Elections, Senate

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      John Fetterman Endorses Andy Kim in High-Stakes New Jersey Senate Primary

      by

      The Pennsylvania senator, the first among his colleagues to weigh in on the primary battle to oust the indicted Senator Robert Menendez, said he had concerns about Tammy Murphy’s G.O.P. history.Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania is endorsing Representative Andy Kim of New Jersey in the primary to unseat Senator Bob Menendez, the embattled veteran Democrat who is under indictment in a federal corruption case, taking the rare step of wading into a high-stakes intraparty fight to oust a colleague.Mr. Fetterman, the harshest Democratic critic of Mr. Menendez in Congress, who has repeatedly called on him to resign, is the first sitting senator to endorse any candidate in the race. In an interview, he explained his decision to intervene in a primary to take out a fellow sitting senator, stating bluntly that “anything would be an upgrade over Menendez.”Mr. Kim, a three-term congressman representing a southern New Jersey district that former President Donald J. Trump won twice, is running for the seat against Tammy Murphy, the first lady of New Jersey and a first-time candidate who is a former registered Republican. Ms. Murphy has locked up much of the institutional support in a state where county leaders hold enormous power in primary campaigns, but has struggled to gain grass-roots traction.Mr. Kim is leading by double digits in some recent polls.In an interview, Mr. Fetterman said that he was “enthusiastic” about Mr. Kim and that Ms. Murphy’s political background — she changed her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat only in 2014 — gave him pause.“One of the most important things is that we have a reliable Democratic vote,” Mr. Fetterman said. “We have to run this table in ’24 in order to maintain the majority. But we need to count on every Democratic vote. Andy Kim is the kind of guy we can count on.”Mr. Fetterman said Ms. Murphy was likely “a lovely woman, but the last time I had to deal with a Republican from New Jersey, that was my own race.” Mr. Fetterman in 2022 defeated Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Republican nominee for Senate whom he trolled relentlessly as a celebrity carpetbagger from the Garden State.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Would a Call From Tammy Help?’ Pressure Grows in Race to Oust Menendez

      by

      In a series of calls, a person in contact with the Senate campaign of Gov. Philip Murphy’s wife pressured a student Democratic group not to endorse her chief rival in the New Jersey race.The College Democrats of New Jersey were preparing to make an endorsement in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate primaries when calls began to come in from someone in touch with the campaign of Tammy Murphy, the presumptive front-runner and the wife of the state’s governor.The caller, a female college student who works as a youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee, wanted to know what Ms. Murphy’s campaign could do to block the group from endorsing Ms. Murphy’s main rival, Representative Andy Kim.“Would a call from Tammy help?” the woman said she asked, while indicating she was relaying a message from the Murphy campaign.Then, in a series of calls over the next two hours, the pressure from the caller, Keely Magee, escalated to warnings — about funding and future job prospects for leaders of the College Democrats, according to several people involved in the discussions and a recording of one call.In an interview, Ms. Magee said the Murphy campaign had not asked her to pressure the group on its behalf. But she acknowledged being aware that members of Ms. Murphy’s campaign staff “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement,” and said she was receiving text messages from a Murphy campaign consultant, Dave Parano.On the recorded call, Ms. Magee described Mr. Parano as a co-worker who had “talked directly” to the campaign manager and was “very, very close with the Murphys.” Mr. Parano did not respond to messages seeking comment.The effort to stop the endorsement failed. On Wednesday, both the College Democrats of America and the New Jersey chapter issued full-throated endorsements of Mr. Kim, a South Jersey Democrat running against Ms. Murphy for the chance to oust Senator Bob Menendez.The episode offered a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the high-stakes political battle playing out as New Jersey’s first lady, a first-time candidate, struggles to gain grass-roots traction in her bid to unseat Mr. Menendez, who faces federal bribery charges.With support from her husband, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a second-term Democrat, Ms. Murphy has been endorsed by many of the state’s most powerful Democrats and has raised a record amount of contributions in her campaign’s first six weeks. Yet several polls suggest that she continues to trail Mr. Kim by a wide margin.Ms. Murphy and Representative Andy Kim are the front-runners in the race to unseat Senator Robert Menendez, who is facing criminal charges.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesAlex Altman, a spokeswoman for Ms. Murphy’s campaign, said Ms. Magee’s comments were “totally and completely inappropriate, and they in no way represent this campaign or what we stand for.”“They were made by a young person with no connection to our campaign, one who seemed eager to help, albeit in a misguided manner,” Ms. Altman added.Ms. Magee, a 21-year-old Rutgers University junior, has worked part time as a paid youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee for several years.Ms. Magee said her main objective had been to persuade members of the College Democrats’ executive board to halt an online endorsement vote that was underway and remain neutral instead. She said she believed that statewide Democratic organizations should not pick sides before a primary and was worried that a group she was responsible for guiding might face repercussions for doing so.“It wasn’t coming from a place of threatening at all,” she said.But students on the other end of the calls said they had felt threatened, so much so that they recorded the final call to have proof of the exchange if they were penalized later. The students then gave Mr. Kim’s campaign access to the recording, which was also shared with The New York Times.“I felt a mix of shock and fear,” said Nate Howard, 20, a Princeton University junior who is vice president of the New Jersey chapter of the College Democrats and participated in the call with Ms. Magee that was recorded. “Shock because: Why are these people threatening us? Are we really that important?”According to the recording, Ms. Magee warned the students that an early endorsement of Mr. Kim could harm their future job prospects, deprive their organization of as much as $2,000 in funding and hurt their odds of being selected as delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.“If Tammy Murphy does somehow win being senator, I’d be careful about ever getting a job in that office or anything like that,” Ms. Magee said. “At least for the first few years of her term until her staff turns over.”Mr. Kim won the endorsement of the College Democrats.Bryan Anselm for The New York TimesMr. Howard said Ms. Murphy called him on Friday to apologize. Ms. Magee said Mr. Parano, a political field consultant who also does work for the state committee, had also apologized to her for involving her in the process in the first place.Ms. Murphy’s campaign said that all of the students involved in this “unfortunate situation” should be afforded the “grace, allowance and forgiveness that we all deserve at that age.”In the 2020 election, 67 percent of New Jersey voters between the ages of 18 and 29 cast ballots, the highest rate in the country.A spokeswoman for the Kim campaign said it was excited to receive the college groups’ endorsements, but had no comment about the recording.Mr. Howard said the experience had underscored what he believes is wrong with politics.“For things to get better,” Mr. Howard said, “I believe that it will require courageous people to tell the truth about the inappropriate and frankly gross behaviors of the status quo.” More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Endorses Bernie Moreno, Ex-Car Dealer, in Ohio Senate Race

      by

      The endorsement could give Mr. Moreno a crucial lift in a competitive three-way race for the Republican nomination to take on Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, next year.Former President Donald J. Trump on Tuesday endorsed Bernie Moreno in the Ohio Republican Senate primary, bolstering the candidacy of Mr. Moreno, who has accumulated several high-profile endorsements in his tight race against two more experienced politicians.With just three months until the primary, public polls show a close contest involving State Senator Matt Dolan, Secretary of State Frank LaRose and Mr. Moreno, a former car dealer from Cleveland.The winner will challenge Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who is seeking a fourth six-year term. Several recent public polls have shown Mr. Brown leading any of the three Republicans and having the easiest time beating Mr. Moreno.A poll from Emerson College and WJW-TV, a Cleveland Fox affiliate, on Nov. 13 showed Mr. Brown 11 points ahead of Mr. Moreno, more than double his lead over Mr. Dolan and Mr. LaRose. A poll on Oct. 19 from the Ohio Northern University Institute for Civics and Public Policy showed Mr. Brown 22 points ahead of Mr. Moreno.Mr. Trump, in a series of social media posts, did not directly mention Mr. Moreno’s Republican competitors, but pointed to Mr. Moreno’s status as a “political outsider” as a valuable asset in a race against Mr. Brown. Mr. Moreno has never held elected office, but has been an active Republican donor in recent years and ran unsuccessfully for the party’s Senate nomination last year.Mr. Moreno will “fight the corrupt Deep State that is destroying our Country,” Mr. Trump wrote in a social media post.Mr. Moreno had been skeptical of Mr. Trump’s political rise, referring to him as a “lunatic invading the party” in 2016. But he has since reversed his thinking. Emily Moreno Miller, his daughter, was a Republican National Committee official during Mr. Trump’s re-election bid, and her husband, Representative Max Miller of Ohio, is a former Trump White House aide who won his first election last year.“I could not be more grateful or humbled to have the complete and total endorsement of President Donald Trump at this vital moment in the campaign,” Mr. Moreno said in a statement, adding that a Republican takeover in the Senate and a victory from Mr. Trump in the presidential contest “will Make America Great Again!”Mr. Trump’s imprimatur proved valuable last year in Republican primaries ahead of the midterm elections, but less so in general election contests.Across the country, his handpicked candidates lost close races, including a crushing blow in Pennsylvania, where Democrats flipped a Senate seat and helped ensure Republicans would remain in the minority for the next two years. Trump-endorsed candidates in the five most competitive House races all lost.Democrats downplayed Mr. Trump’s endorsement, and predicted that the Republican primary would become more divisive.“Bernie Moreno has made it clear he won’t fight for Ohioans and doesn’t understand the issues facing their daily lives,” said Reeves Oyster, a spokeswoman for the Ohio Democratic Party. “As this primary heats up, it’s clear this slugfest is only going to get messier, nastier and more expensive from here.”In Mr. Moreno’s previous Senate primary race, Mr. Trump’s endorsement proved decisive for J.D. Vance, who won the Republican nomination before defeating Tim Ryan, the Democratic candidate, in the general election. Mr. Vance endorsed Mr. Moreno this year.Mr. Moreno has also been endorsed by Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Could Abortion Rights Rescue Red-State Democrats in the Senate?

      by

      Senator Sherrod Brown is betting that the issue will aid his re-election bid in Ohio, which recently upheld abortion rights. Allies of Senator Jon Tester of Montana are also hoping it helps.In the opening minutes of a debate during Sherrod Brown’s successful 2006 campaign for Senate, the Republican incumbent attacked him over “partial-birth abortion,” a phrase often weaponized by conservatives at the time to paint Democrats as somewhere between immoral and murderous.Mr. Brown, a Democrat from northeast Ohio in the House at the time, glanced at his notes. He opposed “late-term abortion,” he said in a measured voice. He denounced the mere idea that Congress would limit any procedure that could “save a woman’s health.”With that, he quickly pivoted. Mr. Brown used the rest of his time to burnish his political brand as a blue-collar economic populist.Nearly 18 years later, abortion will again be a central point of contention as Senator Brown fights for re-election against one of three Republicans trying to unseat him next year. One difference, other than that his shaggy dark hair is now shaded with gray, is that he is preparing to fully lean into his defense of abortion rights.“This issue’s not going away,” Mr. Brown said in an interview. “Women don’t trust Republicans on abortion, and they won’t for the foreseeable future — and they’re not going to trust these guys running against me.”Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, abortion rights has become an invaluable political asset for Democrats. They have leveraged the issue to hold onto control of the Senate, limit losses in the House and, this month, fuel victories in key state races across the Midwest and the South.But perhaps the toughest test for the issue’s power will come in Senate contests like Mr. Brown’s in Ohio and Senator Jon Tester’s in Montana. The fate of the razor-thin Democratic majority in the chamber could well be sealed in those two places, by the same voters who have installed Republicans in every other statewide office.Senator Jon Tester of Montana, like Mr. Brown, has often focused on local issues in his campaigns, rather than dominant national ones like abortion. Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesSo far, voters even in conservative states have consistently prioritized abortion protections over their partisanship. That was true last year in Kansas, where 59 percent of voters rejected a measure to remove abortion rights protections from the State Constitution, and again this month in Ohio, where 57 percent of voters agreed to enshrine such rights in their Constitution.The open question is whether Mr. Brown, 71, and Mr. Tester, 67, can maintain their invaluable political personas while — for the first time in their lengthy careers in public office — persuading their constituents to keep abortion rights front and center when voting next year.Both Democrats have long supported abortion rights, but their electoral successes trace back to carefully tailored campaigns that catered to local issues over dominant national ones like abortion. That individuality was how both men won re-election in 2018, even though their states voted for Donald J. Trump in 2016 and 2020.For Mr. Tester, this has meant campaigning on policies he has focused on in the Senate, where he serves on committees overseeing agricultural, Native American and veterans issues.His first television ads this campaign strike similar tones. One features Mr. Tester — a paunchy former schoolteacher with a flattop haircut and a left hand missing three fingers from a boyhood accident with a meat grinder — describing himself as both physically and philosophically different from his congressional colleagues.“I may not look like the other senators,” Mr. Tester says, “but that’s not stopping me from making Washington understand what makes Montana so special.”In Ohio, Mr. Brown has built his reputation on middle-class economic issues, including fighting corporate tax breaks and the high cost of health care. In a 2004 book, “Myths of Free Trade: Why America Trade Policy Has Failed,” he argued that unregulated trade deals had reopened the country’s class divide.This year, Mr. Brown’s campaign has already released a video attacking his three potential Republican challengers as extreme on abortion. In Montana, the Democratic Party has taken a similar approach on behalf of Mr. Tester.“The thing I think a lot of people miss with Sherrod is that he knows abortion is an economic issue,” said Nan Whaley, a Democratic former mayor of Dayton, Ohio, who ran for governor last year. “Abortion rights and abortion access maybe wasn’t discussed as much in previous campaigns, but that’s because it was before the fall of Roe.”Frank LaRose, the secretary of state of Ohio and one of the Republicans running against Mr. Brown, has supported a national abortion ban. Nick Fancher for The New York TimesThe task for the two Democrats will be complicated by a political headwind that neither senator has confronted: seeking re-election on a ballot topped by an unpopular president from their own party.Both first won election to the Senate by unseating incumbents in 2006, when discontent over the Iraq war and Republican corruption scandals helped Democrats make gains in Congress.Each was re-elected in 2012, when Democrats scored huge majorities from Black and Hispanic voters as President Barack Obama won a second term. They won again in 2018, a Democratic wave year propelled by opposition to Mr. Trump.Republicans are already trying to massage their message on abortion. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is coaching candidates to oppose a national abortion ban and to clearly state their support for exceptions when it comes to rape, incest or a woman’s health.But not all Republicans are on board, as the party’s Senate primary race in Ohio shows. One top candidate, Frank LaRose, the Ohio secretary of state, has supported a national ban and opposed exceptions for rape and incest — and also unsuccessfully campaigned against the abortion ballot question.Another contender, Bernie Moreno, a businessman seeking his first elected office, has said he supports exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the woman, but he told a reporter from Breitbart News last year that he did not. He has also expressed support for a 15-week federal ban.Matt Dolan, a Republican state senator in Ohio who is also running against Mr. Brown, opposes a national abortion ban.Dustin Franz for The New York TimesThe third leading candidate, Matt Dolan, a state senator, opposed the state’s constitutional amendment this month, but he has a more moderate record on the issue than his opponents. Mr. Dolan opposes a national ban and has criticized abortion ban proposals in Ohio that haven’t included the three main exceptions.“Most Americans agree there should be reasonable limits on abortion and abortion policy will primarily be made at the state level,” Mr. Dolan said in a statement, adding that Mr. Brown held “extreme” views on the issue.Some Republicans have said that Ohio’s ballot referendum means the abortion issue will have less urgency in the state next year. But Democrats contend that Republican support for a federal ban would help keep the issue alive, arguing that such a measure would undermine the will of Ohio voters.A poll commissioned by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recommended that messaging focus on G.O.P. support for a “national abortion ban” and that politicians should not be involved in “personal medical decisions.” Abortion rights groups have encouraged candidates to simultaneously adopt a “proactive” platform that calls for expanding access to contraception and maternal health resources while highlighting Republican involvement in abortion restrictions.“Campaigns need to quickly define who the villains are here: Republicans overturned Roe, Republicans have been campaigning against Roe for decades, Republicans have been pledging to create a court that would overturn Roe,” said Mini Timmaraju, the president of Reproductive Freedom for All, one of the country’s largest abortion rights groups. “They got it, they did it, they’re responsible. Pin it on them. Do not flinch.”Neither Mr. Brown nor Mr. Tester has been shy about supporting abortion rights.Mr. Tester campaigned in 2018 with Cecile Richards, who had recently stepped down as the president of Planned Parenthood. He said recently that abortion rights had clear resonance in Montana, where libertarian-leaning voters tend to reject perceived government intrusion.Still, Mr. Tester has mostly tailored his campaigns around issues closer to the Continental Divide in his state than the partisan divide in Washington.Supporters celebrating in Columbus this month after Ohio voters enshrined a right to abortion in the state’s Constitution. Adam Cairns/USA Today Network, via, via ReutersMr. Brown won his first political office in 1974, the year after Roe v. Wade was decided. He has proudly highlighted his 100 percent voting score from Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Reproductive Freedom for All.“My focus has always been on civil rights and women’s rights,” he said. “That leads to a better economy, too — when women have better access to child care and can make decisions for their families.”Mr. Brown was involved in the campaign this year to support the constitutional amendment on abortion, phone-banking alongside the Ohio Democratic Party and frequently bringing up the measure during campaign events.Hours after Ohioans voted, Mr. Brown posted a video on social media that framed his three potential Republican challengers as sitting on the wrong side of the issue. “All of my opponents would support a national abortion ban,” the caption read.If there was any doubt, Mr. Brown made clear in the interview that he saw the political benefit of the issue.Abortion, he said, “will surely be talked about more than in my other races.” More

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Here Are the Members of Congress Giving Up Their Seats, Setting Up a 2024 Fight

      by

      The fight for control of Congress could be heavily influenced by the already large number of members retiring or seeking higher office.More than three dozen members of Congress have already said they are planning to leave their seats, setting the stage for major turnover in the 2024 election.Few of the departures that have been announced are expected to alter the balance of power in the closely divided House, where the vast majority of seats are gerrymandered to be safe for one of the two political parties, or in the Senate. But a handful are already putting crucial seats up for grabs.Many of those who are leaving are expressing frustration about the polarization and paralysis that has gripped the institution particularly this year, as House Republicans, dominated by their far-right flank, have struggled to do the basic business of governing and feuded over who should lead them.Here’s a look at the retirements that have been announced so far. A bolded name indicates a departure that could alter the balance of power in Congress, or lead to a competitive or potentially competitive race.Members of Congress retiring from officeSenateSenator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of DelawareSenator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of MarylandSenator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of MichiganSenator Mitt Romney, Republican of UtahSenator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West VirginiaHouseRepresentative Debbie Lesko, Republican of ArizonaRepresentative Tony Cardenas, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Grace F. Napolitano, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Ken Buck, Republican of ColoradoRepresentative Victoria Spartz, Republican of IndianaRepresentative John Sarbanes, Democrat of MarylandRepresentative Dan Kildee, Democrat of MichiganRepresentative Brian Higgins, Democrat of New YorkRepresentative George Santos, Republican of New YorkRepresentative Bill Johnson, Republican of OhioRepresentative Brad Wenstrup, Republican of OhioRepresentative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of OregonRepresentative Kay Granger, Republican of TexasRepresentative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of TexasRepresentative Chris Stewart, Republican of UtahRepresentative Jennifer Wexton, Democrat of VirginiaRepresentative Derek Kilmer, Democrat of WashingtonLawmakers seeking other officePresidentRepresentative Dean Phillips, Democrat of MinnesotaSenateRepresentative Ruben Gallego, Democrat of ArizonaRepresentative Katie Porter, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Barbara Lee, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Lisa Blunt Rochester, Democrat of DelawareRepresentative Jim Banks, Republican of IndianaRepresentative David Trone, Democrat of MarylandRepresentative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of MichiganRepresentative Andy Kim, Democrat of New JerseyRepresentative Colin Allred, Democrat of TexasRepresentative Alex X. Mooney, Republican of West VirginiaGovernorSenator Mike Braun, Republican of IndianaRepresentative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of VirginiaState Attorney GeneralRepresentative Dan Bishop, Republican of North CarolinaRepresentative Jeff Jackson, Democrat of North CarolinaMayorRepresentative Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      More Members of Congress Are Retiring, Many Citing Dysfunction

      by

      More than three dozen incumbents have announced they will not seek re-election next year. Some are running for other offices, while others intend to leave Congress altogether.Eleven are running for the Senate. Five for state or local office. One for president of the United States. Another is resigning to become a university president. And more and more say they are hanging up their hats in public office altogether.More than three dozen members of Congress have announced they will not seek re-election next year, some to pursue other offices and many others simply to get out of Washington. Twelve have announced their plans just this month.The wave of lawmakers across chambers and parties announcing they intend to leave Congress comes at a time of breathtaking dysfunction on Capitol Hill, primarily instigated by House Republicans. The House G.O.P. majority spent the past few months deposing its leader, waging a weekslong internal war to select a new speaker and struggling to keep federal funding flowing. Right-wing members have rejected any spending legislation that could become law and railed against their new leader for turning to Democrats, as his predecessor did, to avert a government shutdown.The chaos has Republicans increasingly worried that they could lose their slim House majority next year, a concern that typically prompts a rash of retirements from the party in control. But it is not only G.O.P. lawmakers who are opting to leave; Democrats, too, are rushing for the exits, with retirements across parties this year outpacing those of the past three election cycles.And while most of the departures announced so far do not involve competitive seats, given the slim margins of control in both chambers, the handful that provide pickup opportunities for Republicans or Democrats could help determine who controls Congress come 2025.“I like the work, but the politics just no longer made it worth it,” Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, said in an interview. He announced his retirement last month after more than a quarter-century in the House.“I think I can have more impact on a number of things I care about if I’m not going to be bogged down for re-election,” Mr. Blumenauer said.Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, is retiring after more than 25 years in the House. “I like the work, but the politics just no longer made it worth it,” he said.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesAs lawmakers consider their futures in Congress, they are weighing the personal sacrifice required to be away from loved ones for much of the year against the potential to legislate and advance their political and policy agendas. In this chaotic and bitter environment, many are deciding the trade-off is unappealing.This session, said Representative Dan Kildee, Democrat of Michigan, has been the “most unsatisfying period in my time in Congress because of the absolute chaos and the lack of any serious commitment to effective governance.”Mr. Kildee, who has served in Congress for a decade, said he decided not to seek re-election after recovering from a cancerous tumor he had removed earlier this year. It made him re-evaluate the time he was willing to spend in Washington, away from his family in Michigan.The dysfunction in the House majority only made the calculation easier.“That has contributed to the sense of frustration,” he said, “and this feeling that the sacrifice we’re all making in order to be in Washington, to be witness to this chaos, is pretty difficult to make.”Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California, also announced she would end her three-decade career in Congress at the close of her current term. One of her closest friends in Congress, Representative Zoe Lofgren, another California Democrat, told her hometown news site, San Jose Spotlight, that there was speculation that Ms. Eshoo was leaving “because the majority we have now is nuts — and they are.” But Ms. Lofgren added that “that’s not the reason; she felt it was her time to do this.”Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California, also announced she would end a three-decade career in Congress.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesSome House Republicans have reached the limits of their frustration with their own party.Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado, announced he would not seek re-election after his dissatisfaction and sense of disconnect with the G.O.P. had grown too great. Mr. Buck, who voted to oust Representative Kevin McCarthy from the speakership, has denounced his party’s election denialism and many members’ refusal to condemn the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.“We lost our way,” Mr. Buck told The New York Times this month. “We have an identity crisis in the Republican Party. If we can’t address the election denier issue and we continue down that path, we won’t have credibility with the American people that we are going to solve problems.”Representative Debbie Lesko, Republican of Arizona, said in a statement during the speaker fight last month that she would not run again.“Right now, Washington, D.C., is broken; it is hard to get anything done,” she said.The trend extends even to the most influential members of Congress; Representative Kay Granger, the 80-year-old Texas Republican who chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee, announced she would retire at the end of her 14th term. Even if her party manages to keep control of the House, Ms. Granger, the longest-serving G.O.P. congresswoman, faced term limits that would have forced her from the helm of the spending panel.Few of the retirements thus far appear likely to alter the balance of power in Congress, where the vast majority of House seats are gerrymandered to be safe for one party or the other. Prime exceptions include Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, whose retirement will almost certainly mean that Republicans can claim the state’s Senate seat and get a leg up to win control of that chamber.The decision of Representative Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, to leave her seat in a competitive Virginia district to seek the governorship also gives Republicans a prime pickup opportunity.Representative Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat leaving her Virginia seat to seek the governorship, gives Republicans a prime pickup opportunity. But most retiring lawmakers are in safe seats.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesAnd Representative George Santos, Republican of New York, announced he would not seek re-election after a House Ethics Committee report found “substantial evidence” that he had violated federal law. His exit will give Democrats a chance to reclaim the suburban Long Island seat he flipped to the G.O.P. last year.Many others are likely to be succeeded by members of their own party.Representative Dean Phillips, Democrat of Minnesota, who last month announced a long-shot bid to challenge President Biden for his party’s nomination, said this week that he would step aside to focus on that race. Mr. Biden won his district by 21 percentage points in 2020, according to data compiled by Daily Kos, making it all but certain that Democrats will hold the seat.Representative Bill Johnson, Republican of Ohio, said he would accept a job as president of Youngstown State University. His seat, too, is all but sure to be held by the G.O.P.; former President Donald J. Trump won the district by more than 28 percentage points in 2020.Some members not seeking re-election have determined they can affect more change from outside Congress, where they do not have to contend with the same infighting, gridlock and attention-seeking that now frequently drive the place.“I think I will have as much or more impact as a civilian as I would as a member of Congress, especially having to be involved in a pretty toxic political environment,” Mr. Blumenauer said.Lawmakers typically do not choose to leave office when their party looks poised to regain power in the next election cycle, and Democrats see an opening to regain the House majority next year. But Mr. Blumenauer, who would be a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee should his party win the House, said he would rather not sacrifice time with his family.“It’s tempting,” said Mr. Blumenauer. “I’m going to continue working on the things I care about, but with a renewed commitment to family, friends and fun.”Robert Jimison More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Candidate in Michigan Says He Was Offered $20 Million to Challenge Tlaib

      by

      Rashida Tlaib, a member of the progressive “squad” in the House, has been one of the most outspoken supporters of the Palestinian cause, particularly after Israel’s invasion of Gaza.A Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan said he was offered $20 million by a Michigan businessman to drop out of the race and instead take on a primary challenge against Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian American representative who was censured this month for her statements about the Israel-Gaza war.Linden Nelson, a Michigan businessman and past donor to Democratic and some Republican candidates, made the campaign funding offer to the Senate candidate, Hill Harper, last month, according to Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesman for Mr. Harper’s campaign. Mr. Nelson also donated $13,000 to Concerned Citizens of Michigan, a group that supported a primary challenge against Ms. Tlaib in 2020.Mr. Ganapathy added that the conversation between Mr. Harper and Mr. Nelson was “respectful on both sides.” Calls to Mr. Nelson’s phone number on Wednesday were not answered. Ms. Tlaib declined to comment on the record.“I’m not going to run against the only Palestinian-American in Congress just because some special interests don’t like her,” Mr. Harper said in a statement on X, formerly known as Twitter. He also criticized “the Israel lobby” and “a broken political and campaign finance system that’s tilted towards the wealthy and powerful.”The funding offer would have in effect eliminated a progressive candidate from the crowded Democratic primary for an open Senate seat in Michigan and pitted him against Ms. Tlaib, a member of the progressive “squad” in the House. She has drawn criticism after breaking with Democrats who support Israel’s invasion of Gaza following a deadly terrorist attack carried out by Hamas.The offer also reflects a growing effort to target Democratic candidates who have either been critical of Israel or sympathetic to Palestinian causes. A Democratic pro-Israel group began running television ads this month that criticize Ms. Tlaib for her positions on the war in Gaza — such as calling for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict. Other primary challenges are brewing against progressive representatives like Summer Lee of Pennsylvania and Jamaal Bowman of New York.Mr. Harper, an author and actor known for his roles on “CSI: NY” and “The Good Doctor,” said on X that he was approached by “one of AIPAC’s biggest donors,” referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, soon after Politico published an article first reporting Mr. Nelson’s offer. He said he declined the offer, adding, “I won’t be bossed, bullied, or bought.”Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for AIPAC, said the group “was absolutely not involved in any way in this matter,” adding that “our records indicate that this individual has not contributed to AIPAC in over a decade.”AIPAC, among other pro-Israel groups, spent tens of millions of dollars supporting candidates in Democratic primaries in the 2022 midterms. Progressive organizations are concerned that these groups will sway primaries against progressive Democratic elected officials next year.Usamah Andrabi, the communications director for Justice Democrats, a progressive group that helped elect many of the targeted House members, criticized Mr. Nelson’s reported offer, saying “if that’s not showing that our democracy and our elections are for sale to the highest millionaire donor, then I’m not sure what is.”Alain Delaquérière More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Senate Is Getting Less Democratic by the Minute

      by

      Democrats and the independents who caucus with them will be playing defense in 23 of the 34 Senate seats on the ballot in the 2024 congressional elections. Four of the 23 are in swing states that President Biden won narrowly in 2020. Three are in states that Donald Trump won in both 2016 and 2020.If Democrats were to lose all seven, a catastrophic defeat, they would start the next session in Congress with a weak minority of senators — its smallest number since the days of President Herbert Hoover — who would nonetheless represent nearly half the population of the United States.Depending on where you stand in relation to partisan politics in this country, you may not find this disparity all that compelling. But consider the numbers when you take political affiliation out of the picture: roughly half of all Americans, some 169 million people, live in the nine most populous states. Together, those states get 18 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate.To pass anything under simple majority rules, assuming support from the sitting vice president, those 18 senators would have to attract another 32 votes: the equivalent, in electoral terms, of a supermajority. On the flip side, it is possible to pass an item out of the Senate with a coalition of members who represent a small fraction of the total population — around 18 percent — but hold an absolute majority of the seats. And this is before we get to the filibuster, which imposes a more explicit supermajority requirement on top of this implicit one.Last week, The Washington Post published a detailed look at the vast disparities of power that mark the Senate, which was structured on the principle of equal state representation: Regardless of population, every state gets two members. A carry-over from the Articles of Confederation, the principle of equal state representation was so controversial that it nearly derailed the Philadelphia Convention, where James Madison and others were trying to build a national government with near total independence from the states.It is not for nothing that in the Federalist Papers, neither Madison nor John Jay nor Alexander Hamilton attempts to defend the structure of the Senate from first principles. Instead, Madison wrote in Federalist No. 62, you should consider it a concession to the political realities of the moment:A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.Today, the Senate is a distinctly undemocratic institution that has worked, over the past decade, to block policies favored by a large majority of Americans and even a solid majority of senators. And while there’s no immediate hope of changing it, a cleareyed analysis of the chamber’s structural faults can help answer one of the key questions of American democracy: Who, or what, is this system supposed to represent?As the Post piece notes, equal state representation has never been equitable: “In 1790, Virginia, the most populous state, had roughly 13 times the population of Delaware, the least populous, with a difference of about 700,000 people.” But as the country has grown larger and more diverse, the disparities have grown greater and more perverse. The population difference between the states is so large now that a resident of the least populous state, Wyoming, as many observers have pointed out, has 68 times the representation in the Senate than does a resident of California, the largest state by population. In fact, a state gets less actual representation in the chamber the more it attracts new residents.There is not just a disparity of representation; there is a disparity in who is represented as well. The most populous states — including not only California, but New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas — tend to be the most diverse states, with a large proportion of nonwhite residents. The smallest states by population — like Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire — tend to be the least diverse. And the structure of the Senate tends to amplify the power of residents in smaller states and weaken the power of those in larger states. When coupled with the potential for — and what is in truth the reality of — minority rule in the chamber, you have a system that gives an almost absolute veto on most federal legislation to a pretty narrow slice of white Americans.One response to these disparities of power and influence is to say that they represent the intent of the framers. There are at least two problems with this view. The first is that the modern Senate reproduces some of the key problems — among them the possibility of a minority veto that grinds governance to a halt — that the framers were trying to overcome when they scrapped the Articles of Confederation. The second and more important problem is that the modern Senate isn’t the one the framers designed in 1787.In 1913, the United States adopted the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, providing for the direct election of senators at the ballot box rather than their selection by state legislatures. This change disrupted the logic of the Senate. Before, each senator was a kind of ambassador from his state government. After the amendment went into effect, each senator was a direct representative of the people of that state.If each member was a kind of ambassador, then you could justify unequal voting power by pointing to the equal sovereignty of each state under the Constitution. But if each member is a direct representative, then it becomes all the more difficult to say that some Americans deserve more representation than others on account of arbitrary state borders.This brings us back to our question: Who, or what, is the American system supposed to represent? If it is supposed to represent the states — if the states are the primary unit of American democracy — then there’s nothing about the structure of the Senate to object to.It’s plain as day that the states are not the primary unit of American democracy. As James Wilson of Pennsylvania observed during the Philadelphia Convention, the new national government was being formed for the sake of individuals rather than “the imaginary beings called states.” And as we’ve expanded the scope of democratic participation, we have affirmed — again and again — that it is the people who deserve representation on an equal basis, not the states.There is no realistic way, at this moment, to make the Senate more democratic. But if we can identify the Senate as one of the key sources of an unacceptable democratic deficit, then we can look for other ways to enhance democracy in the American system.I know that, given the scale and scope of the problem, that does not sound very inspiring. But we have to start somewhere.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