Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How China Plans to Control Hong Kong’s Elections and Elevate ‘Patriots’

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }China’s Crackdown on Hong KongThe Security Law, ExplainedChina Rewrites HistoryFleeing Activists ChargedU.S. SanctionsMass ArrestsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyHow China Plans to Control Hong Kong’s Elections and Elevate ‘Patriots’New rules imposed by Beijing will make it nearly impossible for democracy advocates in the territory to run for chief executive or the legislature.The changes to Hong Kong’s election rules were approved on Thursday during the closing session of the National People’s Congress in Beijing.Credit…Pool photo by Roman PilipeyKeith Bradsher and March 11, 2021, 7:22 a.m. ETBEIJING — China approved on Thursday a drastic overhaul of election rules for Hong Kong that would most likely bar many pro-democracy politicians from competing in elections, cementing Beijing’s grip over the territory.The National People’s Congress, China’s Communist Party-controlled legislature, voted almost unanimously to give pro-Beijing loyalists more power to choose Hong Kong’s local leader, as well as members of its legislature. The decision builds on a sweeping national security law for Hong Kong, imposed last year after months of protests, that the authorities have used to quash opposition in the former British colony.Premier Li Keqiang said at his annual news conference that the new legislation was needed to ensure that “patriots” run the territory. But critics contend that the new election system will wipe out the already limited democracy that Hong Kong enjoyed after its return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.Here is what we know about the changes.Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s current leader, is eligible to run for re-election but has not yet said whether she will do so.Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesBeijing will have even more say over who leads Hong Kong.Until now, Hong Kong’s chief executive has been selected by a 1,200-member Election Committee dominated by Beijing’s allies. This has allowed China to pick leaders it trusts.But a groundswell of support for the territory’s democracy movement during massive protests in 2019 raised the possibility that the opposition could amass a majority of votes to stymie Beijing’s choice.Beijing plans to add 300 more spots on the committee, which could allow more seats to go to its allies. The congress also imposed a new rule that would most likely prevent democrats from getting on the Election Committee’s ballot. To be nominated, a candidate will now require at least some support from each of the five main groups on the committee. Beijing will now have the chance to form one group entirely from its loyalists, which would block pro-democracy nominees.Such moves are likely to deprive democracy supporters of much say when the committee votes early next year to select Hong Kong’s leader. The current chief executive, Carrie Lam, is eligible to run for re-election but has not yet said whether she will do so.Pro-Beijing activists showed support for the electoral changes in Hong Kong on Thursday.   Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesCandidates deemed ‘disloyal’ would be rooted out.Beijing will also empower the Election Committee to directly appoint some members of Hong Kong’s legislature. To many, this is a regression, as the committee lost the authority to appoint lawmakers several years after Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty from British rule.“I think overall this is an effective, fast, hard-line kind of reverse democratization package,” said Sonny Lo, a political analyst based in Hong Kong. “The pro-democracy forces, even if they can win all the directly elected seats, they will be destined to be a permanent minority.”Half the seats in the legislature are currently chosen by direct elections and half by so-called functional constituencies: various professions, business groups and other special interests. Until recently, the democrats had held around two dozen seats, and often used their presence to protest China’s encroachment on the territory’s autonomy and filibuster some local government measures.Mrs. Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, said the changes would prevent dissenting politicians from disrupting the legislature, known as LegCo.“We will be able to resolve the problem of the LegCo making everything political in recent years and effectively deal with the reckless moves or internal rift that have torn Hong Kong apart,” she said.Beijing ordered an expansion of the legislature, to 90 seats from 70. It did not say how many of those seats would be directly appointed by the election committee.The congress also said the Hong Kong government would establish a separate committee to vet candidates seeking to run for the legislature or chief executive. This process is designed to weed out anyone who might be considered disloyal to Beijing.From left: The Democratic Party members Andrew Wan, Lam Cheuk-ting, Lo Kin-hei and Helena Wong at a news conference in January. All had been arrested on charges tied to the national security law.Credit…Jerome Favre/EPA, via ShutterstockIt’s ‘a sad move,’ democrats say.Even before the legislation takes force, the Beijing-backed government in Hong Kong has moved quickly to extinguish the opposition.Many activists have been detained or arrested on charges tied to the national security law, including Joshua Wong; Martin Lee, known as the “father of democracy” in Hong Kong; and Benny Tai, a law scholar. Their voice has been significantly dimmed.Pro-democracy activists warned that the election law changes would amount to a death knell for the territory’s limited voting rights.Lo Kin-hei, the chairman of the Democratic Party and one of the few prominent opposition figures not in custody, called the electoral changes “a sad move for Hong Kong.”“They should actually make the Legislative Council more responsive to the people’s voice, instead of suppressing the people’s voice, like what their proposal is now,” Mr. Lo said.“I believe that in the future those legislative councilors will be less and less representative of the Hong Kong people and they will just be some loyalists who can do nothing and who cannot represent the Hong Kong people at all,” he said.Last month, the authorities charged 47 people — many of them well-known democracy activists — with conspiracy to commit subversion.Their crime in the eyes of the police was their role in holding a primary election intended to help identify pro-democracy candidates for legislative elections that were originally scheduled for last September. The government postponed those elections for a year, citing the pandemic, and has hinted that a further postponement might be needed while the new election law is drafted and implemented.Keith Bradsher More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      E.U. Parliament Strips Carles Puigdemont of Immunity

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCatalan Separatist Leader Loses Immunity, Clearing Way for Spain’s Extradition BidCarles Puigdemont has been charged with sedition for leading a 2017 independence bid. His European Parliament membership had shielded him from prosecution.A television showing Carles Puigdemont at the European Parliament in Brussels on Tuesday.Credit…Francisco Seco/Associated PressRaphael Minder and March 9, 2021Updated 8:33 a.m. ETMADRID — The European Parliament has stripped the immunity of Carles Puigdemont, the former separatist leader of Catalonia, clearing the way for Spain to make a fresh attempt to extradite him from Belgium and try him on sedition charges.The European Parliament said on Tuesday that a majority of its members had voted a day earlier in a secret ballot to remove the immunity of Mr. Puigdemont and two other Catalan members of the assembly who face charges in Spain related to a botched attempt to declare Catalonia’s independence in 2017. Spain’s judiciary has charged that their bid was unconstitutional.The vote on Monday ended a lengthy battle by Mr. Puigdemont and his colleagues to use their protection as elected members of the European assembly to shield them from prosecution in Spain. Now it is up to the Belgian judiciary to rule on whether Mr. Puigdemont should be sent back to the Spanish capital, Madrid, to stand trial.“It is a sad day for the European Parliament,” Mr. Puigdemont said. “We have lost our immunity, but the European Parliament has lost more than that and as a result, European democracy too,” he said, adding that this was “a clear case of political prosecution.”The Spanish government welcomed the vote.“The problems of Catalonia will not be solved in Europe or by Europe. They have to be solved in Spain by bringing all Catalan forces around the table,” said the foreign minister, Arancha González Laya. The vote showed that the European Parliament had “respect for the work of the judiciary in our country,” she added.The European Parliament’s decision comes only weeks after regional elections in Catalonia that increased the majority of pro-independence parties in the regional Parliament. Separatist politicians have held control since 2015, but the secessionist conflict has split Catalan society while also remaining a highly contentious issue in national politics.A polling station in Barcelona last month. Regional elections increased the majority of pro-independence parties in the Catalonian Parliament.Credit…Emilio Morenatti/Associated PressMr. Puigdemont and some of his colleagues have been in Brussels since October 2017, shortly after the Spanish central government ousted his regional government for holding a referendum that Spanish courts had ruled illegal and then declaring Catalonia’s independence.During the past three years, Mr. Puigdemont has successfully fought off attempts to extradite him both from Belgium and Germany, where he was briefly detained during a trip.In January, judges in Belgium also rejected a request to extradite another former member of Catalonia’s regional government, Lluis Puig, who is facing similar charges in Spain. The Belgian court argued that the Spanish Supreme Court did not have the legal authority to issue an arrest warrant against Mr. Puig, adding that he should be tried in a regional court.Part of Mr. Puigdemont’s former government, however, stayed in Spain and stood trial before the country’s Supreme Court. Nine Catalans received prison sentences after they were convicted of crimes including sedition and misuse of public funds.One former Catalan leader, Oriol Junqueras, was also barred by Spain’s highest court from taking his seat in the European Parliament. Both he and Mr. Puigdemont were elected to the assembly in 2019.The European Parliament’s vote will allow a Spanish judge to reactivate a European arrest warrant against Mr. Puigdemont that was suspended in early 2020, when Mr. Puigdemont and his colleagues took their seats in the European assembly.The Catalan leaders are not the first members of the European Parliament to be stripped of immunity.In 2019, the European Parliament stripped the immunity of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of the far-right National Front party in France. It is still reviewing the case of Ioannis Lagos, who was sentenced in Greece last year for his activities with the far-right Golden Dawn party. The Greek government considers Golden Dawn a criminal organization.The Catalan case has divided politicians in Brussels, many of them loathe to set a precedent of lawmakers being tried over political activity. The removal of Mr. Puigdemont’s immunity was approved by three-fifths of the members of the European Parliament.It could take months for Belgian courts to rule on Spain’s latest attempt to extradite Mr. Puigdemont and the two other Catalan leaders, Antoni Comín and Clara Ponsatí.The Brussels Public Prosecutor’s Office is examining the possibility of renewing legal proceedings in Belgium, a spokeswoman for the office said.Should the Belgian courts block the extradition request, the Catalans would continue to sit in the European Parliament, but without special immunity rights.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      What Went Right in the 2020 Election

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyon techWhat Went Right in the 2020 ElectionIt wasn’t all a mess. Here’s how the government and tech companies tamed foreign interference.CreditCredit…By Rad MoraMarch 8, 2021Updated 2:39 p.m. ETThis article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it weekdays.A lot went wrong after the 2020 election in the United States. But here’s one thing that went right during it: A risk everyone worried about — foreign election interference — mostly failed.That showed what is possible when government officials and technology companies are laser focused on a problem, effectively coordinate and learn from their past mistakes.But the false narrative that the election was stolen, culminating in a mob attack on the U.S. Capitol, also pointed to the limits of those efforts. The Russians or the Chinese didn’t delegitimize our election. We did it to ourselves.Today, I want to explore the glass half-full view. The largely averted threat of foreign election meddling was a success that shouldn’t be overlooked.What went wrong the last timeLet me first remind you what happened around the 2016 election. Russian hackers pilfered documents from the Democratic National Committee and tried to muck around with state election infrastructure. Digital propagandists backed by the Russian government also fanned information on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and elsewhere that sought to erode people’s faith in voting or inflame social divisions.Powerful American institutions — notably local, state and federal government officials as well as large internet companies — were slow to tackle the problem or had initially dismissed it. The effect of the hacking and trolling wasn’t clear, but the worry was that foreign governments would regularly seek to disrupt U.S. elections and that it would contribute to Americans’ lack of trust in our systems and with one another.What happened in 2020Some foreign governments, including Russia and Iran, tried to disrupt our elections again, but it mostly didn’t work. The same U.S. institutions and digital defenses that failed four years earlier largely held strong this time.“The progress that was made between 2016 and 2020 was remarkable,” said Camille François, chief innovation officer at Graphika, a firm that analyzes manipulation of social networks.What changed in government and techOne major shift after 2016 was that federal government officials and the state and local officials who run elections overcame initial mistrust to collaborate more effectively on voting threats. Matt Masterson, who until recently was a senior adviser on election security for the Department of Homeland Security, said coordination was the biggest change that helped shore up digital defenses in election management systems.“This is as good as the federal government has worked on any issue in my experience,” Masterson said.He also credited efforts in states, notably Georgia, that created paper trails of ballots that could be audited quickly and provide more visibility into the vote counting to help increase people’s trust in the election process.The tech companies, François said, shifted to acknowledge their blind spots. For the first time, online powers including Facebook wrote policies specifically tackling foreign government meddling and put people in charge of stopping it. They also made it harder for foreign trolls to use some of their 2016 tactics, such as buying online advertisements to circulate divisive messages widely.Social media companies also started to publicly announce when they found campaigns by foreign governments that were used to mislead people online. François said that helped researchers and journalists better assess the techniques of foreign propagandists — and the shared knowledge helped internet companies stop trolling campaigns before they had a big impact.Cooperation improved between government and tech companies, too. There were regular meetings between major internet companies and the federal officials responsible for election protection to share information. And internet companies began to tell the public when the U.S. government tipped them off about foreign interference on their websites.Both François and Masterson said that an “aha” moment was the response to Iran’s effort to intimidate voters during the fall. National security officials said then that Iran had obtained some Americans’ voter-registration data, most of which was publicly available, to send deceptive messages that threatened voters.Because they were ready for threats like this, officials were able to make connections between voter intimidation in multiple states, identify the source of the menacing messages, inform election officials across the country and tell voters what was happening — all in about a day.“That couldn’t have happened in 2016, and it likely couldn’t have happened in 2018,” Masterson said. “That was what we had all trained for.”What’s nextWhile internet companies and the U.S. government caught up to the kinds of interference they faced in 2016, they failed at confronting the even trickier challenge of a campaign led by the president himself to cast doubt on the election process despite no substantial evidence. And foreign cyber attacks and online propaganda efforts certainly haven’t stopped.But it could have been much worse. A lot went right in the election because powerful institutions took the risk of foreign hacking and trolling seriously and rose to the challenge. That’s a hopeful lesson for future elections, the pandemic and other crises.Before we go …It’s a weird time to become rich: My colleague Erin Griffith writes that a booming market in tech stocks and I.P.O.s has created a conundrum for newly wealthy technologists. Buying a Ferrari in the middle of a pandemic might be tacky and pointless, so instead they’re paying for Snoop Dogg to lead cooking classes on Zoom or piling into luxury vans for road trips.How online shopping affected these smaller businesses: Amy Haimerl spoke to owners of a grocery store in Michigan, a fitness studio and other smaller businesses about shifting their operations to online shops during the pandemic. For some of them, e-commerce helped them stay afloat, but for others it was more hassle than help.Kids spending more time online is … complicated: Screen time “as a concept to track meticulously, to fret and panic about, to measure parents’ worth in — is no longer considered a valid framework in a pandemic world,” a Washington Post writer said.Hugs to thisA train of duckies snakes through an opening in half-frozen water.We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 25 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Bukele todopoderoso

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpiniónSupported byContinue reading the main storyComentarioBukele todopoderosoDespués de las elecciones legislativas en El Salvador, el presidente tendrá un dominio casi absoluto de la política. La democracia está en riesgo.El presidente de El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, en febrero de este añoCredit…Jose Cabezas/ReutersEs periodista y editor de El Salvador.8 de marzo de 2021 a las 05:00 ETSAN SALVADOR — La democracia salvadoreña ha parido un autócrata. Lo venía gestando desde hace casi un año, y ya está aquí, en todo su esplendor. Se llama Nayib Bukele y, a partir del 1 de mayo, gobernará este país como le plazca.El domingo 28 de febrero los salvadoreños votaron para elegir a sus 84 diputados y 262 alcaldes. Nuevas Ideas, el partido que se define como el de “la N de Nayib”, se estrenó en unos comicios dando una tunda a sus adversarios. Aún se realiza el conteo final, pero el preliminar dejó clara la tendencia, con más del 90 por ciento escrutado. Los candidatos a alcaldes de Bukele ganaron 13 de las 14 cabeceras departamentales. Sus candidatos a diputados, contando la alianza con otro partido, ganaron 61 de las 84 diputaciones.El adjetivo posesivo del párrafo anterior no es un despiste. Esos candidatos son suyos. Los que tuvieron alguna cobertura mediática o propaganda hicieron campaña con la foto de Bukele y prometieron fidelidad a su líder. Para atraer el voto, el partido llenó el país de enormes espectaculares que solo contenían un fondo celeste y una enorme N blanca al medio. La N del todopoderoso.El Salvador ha cambiado. Ya no existe el país con la correlación de fuerzas políticas que nos gobernaron durante toda la posguerra. Durante 29 años, después de los Acuerdos de Paz, dos partidos dominaron el poder político: Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN), a la izquierda, y la Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (Arena), a la derecha. Con estas elecciones se extinguió la polarización que nos carcomió durante décadas: ¿FMLN o Arena? Y se terminó de imponer otra polarización igual de simplista y nociva: ¿Bukelista o no?Con los 61 diputados, Bukele no necesita de ninguna otra bancada legislativa más que de la de su partido aliado que le ha prometido fidelidad absoluta y bajo cuyas siglas llegó a la Presidencia en 2019 cuando aún no había formado a Nuevas Ideas. La oposición ha caído en la irrelevancia. En la legislación salvadoreña, 56 es el número mágico. Es lo que conocemos como mayoría calificada, capaz de conseguir aprobación del presupuesto, reformas legales, la suspensión de garantías constitucionales o el nombramiento de magistrados de la Corte Suprema de Justicia.Los partidos tradicionales quedaron en coma profundo. Sobrevivirán artificialmente, conservando algunas curules, con gente que se sentará en el parlamento como si su presencia pudiera servir de algo. La exguerrilla, por ejemplo, el FMLN, obtuvo cuatro escaños. El menor registro de su historia era de 21 diputados en las elecciones de 1994, cuando la guerra estaba reciente y el fantasma del comunismo todavía era útil para espantar votantes. Arena obtuvo 14 escaños esta vez, lo que significa que tendrá 23 menos de los que ahora mismo tiene.A partir de mayo, a Bukele le bastará levantar el teléfono para ordenar que se apruebe una ley o que se destituya a un fiscal y se elija a otro. La gran mayoría de votantes salvadoreños decidió decir no al contrapeso de poderes, no al debate legislativo, no al consenso necesario, no a la oposición. Y al decir no al pluralismo y el sistema de controles que caracteriza a la democracia ha puesto al país en el camino de la autocracia. Como gustan decir los demagogos de plaza: el pueblo ha hablado, el soberano se ha expresado en las urnas. Una sociedad poco instruida en los principios democráticos ha confirmado a su caudillo. Una sociedad con tan precaria educación pública y tanta desigualdad ha ungido, más por fe que con argumentos, a su nuevo mesías.A El Salvador no se le impuso un autócrata: el país lo eligió.¿A qué dijeron que sí los votantes salvadoreños? A la acumulación de poder en un hombre de 39 años que ha demostrado ser autoritario, poco transparente y enemigo de la prensa independiente. Pero también a un hombre que los convenció, principalmente con eslóganes y demagogia, de que él no es como “los mismos de siempre”, aunque haya sido alcalde de la capital con el FMLN; que ofreció logros incontestables también, así como inexplicables, como la reducción de homicidios sin precedentes durante su primer año de mandato, que él atribuye a un plan que no ha permitido que nadie vea y analice, y no a sus demostradas negociaciones con la Mara Salvatrucha-13, de las que tanto le incomoda hablar.Bukele viste ropas muy diferentes a las de sus antecesores y es hábil manejando el Twitter en un país donde el anterior presidente no sabía ni cuál era su usuario en esa red. Sin embargo, al margen de los símbolos, comparte muchos rasgos de la clase política que llevó al despeñadero a El Salvador: bajo su mandato han ocurrido diversas denuncias de corrupción y nepotismo, sus ataques a la prensa le han ganado incluso cartas de reclamo de legisladores estadounidenses y su falta de transparencia le ha llevado a desmantelar poco a poco la institución garante de la información pública. Bukele luce diferente, pero en el fondo se parece mucho a los que ha logrado sacar del hemiciclo legislativo.Hasta las próximas elecciones de 2024, Bukele gobernará El Salvador con un poder que nadie ha tenido en la posguerra. Su discurso legitimará cada una de sus acciones respaldándose en una raquítica idea de democracia. El presidente tiene excusa para rato. Pero también tiene un nuevo reto. Se le acabó su enemigo. La idea de una oposición que bloqueaba todas sus iniciativas y no le permitía arreglar este país se terminó también en estas elecciones. Tener todo el poder también significa tener toda la responsabilidad. Ser el único que carga el jarrón implica también ser el único responsable si se rompe.Pero Bukele es fiel a su estilo de entender la política como un conflicto permanente que él debe ir ganando.Sin oposición que le estorbe, podría predecir lo que seguirá: el presidente buscará nuevos enemigos para seguir utilizando su narrativa de bueno y malos. Uno de los enemigos predilectos para llenar ese espacio seremos nosotros, la prensa y los periodistas. El presidente nunca ha entendido el rol de la prensa independiente. Su jugada —exitosa dentro de las fronteras nacionales— ha sido presentar a esa prensa como oposición política. Creo que esa animadversión crecerá hasta ocupar un lugar principal en el altar de los odios presidenciales.Haberle entregado el poder absoluto a Bukele traerá serias consecuencias que perdurarán en el imaginario político como una nueva forma de liderazgo: el desprecio por el Estado de derecho y el diálogo, los ataques a la prensa, la falta de transparencia, la perpetuación del nepotismo y el amiguismo, la deformación de las instituciones públicas hasta convertirlas en peones obedientes a la próxima jugada de su líder. Un Estado al servicio de un hombre.La prensa lleva en la mira de Bukele desde antes de que asumiera la presidencia. Hacer periodismo es cada vez más difícil a causa del acoso y las amenazas de funcionarios del gobierno. A partir de ahora, será aún más difícil. Pero este es el momento en el que El Salvador más necesita periodismo serio y riguroso.A los colegas periodistas les sugiero autorreflexión y templanza. Será necesario comprender el nuevo escenario y reinventar nuestros procedimientos para proteger a nuestras fuentes, cubrir los órganos de Estado o, sencillamente, salir a hacer nuestro trabajo a las calles.A la sociedad civil organizada le esperan necesidades similares: rearmarse para vigilar al poderoso, transformarse para dialogar con el convencido y caminar así, paso a paso, una vez más, ese camino nunca recorrido del todo, en el intento de llegar a una democracia plena y fuerte.Óscar Martínez es jefe de redacción de El Faro, autor de Los migrantes que no importan y Una historia de violencia y coautor de El Niño de Hollywood, sobre la MS-13.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      In Georgia, Republicans Take Aim at Role of Black Churches in Elections

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyIn Georgia, Republicans Take Aim at Role of Black Churches in ElectionsNew proposals by the G.O.P.-controlled Legislature have targeted Sunday voting, part of a raft of measures that could reduce the impact of Black voters in the state.Israel Small spent most of last fall helping members of his church with the absentee voting process.Credit…Stephen B. Morton for The New York TimesNick Corasaniti and March 6, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETSAVANNAH, Ga. — Sundays are always special at the St. Philip Monumental A.M.E. church. But in October, the pews are often more packed, the sermon a bit more urgent and the congregation more animated, and eager for what will follow: piling into church vans and buses — though some prefer to walk — and heading to the polls.Voting after Sunday church services, known colloquially as “souls to the polls,” is a tradition in Black communities across the country, and Pastor Bernard Clarke, a minister since 1991, has marshaled the effort at St. Philip for five years. His sermons on those Sundays, he said, deliver a message of fellowship, responsibility and reverence.“It is an opportunity for us to show our voting rights privilege as well as to fulfill what we know that people have died for, and people have fought for,” Mr. Clarke said.Now, Georgia Republicans are proposing new restrictions on weekend voting that could severely curtail one of the Black church’s central roles in civic engagement and elections. Stung by losses in the presidential race and two Senate contests, the state party is moving quickly to push through these limits and a raft of other measures aimed directly at suppressing the Black turnout that helped Democrats prevail in the critical battleground state.“The only reason you have these bills is because they lost,” said Bishop Reginald T. Jackson, who oversees all 534 A.M.E. churches in Georgia. “What makes it even more troubling than that is there is no other way you can describe this other than racism, and we just need to call it what it is.’’The push for new restrictions in Georgia comes amid a national effort by Republican-controlled state legislatures to impose harsh restrictions on voting access, in states like Iowa, Arizona and Texas.But the targeting of Sunday voting in new bills that are moving through Georgia’s Legislature has stirred the most passionate reaction, with critics saying it recalls some of the racist voting laws from the state’s past.“I can remember the first time I went to register,” said Diana Harvey Johnson, 74, a former state senator who lives in Savannah. “I went to the courthouse by myself and there was actually a Mason jar sitting on top of the counter. And the woman there asked me how many butterbeans were in that jar,” suggesting that she needed to guess correctly in order to be allowed to register.“I had a better chance of winning the Georgia lottery than guess how many butterbeans,” Ms. Harvey Johnson continued. “But the fact that those kinds of disrespects and demoralizing and dehumanizing practices — poll taxes, lynchings, burning crosses and burning down houses and firing people and putting people in jail, just to keep them from voting — that is not that far away in history. But it looks like some people want to revisit that. And that is absolutely unacceptable.”Diana Harvey Johnson, a former Georgia state senator, said she remembered facing “dehumanizing practices” when registering to vote in her youth.Credit…Stephen B. Morton for The New York TimesThe bill that passed the House would limit voting to at most one Sunday in October, but even that would be up to the discretion of the local registrar. It would also severely cut early voting hours in total, limit voting by mail and greatly restrict the use of drop boxes — all measures that activists say would disproportionately affect Black voters.A similar bill is awaiting a vote in the Senate. Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, has indicated he supports new laws to “secure the vote” but has not committed to all of the restrictions.Voting rights advocates say there is deep hypocrisy embedded in some of the new proposals. It was Georgia Republicans, they point out, who championed mail balloting in the early 2000s and automatic voting registration just five years ago, only to say they need to be limited now that more Black voters have embraced them.Georgia was one of nine mostly Southern states and scores of counties and municipalities — including the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan — whose records of racist voter suppression required them to get federal clearance for changes to their election rules. The requirement fell under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the civil rights era law that curtailed the disenfranchisement of Blacks in the South.The changes Republicans are now pursuing would have faced stiff federal review and possible blockage under the part of the act known as Section 5. But the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, effectively gutted that section in a 2013 ruling.Even after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, churches played a key role in civic engagement, often organizing nonpartisan political action committees during the 1970s and ’80s that provided, among other resources, trips to vote on Sunday where it was permitted. The phrase “souls to the polls” took root in Florida in the 1990s, according to David D. Daniels III, a professor of church history at McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago. Raphael Warnock, one of the Democrats who won a special Senate race in January, is himself the pastor of the storied Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.Historically, churches provided Black congregants more than just transportation or logistical help. Voting as a congregation also offered a form of haven from the intimidation and violence that often awaited Black voters at the polls.“That was one of the things that my father said, that once Black people got the right to vote, they would all go together because they knew that there was going to be a problem,” said Robert Evans, 59, a member of St. Phillip Monumental. “Bringing them all together made them feel more comfortable to actually go and do the civic duty.”In Georgia, the role of the A.M.E. church in civic engagement has been growing under the guidance of Bishop Jackson. Last year he began Operation Voter Turnout, seeking to expand the ways that A.M.E. churches could prepare their members to participate in elections. The operation focused on voter education, registration drives, assistance with absentee ballots and a coordinated Sunday voting operation.Bishop Reginald T. Jackson in Atlanta. He began a program to better prepare church members to participate in elections.Credit…Matthew Odom for The New York TimesIt had an impact in last November’s election, even amid the coronavirus pandemic: According to the Center for New Data, a nonprofit research group, African-Americans voted at a higher rate on weekends than voters identifying as white in 107 of the state’s 159 counties. Internal numbers from Fair Fight Action, a voting rights group, found that Black voters made up roughly 37 percent of those who voted early on Sunday in Georgia, while the Black population of Georgia is about 32 percent.State Representative Barry Fleming, a Republican and chief sponsor of the House bill, did not respond to requests for comment, nor did three other Republican sponsors. In introducing the bill, Republicans in the Legislature portrayed the new restrictions as efforts to “secure the vote” and “restore confidence” in the electoral process, but offered no rationale beyond that and no credible evidence that it was flawed. (Georgia’s election was pronounced secure by Republican electoral officials and reaffirmed by multiple audits and court decisions.)Limiting Sunday voting would affect Black voters beyond losing the assistance of the church. It would inevitably lead to longer lines during the week, especially in the Black community, which has historically been underserved on Election Day.The bill would also ban what is known as “line warming,” the practice of having volunteers provide water, snacks, chairs and other assistance to voters in line.Latoya Brannen, 43, worked with members of the church and a nonprofit group called 9 to 5 to hand out snacks and personal protective equipment in November.“We’ve learned that giving people just those small items helps keep them in line,” Ms. Brannen said. She said she had occasionally handed out bubbles to parents who brought young children with them.If Sunday voting is limited, it could induce more Black Georgians to vote by mail. During the pandemic, churches played an instrumental role in helping African-Americans navigate the absentee ballot system, which they had not traditionally used in the same proportion as white voters.At Greater Gaines Chapel A.M.E., a church about a half-mile from St. Philip Monumental, Israel Small spent most of last fall helping church members with the absentee process.“We took people to drop boxes to help make sure it would be counted,” said Mr. Small, 79. He said he was angered to learn this winter that Republicans were moving to restrict mail voting, too.Among the changes Republican state legislators have proposed is a requirement that voters provide proof of their identification — their license numbers or copies of official ID cards — with their absentee ballot applications.That signals a shift for Republicans, who have long controlled the Statehouse; in 2005 they passed a similar proposal, but for in-person voting.Pastor Bernard Clarke of St. Philip Monumental A.M.E. church has marshaled the effort to get his congregation to the polls for five years.Credit…Stephen B. Morton for The New York TimesThat measure included a new “anti-fraud” requirement that voters present one of a limited set of government-issued identification cards, like a driver’s license, at voting stations.The restrictions affected Black voters disproportionately, data showed. At the same time, state Republicans were moving to ease the process of absentee voting — predominantly used by white voters then — by stripping requirements that absentee voters provide an excuse for why they couldn’t vote in person and exempting them from the new photo-identification requirement.Justice Department lawyers reviewed the proposals under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and found that the new ID law would likely make voting disproportionately harder for Black citizens. The attorneys recommended that the George W. Bush administration block it.In a memo that the department’s political leadership ultimately disregarded, staff lawyers noted that a sponsor of the legislation had told them that she believed Black voters were likely to vote only when they were paid to do so, and that if the new law reduced their voting share it was only because it would limit opportunities for fraud.The memo also stated that the law’s sponsors defended the more lenient treatment of mail voting — like its exemption from the ID provision — by arguing that it was more secure than in-person voting because it produced a paper trail.Now, after an election year in which Mr. Trump repeatedly and falsely disparaged mail voting as rife with fraud, state Republicans are arguing that mail-in voting needs more restrictions.There is no new evidence supporting that assertion. But one thing did change in 2020: the increase in Black voters who availed themselves of absentee balloting, helping Democrats to dominate the mail-in ballot results during the presidential election.“It’s just really a sad day,” Mr. Small, from the Greater Gaines church, said. “It’s a very challenging time for all of us, just for the inalienable right to vote that we fought so hard for, and right now, they’re trying to turn back the clock to try to make sure it’s difficult,” he said.Pastor Clarke of St. Philip Monumental said the Republican effort to impose more restrictions could backfire, energizing an already active electorate.“Donald Trump woke us up,” he said. “There are more people in the congregation that are more aware and alert and have a heightened awareness to politics. So while we know that and we believe that his intentions were ill, we can honestly say that he has woken us up. That we will never be the same.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Israeli Feminist Trying to Save Liberal Zionism

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Israeli Feminist Trying to Save Liberal ZionismCan Merav Michaeli rescue Israel’s Labor Party?Opinion ColumnistMarch 5, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETCredit…Peter Rigaud/laif, via ReduxWhen Merav Michaeli, a pathbreaking feminist, was elected head of Israel’s Labor Party in January, some people offered her condolences. Labor was once Israel’s governing party, the home of many of the country’s iconic leaders: David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin. It ruled continuously from Israel’s founding in 1948 until 1977, and then a few more times after that.But since the second Palestinian intifada in 2000, which for many Israelis discredited the country’s peace camp, the Israeli left has collapsed. Because of its politicians’ inability to form a stable government, the country is about to hold its fourth elections in two years, and in January polls showed that, for the first time, Labor might fail to meet the threshold to win any seats at all in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. For a party that once seemed to define Israel itself — especially to liberal diaspora Jews — it’s been an almost inconceivable fall.There’s a phenomenon in business and politics called the glass cliff, in which organizations in crisis turn to female leaders. That seems to be how Michaeli, a former journalist who once gave a talk titled “Cancel Marriage” at an Israeli TEDx conference, became Labor’s leader.“Welcome to the Worst Job in Israeli Politics, Merav Michaeli,” said a headline in the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Her victory, wrote Anshel Pfeffer, doesn’t “so much reflect Michaeli’s popularity — she ran against six virtually unknown candidates — but the fact that no other politician wants to be remembered as the leader under whose watch Labor failed to get into the Knesset altogether.”But after Michaeli won, something unexpected happened. Labor’s poll numbers ticked up, and it’s now expected to capture six or seven seats when the country votes on March 23.“She’s the best thing that’s happened to Labor in recent years,” Dahlia Scheindlin, a pollster and political analyst in Israel, told me. She described Michaeli, a former journalist once known for her campaign to make Hebrew, a highly gendered language, more gender inclusive, as “avant-garde.” Scheindlin added, “She has a backbone, and she’s not just blowing in the wind.”Labor’s last leader, Amir Peretz, was the opposite. In 2019, he swore he would never join a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, shaving his famous mustache so Israelis could better “read his lips” on the matter. The next year, he went back on his pledge, bringing Labor into Netanyahu’s unity government.Even as her party joined the ruling coalition, Michaeli insisted on remaining part of the opposition, making her, as The Times of Israel wrote, “a bizarre sort of one-woman opposition to the coalition from within.” Once in charge, she pulled Labor out of the government. The party’s improving fortunes suggest that taking a stand against Netanyahu has paid off.Now, six or seven seats still isn’t much, given Labor’s former dominance. (Netanyahu’s Likud currently holds 36 seats, followed by 33 seats for the centrist Blue and White party.) A party led by an avant-garde figure might seem, almost by definition, to have limited mainstream appeal. But after rescuing Labor from oblivion, Michaeli is convinced she can restore it. “I am here because this is my project — to turn it back into a ruling party,” Michaeli told me.Merav Michaeli, Labor’s new leader, says there is still a constituency for the two-state solution in Israel.Credit…Sebastian Scheiner/Associated PressI first met Michaeli in 2009, when she was still a journalist. As she remembers it, it was at a party in New York before the first convention of J Street, the liberal pro-Israel group. At the time, she said, Israelis knew only two kinds of American Jews — those with right-wing views on Israel, and those who were indifferent. She wrote a newspaper column about progressive American Jews who cared about Israel’s future. Her editor, she said, told her that she had no idea what she was talking about, and never ran it.J Street would eventually turn into a force in the Democratic Party. But as Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians has grown ever more entrenched, many progressive Jews, myself included, have become skeptical about the future of liberal Zionism. I’d love to believe that Michaeli could do what she’s promising, creating a socially democratic Israel committed to a just resolution of the Palestinian conflict. But I see plenty of reason for doubt.Right now, Israeli politics is mostly a contest between different right-wing factions. Seeking to cling to power, Netanyahu, on trial for corruption, has struck a vote-sharing deal with the Religious Zionist Party, which includes what The Times of Israel called “Israel’s most extremist and openly racist Jewish political movement,” Otzma Yehudit. (One of Otzma Yehudit’s leaders, the paper reports, holds an annual “commemoration party” at the grave of Baruch Goldstein, who massacred 29 Palestinians in 1994.)Netanyahu’s main rival, Gideon Saar, was once his protégé, and is in some ways even more conservative. And unlike in America, young people in Israel are to the right of older generations; according to data from the Israel Democracy Institute, 69.9 percent of Jewish Israelis ages 18 to 24 describe themselves as right-wing. It’s hard to see where support for a liberal revival could come from.But Michaeli argues that, as in the United States — where liberal economic policies are often popular even with self-described conservatives — there is a gap between people’s issue preferences and their political identity.“There is actually a majority in Israel that wants what we are offering,” she said. “People want socially democratic positions on the economy and society. People want a welfare state. People want pluralism, they want equality.”She’s convinced that there remains a large constituency for a two-state solution, at least in principle. “Of course there is a huge majority that does not believe it is achievable,” she said.That’s true not only in Israel, and not only on the right. The inexorable growth of Israel’s occupation, and the increasing power of those in Israel calling for outright annexation of Palestinian lands, can make it hard to believe that a two-state solution is still viable. If it isn’t, neither is Israeli democracy, unless and until the country is prepared to give equal rights to the Palestinians it rules. For years, it’s been a truism to say that Israel is approaching the point where it can be Jewish or democratic, but not both. It’s possible that, as much as liberal Zionists don’t want to admit it, that point has been crossed.So I asked Michaeli why American Jews committed to liberal democracy should still feel connected to Israel. She grew vehement, saying that the experience of living under Donald Trump should redouble our empathy for Israel’s embattled progressives.Michaeli’s first four years in the Knesset coincided with Barack Obama’s second term. “I spent those four years being attacked by liberal American Jews for failing to replace Netanyahu, failing to be an effective opposition,” she said. She grew deeply frustrated trying to explain the near impossibility of constraining a demagogue.“And then when Donald Trump was elected, I was devastated, but at the same time, I said to my friends, ‘Welcome to our lives,’” she said. “Now you will understand us better, because you felt the same — it’s the way your life changes. All of the sudden your president becomes your life, and your jaw drops 10 times a day, and you experience how a scandal happens every 10 minutes and everybody becomes numb, and you run out of words to express how horrible things are.” With Trump, she said, “I thought that my American liberal friends will at last understand what we have been up against all this time.”Instead, Michaeli feels that some liberal American Jews are giving up on their Israeli peers. “Don’t you get that we need you and you need us?” she asked. “You need us, because as long as Israel, which used to be a true democracy, and is half of the Jewish people, is under such threat, you need us to get over this as much as we need you to be able to strengthen your democracy.”She insists, however hard it is to imagine now, that a two-state solution is still within reach. “It has to happen,” said Michaeli. “I’m convinced that it will, eventually.”“Really?” I asked.“Yeah, of course,” she said. “Listen, I brought Labor back almost from the dead.”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.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Demanding Loyalty, China Moves to Overhaul Hong Kong Elections

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }China’s Crackdown on Hong KongThe Security Law, ExplainedChina Rewrites HistoryFleeing Activists ChargedU.S. SanctionsMass ArrestsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyDemanding Loyalty, China Moves to Overhaul Hong Kong ElectionsChina’s national legislature disclosed plans for a law that would make it extremely difficult for Beijing’s critics to hold elective office in Hong Kong.Protesters gathered outside a Hong Kong courthouse on Thursday for the preliminary hearing of the 47 pro-democracy activists who were charged with violating Chinese law after attempting to organize an election primary.CreditCredit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesKeith Bradsher and March 4, 2021Updated 9:03 p.m. ET阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版BEIJING — When Beijing set out last summer to quash resistance to its rule in Hong Kong, it imposed a national security law that empowered the authorities to arrest scores of democracy advocates and sent a chill over the city.Now, less than a year later, China wants nothing less than a fundamental overhaul of the city’s normally contentious politics.Zhang Yesui, a senior Communist Party official, announced on Thursday that China’s national legislature planned to rewrite election rules in Hong Kong to ensure that the territory was run by patriots, which Beijing defines as people loyal to the national government and the Communist Party.Mr. Zhang did not release details of the proposal. But Lau Siu-kai, a senior adviser to the Chinese leadership on Hong Kong policy, has said the new approach is likely to call for the creation of a government agency to vet every candidate running not only for chief executive but for the legislature and other levels of office, including neighborhood representatives.The strategy looks set to further concentrate power in the hands of Communist Party proxies in Hong Kong and to decimate the political hopes of the territory’s already beleaguered opposition for years to come.It would also appear to spell an end to the dream of full and open elections that has been nurtured by millions of Hong Kong residents in the years since Britain returned the territory to Chinese rule in 1997. Genuine universal suffrage — the right to direct elections — was one of the key demands of protesters during the 2019 demonstrations that engulfed the city of more than 7 million people for months.The police detaining a protester after the government announced the postponement of the legislative council election in September.Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesMr. Zhang, a spokesman for China’s national legislature, the National People’s Congress, indicated that political turmoil in recent years had created the need to change the territory’s electoral system to ensure a system of “patriots governing Hong Kong.”He defended Beijing’s right to bypass local officials in Hong Kong in enacting such legislation, just as the central government did in imposing the national security law in June. The congress will discuss a draft plan for changes to the electoral system when it gathers for a weeklong session starting on Friday.The electoral restrictions would be likely to further smother the opposition, which has been battered by arrests and detentions since Beijing imposed the security law in June. On Sunday, in the most forceful use of the security law so far, the police charged 47 of Hong Kong’s most prominent democracy advocates with conspiracy to commit subversion after they organized an election primary in July.The democracy campaigners had hoped to win a majority in the local legislature in elections last September, then block government budgets, a move that could force Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s leader, to resign. The government later postponed those elections. But the city’s prosecutors said the activists’ strategy of trying to oust the chief executive amounted to interfering with government functions, an offense under the security law.Opposition politicians have defended their tactics as legitimate and commonplace in democratic systems and argue that they are merely fighting to preserve the city’s relative autonomy, promised under a policy known as “one country, two systems.”Pro-democracy activists were ushered to court on Thursday. They were charged with conspiracy to commit subversion.Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesBut some of Beijing’s staunchest allies in the city have accused the pro-democracy camp more broadly of putting Hong Kong’s future at risk by testing the Chinese government’s limits and forgetting that the city was not an independent country.“We are not another Singapore,” said Leung Chun-ying, a former chief executive of Hong Kong, in a statement. “In Hong Kong, by pushing on the democracy envelope too far, and by attempting to chip away the authority of Beijing, in for example appointing the chief executive, many of the so-called democrats have become, in practice, separatists.”Ronny Tong, a former pro-democracy lawmaker who now serves in the cabinet of Hong Kong’s chief executive, said he hoped Beijing would not make it impossible for opposition figures to run for office.“If you were to overdo it, which is something I don’t want to see, we would become a one-party legislature,” he said. “That wouldn’t be in line with the spirit of one country, two systems, and therefore I have cautioned restraint to whoever wishes to listen.”Still, he acknowledged that Hong Kong officials had little role to play. “We just have to wait and see.”Keith Bradsher reported from Beijing and Austin Ramzy from Hong Kong. More