Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Older Voters Know Exactly What’s at Stake, and They’ll Be Here for Quite a While

      by

      Is it time to call the next election “the most important in American history”? Probably. It seems like it may involve a judgment on democracy itself. Americans with a lot of history will play a key role in determining its outcome.And judging in part by November’s midterms, they may not play the role that older voters are usually assigned. We at Third Act, the group we helped form in 2021, think older Americans are beginning a turn in the progressive direction, a turn that will accelerate as time goes on.A lot has been written about the impact of young voters in November’s contests, and rightly so. The enormous margins that Democrats ran up among voters under 30 let them squeak through in race after race. Progressives should be incredibly grateful that the next generation can see straight through Trumpism in a way too many of their elders can’t.But there were also intriguing hints of what looked like a gray countercurrent that helped damp the expected red wave. Yes, older people by and large voted Republican, in keeping with what political scientists have long insisted: that we become more conservative as we age. But in the 63 most competitive congressional districts, the places where big money was spent on ads and where the margin in the House was decided, polling by AARP, an advocacy group for people over 50, found some fascinating numbers.In early summer, Republicans had a sturdy lead among older voters in 50 of those districts, up 50 percent to 40 percent. Those had Republicans salivating. But on Election Day, voters over 65 actually broke for Democrats in those districts, 49 to 46.That doesn’t surprise us at Third Act. We’re nonpartisan, but we’ve learned that demographic is far less settled than people sometimes suppose.Some of the issues that benefited Democrats are obvious, of course. Republican messaging included calls for weakening Social Security and Medicare even though most older beneficiaries rely on Social Security for most of their income, and for an estimated 40 percent it’s all their retirement income. The cruelty of toying with people’s life support systems is matched only by its political foolishness. Among voters 65 and over, Social Security and Medicare were among the top concerns.But something else happened, too. When the Supreme Court tossed out Roe v. Wade in early summer, most of the pictures were of young women protesting, appropriately, since it’s their lives that will be turned upside down. But people we know in their 60s and 70s felt a real psychic upheaval: A woman’s right to choose had been part of their mental furniture for five decades. And they’ve lived their entire lives in what they had imagined was a stable and working democracy.The top concern to voters 65 and over, especially women, was “threats to democracy,” according to AARP. And exit polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that among women 50 and older, the court’s decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion had a major impact on which candidate they supported. Sixty-six percent of Black women said so, as did 61 percent of Hispanic women and 48 percent of white women. Voters who said the Supreme Court’s abortion decision was the single most important factor in their vote supported Democrats by a margin of 2 to 1.Some of our members helped organize access to abortion before Roe was decided in 1973; they don’t want to go back. And it’s not only abortion: The Supreme Court also took on the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We helped win these fights once, turning out by the tens of millions to oppose the war in Vietnam or for the first Earth Day. And we can help win them again — we have the muscle memory of what organizing on a big scale feels like.Hundreds of us from around the country converged on Nevada in the days before the midterm vote, because we determined — correctly, as it turned out — that it might be the place where control of the Senate would be decided. We may walk a tad slower door-to-door, but in this case slow and steady helped to win the race.With the election past, Third Act is now digging into work on climate change — in particular targeting the big American banks (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America) that are also the biggest lenders to the fossil fuel industry. On March 21 we’ll be cutting up bank credit cards and picketing bank branches across the country. We know that young people have been in the lead in this fight, because they’ll have to live with the world we’re creating. But as long as we’re still here, we’ll have to live with the knowledge of what we’re leaving behind, so we want to change it while we still can.We recognize that this will require a sustained effort beyond the next election and the election after that. Numerous analysts and demographers do believe that coming demographic changes in the United States will generally favor Democrats. But complications abound. Partisan gerrymandering continues to favor Republicans, for instance, and at least five states that generally vote Democratic have each lost a seat from their congressional delegations.But here’s the thing. Many of us are going to be here for quite a while. Ten thousand Americans turn 60 every day, and on average we’ll live another 23 years. The last of the baby boomers, will be 65 or older in 2030. Youth voters, moreover, are youth voters for only about a decade. One guarantee for 2024: We’ll vote in huge numbers, as we always do. One possibility is that we’ll help turn back the clock a little, toward the world we actually built in our youth.We’re not your parent’s grandparents.Bill McKibben is the founder of Third Act, helped found the climate advocacy group 350.org and is the author of the memoir “The Flag, the Cross, and the Station Wagon.” Akaya Windwood is the lead adviser for Third Act and a co-author of “Leading With Joy.”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

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Será que Alexandre de Moraes é realmente bom para a democracia?

      by

      Alexandre de Moraes, Ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal, foi crucial para a transição de poder no Brasil. Mas suas táticas agressivas estão provocando um debate: É possível ir longe demais para combater a extrema-direita?Quando a Polícia Rodoviária Federal começou a impedir a passagem de ônibus cheios de eleitores no dia da eleição, ele ordenou que parassem.Quando vozes da direita espalharam a alegação infundada de que a eleição no Brasil foi roubada, ele ordenou que fossem banidas das redes sociais.E quando milhares de manifestantes da direita invadiram as sedes dos três poderes neste mês, ele ordenou que autoridades responsáveis pela segurança fossem presas.Alexandre de Moraes, Ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal, assumiu o papel de principal defensor da democracia brasileira. Usando uma interpretação ampla dos poderes do Tribunal, Moraes impulsionou investigações e processos, bem como o silenciamento nas redes sociais, de qualquer pessoa considerada por ele uma ameaça às instituições brasileiras.Como resultado, diante dos ataques antidemocráticos do ex-presidente de extrema direita do Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro, e de seus apoiadores, Moraes abriu caminho para a transição de poder. Para muitos da esquerda brasileira, isso fez dele o homem que salvou a jovem democracia brasileira.No entanto, para muitos outros no Brasil, ele a ameaça. A abordagem agressiva e a expansão da autoridade de Moraes fizeram dele uma das pessoas mais poderosas do país, e também o colocaram no centro de um debate complicado no Brasil sobre até que ponto se pode ir para lutar contra a extrema-direita.Danos causados ao Supremo Tribunal Federal por manifestantes da direita. Alexandre de Moraes ordenou a prisão de autoridades responsáveis pela segurança.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesAlexandre de Moraes já ordenou prisões sem julgamento por ameaças postadas em redes sociais; liderou o voto que sentenciou um deputado federal a quase nove anos de prisão por ameaçar o Tribunal; ordenou busca e apreensão contra empresários com poucas evidências de irregularidades; suspendeu um governador eleito de seu cargo; e bloqueou monocraticamente dezenas de contas e milhares de publicações nas redes sociais, praticamente sem transparência ou espaço para recurso.Na sua caça em nome da justiça após o tumulto deste mês, Moraes se tornou mais audacioso. Suas ordens para banir vozes influentes online se proliferaram, e, agora, ele colocou o homem acusado de atiçar as chamas extremistas do Brasil, Bolsonaro, sob sua mira. Na semana passada, Moraes incluiu o ex-presidente na investigação federal do tumulto, da qual é o relator, sugerindo que o ex-presidente tenha inspirado a violência.Suas ações se encaixam em uma tendência mais ampla da Suprema Corte brasileira de aumentar o próprio poder — tomando o que os críticos chamam de um rumo mais repressivo no processo.Vários juristas e analistas políticos agora discutem que impacto Moraes terá a longo prazo. Alguns argumentam que as suas ações são medidas extraordinárias, mas necessárias diante de uma ameaça extraordinária. Outros dizem que, agindo sob a bandeira da salvaguarda da democracia, Moraes está, em vez disso, prejudicando o equilíbrio de poder no país.“Não podemos desrespeitar a democracia para protegê-la”, disse Irapuã Santana, advogado e colunista jurídico do jornal O Globo, um dos maiores do Brasil.Santana votou em Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, o novo presidente da esquerda, em outubro, mas disse temer que muitos no Brasil estejam apoiando Moraes sem considerar as possíveis consequências. “Hoje ele está fazendo isso contra o nosso ‘inimigo’. Amanhã ele está fazendo isso contra o nosso amigo — ou contra nós”, disse. “É um precedente perigoso.”Milly Lacombe, uma comentarista da esquerda, disse que tais preocupações ignoram um perigo maior, evidenciado pelos tumultos e um complô frustrado de atentado à bomba para perturbar a posse de Lula. Ela argumentou, em sua coluna no site de notícias UOL, que a extrema direita apresenta graves perigos para a democracia brasileira, o que deve ofuscar as preocupações com liberdade de expressão ou excesso judicial.“Sob ameaça de uma insurreição de inspiração nazi-fascista vale suprimir temporariamente liberdades individuais em nome da liberdade coletiva?” escreveu. “Eu diria que sim.”O ex-presidente de direita, Jair Bolsonaro, há muito tempo acusa Alexandre de Moraes de exceder sua autoridade e tentou um impeachment contra o Ministro.Dado Galdieri for The New York TimesA disputa ilustra um debate global mais amplo, não apenas sobre o poder do Judiciário, mas também sobre como lidar com a desinformação nas redes sem silenciar vozes dissidentes.O proprietário do Twitter, Elon Musk, ponderou que os movimentos de Moraes foram “extremamente preocupantes.” Glenn Greenwald, um jornalista americano que vive no Brasil há anos e crítico de certas regras das redes sociais, participou de um debate nesta semana com um sociólogo brasileiro sobre as ações de Moraes. E as autoridades brasileiras sugeriram que poderiam considerar novas leis para determinar o que pode ser dito nas redes.Alexandre de Moraes tem recusado pedidos de entrevista há mais de um ano. O Supremo Tribunal Federal, em nota, disse que as investigações de Moraes e muitas de suas ordens foram endossadas por toda a Corte e “são absolutamente constitucionais.”Nas horas seguintes ao tumulto em Brasília, Moraes afastou o governador do Distrito Federal, responsável pela segurança do protesto que se tornou violento, e depois ordenou a prisão de dois agentes de segurança do Distrito Federal.Ainda assim, há pouco apoio no Supremo Tribunal Federal para prender Bolsonaro, devido à insuficiência das provas e temores de que uma prisão provocaria novos conflitos. De acordo com um alto funcionário do Supremo Tribunal Federal que falou sob condição de anonimato para discutir conversas privadas, diversos ministros da corte preferem tentar condenar Bolsonaro por abuso de poder no Tribunal Superior Eleitoral, o que o tornaria inelegível por oito anos.Bolsonaro, que está na Flórida desde 30 de dezembro, há muito tempo acusa Moraes de exceder sua autoridade e tentou um impeachment contra o Ministro. O advogado de Bolsonaro disse que ele sempre respeitou a democracia e repudiou os tumultos.Moraes, de 54 anos, tem décadas de atuação como promotor público, advogado e professor de Direito Constitucional.O Ministro foi nomeado para o Supremo Tribunal Federal em 2017, uma medida condenada pela esquerda porque ele estava alinhado com partidos da centro-direita.Alexandre de Moraes com o Presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva no mês passado.Andre Borges/EPA, via ShutterstockEm 2019, o então presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal emitiu uma portaria de uma página autorizando a Corte a instaurar seus próprios inquéritos ao invés de aguardar outras autoridades. Para o Tribunal — que, ao contrário da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos, processa dezenas de milhares de casos por ano, incluindo certos casos criminais — essa foi uma expansão drástica de sua jurisdição.O presidente da Corte designou Moraes para iniciar o primeiro inquérito: uma investigação sobre “fake news”. O primeiro passo de Moraes foi ordenar a uma revista que retirasse do ar uma reportagem que ligava o presidente da Corte a uma investigação sobre corrupção. (Ordem que revogou quando a revista mostrou provas.)Moraes então mudou o foco das investigações para a desinformação nas redes, principalmente vinda dos apoiadores de Jair Bolsonaro, o que deu a ele um enorme papel na política brasileira. Papel que cresceu ainda mais este ano, quando, por acaso, seu revezamento como presidente do Tribunal Superior Eleitoral coincidiu com a eleição.Nessa função, Alexandre de Moraes se tornou o maior guardião — e cão de guarda — da democracia brasileira. Antes da eleição, Moraes fez um acordo com os militares para realizar testes adicionais em urnas eletrônicas. No dia da eleição, ordenou que a Polícia Rodoviária Federal explicasse por que os policiais estavam parando ônibus cheios de eleitores. E, na noite da eleição, Moraes convidou os líderes da República para que anunciassem o vencedor em conjunto, uma demonstração de unidade contra qualquer tentativa de perpetuação no poder.No meio desse grupo de líderes estava o próprio Alexandre de Moraes. O Ministro fez um discurso contundente sobre o valor da democracia, provocando cantos de “Xandão”.“Espero que, a partir dessa eleição”, disse, “finalmente cessem as agressões ao sistema eleitoral.”Elas não cessaram. Manifestantes da direita protestaram em frente aos quartéis, pedindo aos militares que revogassem a eleição. Em resposta, Moraes ordenou que empresas de tecnologia suspendessem mais contas, de acordo com um advogado sênior de uma grande empresa de tecnologia, que falou sob condição de anonimato por medo de irritar o Ministro.Apoiadores de Jair Bolsonaro protestam em frente ao quartel do Exército em São Paulo para pedir intervenção militar após eleições em novembro.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesEntre as contas que Moraes ordenou que fossem retiradas estão as de pelo menos cinco parlamentares federais, um empresário bilionário e mais de uma dezena de influenciadores da direita, incluindo um dos apresentadores de podcast mais populares do país.As ordens de Moraes para remover contas não especificam o motivo, de acordo com o advogado e uma cópia de uma ordem obtida pelo New York Times. Acessos a contas proibidas no Twitter levam a uma página em branco e uma mensagem contundente: “a conta foi retida no Brasil em resposta a uma exigência legal.” Os donos das contas são simplesmente informados de que estão suspensas devido a uma ordem judicial e que devem considerar entrar em contato com um advogado.O advogado disse que sua empresa de tecnologia entrou com recursos contra ordens que considera excessivamente amplas, mas eles foram negados por Moraes. Os recursos ao Plenário do STF também foram negados ou ignorados, disse.Procuradas pela reportagem, várias redes sociais se recusaram a comentar o assunto publicamente. Moraes é uma potencial ameaça para os seus negócios no Brasil. No ano passado, Moraes baniu brevemente o Telegram no país após a empresa não cumprir suas ordens.Recentemente houve conversas entre alguns ministros do STF sobre a necessidade de pôr fim aos inquéritos de Moraes, de acordo com a fonte do tribunal, mas após o tumulto de 8 de janeiro, esses comentários cessaram. O tumulto aumentou o apoio a Moraes entre seus pares, de acordo com o alto funcionário da Corte.Beatriz Rey, cientista política da Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, disse que a abordagem de Moraes, embora não ideal, se faz necessária porque outros poderes do governo, especialmente o Legislativo, não cumpriram seu dever.“Você não deveria ter um Ministro combatendo ameaças à democracia repetidas vezes,” disse. “Mas o problema é que o próprio sistema está funcionando mal neste momento.”André Spigariol More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Is Brazil’s Alexandre de Moraes Actually Good for Democracy?

      by

      Alexandre de Moraes, a Brazilian Supreme Court justice, was crucial to Brazil’s transfer of power. But his aggressive tactics are prompting debate: Can one go too far to fight the far right?When Brazil’s highway police began holding up buses full of voters on Election Day, he ordered them to stop.When right-wing voices spread the baseless claim that Brazil’s election was stolen, he ordered them banned from social media.And when thousands of right-wing protesters stormed Brazil’s halls of power this month, he ordered the officials who had been responsible for securing the buildings arrested.Alexandre de Moraes, a Brazilian Supreme Court justice, has taken up the mantle of Brazil’s lead defender of democracy. Using a broad interpretation of the court’s powers, he has pushed to investigate and prosecute, as well as to silence on social media, anyone he deems a menace to Brazil’s institutions.As a result, in the face of antidemocratic attacks from Brazil’s former far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, and his supporters, Mr. de Moraes cleared the way for the transfer of power. To many on Brazil’s left, that made him the man who saved Brazil’s young democracy.Yet to many others in Brazil, he is threatening it. Mr. de Moraes’s aggressive approach and expanding authority have made him one of the nation’s most powerful people, and also put him at the center of a complicated debate in Brazil over how far is too far to fight the far right.Damage to the Supreme Court caused by right-wing protesters. Mr. de Moraes ordered the officials who had been responsible for securing the buildings arrested.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesHe has jailed people without trial for posting threats on social media; helped sentence a sitting congressman to nearly nine years in prison for threatening the court; ordered raids on businessmen with little evidence of wrongdoing; suspended an elected governor from his job; and unilaterally blocked dozens of accounts and thousands of posts on social media, with virtually no transparency or room for appeal.In the hunt for justice after the riot this month, he has become further emboldened. His orders to ban prominent voices online have proliferated, and now he has the man accused of fanning Brazil’s extremist flames, Mr. Bolsonaro, in his cross hairs. Last week, Mr. de Moraes included Mr. Bolsonaro in a federal investigation of the riot, which he is overseeing, suggesting that the former president inspired the violence.His moves fit into a broader trend of Brazil’s Supreme Court increasing its power — and taking what critics have called a more repressive turn in the process.Many legal and political analysts are now sparring over Mr. de Moraes’s long-term impact. Some argue that his actions are necessary, extraordinary measures in the face of an extraordinary threat. Others say that, acting under the banner of safeguarding democracy, he is instead harming the nation’s balance of power.“We cannot disrespect democracy in order to protect it,” said Irapuã Santana, a lawyer and legal columnist for O Globo, one of Brazil’s biggest newspapers.Understand the Riots in Brazil’s CapitalThousands of rioters supporting Jair Bolsonaro, the far-right former president of Brazil,  stormed the nation’s Congress, Supreme Court and presidential offices on Jan. 8.Anatomy of a Mass Attack: After Mr. Bolsonaro lost the presidential election in October, many believed that the threat of violence from his supporters would recede. Here is what went wrong.The Investigations: Authorities face several major questions as they piece together how rioters briefly seized the seats of Brazil’s government.Digital Playbook: Misinformation researchers are studying how the internet was used ahead of the riots in Brazil. Many are drawing a comparison to the Jan. 6 attack.The Role of the Police: Their early inaction in the riot shows how security forces can help empower violence and deepen the threat to democracy.Mr. Santana voted in October for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the new leftist president, but said he worried that many in Brazil were cheering on Mr. de Moraes without considering the potential consequences. “Today he’s doing it against our enemy. Tomorrow he’s doing it against our friend — or against us,” he said. “It’s a dangerous precedent.”Milly Lacombe, a left-wing commentator, said such concerns missed a bigger danger, evidenced by the riots and a foiled bomb plot to disrupt Mr. Lula’s inauguration. She argued, in her column on the Brazilian news site UOL, that the far right posed grave perils to Brazil’s democracy, which should overshadow concerns about free speech or judicial overreach.“Under the threat of a Nazi-fascist-inspired insurrection, is it worth temporarily suppressing individual freedoms in the name of collective freedom?” she wrote. “I would say yes.”Brazil’s former far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, center, has long accused Mr. de Moraes of overstepping his authority and had tried to impeach him.Dado Galdieri for The New York TimesThe dispute has illustrated a larger global debate not only on judicial power but also about how to handle misinformation online without silencing dissenting voices..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}What we consider before using anonymous sources. Do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even with these questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.Learn more about our process.Twitter’s owner, Elon Musk, weighed in that Mr. de Moraes’s moves were “extremely concerning.” Glenn Greenwald, an American journalist who has lived in Brazil for years and has become a critic of certain social-media rules, debated a Brazilian sociologist this week about Mr. de Moraes’s actions. And Brazilian officials have suggested that they would consider new laws to address what can be said online.Mr. de Moraes has declined requests for an interview for more than a year. The Supreme Court, in a statement, said that Mr. de Moraes’s investigations and many of his orders have been endorsed by the full court and “are absolutely constitutional.”In the hours after the riot, Mr. de Moraes suspended the governor of the district responsible for security for the protest that turned violent and then ordered the arrests of two district security officials. Still, there is little support in the Supreme Court for arresting Mr. Bolsonaro because of a lack of evidence, as well as fears that it would prompt unrest, according to a senior court official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.Multiple Supreme Court justices instead prefer to try to convict Mr. Bolsonaro for abusing his power through the country’s election agency, making him ineligible to run for office for eight years, the official said.Mr. Bolsonaro, who has been in Florida since Dec. 30, has long accused Mr. de Moraes of overstepping his authority and has tried to impeach him. Mr. Bolsonaro’s lawyer said he had always respected democracy and repudiated the riots.Mr. de Moraes, 54, spent decades as a public prosecutor, private lawyer and constitutional law professor.He was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2017, a move denounced by the left because he was aligned with center-right parties.Mr. de Moraes with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva last month.Andre Borges/EPA, via ShutterstockIn 2019, the Supreme Court’s chief justice issued a one-page order authorizing the court to open its own investigations instead of waiting for law enforcement. For the court — which, unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, handles tens of thousands of cases a year, including certain criminal cases — it was a drastic expansion of authority.The chief justice tapped Mr. de Moraes to run the first inquiry: an investigation into “fake news.” Mr. de Moraes’s first move was to order a magazine to retract an article that had linked the chief justice to a corruption investigation. (He later rescinded the order when the magazine produced evidence.)Mr. de Moraes then shifted his focus to online disinformation, primarily from Mr. Bolsonaro’s supporters. That gave him an outsize role in Brazilian politics that grew further this year when, by chance, his rotation as Brazil’s election chief coincided with the vote.In that job, Mr. de Moraes became Brazilian democracy’s chief guardian — and attack dog. Ahead of the vote, he cut a deal with the military to run additional tests on voting machines. On Election Day, he ordered the federal highway police to explain why officers were stopping buses full of voters. And on election night, he arranged for government leaders to announce the winner jointly, a show of unity against any attempt to hold onto power.In the middle of that group of leaders was Mr. de Moraes himself. He delivered a forceful speech about the value of democracy, drawing chants of “Xandão,” or “Big Alex” in Portuguese. “I hope from the election onward,” he said, “the attacks on the electoral system will finally stop.”They did not. Right-wing protesters demonstrated outside military bases, calling on the military to overturn the vote. In response, Mr. de Moraes ordered tech companies to ban more accounts, according to a senior lawyer at one major tech firm, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of angering Mr. de Moraes.Supporters of Mr. Bolsonaro protesting in front of army headquarters in São Paulo to call for military intervention after the election in November.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesAmong the accounts Mr. de Moraes ordered taken down are those of at least five members of Congress, a billionaire businessman and more than a dozen prominent right-wing pundits, including one of Brazil’s most popular podcast hosts.Mr. de Moraes’s orders to remove accounts do not specify why, according to the lawyer and a copy of one order obtained by The New York Times. Visits to banned accounts on Twitter yield a blank page and a blunt message: The “account has been withheld in Brazil in response to a legal demand.” And account owners are simply told they are banned because of a court order and should consider contacting a lawyer.The lawyer said that his tech firm appealed some orders it viewed as overly broad, but that Mr. de Moraes denied them. Appeals to the full bench of judges have also been denied or ignored, this person said.Multiple social networks declined to comment on the record for this article. Mr. de Moraes is a potential threat to their business in Brazil. Last year, he briefly banned Telegram in the country after it did not respond to his orders. There were talks recently among some justices about the need to bring Mr. de Moraes’s investigations to an end, according to the court official, but after the Jan. 8 riot, those talks ceased. The riot has increased support for Mr. de Moraes among his peers, according to the official.Beatriz Rey, a political scientist at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said Mr. de Moraes’s approach, though not ideal, is necessary because other branches of the government, especially Congress, have skirted their duties.“You shouldn’t have one justice fighting threats to democracy over and over again,” she said. “But the problem is the system itself is malfunctioning right now.”André Spigariol More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Chris Hipkins Poised to Replace Jacinda Ardern as New Zealand’s Leader

      by

      Mr. Hipkins, a household name in New Zealand for his role overseeing the country’s response to the pandemic, was nominated to succeed Jacinda Ardern as leader of the governing Labour Party.Chris Hipkins, who has been serving as New Zealand’s education and policing minister, is set to become the country’s new prime minister next month after he was the only member of the governing Labour Party to be nominated for the party leadership post.Members of the Labour caucus will meet on Sunday in the New Zealand city of Napier, where they are currently at their summer retreat, to endorse the nomination and confirm Mr. Hipkins as their party’s new leader. At least 10 percent of the caucus must vote for Mr. Hipkins to confirm him.His nomination comes after the surprise resignation on Thursday of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who had become a global liberal icon during her tenure.“I believe that leading a country is the most privileged job anyone could ever have, but also one of the more challenging,” Ms. Ardern said at the news conference announcing her decision. “You cannot and should not do it unless you have a full tank.”Ms. Ardern has said she will leave her post “no later” than Feb. 7, giving the party about two weeks to complete the transition.A clear front-runner from the moment Ms. Ardern revealed her decision to step down, Mr. Hipkins promised a seamless leadership transition without the infighting and back-alley machinations common to many political parties.“We will select a new leader that the party will then unite behind,” he said, after Ms. Ardern’s resignation. “Leadership contests don’t have to be like the Hunger Games.”Jacinda Ardern on Thursday, the day she announced she was resigning as New Zealand’s prime minister.Kerry Marshall/Getty ImagesMr. Hipkins, nicknamed Chippy, became a household name in New Zealand during his daily televised briefings throughout the first two years of the coronavirus pandemic.As first as the health minister and then as the minister for the Covid-19 response, Mr. Hipkins, 44, became the face of — and often the driving force of the policies behind — the country’s stringent, but widely applauded approach to the virus.The country’s policies resulted in few deaths but included some of the world’s most extensive restrictions in the first months of the pandemic — before the rules were all removed when the virus had been eradicated from the country, allowing New Zealanders to lead largely normal lives for most of the pandemic.But as the Labour Party’s next leader, he will face a number of major challenges when the country goes to the polls on Oct. 14.In a clash of two Chrises, Mr. Hipkins will go head-to-head against Christopher Luxon, the leader of the National Party and the former chief executive of New Zealand’s national airline, Air New Zealand.Voters, facing the same pocketbook strains as people in many other parts of the world, are looking for solutions to biting inflation, an ongoing housing crisis and other entrenched social problems such as child poverty and crime. Polling suggests many believe the governing party has not provided the policy answers to those problems, with 38 percent favoring the center-right National Party compared with Labour’s 33 percent, as of last month.Mr. Hipkins may also struggle to get beyond his association with pandemic policy, potentially a double-edged sword with voters eager to put the worst of the last three years behind them.Christopher Luxon, the leader of the National Party, who will be challenging Mr. Hipkins for the prime minister’s job when New Zealand votes in October.Hagen Hopkins/Getty ImagesThe country’s rigorous restrictions and vaccine mandates were initially popular with most New Zealanders. But as the rest of the world opened up and New Zealand’s borders remained shut, resentment began to grow, spurring a backlash and resulting in a crowd of protesters camping outside Parliament’s grounds in Wellington for more than three weeks.Even as her party slumped in the polls, Ms. Ardern had retained a certain star power that her successor may struggle to match. Instead, Mr. Hipkins, who has been a lawmaker since 2008, may bring to the campaign a reputation as a champion debater and an experienced policymaker, as well as a face familiar to most in the country.Certain idiosyncrasies and odd moments — including a well-known fondness for Diet Coke; a time when he posed with a birthday cake made entirely of sausage rolls; and, ahead of a news conference held in a nature reserve, the surprise appearance of his mother, who apologized for his lateness — have been memorialized in countless internet jokes, earning him the unofficial title of “minister for memes.”In a news conference on Saturday, Mr. Hipkins, who has cultivated a political brand of being approachable and down to earth, said that he was “humbled and honored” to assume the party’s leadership and that he was “incredibly optimistic” about New Zealand’s future.He added: “I’m a human being. I’ll make the odd mistake from time to time, I try and own the mistakes that I make. I don’t pretend to be someone that I’m not. I’ve never done that in the past. And I don’t intend to start doing it.”A “boy from the Hutt,” as he described himself in the news conference, Mr. Hipkins grew up in the industrial and unglamorous Hutt Valley north of Wellington, the New Zealand capital.He majored in politics and criminology at Victoria University of Wellington, where he was twice elected student body president. As a first-year student in 1997, he was arrested, strip-searched and detained overnight for protesting a higher education reform bill that he later said would “turn academic entities into corporate entities, treat students as customers.”The government in 2009 apologized to and compensated the protesters.In his first speech in Parliament as a newly elected member in 2008, Mr. Hipkins cited family, community spirit and state support as chief priorities, and called for reform to New Zealand’s welfare system, which he said should help those “at the bottom” to scale “the ladder of opportunity.”“The needs of the competitive free market are balanced by the need for the government to set a few boundaries and ensure that the most vulnerable are protected,” he said. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Despite Red Flags, G.O.P. Backed Candidate Now Charged in Shootings

      by

      “We could have picked apart this guy,” one Republican leader in New Mexico said of Solomon Peña, who is accused of organizing attacks on the homes of four Democratic officials.ALBUQUERQUE — The former Republican candidate accused of targeting the homes of Democrats in drive-by shootings had routinely called for locking up 2020 election officials in Guantánamo Bay. He promoted conspiracy theories about solar power, feminism and “the demonic theories of the Globalist Elites.” He had been demoted twice by the U.S. Navy and served nearly seven years in prison for burglary.Yet powerful party leaders in New Mexico not only gave the first-time candidate, Solomon Peña, 39, full-throated endorsements, they also opened their checkbooks to fund his race for a state legislative seat in central Albuquerque long held by Democrats. Some knew about his prison record but said they felt that he had turned his life around. Local and state authorities now say they are investigating whether drug money helped fund his campaign.“He came across to me as a very respectful, thoughtful young man,” said Harvey Yates, an oilman and former chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, who donated $5,000 to Mr. Peña’s election effort. Now, Mr. Yates acknowledges that he may have made a mistake. He said that he felt “very bad, very sad” for Mr. Peña, “who I think really had possibilities.”The police say that after losing his race by a landslide in November — he received 26 percent of the vote — and refusing to concede, Mr. Peña organized shootings at the homes of prominent Democrats, including two who certified the election results. The attacks came at a time of growing fears across the country about a trend of political violence, mostly from the right wing, including the attack on the husband of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a conspiracy to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and the mob attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.In New Mexico, the case also highlights the internal struggles among Republicans as election deniers like Mr. Peña — who was in the crowd for President Donald J. Trump’s speech in Washington on Jan. 6, according to videos collected by online sleuths — fill the ranks of candidates seeking elected office. Other Republicans such as Audrey Trujillo, who ran for secretary of state, embraced conspiracy theories about elections, school shootings and Covid-19 vaccines.Many of those election deniers lost in New Mexico, mirroring similar Republican setbacks in other parts of the country. The results helped the state’s Democrats solidify their control of both houses in the state Legislature, the governor’s office and the entire congressional delegation, sparking recriminations over the Republicans’ loss of power.Michael Candelaria, a prominent state Republican who until recently was the party chairman in Valencia County, near Albuquerque, said the Peña case laid bare a dilemma in a state where Democrats have steadily expanded their sway in recent years: how to appeal to some of Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters, who refused to accept his 2020 re-election defeat, without alienating other voters who reject the lies and conspiracy theories.“You don’t take a group of people whose support you want and tell them, ‘You’re a bunch of crazies,’” Mr. Candelaria said. “You’re going to have some extremists that you have to figure out how to keep their support.”But Mr. Candelaria, who has pushed for leadership changes in the state party, said that Mr. Peña’s arrest showed the risks of promoting such figures. “Had we done some good vetting, we could have picked apart this guy, but no, we don’t do a good job of picking candidates,” he said.It was unclear how much Republican leaders had examined Mr. Peña’s background. Steve Pearce, a former member of Congress who is now chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, did not respond to requests for comment.Some Republicans are now bracing for more revelations about Mr. Peña, who was arrested on Monday and charged with criminal solicitation, attempted aggravated battery, shooting at an occupied dwelling, shooting from a moving vehicle and conspiracy. The police called him the “mastermind” behind a conspiracy in which four other men were paid to shoot at the homes of two county commissioners and two state legislators, and said that he personally participated in at least one of the shootings.As part of their investigation, Albuquerque police detectives said they were also examining whether Mr. Peña used proceeds from narcotics trafficking to finance his campaign, and whether campaign laws were violated. The New Mexico attorney general’s office will lead the investigation into Mr. Peña’s campaign finances, a spokeswoman for the office said on Friday.The turn in the investigation came after detectives learned through witness interviews that Mr. Peña had identified individuals to funnel contributions from an unknown source into his campaign, according to Gilbert Gallegos, a spokesman for the department. Investigators said they are focusing on José Trujillo, who is also accused in the shootings, and Mr. Trujillo’s mother, Melanie Griego, who are listed as donating a total of $9,150 to Mr. Peña’s campaign.Police arrested Mr. Trujillo on Jan. 3, shortly after the shooting targeting the Albuquerque home of Linda Lopez, a state senator. In the car that Mr. Trujillo was driving, which the police say is owned by Mr. Peña, investigators say they found 893 fentanyl pills and $3,036 in cash, as well as a firearm matching shell casings found at Ms. Lopez’s home.Mr. Peña made his first court appearance on Wednesday and did not enter a plea. Roberta Yurcic, a lawyer representing him, said she couldn’t comment on specific aspects of her client’s background, including his military demotions and work history. “The investigation into the charges against my client is ongoing,” she added. “Mr. Peña has a right to a fair trial.”Javier Martinez, a Democrat whose home was targeted in the attacks after the November election, said that he had “never experienced anything like this before.” Mr. Martinez, who took over this month as New Mexico’s speaker of the House, tied Mr. Peña’s extremism to the election lies voiced by Mr. Trump.“The previous president, I think, really exploited some of those feelings,” Mr. Martinez said. “And we’ve seen it play out in different ways, including the insurrection in Washington, D.C., including this set of events here in our own backyard.”Mr. Peña presented himself as someone on the mend, leading groups in prayer at political meetings and telling neighbors that he did not drink or take drugs. But he made little effort to hide his extreme views. His campaign website denounced “the demonic theories of the Globalist Elites and their foreign counterparts,” called feminism “demonicism,” and said the 2020 election had been rigged against Mr. Trump by “enemy combatants” who “must be placed in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for the remainder of their natural lives.”During his campaign, Mr. Peña highlighted his time as a Navy hospital corpsman assigned to a Marine division in Okinawa, Japan. But promotion data provided by the U.S. Navy’s public affairs office shows that Mr. Peña hardly served with distinction. He was demoted twice during his four years in the service and left the military in 2004 at the lowest possible rank. The Navy was unable to provide the reasons for Mr. Peña’s demotions.Mr. Peña ran on a platform of cracking down on crime, despite his own criminal history. He served nearly seven years in prison in New Mexico on charges including burglary and larceny after being part of a “smash-and-grab” crew that slammed vehicles into retail stores, including a Kmart in Albuquerque, then stole items, according to court records.After being released from prison in 2016, Mr. Peña tried selling cars at a dealership in Albuquerque but lasted less than a month before he was fired for showing up late, court records from a lawsuit filed by Mr. Peña in 2017 show. (The case was dismissed.) Mr. Peña also enrolled at the University of New Mexico, obtaining a political science degree in 2021, the same year that his voting rights were restored after his prison term.Mr. Peña appears to have run for the Republican nomination for the state legislative seat unopposed. In October, he received an endorsement from the Republican National Hispanic Assembly’s New Mexico chapter. Ronnie Lucero, the chairman of both the group’s national organization and the state chapter, said that he had spoken with Mr. Peña at events during the campaign, and that the candidate had filled out a questionnaire asking about his professional, financial and criminal history before the group endorsed him.The group did not see Mr. Peña’s criminal record as disqualifying, Mr. Lucero said, adding: “At the time that we made the endorsement, there was the impression that he’d got his life together and he’s one of those second-chance stories that would turn out to be something good and positive for the community.“It was a bad decision that we made, and regretfully,” he said. “But we can’t read the future.”When asked about some of the extremist rhetoric on Mr. Peña’s campaign website, Mr. Lucero said that he had not seen the statements — although they were published before the endorsement, according to the Internet Archive — and that they would have given him pause if he had.Some Republican officials defended the apparent lack of vetting before the party establishment put its support behind Mr. Peña, which included defending him when his opponent sought to have him disqualified from the race because of his criminal record, which could potentially have prohibited him from taking office.“The Republican Party did not recruit him,” said Representative Bill Rehm, a Republican state legislator from Albuquerque, adding that he did not think the party establishment should vet candidates. “He, like anyone else, can sign up to run for whatever office.”John Ismay More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      What Exxon Knew, but Concealed, About Climate Change

      by

      More from our inbox:The U.S. Embassy in IsraelPaying Off Our DebtsWhy Use Real Guns on Movie Sets?Election Deniers Wasting Taxpayer FundsDarren Woods, ExxonMobil’s C.E.O., appeared before the House Oversight Committee via video link in 2021.Jacquelyn Martin/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Exxon Scientists Saw Global Warming, as Oil Giant Cast Doubt, Study Says” (Business, Jan. 13):Exxon knew that its fuels would contribute to overheating the planet, yet it chose to deceive the public. It’s the very definition of fraud. Fossil fuel interests and their political allies are carrying out a fraud on humanity. They enjoy massive profits while their products are causing disease, death and disruption around the world.More than eight million people die annually from fossil fuel pollution. Societies are burdened by billions of dollars in damages from climate-fueled heat waves, wildfires, droughts, floods and sea rise.How can we hold them accountable? Many cities and states have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies seeking damages.We citizens can demand congressional action to end fossil fuel subsidies, enact carbon pricing to make the polluters pay, subsidize clean energy, speed electrification, reform the permitting process for renewable energy, and sequester carbon through healthier forests and better agricultural practices.Robert TaylorSanta Barbara, Calif.To the Editor:The revelation that Exxon scientists in the 1970s correctly projected the long-term climate impacts of burning fossil fuels, while publicly claiming ignorance, is both unsurprising and infuriating. Rising profits beat rising sea levels every time.Communities on the front lines of the climate crisis have long felt the environmental, economic and health consequences of burning oil, gas and coal. It stands to reason that scientists employed by big polluters would reach the same conclusions.When lead paint and tobacco companies were found to have known the negative health effects of their products, but spent decades concealing them, a public reckoning — with significant monetary damages — followed. It is long past time for the fossil fuel industry to face the same kind of accountability.Zellnor Y. MyrieBrooklynThe writer is a New York State senator for the 20th District.To the Editor:It is indeed unfortunate that Exxon was not forthcoming about its studies and its scientifically accurate projections of global warming. We can use this information to vilify Exxon Mobil, and certainly it deserves criticism, or we can use the information to acknowledge that a great deal of untapped expertise resides in the private energy industry that can be harnessed to address climate change.It would be highly productive if the federal government worked with energy corporations, where so much energy expertise resides, helping them make the socially beneficial decisions that are required to move toward nonpolluting and climate-friendly sources of energy.The government could help fund research and provide economic assistance to construct new infrastructure, which would ease the monetary challenges in transitions.Make the oil and energy industry part of the solution, as opposed to the problem.Ken LefkowitzMedford, N.J.The writer is a former employee of PECO Energy, an electric and gas utility.To the Editor:Thank you for this article, but this is not news. We have known for some time that the oil companies have been deliberately misrepresenting the facts regarding global warming, when they knew better.The Union of Concerned Scientists published “The Climate Deception Dossiers” in 2015. This document is a compilation of evidence that the oil companies knew what greenhouse gases would do to the Earth.In addition, the magazine Scientific American published an article in 2015 that stated that Exxon knew about global warming in 1977.Joseph MilsteinBrookline, Mass.The U.S. Embassy in IsraelThe lot in Jerusalem that is a candidate for a new U.S. embassy.Ofir Berman for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Don’t Build the Jerusalem Embassy Here,” by Rashid Khalidi (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 17):Dr. Khalidi’s view of international law, history and politics demands a response.When the British withdrew from Palestine in 1948, the Jewish organizations had embraced the 1947 U.N. General Assembly resolution recommending partition into predominantly Jewish and Arab states. Arabs rejected the recommendation and attacked. If there was a “nakba” (catastrophe), it was of their making.Second, Israel did not wake up one day and decide to march into East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Egypt, Syria and Jordan engaged in armed aggression in 1967 with the stated objective of pushing the Jews into the sea. Israel exercised its inherent right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter.There is not an international right of return law. That argument is an excuse for destroying Israel as a Jewish state.Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem recognized the location of Israel’s capital and sent an important signal to those who advocate the destruction of Israel. Real peace between Israel and the Palestinians will happen when both sides recognize a need to compromise.Nicholas RostowNew YorkThe writer is a former legal adviser to the National Security Council and general counsel and senior policy adviser to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.Paying Off Our DebtsThe Treasury Department is using so-called extraordinary measures to allow the federal government to keep paying its bills.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “U.S. Hits Debt Cap, Heightening Risk of Economic Pain” (front page, Jan. 20):If the debt limit is not raised, then the U.S. will be unable to make payments to some of its creditors, employees and entitlement programs that it is legally obligated to make.How nifty! My wife and I have a mortgage and a car loan. We have decided that our personal debt level is too high. So, we plan to send our bank a letter today saying that we will no longer make our mortgage or car payments.On second thought, scratch that. I know what our bank would say. And it would be right.If we need to reduce our debt as a nation, then — like my wife and me — let’s do it by reducing future spending commitments, not by failing to make current payments that we have already legally committed ourselves to make.Craig DuncanIthaca, N.Y.Why Use Real Guns on Movie Sets?Alec Baldwin on set of the film “Rust” in near Santa Fe, N.M., after the death of the cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in October 2021.Agence France-Presse, via Santa Fe County Sheriff’s OfficeTo the Editor:Re “Baldwin to Face Pair of Charges in Movie Death” (front page, Jan. 20):Why do actors need to use real guns? They use fake props for everything else!If we can send people to the moon and create self-driving cars, you would think that we could create realistic-looking guns, instead of real ones, that actors could use in movies and theaters.If they had done that on the set of “Rust,” the western that Alec Baldwin was filming, no one would have died. It’s a simple solution to prevent anything like this from happening again.Ellen EttingerNew YorkElection Deniers Wasting Taxpayer FundsA ballot cast for former President Donald J. Trump that was part of the county’s recount.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Despite Recount of 2020 Ballots, County’s Deniers Cling to Doubts” (front page, Jan. 16):Sensible taxpayers have the right to ask why their tax funds and the time of civil servants are spent on a request for an additional recount or audit of a verified and certified vote absent any evidence of fraud or irregularity.Where no reasonable probable cause exists for any such recount or audit, then any re-examination should be completely at the expense and time of the party that initiated it, especially when these beliefs are conjured up by conspiratorial fantasies or motivated by bad faith.Government officials and civil servants need to be free to focus on the needs of all, and not just the aims of a divisive and selfish minority.Jim CochranDallas More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Answering Reader Questions on a Covid Effect, Gerrymandering and More

      by

      How much did coronavirus deaths, redistricting and voter suppression matter in the last election?Supporters of a trucking convoy that included vaccine opponents last year in Adelanto, Calif.Meridith Kohut for The New York TimesA lot of mail has piled up since the election, so let’s take a trip to the mailbag while we’re in a relatively quiet period.Covid mortality and votingI’m not sure if I should be surprised by this, but one of the most popular email topics has been a morbid one: the effect of the coronavirus death toll.“Since the 2020 election, Covid has claimed well over half a million lives, predominantly elderly unvaccinated persons. Studies have documented the greater fatality rate in red counties. It appears that more elderly G.O.P. voters have died than their Democratic counterparts. Death certificates don’t include party affiliation, but there appears to have been something of a red wave of G.O.P. morbidity occurring over the last two years.“As pollsters extrapolate from their samples, has the weighting been revised since 2020 to reflect the shift in surviving voters due to Covid fatalities?” — John BaileyJohn, I doubt pollsters are revising their weighting targets to directly account for Covid deaths. And if some went through the motions of doing so, my guess is they found it wasn’t worth the time.I don’t want to appear to minimize the significance of more than half a million deaths since the 2020 election (and more than a million since the start of the pandemic), but the truth is this is not a large enough number to significantly affect the American electorate.Let’s suppose the most extreme case: Imagine that every single post-2020 Covid death was a Trump voter in the last election. How much would the result have changed if they hadn’t voted? Well, President Biden would have won by 4.8 points instead of 4.4 points.A swing of four-tenths of a point isn’t nothing, but polls don’t even report results to the decimal point. If pollsters made this adjustment, most poll results would go unchanged. The likeliest scenario, of course, is a much, much smaller effect.Nonetheless, coronavirus deaths will eventually affect the makeup of the polls, even if pollsters make no effort to account for Covid whatsoever. That’s because most polls are adjusted to match the characteristics of the population, based on data from the Census Bureau or voter registration files. To the extent Covid deaths ultimately change the characteristics of the population or the voter rolls, the targets that pollsters use for weighting will incrementally change as well.The role of gerrymanderingA recurring theme in the inbox was gerrymandering, which I did not mention in any of my post-election analyses:Not a mention of gerrymandering in this piece. A competitive congressional district map in N.Y. was very instrumental in the G.O.P. House victories there whereas a very gerrymandered map in Florida led to Democratic losses there — combined maybe at least half the expected majority the G.O.P. is estimated to end up with in the House when the dust settles. I would love to read your analysis on this issue. — Stan RoeI’m not so sure about that, Stan. As I wrote in the fall, this year’s congressional map was the fairest House map in decades. It gave the Democrats a serious and underrated chance at winning the House. And the final results bear this out: Democrats nearly won the House even though they lost the popular vote by a few percentage points.Going state by state, it’s striking how often the Democrats got their money’s worth. Their riskiest, maximum-effort gerrymanders paid off in Nevada, New Mexico and Illinois, where the party swept the eight competitive districts that they risked in order to maximize their chances at additional seats.Meanwhile, Republicans did so well in the red states that some of their most extreme gerrymanders may not have paid off as much as one might have guessed based on the results of the 2020 presidential election. Believe it or not, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida would have carried more seats on the relatively fair map he vetoed than on the enacted Republican gerrymander.Effects of voter suppressionMany readers asked about another topic I didn’t mention in my post-election analyses: voter suppression.Did voter suppression or even the threat thereof affect Black and Hispanic turnout? Thank you for your interesting newsletters! — Claire HessIt’s worth noting that this is a reply to a newsletter entry from early December, when I noted that Black turnout appeared to drop markedly across the country. Indeed, Black turnout really did seem to decline everywhere, regardless of whether states imposed new voter suppression laws or even expanded voter access.To take the three states where we have the best data — North Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia — Black turnout dropped off the most in North Carolina and Louisiana, where Democratic governors blocked efforts to restrict access. And turnout stayed strongest in Georgia, the epicenter of the fight over voting rights.This pattern doesn’t prove that new voter laws had zero effect in Georgia or elsewhere — and this analysis is separate from the ethics of the intent of the laws — but the broad decline in Black turnout across the country suggests that other factors were mainly responsible. It also implies that the effect of the new laws was small enough that it’s hard to tease out from the other factors that affect turnout from state to state.As I wrote two years ago about the new Georgia law, “In the final account, it will probably be hard to say whether it had any effect on turnout at all.” This is by no means the final account, but that remains my best guess. More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Your Friday Briefing: Ardern’s Exit

      by

      Also, the U.S. hit its debt limit and Western allies discuss sending tanks to Ukraine.Jacinda Ardern faced numerous crises in office, including the 2019 Christchurch terrorist attack and the coronavirus pandemic.Kerry Marshall/Getty ImagesArdern bows outAfter more than five years in power, Jacinda Ardern said that she would resign as New Zealand’s prime minister in early February, before the end of her second term. In a surprise announcement, she said that she no longer had “enough in the tank” to do the job.New Zealand’s youngest prime minister in 150 years, Ardern, 42, became a global emblem of liberalism. Her pronounced feminism and emphasis on a “politics of kindness” set her apart from her more bombastic male counterparts.But she faced deepening political challenges at home, with an election looming in October. Her Labour Party has been lagging behind the center-right National Party in polls for months. This weekend, the party will elect a new leader, but Ardern has no obvious successor.Quotable: “I believe that leading a country is the most privileged job anyone could ever have, but also one of the more challenging,” Ardern said. “You cannot and should not do it unless you have a full tank, plus a bit in reserve for those unexpected challenges.”Analysis: The pandemic may have been her undoing, our Sydney bureau chief writes. Her administration’s reliance on extended lockdowns hurt the economy and spurred an online backlash. Threats against her increased as she became a target for those who saw vaccine mandates as a rights violation.Raising the cap would not authorize any new spending — it would only allow the U.S. to finance existing obligations. Kenny Holston/The New York TimesU.S. hits its debt limitThe U.S. reached its $31.4 trillion debt cap yesterday, which is the total amount it can borrow. The country is now gearing up for a bitter partisan battle over raising the cap.Failure to do so could be catastrophic. It would mean that the U.S. would not be able to pay its bills and may be unable to meet its financial obligations, possibly even defaulting on its debt. That could plunge the U.S. into a deep recession and has the potential to cause a global financial crisis.The Treasury Department said it would begin a series of accounting maneuvers, known as “extraordinary measures,” which are designed to keep the U.S. from breaching the limit. Janet Yellen, the Treasury secretary, also asked lawmakers yesterday to raise or suspend the cap to delay a default.The State of the WarHelicopter Crash: A helicopter crashed in a fireball in a Kyiv suburb, killing a member of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s cabinet and more than a dozen other people, and dealing a blow to Ukraine’s wartime leadership.Western Military Aid: Kyiv is redoubling its pleas to allies for more advanced weapons ahead of an expected new Russian offensive. The Netherlands said that it was considering sending a Patriot missile system, and the Biden administration is warming to the idea of providing the weapons that Ukraine needs to target the Crimean Peninsula.Dnipro: A Russian strike on an apartment complex in the central Ukrainian city was one of the deadliest for civilians away from the front line since the war began. The attack prompted renewed calls for Moscow to be charged with war crimes.Politics: Newly empowered House Republicans are poised to again leverage the debt limit to make demands on President Biden. Biden, for his part, has said he will not negotiate over the limit, and that lawmakers should lift it, with no strings attached, to cover spending that the previous Congress has authorized.What’s next: The extraordinary measures should allow the government to keep paying workers and others through early June. It’s unlikely that the crisis will find a resolution smoothly or soon, and months of partisan brinkmanship loom.The Strykers could be delivered within weeks. Andreea Campeanu/Getty ImagesWill Ukraine get more tanks?Lloyd Austin, the U.S. defense secretary, will lead a meeting of officials from about 50 countries at a U.S. air base in Germany today that will focus on how to provide Ukraine the weapons it needs, including advanced Western tanks.Ukraine is redoubling its pleas for more advanced weapons, like tanks and air defense missiles, ahead of an expected Russian springtime offensive that could be decisive in the war.At the meeting, the U.S. is expected to announce plans to send Ukraine nearly 100 Stryker combat vehicles, as part of a roughly $2.5 billion weapons package, officials said. Britain has committed to sending 14 Challenger battle tanks.Now, all eyes are on Germany. The country has been under pressure to supply or authorize the export of its Leopard 2 tanks, which are among the most coveted by Kyiv. Austin met with Germany’s new defense minister, Boris Pistorius, yesterday to try to reach an agreement over sending the tanks to Ukraine.Quotable: “In a war like it is being fought, every type of equipment is necessary,” Adm. Rob Bauer, a senior NATO official, said. “And the Russians are fighting with tanks. So the Ukrainians need tanks as well.”THE LATEST NEWSAround the WorldProtestors chanted slogans like “retirement before arthritis.”Lewis Joly/Associated PressOver one million people went on strike across France to protest a plan to raise the legal retirement age to 64 from 62.Alec Baldwin will be charged with involuntary manslaughter after the fatal shooting on the “Rust” film set, prosecutors announced.A stampede outside an Iraqi soccer stadium killed at least one person. Fans were angry to discover that they had been sold fake tickets.The only H.I.V. vaccine in advanced trials has failed. Progress could be set back by five years, experts said.In another upset at the Australian Open, Casper Ruud of Norway — the No. 2 seed — lost to an unseeded American, Jenson Brooksby.The Week in Culture“All Quiet on the Western Front” is a surprise front-runner. Netflix“All Quiet on the Western Front,” a German-language remake set in World War I, leads the BAFTA nominees.The British Museum and Greece are getting closer to a deal on returning the so-called Elgin Marbles to Athens.Yukihiro Takahashi was a leading figure in Japan’s pop scene for nearly 50 years, most prominently with the Yellow Magic Orchestra. He died at 70.A Morning ReadDoctors greet patients as if they were their own grandparents. Chang W. Lee/The New York TimesOn hundreds of small islands scattered off South Korea’s coast, communities rely on government-run hospital ships that bring free medical services. The ships have been around for decades, but their necessity has increased in recent years as the population ages.The means of supplying medical help for older citizens has become a growing concern in East Asian countries and beyond the region.SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAA tiger rivets South AfricaSouth Africa is never boring. At the moment, there’s an energy crisis and plenty of political drama. But people here had something more unusual to talk about this week: A tiger on the loose in a residential area south of Johannesburg.Sheba, an eight-year-old female, escaped from her enclosure on a private farm in the Walkerville area last weekend. The news spread panic in the neighborhood and gripped South Africans throughout the nation. Sheba mauled a 39-year-old man, and killed two dogs and a pig. Even with a police helicopter circling over the area, she evaded searchers until the early hours of Wednesday morning, when she was shot and killed.South Africa is a nature lover’s paradise, but every now and again two worlds collide. In 2021, a lost hippopotamus turned up in northern Johannesburg and wandered through backyards, cooling itself in swimming pools until it was captured. In Pringle Bay, a vacation spot outside Cape Town, troops of baboons terrorized visitors last year. — Lynsey Chutel, a Briefings writer in Johannesburg.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookLinda Xiao for The New York TimesFor Lunar New Year, here are some easy, festive wonton recipes.What to ReadPaul Theroux suggests books to take you through Boston.What to WatchLi Xiaofeng’s film “Back to the Wharf” turns a crime story into an allegory about the moral cost of China’s modernization.What to Listen toTracks by Miley Cyrus and Vagabon are among the 13 new songs on our playlist.Where to GoCheck out Seoul’s hidden, cozy cocktail bars.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Happen (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. Best wishes to those who are celebrating Lunar New Year on Sunday. — AmeliaP.S. Paul Mozur will be our new global technology correspondent. Congratulations, Paul!“The Daily” is about why the U.S. is sending weapons to Ukraine.We’d welcome your feedback. You can reach us at briefing@nytimes.com. More