting law, a spokeswoman said on Friday, but provided no further comment. A White House official said the president, in his comments, was assuming this was an issue the department would review.The department’s civil rights division would most likely have lawyers investigate whether to file an independent lawsuit, said Tom Perez, the former labor secretary who also previously ran the department’s Civil Rights Division during the Obama administration. It could also take part in the case that was filed by civil rights groups by filing a so-called statement of interest or moving to intervene as the plaintiff, he said.But this is a precarious time for the federal protections in place. In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted one of the core provisions of the Voting Rights Act, clearing the runway for much of the current legislation aimed at restricting voting. The remaining protection, in Section 2 of the act, is facing a new challenge before the Supreme Court, with arguments heard last month.The debate is also spilling over into the corporate arena. Activists across the country have been chastising companies they see as silent on the issue of voting rights. In Georgia on Friday, numerous civil rights groups and faith leaders issued a call to boycott some of the standard-bearers of the Georgia business community — including Coca-Cola — until they took action against the effort to restrict voting access.The early battle lines are increasingly centering on two key states that flipped from Republican to Democratic in 2020, Arizona and Georgia. Those states are also home to large populations of voters of color, who have historically faced discriminatory laws at the polls.Two battleground states that remained in Republican control in 2020 — Texas and Florida — are also moving forward with new laws restricting voting.A drive-through voting station in Houston in October. Bills being considered by the Texas Legislature would ban the practice.Go Nakamura for The New York TimesIn Florida, lawmakers are looking to ban drop boxes and limit who can collect ballots for other voters, among other provisions, even after an election that the Republican chair of the state party touted as the “gold standard” and that Republicans won handily.Blaise Ingoglia, a Republican state representative who has sponsored some of the legislation, said that while the election was successful, it was “not without challenges and problems that we think we needed to fix.” He cited the use of ballot drop boxes, which he helped write into law but he said were not adequately being administered.“They said the same thing with the last election bill, that we wrote it and they said it was voter suppression, and the exact opposite happened: We had more people vote in the state of Florida than ever before,” he said. “We have 40 days of election with three different ways to vote. How can anyone say voter suppression?”In Arizona, Republican lawmakers have advanced legislation that would drop voters who skip consecutive election cycles from the permanent early voting list. The list currently consists of roughly 3.2 million voters, and critics of the legislation estimate it would purge roughly 100,000 voters.Lawmakers in Florida are seeking to limit drop boxes for ballots.Eve Edelheit for The New York TimesWisconsin Republicans have proposed many restrictions on the disabled, new limits on who can automatically receive an absentee ballot and a requirement that absentee voters provide photo identification for every election — as opposed to having one on file with their municipal clerk.The measures are certain to be vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, but their sponsor, the Republican State Senator Duey Stroebel, said Friday that the legislation would encapsulate the party’s principles heading into the midterm elections.“It will define that we as Republicans are people who want clean and fair elections in the state,” Mr. Stroebel said. Wisconsin Democrats, confident in Mr. Evers’s veto, are eager to have a voting rights fight be front and center ahead of the 2022 elections, said State Senator Kelda Roys, a Democrat.“People hate the idea that their right to vote is under attack,” Ms. Roys said. “The freedom to vote is just popular. It’s a great issue for Democrats.”The torrent of Republican voting legislation, Democrats say, undermines faith in elections.“Even in states where they won’t be passed and have been introduced, like in Colorado, they’re dangerous,” said Jena Griswold, the secretary of state in Colorado. “The rhetoric of lying and trying to manipulate Americans to keep political power is dangerous. It led to all the death threats that secretaries of state and election officials received in 2020. It led to the insurrection.”Reporting was contributed by More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Begin Push for Biggest Expansion of Voting Since 1960s

      by

      Democrats characterized the far-reaching elections overhaul as the civil rights battle of modern times. Republicans called it a power grab that would put their party at a permanent disadvantage.Democrats began pushing on Wednesday for the most substantial expansion of voting rights in a half-century, laying the groundwork in the Senate for what would be a fundamental change to the ways voters get to the polls and elections are run.At a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders made a passionate case for a bill that would mandate automatic voter registration nationwide, expand early and mail-in voting, end gerrymandering that skews congressional districts for maximum partisan advantage and curb the influence of money in politics.The effort is taking shape as Republicans have introduced more than 250 bills to restrict voting in 43 states and have continued to spread false accusations of fraud and impropriety in the 2020 election. It comes just months after those claims, spread by President Donald J. Trump as he sought to cling to power, fueled a deadly riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6 that showed how deeply his party had come to believe in the myth of a stolen election.Republicans were unapologetic in their opposition to the measure, with some openly arguing that if Democrats succeeded in making it easier for Americans to vote and in enacting the other changes in the bill, it would most likely place their party permanently in the minority.“Any American who thinks that the fight for a full and fair democracy is over is sadly and sorely mistaken,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader. “Today, in the 21st century, there is a concerted, nationwide effort to limit the rights of citizens to vote and to truly have a voice in their own government.”Mr. Schumer’s rare appearance at a committee meeting underscored the stakes, not just for the election process but for his party’s own political future. He called the proposed voting rollbacks in dozens of states — including Georgia, Iowa and Arizona — an “existential threat to our democracy” reminiscent of the Jim Crow segregationist laws of the past.He chanted “Shame! Shame! Shame!” at Republicans who were promoting them.It was the start of an uphill battle by Senate Democrats, who have characterized what they call the For the People Act as the civil rights imperative of modern times, to overcome divisions in their own ranks and steer around Republican opposition to shepherd it into law. Doing so may require them to change Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster, once used by segregationists to block civil rights measures in the 1960s.Republicans signaled they were ready to fight. Conceding that allowing more people to vote would probably hurt their candidates, they denounced the legislation, passed by the House this month, as a power grab by Democrats intent on federalizing elections to give themselves a permanent political advantage. They insisted that it was the right of states to set their own election laws, including those that make it harder to vote, and warned that Democrats’ proposal could lead to rampant fraud, which experts say has never been found to be widespread.Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, on Wednesday at the hearing.Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times“This is an attempt by one party to write the rules of our political system,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, who has spent much of his career opposing such changes.“Talk about ‘shame,’” he added later.Some Republicans resorted to lies or distortions to condemn the measure, falsely claiming that Democrats were seeking to cheat by enfranchising undocumented immigrants or encouraging illegal voting. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said the bill aimed to register millions of unauthorized immigrants, though that would remain unlawful under the measure.The clash laid bare just how sharply the two parties have diverged on the issue of voting rights, which attracted bipartisan support for years after the civil rights movement but more recently has become a bitter partisan battleground. At times, Republicans and Democrats appeared to be wrestling with irreconcilably different views of the problems plaguing the election system.Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, the top Republican on the Senate Rules Committee, which convened the hearing, said states were taking appropriate steps to restore public confidence after 2020 by imposing laws that require voters to show identification before voting and limiting so-called ballot harvesting, where others collect voters’ completed absentee ballots and submit them to election officials. He said that if Democrats were allowed to rush through changes on the national level, “chaos will reign in the next election and voters will have less confidence than they currently do.”The suggestion piqued Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and the committee chairwoman, who shot back that it was the current elections system — an uneven patchwork of state laws and evolving voting rules — that had caused “chaos” at polling places.“Chaos is what we’ve seen in the last years — five-hour or six-hour lines in states like Arizona to vote. Chaos is purging names of longtime voters from a voter list so they can’t go vote in states like Georgia,” she said. “What this bill tries to do is to simply make it easier for people to vote and take the best practices that what we’ve seen across the country, and put it into law as we are allowed to do under the Constitution.”With Republicans unified against them, Democrats’ best hope for enacting the legislation increasingly appears to be to try to leverage its voting protections — to justify triggering the Senate’s so-called nuclear option: the elimination of the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes, rather than a simple majority, to advance most bills.Even that may be a prohibitively heavy lift, though, at least in the bill’s current form. Liberal activists who are spending tens of millions of dollars promoting it insist that the package must move as one bill. But Senator Joe Manchin III, a centrist West Virginia Democrat whose support they would need both to change the filibuster rules and to push through the elections bill, said on Wednesday that he would not support it in its current form.Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Mr. Manchin said he feared that pushing through partisan changes would create more “division” that the country could not afford after the Jan. 6 attack, and instead suggested narrowing the bill.Voters waited in line to cast ballots in the 2020 election in Suwanee, Ga.Nicole Craine for The New York Times“There’s so much good in there, and so many things I think all of us should be able to be united around voting rights, but it should be limited to the voting rights,” he said. “We’re going to have a piece of legislation that might divide us even further on a partisan basis. That shouldn’t happen.”But it is unclear whether even major changes could win Republican support in the Senate. As written, the more than 800-page bill, which passed the House 220 to 210 mostly along party lines, is the most ambitious elections overhaul in generations, chock-full of provisions that experts say would drive up turnout, particularly among minorities who tend to vote Democratic. Many of them are anathema to Republicans.Its voting provisions alone would create minimum standards for states, neutering voter ID laws, restoring voting rights to former felons, and putting in place requirements like automatic voter registration and no-excuse mail-in balloting. Many of the restrictive laws proposed by Republicans in the states would move in the opposite direction.The bill would also require states to use independent commissions to draw nonpartisan congressional districts, a change that would weaken the advantages of Republicans who control the majority of state legislatures currently in charge of drawing those maps. It would force super PACs to disclose their big donors and create a new public campaign financing system for congressional candidates.Democrats also said they still planned to advance a separate bill restoring a key enforcement provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, after a 2013 Supreme Court ruling gutted it. The ruling paved the way for many of the restrictive state laws Democrats are now fighting.In the hearing room on Wednesday, Republicans ticked through a long list of provisions they did not like, including a restructuring of the Federal Election Commission to make it more partisan and punitive, a host of election administration changes they predicted would cause mass “chaos” if carried out and the public campaign financing system.“This bill is the single most dangerous bill this committee has ever considered,” Mr. Cruz said. “This bill is designed to corrupt the election process permanently, and it is a brazen and shameless power grab by Democrats.”Mr. Cruz falsely claimed that the bill would register undocumented immigrants to vote and accused Democrats of wanting the most violent criminals to cast ballots, too.In fact, it is illegal for noncitizens to vote, and the bill would do nothing to change that or a requirement that people registering to vote swear they are citizens. It would extend the franchise to millions of former felons, as some states already do, but only after they have served their sentences.Senator Amy Klobuchar pressed against Republicans saying that it was the current elections system that had caused “chaos” at polling places.Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesThough few senators mentioned him by name, Mr. Trump and his false claims of election fraud hung heavily over the debate.To make their case, Republicans turned to two officials who backed an effort to overturn then-President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s election victory. Mac Warner, the secretary of state of West Virginia, and Todd Rokita, the attorney general of Indiana, both supported a Texas lawsuit late last year asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the election results in key battleground states Mr. Biden won, citing groundless accusations of voting improprieties being spread by Mr. Trump.On Wednesday, Democrats balked when Mr. Rokita, a former Republican congressman, asserted that their proposed changes would “open our elections up to increased voter fraud and irregularities” like the ones that he said had caused widespread voter mistrust in the 2020 outcome.Senator Jon Ossoff, a freshman Democrat from Georgia, chastised the attorney general, saying he was spreading misinformation and conspiracies.“I take exception to the comments that you just made, Mr. Rokita, that public concern regarding the integrity of the recent election is born of anything but a deliberate and sustained misinformation campaign led by a vain former president unwilling to accept his own defeat,” Mr. Ossoff said.Mr. Rokita merely scoffed and repeated an earlier threat to sue to block the legislation from being carried out should it ever become law, a remedy that many Republican-led states would most likely pursue if Democrats were able to win its enactment.Election workers re-counting ballots in November in Atlanta.Nicole Craine for The New York Times“You are entitled to your opinion, as misinformed as it may be, but I share the opinion of Americans,” Mr. Rokita said.Sixty-five percent of voters believe the election was free and fair, according to a Morning Consult poll conducted in late January, but only 32 percent of Republicans believe that. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race Is Up For Grabs, Poll Suggests

      by

      Fifty percent of likely Democratic voters still don’t know whom they want to be the next mayor of New York, a poll found.The primary for the New York City mayor’s race, poised to be the most consequential contest in a generation, is fewer than 100 days away.But for many voters, that reality has not yet sunk in.A slate of major debate matchups does not begin until May. Few of the candidates have the resources to advertise on television yet. Traditional campaign methods — greeting subway riders, for example — have limited reach as fewer New Yorkers use public transit. And while city residents were often preoccupied by the challenges of life in a pandemic, the crowded field of mayoral candidates spent the winter in one Zoom forum after another, often in front of sparse online audiences.These extraordinary circumstances have made an always-fluid citywide race even more unpredictable this year, compressing the contest into a three-month springtime sprint for candidates eager to sway undecided voters before the June 22 primary that is likely to decide who will be the next mayor.Their work will be cut out for them: Half of likely Democratic voters are still undecided about their choice to lead the city, according to a poll released on Wednesday.The poll, from Fontas Advisors and Core Decision Analytics, offered a vivid illustration of the uncertain nature of the race.“There is no front-runner,” said George Fontas, the founder of Fontas Advisors, who sponsored the poll and said that he is not affiliated with any campaign in the race. “It’s an open race. We have no idea what’s going to happen in the next three months, and if history shows us anything, it’s that three months is an eternity in a New York City election.”The poll did show some early leaders. Only two candidates registered double-digit support: Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate, at 16 percent, and Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, at 10 percent. Both have done more in-person campaigning than others in the field.Maya D. Wiley, a former MSNBC analyst and ex-counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, was at 6 percent; Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, got 5 percent; a former Citi executive, Raymond J. McGuire, received 4 percent; and Shaun Donovan, the former federal housing secretary; Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner; and Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, each got 2 percent.New York mayoral races have broken late in other years — three months ahead of the 2013 mayoral primary, Mayor Bill de Blasio was something of an afterthought — and many campaigns and strategists expect the contest to accelerate in earnest in late spring, when more candidates, and possibly independent expenditure committees, start spending on television ads.Certainly, candidates have ramped up their campaigning in recent weeks. And as voters increasingly tune in, they are discovering that in addition to deciding on their favorite candidate, they must also think through the new ranked-choice voting system, which enables them to express a preference for up to five candidates.“When you have that many candidates, it’s hard to know what to do, and then, of course, ranked-choice voting,” said Gale A. Brewer, the Manhattan borough president. “I think they’re very confused about trying to do the right thing. The people I talk to want to do the right thing, they feel the city needs a lot of good leadership.”Neighbors, she said, have asked her, “‘If I’m doing this person first, who should I do second? Who should I do third?’ In their head, they’re all trying to figure this out.”There are also many voters who have been consumed by national politics and the controversies surrounding Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in Albany, but have not yet turned their attention closer to home.“You have D.C. and all of its machinations that have kept people more than engaged, and then you have Albany, which is taking up a tremendous amount of voters’ brain space,” said Christine C. Quinn, the former City Council speaker who ran unsuccessfully for mayor in 2013.She also noted that some voters, accustomed to September primaries, are still adjusting to the June time frame.“It was hard to get people to vote in September, it’s going to be harder to get them to vote in June,” she said. “They’re not used to it. And you add in ranked-choice voting, and it’s a lot of confusion. So campaigns are really going to have to do outstanding get-out-the-vote if they really want to win.”There is limited credible public polling in the mayor’s race. But a number of both public and private surveys suggest that Mr. Yang is the early poll leader — by varying margins — typically followed by Mr. Adams. Mr. Yang on Wednesday released an internal poll that showed him at 25 percent of first-choice votes, followed by Mr. Adams at 15 percent.Reflecting a growing rivalry, Mr. Adams and Mr. Yang’s campaign managers traded notably sharp attacks on Wednesday, with Mr. Adams wrongly claiming that “people like Andrew Yang never held a job in his entire life.” Mr. Yang’s campaign managers charged that Mr. Adams “crossed a line with his false and reprehensible attacks. The timing of his hate-filled vitriol towards Andrew should not be lost on anyone.”Those two contenders, along with Mr. Stringer, had the highest name recognition in the Fontas survey as well. They all have significant fund-raising coffers.Ms. Wiley has also appeared to gain some traction in recent weeks with a spate of new endorsements. Mr. McGuire and Mr. Donovan have already started pressing their messages on television.The next mayor will confront a series of staggering challenges concerning the economy, education, inequality and a range of other problems exacerbated by the pandemic. “Who becomes the next mayor is probably one of the most important political decisions this city will ever make, ever,” said Keith L.T. Wright, the leader of the New York County Democrats.But Mr. Wright acknowledged that many voters have had more immediate concerns in mind than electoral politics. “People are concerned about eating, let’s be clear. They’re concerned about whether they’re going to get their stimulus check.”“The first one who’s able to break through and get the attention of those undecideds,” Mr. Wright said, “probably becomes the winner.”The poll was the result of 800 live telephone interviews of New York City Democratic primary likely voters. It was conducted March 15-18, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46 percentage points. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Postal Service Plans Price Increases and Service Cuts to Shore Up Finances

      by

      The 10-year plan, which would lengthen promised delivery times and reduce post office hours, among other provisions, drew immediate condemnation from Democrats in Congress.WASHINGTON — The Postal Service unveiled a 10-year strategic plan on Tuesday that would raise prices and lengthen promised delivery times, among other measures, in an effort to recoup $160 billion in projected losses over the next decade.The announcement, which comes as the beleaguered agency is already reeling under nationwide delivery delays and falling use of traditional mail, drew immediate condemnation from Democrats in Congress, who would have to pass legislation to carry out some parts of the proposal. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California instead vowed to advance an infrastructure bill “to ensure that the Postal Service has the resources needed to serve the American people in a timely and effective manner.”Among other things, the plan would reduce post office hours, consolidate locations, limit the use of planes to deliver the mail and loosen the delivery standard for first-class mail from within three days in the continental United States to within five days, an effort to meet the agency’s 95 percent target for on-time delivery. In a news conference, Kristin Seaver, an executive vice president at the Postal Service, maintained that 70 percent of first-class mail would continue to be delivered in one to three days.The postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, a Trump megadonor and former logistics executive who has faced criticism over his handling of the agency, argued that the steps were necessary given the Postal Service’s worsening financial situation. The agency, which is supposed to be self-sustaining, has lost $87 billion in the past 14 fiscal years and is projected to lose another $9.7 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.“We have to start the conversation with we’re losing $10 billion a year,” Mr. DeJoy said in an interview on Tuesday, “and that’s going to continue to go up unless we do something.”“We are hopeful that this is taken for what it is, a positive story, and everybody, let’s get on board,” he added. “And I think, you know, there’s different aspects within each side of the aisle over there that this plan has good stuff for.”But if anything, the release of the plan appeared to intensify opposition to Mr. DeJoy’s leadership among Democrats, who had already blamed him for delivery slowdowns that coincided with operational changes last summer. They had also accused him of sabotaging the Postal Service as President Donald J. Trump promoted unfounded claims of vote-by-mail fraud before the 2020 election.On Tuesday, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, renewed a call for the sitting members of the agency’s Board of Governors to be fired and for Mr. DeJoy to be “escorted to the street where his bags are waiting for him.” The plan should be a “dead letter” for the agency, he added.Ms. Pelosi said Mr. DeJoy’s “cutbacks” would undermine the agency’s mission, “resulting in serious delays and degradation of service for millions.”The Postal Service said that relying more on ground transportation would make delivery more reliable. But the result would be, for some, slower mail.Among the most contentious provisions were price increases for the agency’s services. In its plan, the Postal Service said it expected to find $44 billion in revenue over the next 10 years through regulatory changes, including pricing flexibility. Mr. DeJoy said he could not offer details about the increases.The single largest opportunity for savings under the plan lies in lawmakers’ hands. Congress has mandated that the agency must prefund 75 years’ worth of its retiree health benefits. In the strategic proposal, the Postal Service estimates that it could recoup $58 billion by eliminating the prefunding requirement and introducing Medicare integration, which would align the agency’s retiree health benefit plans with those of many private sector employers and state and local governments.Mr. DeJoy and Ron A. Bloom, the chairman of the Board of Governors, would not offer an explanation of how the Postal Service might recoup the expected $58 billion without legislative and administrative action. Instead, Mr. Bloom maintained, “We’re going to make this happen.” Mr. DeJoy said the agency has had “good conversations” with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.“If people choose to make this about politics, then they can,” Mr. Bloom said. “And it’s Washington, so it won’t surprise anyone if that happens from some time to time.“But you know, you have a bipartisan Board of Governors. You had a rigorous process to choose the P.M.G.,” he added, referring to the postmaster general. “You have what I think is a plan that demonstrates what we’ve been saying for a while, which is we want to grow and revitalize this institution.”Postal legislation has languished in Congress, but Democrats expressed interest in pushing ahead. Senator Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, expressed concerns about several elements in the Postal Service plan but expressed support for postal legislation more generally.Postal Service insiders said the plan was mixed. It promises potential for growth and an investment in new vehicles, along with post offices that meet community needs. But other elements are cause for concern, they said.“If they’re talking about, you know, service excellence, that to us it’s a contradiction to then have mail take longer to get to point A and point B or to reduce hours in retail units,” said Mark Dimondstein, the president of the American Postal Workers Union. “So we certainly oppose and have deep concerns about those part of the plans.”At least some of the elements of the plan will require an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission before they can be enacted, said Michael Plunkett, the president of the Association for Postal Commerce. He called it a “tall order” that consumers would accept higher prices from the Postal Service, along with reduced service.Mr. Plunkett said the plan made clear the Postal Service was aiming to bolster its package services, which have made up a growing share of its business. But he said the lack of effort to retain mail volume was disappointing.“On the mail side, they seem to just accept the fact that mail is going away,” Mr. Plunkett said.Asked about his ties to Mr. Trump and those who might disapprove of the plan as a result of those connections, Mr. DeJoy brushed off any criticism.“I’m here representing the Postal Service,” he said, adding, “I don’t pay attention to that.” More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Two New Orleans State Senators Win Runoff Spots for U.S. House Seat

      by

      Troy Carter and Karen Carter Peterson will meet in an April runoff for the seat vacated by Cedric L. Richmond.NEW ORLEANS — A pair of Democratic state senators from New Orleans claimed the most votes Saturday in a special election to replace former Representative Cedric L. Richmond, who is now a senior advisor to President Biden. State Senators Troy Carter and Karen Carter Peterson (they are not related) will advance to an April 24 runoff that will determine who represents a heavily Democratic seat in a Black-majority district that stretches from New Orleans along the Mississippi River to Baton Rouge.With 98 percent of precincts reporting in a notably light turnout, Mr. Carter was winning 36 percent of the vote, while Ms. Peterson claimed 23 percent in a 15-person field. Gary Chambers, a Baton Rouge activist, finished a surprisingly strong third place, nearing Ms. Peterson thanks to strong support in white liberal precincts. In another special Louisiana congressional election, in the northern part of the state, Julia Letlow, a Republican, won over 50 percent of the vote, averting a runoff and winning a seat that had been held by her husband, Luke, before he died of Covid-19 in December.Ms. Letlow is one of two widows running this year to claim House seats that had been held by lawmakers who succumbed to the virus. In Texas, Susan Wright is attempting to succeed her late husband, Ron Wright, in a special election later this year.It’s in South Louisiana, though, where the first competitive congressional race of the Biden era is taking place.Mr. Carter and Ms. Peterson are both veteran politicians and have roots in the competing, and fractious, Black political factions of New Orleans. Both have also run for this seat before — both of them in 2006, and Mr. Carter again in 2008 — without success.But when Mr. Richmond resigned after a decade in Congress to work for Mr. Biden, it gave Mr. Carter and Ms. Peterson a new chance to fulfill their longstanding ambition.As with many New Orleans elections, the contest quickly became a proxy fight. When another local ally of his decided not to run, Mr. Richmond quickly backed Mr. Carter in hopes of blocking his rival, Ms. Peterson.Recognizing the popularity and clout of his patron in the West Wing, Mr. Carter has sought to capitalize on Mr. Richmond’s endorsement. “I would have the ear of the guy who has the ear of the president of the United States of America,” Mr. Carter said.In response, Ms. Peterson has sought to run to the left, portraying herself as an anti-establishment Democrat even as she trumpets her role as a former state party chair and her numerous national endorsements.She has dismissed Mr. Carter’s calling card, saying that she has her own contacts in the Biden administration and does “not need to have the ear of the ear of the ear of the toe of the thumb of someone.”Given the intensity and history of their rivalry, as well as the often spicy politics of New Orleans, the runoff could be hard-fought.Two of Louisiana’s most prominent Democratic officeholders have yet to weigh in and could prove consequential if they do intervene. Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New Orleans surprised some in the city by not endorsing Ms. Peterson, an ally, before the first round of voting. Also still on the sidelines is Gov. John Bel Edwards, who has clashed with Ms. Peterson in the past and is widely thought to be in Mr. Carter’s corner.Perhaps most significant is who shows up to vote next month. Early voting before Saturday’s all-party primary was anemic — fewer than 6 percent of eligible voters cast ballots — and turnout was little better the day of the vote.The combination of the turbulent 2020 election, a pandemic that is only now showing signs of receding and a new, no-drama president has left the electorate apathetic, according to local officials. “Grandpa Joe has really taken the air out of the balloon, and there’s not that fever about politics,” Andrew Tuozzolo, a Democratic strategist said, referring to Mr. Biden. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Louisiana Special Election Sets Up a Democratic Showdown

      by

      The first competitive special congressional election of 2021 will unfold on Saturday, with two rival Democrats poised for a runoff to succeed the Biden adviser Cedric Richmond.DONALDSONVILLE, La. — The first competitive special congressional election of the Biden era is most likely heading to a runoff next month, but the battle lines are already drawn ahead of the initial balloting on Saturday in the race to succeed former Representative Cedric L. Richmond of Louisiana.At the center of the debate: which of two New Orleans Democrats positioned to face off in April can better leverage their connections to lift a South Louisiana district hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic.“I would be a freshman with the relationships of a senior member,” State Senator Troy Carter, one of the two lawmakers, said after a sign-waving session on Thursday morning at a busy New Orleans intersection. He was alluding to his endorsements from Mr. Richmond, who left Congress to become a senior White House aide, and from prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus like Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat.But after a meet-and-greet 60 miles up the Mississippi River, his chief rival, State Senator Karen Carter Peterson, said the extensive contacts she had made serving in the State Legislature and on the Democratic National Committee would better benefit voters — and she poked fun at her opponent and his patron, Mr. Richmond.“I don’t need to have the ear of the ear of the ear of the toe of the thumb of someone,” Ms. Peterson said, adding that she would not “have to call the White House” to reach cabinet members because she already knew many of them.After sending a succession of powerhouse Democrats to Washington, from Longs to Landrieus, Louisiana has become so red that its only Democratic representation in the nation’s capital hails from its lone predominantly Black seat, the Second Congressional District, which stretches from New Orleans along the so-called river parishes to Baton Rouge. This small foothold of power brings obvious limitations, but it also confers outsize influence in the party — and never more so than when Democrats have full control of the federal government, as they do now.The eventual winner will have clout not only with a range of political and judicial appointees in the state but also over how Louisiana benefits from the infrastructure bill that is among the next priorities for President Biden. And few regions in the country have the varying needs of South Louisiana, with its dependence on two sectors of the economy that suffered heavily from the coronavirus: tourism and oil and gas.The all-party vote on Saturday, which will head to a runoff between the top two vote-getters if no one reaches a 50 percent threshold, is not the state’s only special congressional election. Voters in the heavily Republican Fifth District in North Louisiana will go to the polls to fill a seat that was supposed to be held by Luke Letlow, 41, who won election in November before dying of Covid-19 the next month. His widow, Julia Letlow, has the support of most state and national Republicans and is heavily favored.It’s in New Orleans, however, where the politics are, as ever, most complex, competitive and more than a little piquant.State Senator Karen Carter Peterson is a former chair of the Louisiana Democratic Party and served as a vice chair on the Democratic National Committee.Chris Granger/The New Orleans Advocate, via Associated PressThe field to replace Mr. Richmond is 15 strong and includes the Baton Rouge-based civil rights activist Gary Chambers Jr., who has developed a following in the state capital.Yet the race has been dominated by the two New Orleans state senators, who would largely vote the same way but represent competing political factions and are running sharply different races as it relates to the seat’s previous occupant.When he announced in December that he was resigning to take a senior position in the White House, Mr. Richmond said he would most likely offer an endorsement. Anyone with more than a passing interest in New Orleans’s byzantine web of political relationships and rivalries knew what that translated to: He would support whoever emerged as the strongest candidate against Ms. Peterson.With its one-party dominance, New Orleans is a city riven not by partisan divisions but by the sort of personal feuds that often shape municipal politics. And, to put it mildly, Mr. Richmond and Ms. Peterson are not allies.“New Orleans is a city of neighborhoods, and this is a multigenerational turf war between the political organizations they came up in,” said Clancy DuBos, a longtime political analyst in the city.This, of course, all mattered very little outside the land between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain.But then Mr. Richmond joined the White House and Ms. Peterson jumped in the race to succeed him. She was quickly joined by Mr. Carter, who, with the departing congressman’s blessing, boasted, “I would have the ear of the guy who has the ear of the president of the United States of America.”Which is why Ms. Peterson, sitting in a folding chair as her supporters helped themselves to a post-event jambalaya feast near the levee in Donaldsonville, was grinning as she cracked to a visiting reporter about ears, toes and thumbs.A former state Democratic chair and national party vice chair, Ms. Peterson said she would be able to deliver for the district without going through the West Wing.Citing the names of the transportation, energy and housing secretaries, she said, “They personally know me and my work.”Without directly mentioning Mr. Richmond in her remarks to the group, Ms. Peterson implicitly contrasted herself with the former congressman. In a part of the state known as “cancer alley” because of its convergence of illness and petrochemical plants, she presented herself as more pro-environment and said she had heard complaints “that people have been absent.”Julia Letlow has the support of most state and national Republicans and is heavily favored to win the special election in Louisiana’s Fifth Congressional District.Brett Duke/Associated PressMr. Richmond has been criticized by some for being too close to industry and insufficiently attentive to the district’s rural communities.Ms. Peterson’s best applause line, though, might also reflect her best chance to prevail.“There’s never been an African-American woman to serve, in the history of Louisiana, in Washington in the federal delegation,” she said. “When women aren’t at the table, we’re usually on the menu.”At a moment when Black women want to see more of their counterparts in positions of power — a view much of the Democratic base shares as Black women run this year in high-profile elections in places like New York City, Virginia and Ohio — the message plainly resonated.“I’m all for women right now, we just need representation,” said Angela Steib, a Donaldsonville resident who attended the get-together.For his part, Mr. Carter is quick to highlight his support from an array of local female leaders, including the New Orleans City Council president, Helena Moreno — and to intimate that he would be more effective in Washington than Ms. Peterson because of what she acknowledges is her hard-charging approach.“We have a very different style,” he said.Philosophically, the two have not been that far apart in the past. But Ms. Peterson has sought to outflank Mr. Carter on the left in this race, portraying herself as an insurgent even as she trumpets her service as a former state chair and her roster of endorsements, which include the backing of Stacey Abrams and Emily’s List, the group that supports women who are in favor of abortion rights.Asked to describe her style of politics, though, she avoided an ideological label, instead calling herself “responsive” and “honest.” Mr. Carter said, “I am center-left.”In a sleepy spring special election, though, the winner may be determined by which of the two leading candidates has a stronger organization. Both have a long history in local office, both have sought this seat in the past and they have been competitive financially, although Emily’s List has given Ms. Peterson third-party help that Mr. Carter lacks on the airwaves.The early voting ahead of Saturday was dismal, with most of the ballots mailed in by older voters. In a city that loves its politics, there is an unmistakable somnolence to this race, one that locals attribute to the pandemic and fatigue from the 2020 election.That, however, could change once it becomes a head-to-head contest — and especially if the state’s two other Democratic power brokers in office join the fray and make the proxy war complete. Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New Orleans is a Peterson ally who has, notably, not yet endorsed anyone, and Gov. John Bel Edwards, who is closer to Mr. Carter, has also stayed on the sidelines.Asked about the mayor’s potential support, Ms. Peterson suggested that the race was about to become enlivened.“She will speak to her position on the race at the appropriate time,” she said, failing to suppress a smile. More

    • 63 Shares119 Views

      in World Politics

      Influence Has Become Democracy’s Influenza

      by

      Two months after the departure of Donald Trump, the world is seeking to understand the contours of the new administration’s still hesitating foreign policy. US President Joe Biden made a bold step forward this week when he vowed to pursue the fantasy of Russiagate, the Democratic equivalent of QAnon. He may fear that without the Russian bugbear, MSNBC, the news channel that contributed so effectively to his election, will see its audience plummet even further than in the weeks since the inauguration. Russiagate alone kept MSNBC’s audience hooked through four years of Donald Trump.

      CNBC delves into the private thoughts of a president who now apparently feels empowered to judge the moral status of other leaders: “President Joe Biden says he believes Russian leader Vladimir Putin is a killer with no soul.” Biden intends to make the Russian president “pay a price” for interfering in the 2020 US election.

      A Deeper Look into Hong Kong’s Evolution

      READ MORE

      Biden’s remarks followed a report issued by US intelligence that included the following observation: “A key element of Moscow’s strategy this election cycle was its use of people linked to Russian intelligence to launder influence narratives including — misleading or unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden — through US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, some of whom were close to former President Trump and his administration.”

      One may forgive the incoherence of the author’s punctuation, but no reasonable reader can fail to deplore the confusion of the charges, highlighted by the use of phrases such as “people linked to” and “some of whom.” And then there is the semantic enormity of the phrase, “launder influence narratives.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Influence narrative:

      Anything any politician or diplomat of any nation happens to utter in speech or writing. The basis of all political discourse.

      Contextual Note

      In his book, “The Ultimate Goal,” former Indian spy chief Vikram Sood explores the way governments and their intelligence arms build and promote their self-interested narratives. Like a modern Machiavelli, Sood offers today’s princes the basic recipe: “Manage narratives to manage your destiny … tell your story first, any other story thereafter will only be a reaction.” That sums up the business of the CIA. The fact that US intelligence operatives want people to feel shocked that Russia might be using “influence narratives” reveals more about the CIA and its belief in the naivety of the US public than it does about Russia. The report itself is a perfect example of an “influence narrative.”

      Covering the same topic for The Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima confusingly repeats the CIA’s metaphor of laundering when she cites the report’s claim that Russians used “Ukrainians linked to Russian intelligence to ‘launder’ unsubstantiated allegations against Biden through U.S. media, lawmakers and prominent individuals.” “Launder,” in this context, is clearly a metaphor in spy language borrowed from the idea of “money laundering,” the act of pushing dirty money through indirect channels to return to the economy with a clean appearance. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      It may seem odd to apply a metaphor borrowed from the banking world and apply it to the hyperreal field of political narrative. But given the intelligence community’s well-documented predilection for dirty information — otherwise known as lies — it should hardly surprise us that the masters of plots and subplots see the public narrative as something that needs to be laundered. Sood, after all, tells us that the political language in any official narrative “is designed to make lies sound truthful and to give an appearance of solidity to the pure wind.”

      Since the idea of “laundered narrative” belongs specifically to spy vocabulary, it may seem disconcerting that Washington Post journalists have uncritically adopted the term and feel no need to explain what it means. Could it be that they are corrupted by their incestuous relations with the spymasters in Langley, Virginia, who feed them much of their most valuable content and which they reprint uncritically? In contrast with The Post, Al Jazeera took the liberty of substituting a different verb, writing: “Moscow sought to ‘push influence narratives’ that included misleading or unsubstantiated claims.” 

      “Launder” has become part of The Post’s standard vocabulary. In September 2020, during the presidential election campaign, Post columnist Josh Rogin had used the term concerning the same claims about Moscow’s interference. According to Rogin, Democratic leaders demanded “a briefing based on concerns that members of Congress were being used to launder information as part of a foreign interference operation.”

      This pushes the accusation a little further by supposing that the members of Congress referred to were actively involved in making the dirty information look clean. But that’s exactly how the fabricated Russiagate narrative is designed to play out: Putin’s accomplices and useful idiots can be found under every table. Just like in the good ol’ days of Joe McCarthy. After all, if the narrative tells us there’s a threat, we really do need to feel threatened. That’s the CIA and the media doing their job. Who doesn’t remember all the al-Qaeda sleeper cells that populated every American city following 9/11?

      Historical Note

      The website Strategic Culture offers a succinct explanation of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird that permitted it to infiltrate domestic media in the US. The journalist, Wayne Madsen, writes: “A major focus of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency from its very inception was the penetration of the news media, including the assignment of CIA agents to the newsrooms and editorial offices of America’s largest media operations, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, Hearst Newspaper, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, and other major newspapers and broadcast networks.” That has been ever since one of the harder components of US soft power.

      This week, Matt Taibbi interviewed the famous whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who, in 1971, leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, exposing the embarrassing truth about the war in Vietnam that had been carefully hidden from the media. Taibbi recounts how “Ellsberg described a vicious cycle, in which leaders lie pervasively, then learn to have so much contempt for the public that swallows those lies, that they feel justified in lying more.”

      In its own dissemination of the content of the intel report released this week, The New York Times admits that the “report did not explain how the intelligence community had reached its conclusions about Russian operations during the 2020 election.” The report itself explains: “The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the specific information on which it bases its analytic conclusions, as doing so could endanger sensitive sources and methods.” In other words, don’t ask for evidence, you won’t get it. Glenn Greenwald reminds his readers that when, last October, the story broke concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop that intel attributed to Moscow’s meddling, the FBI had already “acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.”

      .custom-post-from {float:left; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      When the same discredited story reappeared months later with no significant changes and still with zero evidence, instead of casting doubt on the entire story, the obedient media interpreted it as confirmation of the original narrative. What better illustration of Vikram Sood’s principle, “tell your story first, any other story thereafter will only be a reaction”?

      Perhaps the most neglected dimension of this debate concerns the official role of intelligence. A month after John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, former President Harry Truman complained in an op-ed for The Washington Post that the CIA — an agency he had created — had betrayed its straightforward mission of gathering information to clarify the president in his decision-making. Truman insisted that “the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.” When Operation Mockingbird under the direction of Cord Meyer was launched during Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency, the CIA had not only begun focusing on influencing the president, it realized that the best way of influencing executive decisions was to control the narrative that the media would share with the public.

      The result is visible today, though no public figure will admit it. Democracy itself is engulfed within an elaborate system coordinated between the intelligence community, vested interests and the commercial media that generates and disseminates an endless stream of influence narratives.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      House Renews Landmark Domestic Violence Bill, but Obstacles Wait in Senate

      by

      The House vote was bipartisan, but many Republicans object to new gun restrictions on domestic abusers that could complicate Senate passage.The House moved on Wednesday to renew the Violence Against Women Act, adding firearm restrictions for convicted domestic abusers and other new provisions to a landmark law that has helped combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking but expired in 2019.President Biden, who wrote the law into existence as a senator in 1994, has made strengthening it one of his top domestic priorities during his time in office, and Wednesday’s vote was the first significant step toward putting it back into effect after lapsing under President Donald J. Trump. The law’s renewal has taken on added urgency amid alarming increases in domestic violence during the coronavirus pandemic.The House’s 244-to-172 vote was bipartisan, with 29 Republicans joining united Democrats to approve the bill. But substantial conservative opposition to a measure that has enjoyed broad backing from both parties in the past foreshadowed a more difficult path ahead in the Senate, where Democrats control just 50 of the 60 votes necessary for passage.In a statement after the vote, Mr. Biden urged the Senate to “bring a strong bipartisan coalition together” to send him a bill to sign into law as soon as possible.“Growing evidence shows that Covid-19 has only exacerbated the threat of intimate partner violence, creating a pandemic within a pandemic for countless women at risk for abuse,” he said. “This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue — it’s about standing up against the abuse of power and preventing violence.”Much of the House’s proposed update to the Violence Against Women Act, commonly known as VAWA, is noncontroversial. It would build on a patchwork of programs like violence prevention and housing assistance for abuse victims, reaffirm legal protections for victims and their families, and more aggressively target resources to minority communities.In an effort to expand the law’s reach, however, Democrats have also included provisions tightening access to firearms by people convicted of a violent crime or subject to a court order, and expanding protections for gay, bisexual and transgender people. In an attempt to cut into high rates of domestic violence against Native American women, their bill would grant tribal courts new authority to prosecute non-Indians for sex trafficking, sexual violence and stalking.“This bill opens the door of the armor of the federal government and its protection of women who continue to lose their life and men,” said Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas and one of its principal authors. “Yes, it is a culturally sensitive initiative that protects immigrant women, it protects Native Americans, it protects poor women.”But what Democrats characterized as equitable expansions of the law meant to meet the needs of a changing nation have prompted intense backlash among conservative Republicans, who have eagerly jumped into ideological battles with Democrats again and again in recent weeks.In sometimes fiery debate on the House floor on Wednesday, several conservatives accused the majority of using a law meant to protect women as a Trojan horse for a “far-left political agenda” on gun control and gay and transgender rights while holding hostage a clean reauthorization of the bill.“The most egregious provisions of this bill push leftist gender ideology at the expense of important protections for women’s privacy and safety,” said Representative Debbie Lesko, Republican of Arizona, who recounted her own experience with domestic violence. “If this bill is enacted, these shelters under penalty of federal law would be required to take in men and shelter them with women, putting vulnerable women at risk.”Ms. Lesko appeared to be referring to provisions barring groups that receive funds under VAWA from discriminating based on gender identity that were enshrined in law in 2013 and merely reiterated in the new bill. Its proponents say they have caused no widespread safety or privacy issues. One new aspect of the bill would require the Bureau of Prisons to consider the safety of transgender prisoners when giving housing assignments.Republicans were just as angry over the proposed closing of the so-called boyfriend loophole. While existing federal law forbids people convicted of domestic violence against a current or former spouse to buy or own a firearm, the new legislation would extend the prohibition to those convicted of abusing, assaulting or stalking a dating partner, or to those under a court restraining order.Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, pushed unsuccessfully for amendments that would allow the government to fund firearm training and self-defense classes for women.“If you want to protect women, make sure women are gun owners and know how to defend themselves,” she said. “That’s the greatest defense for women.”Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, offered an alternative proposal on Wednesday that would have reauthorized the law without changes for a single year to allow time for more bipartisan negotiation. It failed 177 to 249.Democrats and some Republicans did adopt an amendment by Representatives Jackie Speier, Democrat of California, and John Katko, Republican of New York, that appends what would be the first federal law to specifically address “revenge porn.” Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have put their own such laws in place in recent years, but advocates of a federal statute say they are inconsistent.The disagreements were many of the same ones that led the law to expire two years ago. House Democrats first passed a similar version of the bill to the one adopted on Wednesday in 2019 with modest support from across the aisle, but the Republican-controlled Senate declined to take it up for a vote amid an intense lobbying campaign by the N.R.A. to oppose the gun provisions.This time Democrats control the upper chamber and have vowed to hold a vote. Still, they will need at least 10 Republicans to join them to send a bill to Mr. Biden and will have to placate the minority party over many of the contentious new measures in the weeks ahead.Senate Republicans, led by Joni Ernst of Iowa, are preparing their own alternative to try to force compromises. Ms. Ernst, who has spoken about her own experience of sexual assault, told reporters this week that her colleagues objected chiefly to the gun provisions included in the House-passed measure, but she suggested their bill would eliminate other unwanted liberal proposals, too.Mr. Biden, who has called VAWA his “proudest legislative accomplishment,” enthusiastically backed the House bill and has not indicated what, if any, changes he would embrace. He won the presidency last fall in part based on the commanding support of women.The law was considered a watershed when it was written in the early 1990s. It addressed several issues that federal lawmakers had not tackled in a single piece of legislation, including keeping confidential the addresses of abused people and recognizing orders of protection across jurisdictions. Before the law was enacted, a state court order of protection in one state could not be enforced in another state.Though the law authorizing VAWA programs expired, Congress has continued to fund many of them in the meantime.Mr. Biden has already tried to make good on campaign promises to strengthen efforts to prevent domestic violence. His $1.9 trillion stimulus bill allocated $49 million for groups that aid survivors of domestic abuse, as well as housing assistance for people fleeing abuse, sexual violence and human trafficking.Katie Benner More