Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Experts See a Message in Chinese Balloons Flying Over Taiwan

      by

      Some analysts see the objects as a calculatedly ambiguous reminder to voters that Beijing is watching.A surge in sightings of balloons from China flying over Taiwan has drawn the attention of the island’s military and struck some experts as a calculatedly ambiguous warning to voters weeks before its presidential election.Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense has reported occasional sightings of balloons floating from China since last month, and a surge in recent days, according to the ministry’s daily tally of Chinese military activities near the island. Official Taiwanese accounts about balloons were previously very sporadic.The recent balloons have mostly stayed off Taiwan’s coast. On Monday, however, one flew across the island, according to the ministry’s descriptions of their paths. Of four spotted on Tuesday, three flew over Taiwan, and two passed through to the island’s east side, facing the Pacific Ocean. Another flew over the island on Wednesday.The Taiwanese reports also noted some of the balloons’ proximity to the island’s military bases. Of the four reported on Tuesday, three were first detected 120 to 184 miles from the Ching Chuan Kang Air Base in the city of Taichung. Taiwan’s defense ministry declined to specify how close to the base they may have flown.The balloons do not appear to pose an immediate military menace to Taiwan, a self-governed democracy of 23 million people that Beijing says is its territory. Taiwan’s defense ministry last month indicated that the balloons seemed to be for collecting data about the atmosphere, but it has declined to give details about the ones detected this week.“The Ministry of National Defense is closely monitoring and tracking them, responding appropriately, and is also assessing and analyzing their drift patterns,” Maj. Gen. Sun Li-fang, a spokesman for the ministry, said on Thursday in response to questions about the balloons.Taiwan has, so far at least, experienced none of the alarm that gripped many Americans last year when a hulking Chinese high-altitude surveillance balloon floated across the United States. China denied that the balloon was for spying, but Washington did not buy that line, and the dispute soured relations for many months.A surveillance balloon was shot down off the coast of South Carolina in 2023. China denied that the balloon was for spying, but Washington did not buy that line.Randall Hill/ReutersTaiwanese people are used to Chinese military flights near the island, and news of the balloons has generally been met with calm, if not indifference.The balloon flights may, nonetheless, be part of the “gray zone” tactics that China uses to warn Taiwan of its military strength and options, without tipping into baldfaced confrontation. The timing of the balloon flights, close to Taiwan’s election, was telling, said Ko Yong-Sen, a research fellow at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, a think tank in Taipei funded by Taiwan’s defense ministry. Mr. Ko has analyzed the pattern of recent sightings.“It’s more an intimidating effect in what happens to be a quite sensitive time, with we in Taiwan holding our election on Jan. 13,” Mr. Ko said in an interview. China, he said, “may want to tone it down. People say that it has recklessly used major weapons like planes and ships for harassment, so it’s shifted to balloons that can be used for a certain kind of lower-intensity intimidation and harassment.”In the election, Taiwanese voters will choose a president and legislature, and Beijing has made no secret of wanting the governing Democratic Progressive Party to lose power. The party opposes Beijing’s claims to Taiwan, and has asserted Taiwan’s distinctive identity and claims to nationhood. Decades ago, the party endorsed independence for Taiwan but now says it accepts the more ambiguous status quo of democratic self-determination.Lai Ching-te, the Democratic Progressive Party’s presidential candidate, has been leading in most polls up to Wednesday. But Hou Yu-ih, the candidate for the Nationalist Party, which favors closer ties with China, has trailed Mr. Lai by only a few percentage points in some recent surveys, and the Nationalists may emerge as the biggest party in the legislature, ending the Democratic Progressive Party’s majority.When asked late last month about the initial reports of balloons near Taiwan, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Defense, Wu Qian, did not confirm or deny any flights, but suggested that, as Taiwan was a part of China, any dispute over balloons crossing the median line between the two sides was moot. He also accused the Democratic Progressive Party of whipping up the issue “to swindle votes.”In 1996, China’s attempt to use missile tests and menacing military drills to shape Taiwan’s presidential election failed, and this time, Beijing has not rolled out any major military exercises in the weeks before the vote. The balloons may augur a more fiery response from China’s leaders if they dislike the election result, said Ben Lewis, a military analyst based in Washington who maintains a daily data record of Chinese military activities around Taiwan.“I think the number of overflights, and, even more, their timing, is still an escalation in the P.R.C.’s activities,” Mr. Lewis said by email, referring to the People’s Republic of China. “If nothing else, I’m taking this as a warning that the P.R.C.’s response to the election will likely be impossible to predict.”The latest sightings were almost certainly not the first time that balloons from China floated over Taiwan, Mr. Lewis said. The Taiwanese defense ministry began regularly reporting Chinese military flights near the island in 2020, and their numbers have grown year by year and now include drones. After a Chinese weather balloon was found last year on a small island controlled by Taiwan, Taiwan’s defense ministry said that most of the balloons swept in around the Taiwan Strait from December to February when, it noted, the “prevailing wind direction” helped them along.Mr. Ko, the Taiwanese defense expert, said that he worried more about what the Chinese military could do with more concerted use of high-altitude balloons over the island, like the one spotted over the United States last year, which could augment data collection using satellites and radar.“The intelligence gathering from Taiwan would be even more serious,” he said. “This is something we’ve been concerned about, and it would be more troublesome.” More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Attack on Opposition Leader Raises Alarms in Divided South Korea

      by

      The attack on Lee Jae-myung, who narrowly lost the 2022 presidential vote, came amid a deepening political divide and increasingly extreme discourse in South Korea.Lee Jae-myung, South Korea’s opposition party leader, was attacked by a man who wearing a blue paper crown. In footage from Korean media, the attacker’s image has been blurred.@barunsori/YouTube via ReutersThe man accused of stabbing Lee Jae-myung, the leader of South Korea’s main opposition party, in the neck had been stalking him in recent weeks, including attending a political event where Mr. Lee was present on Dec. 13, apparently captured on video there wearing a blue paper crown, the police say.At a rally on Tuesday, a man wearing a similar paper crown and carrying a message supporting Mr. Lee and his party was also carrying something else: a knife with a five-inch blade and a plastic handle wrapped with duct tape.The attack, the worst against a South Korean politician in nearly two decades, seriously wounded Mr. Lee, who officials said was recovering in an intensive care unit at Seoul National University on Wednesday after surgery. And it deeply shocked a country that values hard-won years of relative peace after an era of political and military violence before establishing democracy in the 1990s.The opposition leader Lee Jae-myung after being attacked in Busan, South Korea, on Tuesday. Officials said he was recovering in Seoul after surgery.Yonhap, via ReutersThe police said that the suspect, a 66-year-old real estate agent named Kim Jin-seong, had admitted an intent to kill Mr. Lee. Armed with a court-issued warrant, the police confiscated Mr. Kim’s mobile phone and raided his home and office in Asan, south of Seoul, on Wednesday, as they tried to piece together what might have motivated that attack.With details still scarce, public debate and news editorials were expressing a growing concern about South Korea’s deepening political polarization and the hatred and extremism it has seemed to inspire, as well as the challenges it posed to the country’s young democracy.“The opposition leader falls under a knife of ‘politics of hatred,’” read a headline from the Chosun Ilbo, the country’s leading conservative daily.Officials said that little was known about Mr. Kim’s personal life or political and other background except that he was a former government official who had been operating a real estate agency in Asan since 2012. Police found no previous records of crime, drug use or psychiatric trouble, and said he was sober at the time of the attack on Mr. Lee. His neighbors said they had little interaction with him.One neighbor remembered him as a kind and hard-working “gentleman” who kept his office open every day, even on weekends, but who didn’t speak with him about politics and lived alone in an apartment.“He’s not someone who’d do such a thing,” said Park Min-joon, who runs a building management company. “I couldn’t believe it.”Investigators from the Busan Metropolitan Police Agency on Wednesday raiding the office of the suspect in the attack.Yonhap/EPA, via ShutterstockThe deep and bitter rivalry between Mr. Lee and President Yoon Suk Yeol has been center stage in South Korea’s political polarization since 2022, when Mr. Lee lost to Mr. Yoon with the thinnest margin of any free presidential election in South Korea. Instead of retiring from politics, as some presidential candidates have after defeats, Mr. Lee ran for — and won — a parliamentary seat, as well as chairmanship of the opposition Democratic Party.Under Mr. Yoon, state prosecutors have launched a series of investigations against Mr. Lee and tried to arrest him on various corruption and other criminal charges. Mr. Yoon has also refused to grant Mr. Lee one-on-one meetings that South Korean presidents had often offered opposition leaders to seek political compromises. Instead, he has repeatedly characterized his political opponents as “anti-state forces” or “corrupt cartels.”For his part, Mr. Lee accused Mr. Yoon of deploying state law-enforcement forces to intimidate his enemies. His party has refused to endorse many of Mr. Yoon’s appointees to the Cabinet and the Supreme Court. Political commentators likened the relationship between Mr. Yoon and Mr. Lee to “gladiators’ politics.”“The two have been on a collision course for two years,” said Park Sung-min, head of MIN Consulting, a political consultancy. “President Yoon has been accused of not recognizing Lee Jae-myung as an opposition leader but rather as a criminal suspect. I don’t think his attitude will likely change following the knife attack against Lee.”The last major attack on a domestic political leader happened in 2006, when Park Geun-hye, then an opposition leader, was slashed in the face with a box cutter. But the attack was seen largely as an isolated outburst of anger by an ex-convict who complained of mistreatment by the law enforcement system. (Ms. Park went on to win the 2012 presidential election.)Park Geun-hye, chairwoman of the Grand National Party, was attacked by a man with a box cutter during a campaign for local elections in Seoul in 2006. In 2012, she won the presidential election.Cbs Nocutnews, via Associated PressBut in recent years, politicians have been increasingly exposed to hatred in the public sphere, as political polarization deepened. In a survey sponsored by the newspaper Hankyoreh in December, more than 50 percent of respondents said they felt the political divide worsening. In another survey in December, commissioned by the Chosun Ilbo, four out of every 10 respondents said they found it uncomfortable to share meals or drinks with people who didn’t share their political views.South Koreans had an early inkling of the current problem. During the presidential election campaign in 2022, Song Young-gil, an opposition leader, was attacked by a bludgeon-wielding man in his 70s, who subsequently killed himself in jail.Jin Jeong-hwa, a YouTuber whose channel openly supports Mr. Lee and who live-streamed the knife attack on Tuesday, said he could feel the increasing political tension and hatred everyday. Once, when he visited a conservative town in central South Korea, people who recognized him tried to chase him out, threatening him with knives and sickles.“You see a lot of anger, vilification, character assassination and demonizing,” Mr. Jin said. “I am not sure whether rational debate on issues and ideologies is possible anymore.”Rep. Kwon Chil-seung, center, a senior spokesman for the opposition Democratic Party, gives an update on Mr. Lee’s condition in Seoul on Wednesday.Yonhap/EPA, via ShutterstockOn Wednesday, Mr. Yoon wished Mr. Lee a quick recovery, calling attacks against politicians “an enemy of free democracy.” His government ordered beefed-up public security for politicians.But analysts saw little chance of political polarization easing anytime soon as the rival parties geared up for parliamentary elections in April. Social media, especially YouTube, has become so influential as a channel of spreading news and shaping public opinion that politicians said they found themselves beholden to populist demands from activist YouTubers who were widely accused of stoking fear and hatred.Both Mr. Yoon and Mr. Lee have fervent online supporters who often resort to whipping up insults, conspiracy theories and even thinly veiled death threats against their foes.“Hate has become a daily norm” in South Korean politics, said Mr. Park, the head of MIN Consulting. “Politicians must face the reality that similar things can happen again,” he said, referring to the knife attack against Mr. Lee. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Congo’s President Declared Victor in Election Marred by Delays and Protests

      by

      The Central African nation’s vote drew accusations of fraud, but the elections commissioner declared that the incumbent, Felix Tshisekedi, had won.The president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Felix Tshisekedi, was declared the winner on Sunday of the December presidential vote in an election marred by severe logistical problems, protests and calls for its annulment from several opposition candidates.Mr. Tshisekedi won more than 13 million votes, or 73 percent of the total ballots cast, said Denis Kadima, the head of the country’s electoral commission. Just over 18 million people, out of the 44 million registered to vote, cast ballots, Mr. Kadima said. The provisional results will now be sent to the nation’s Constitutional Court for confirmation.The announcement was a critical moment in an election dogged by acute problems, some because of Congo’s vast size, and many fear the outcome could plunge the Central African nation into a new round of political turmoil and even violent unrest that has followed other electoral contests in recent years.The results of the election matter not only to Congo’s 100 million people, who are suffering after decades of conflict and poor governance, but also to Western countries that consider Congo a critical part of their efforts to stem climate change and make a transition to green energy.Congo produces 70 percent of the world’s cobalt, a key element in the electric vehicle industry, and has the second-largest rainforest, which absorbs vast amounts of planet-warming carbon dioxide. But for many in Congo, a decades-old, corruption-ridden system of political patronage is seen as the best way to distribute the spoils of that natural wealth — which may explain why the presidential race was so hotly contested.Electoral commission officials and polling agents gathered to count ballots at a Congolese polling center on Dec. 20 in North Kivu Province.Arlette Bashizi/ReutersOn Dec. 23, five opposition leaders accused the country’s electoral commission of “massive fraud,” called on the head of the commission to resign and said the entire vote should be annulled. Four days later, opposition leaders held a demonstration in the capital, Kinshasa, to protest what they called a “sham” election. Security forces surrounded the offices of Martin Fayulu, one of the opposition candidates, and lobbed tear gas at protesters there, according to his spokesman and videos shared on social media.Opposition leaders, including Moïse Katumbi, a business tycoon who is President Tshisekedi’s closest rival, condemned the actions of security forces and promised more marches nationwide.Mr. Katumbi got three million votes, or about 18 percent of the ballots counted, the election commission said. Mr. Fayulu garnered just over 960,000 votes. Most of the other two dozen presidential candidates, including the Nobel Peace Prize winner Denis Mukwege, got less than 1 percent of the vote.“The unfortunate competitors must accept the democratic game,” Mr. Kadima, the election chief, said on Sunday. “As a people, we must keep in mind the existence and stability of the Democratic Republic of Congo matters much more than an elected position,” he said, adding, “Let’s not weaken our country.”But his comments are unlikely to assuage opposition leaders, who on Sunday called on their supporters to protest the results. They also said a new election commission should be formed and a fresh vote held.“We categorically reject the sham elections” and their results, nine of the opposition presidential candidates said in a joint statement.President Felix Tshisekedi, who on Sunday was declared the winner, after voting in Kinshasa last week.Guerchom Ndebo for The New York TimesMr. Tshisekedi, the incumbent and longstanding favorite to win, has repeatedly insisted that the election, which cost more than $1.25 billion to run, was fair and good enough given the challenges.Logistical chaos marred the election long before the first votes were cast on Dec. 20. For weeks, election officials had rushed to get materials to 75,000 polling stations across a country the size of Western Europe and with few paved roads in the middle of the rainy season.Yet just 70 percent of polling stations were open on Election Day, the election commission said, prompting it to extend the voting into a second day. Opposition leaders denounced the extension, claiming that it would facilitate fraud. It also drew criticism from the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, which enjoy broad public support across Congolese society and which run a network of electoral observers; the churches said the move violated the country’s electoral laws and was unconstitutional.Voting even continued until Dec. 22 in remote areas, including parts of Kwango and Kasai Provinces, the Rev. Rigobert Minani, a prominent Catholic campaigner, said in a text message.The election commission acknowledged the delays but insisted that extending the vote did not undermine its legitimacy.Checking names on the electoral roll at a polling station in Kinshasa on the first day of voting.Guerchom Ndebo for The New York TimesMr. Tshisekedi, who came to power in 2019 in hotly disputed circumstances, had hoped this election would be an easy victory.Unofficial tallies in the previous contest compiled by Catholic and other observers found that Mr. Fayulu, a former oil executive, had probably won three times as many votes as Mr. Tshisekedi. But after several weeks of political turmoil, Mr. Tshisekedi struck a power-sharing deal with the departing president, Joseph Kabila, who had led for 18 years.That deal crumbled within a year, and since then Mr. Tshisekedi has effectively consolidated his power, gaining popular support by providing free primary education to millions of Congolese children. But he has not delivered on two key promises: to bring peace to eastern Congo, where conflict has raged since 1996, and to tackle the country’s notorious reputation for corruption.Instead, political opponents charge, Mr. Tshisekedi and his extended family have acquired considerable wealth during his time in power.Supporters of Mr. Tshisekedi celebrating on Sunday in Kinshasa.Chris Milosi/EPA, via ShutterstockThe United States played a crucial role after Congo’s last election, in December 2018, when it blessed the controversial power-sharing deal between Mr. Tshisekedi and Mr. Kabila. This time, American officials have been at pains to stress that they are not taking sides.In a statement on Dec. 22, the United States Embassy in Kinshasa noted the logistical problems with the voting and called on Congolese leaders to “exercise restraint” and to peacefully resolve any electoral disputes that may follow.Without naming any candidate, Mr. Kadima, the election chief, on Sunday criticized candidates he said had used vandalism, intimidation, corruption and violence to cheat and win. The final results are now slated for early January, and once confirmed by the court, a presidential swearing-in is expected by the month’s end.“We were tenacious,” Mr. Kadima said of the election process.Emma Bubola More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Year in Opinion Video

      by

      Men serving life sentences in American prisons argued why, decades later, they pose no threat to society. Children whose fathers were killed in the war in Ukraine showed us the surprising costs of war. Bank robbers in Beirut flipped our understanding of right and wrong. And a British scholar with a fondness for the rumpled television detective Columbo taught us that “the answer to everything” might be right in front of us.In 2023, the Times’s Opinion Video team took viewers around the world and into the thick of some of society’s most critical debates. We produced dozens of short films and videos — powerful, emotional works that persuade and capture the human experience in unique ways.Below are 10 videos that will stick with us far past 2023.It’s time to completely rethink how we measure our economic success.Every day, Ukrainian children lose their fathers in Putin’s war. A grief camp is fighting to protect their youth.These men have spent their entire adult lives in prison. How much punishment is enough?They’re among the most effective ways to reduce destructive drinking. What are politicians so afraid of?For Jerod Draper, horrifying video footage wasn’t enough to force police accountability.Two siblings learn to balance love and self-preservation.Chasing credit card points is a game in which everyone loses.Social media demands that you’re with us or against us.The N.H.S. is one of Britain’s proudest achievements, and it’s unraveling.Times readers, ages 16 to 93, open up about loneliness.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, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      A Midwestern Republican Stands Up for Trans Rights

      by

      As 2023 slouches to an ignominious end, some news came Friday that gave me an unexpected jolt of hope. I have spent much of the year watching with horror and trying to document an unrelenting legal assault on queer and trans people. Around 20 states have passed laws restricting access to gender-affirming care for trans and nonbinary people, and several have barred transgender and nonbinary people from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity.So it was shocking — in a good way, for once — to hear these words from Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, as he vetoed a bill that would have banned puberty blockers and hormones and gender-affirming surgeries for trans and nonbinary minors in Ohio and blocked transgender girls and women from participating in sports as their chosen gender:“Were House Bill 68 to become law, Ohio would be saying that the state, that the government, knows better what is medically best for a child than the two people who love that child the most — the parents,” DeWine said in prepared remarks. “Parents are making decisions about the most precious thing in their life, their child, and none of us, none of us, should underestimate the gravity and the difficulty of those decisions.”DeWine, by situating his opposition to the bill on the chosen battlefield of far-right activists — parents’ rights — was tapping into an idiom that is at once deeply familiar to me and yet has almost entirely disappeared from our national political discourse: that of a mainstream, Midwestern Republican. It is a voice I know well because it is one I heard all my life from my Midwestern Republican grandparents.I did not agree with all of their beliefs, especially as I got older. But I understood where they were coming from. My grandfather, a belly gunner in the Pacific Theater in World War II, believed a strong military was essential to American security. My grandmother was a nurse, and she believed that science, medicine and innovation made America stronger. They made sure their children and grandchildren went to college — education was a crucial element of their philosophy of self-reliance. And above all, they believed the government should be small and stay out of people’s lives as much as humanly possible. This last belief, in individual freedom and individual responsibility, was the bedrock of their politics.And so I am not surprised that defeats keep coming for anti-transgender activists. At the ballot box, hard-right candidates in swing states have tried to persuade voters with lurid messaging about children being subjected to grisly surgeries and pumped full of unnecessary medications. But in race after race, the tactic has failed.Legally, the verdict has been more mixed, which is unsurprising given how politically polarized the judiciary has become. This week a federal judge in Idaho issued a preliminary ruling that a ban on transgender care for minors could not be enforced because it violated the children’s 14th Amendment rights and that “parents should have the right to make the most fundamental decisions about how to care for their children.” The state is expected to appeal the decision.In June, a federal court blocked an Arkansas ban on gender-affirming care for minors. “The evidence showed that the prohibited medical care improves the mental health and well-being of patients,” the ruling said, “and that, by prohibiting it, the state undermined the interests it claims to be advancing” of protecting children and safeguarding medical ethics. In 2021, Asa Hutchinson, then the governor, had vetoed the ban for reasons similar to DeWine, but the Arkansas Legislature overrode his veto. (The Ohio Legislature also has a supermajority of Republicans and may decide to override DeWine’s veto.)In other states, like Texas and Missouri, courts have permitted bans to go into effect, forcing families to make very difficult decisions about whether to travel to receive care or move to a different state altogether. The issue seems destined to reach the Supreme Court soon. The A.C.L.U. has asked the Supreme Court to hear its challenge to the care ban in Tennessee on behalf of a 15-year-old transgender girl. Given how swiftly and decisively the court moved to gut abortion rights, it seems quite possible that the conservative supermajority could choose to severely restrict access to transgender health care for children or even adults.But maybe not. After all, the overturning of Roe has deeply unsettled the country, unleashing a backlash that has delivered unexpected victories to Democrats and abortion-rights advocates. Ohio voters just chose by a wide margin to enshrine the right to end a pregnancy in the state Constitution.This is why I think DeWine’s veto speaks to a much bigger truth: Americans simply do not want the government making decisions about families’ private medical care. Polling on abortion finds a wide array of views on the morality of ending a pregnancy at various points up to viability, but one thing is crystal clear: Large majorities of Americans believe that the decision to have an abortion is none of the government’s business.Rapidly changing norms around gender have many people’s heads spinning, and I understand how unsettling that can be. Gender is one of the most basic building blocks of identity, and even though gender variations of many kinds have been with us for millenniums, the way these changes are being lived out feel, to some people, like a huge disruption to their way of life. Even among people who think of themselves as liberal or progressive, there has been a sense that gender-affirming care has become too easily accessible, and that impressionable children are making life-changing decisions based on social media trends.It has become a throwaway line in some media coverage of transgender care in the United States that even liberal European countries are restricting care for transgender children. But this is a misleading notion. No democracy in Europe has banned, let alone criminalized, care, as many states have done in the United States. What has happened is that under increasing pressure from the right, politicians in some countries have begun to limit access to certain kinds of treatments for children through their socialized health systems, in which the government pays for care and has always placed limits on what types are available. In those systems, budgetary considerations have always determined how many people will be able to get access to treatments.But private care remains legal and mostly accessible to those who can afford it.Republicans are passing draconian laws in the states where they have total control, laws that could potentially lead to parents being charged with child abuse for supporting their transgender children or threaten doctors who treat transgender children with felony convictions. These statutes have no analog in free Europe, but they have strong echoes of laws in Russia, which is increasingly criminalizing every aspect of queer life. These extreme policies have no place in any democratic society.Which brings me back to my Midwestern Republican grandparents, Goldwater and Reagan partisans to their core. My grandfather died long before Donald Trump ran for president, and 2016 was the first presidential election in which my grandmother did not vote for the Republican candidate. But she did not vote for Hillary Clinton, choosing another candidate she declined to name to me. Like a lot of Republicans, she really didn’t like Clinton, and one of the big reasons was her lifelong opposition to government health care. She didn’t want government bureaucrats coming between her and her doctors, she told me.I think many, many Americans agree with that sentiment. Transgender people are no different. They don’t want government bureaucrats in their private business.“I’ve been saying for years that trans people are a priority for enemies and an afterthought to our friends,” Gillian Branstetter, a strategist who works on transgender issues at the A.C.L.U., told me. “I’ve made it my job to try and help people understand that transgender rights are human rights, not just because transgender people are human people, but because the rights we’re fighting for are grounded in really core democratic principles, like individualism and self-determination.”Those are core American values, but 2024 is an election year, and even though transphobia has proved to be a loser at the ballot box, many Republicans are sure to beat that drum anyway. Mike DeWine has me hoping that some Republicans will remember what was once a core principle of their party, and embrace the simple plain-spoken truth of my heartland forebears: Keep the government out of my life, and let me be free to live as I choose.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, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Las claves de los intentos por retirar a Trump de las boletas en 2024

      by

      En más de una decena de estados hay demandas que buscan impedir que el expresidente aparezca en las papeletas de las votaciones primarias. Esto es lo que hay que saber.La campaña para que el expresidente Donald Trump sea eliminado de la boleta electoral debido a sus intentos de permanecer en el poder después de las elecciones de 2020 ha cobrado impulso con los fallos en dos estados, Maine y Colorado, que le impiden aparecer en las papeletas para las elecciones primarias.Hay impugnaciones aún en curso en muchos otros estados, basadas en una cláusula poco conocida de una enmienda constitucional promulgada después de la Guerra Civil que inhabilita a funcionarios del gobierno que “participaron en insurrección o rebelión” de ocupar cargos públicos.A lo largo de los años, los tribunales y el Congreso han hecho poco para aclarar cómo se debe aplicar ese criterio, lo que aumenta la urgencia de los llamados a que la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. intervenga en la disputa, políticamente explosiva, antes de las próximas elecciones.Esto es lo que hay que saber sobre las impugnaciones.¿Qué estados ya han resuelto el asunto?La secretaria de Estado de Maine dijo el jueves que Trump no calificaba para aparecer en la boleta primaria republicana en ese territorio debido a su papel en el ataque del 6 de enero al Capitolio de EE. UU. Ella dio la razón a un grupo de ciudadanos que afirmaban que Trump había incitado una insurrección y, por lo tanto, estaba impedido de candidatearse nuevamente a la presidencia conforme a la sección 3 de la 14ª enmienda de la Constitución.En un fallo emitido por escrito, la secretaria de Estado, la demócrata Shenna Bellows, dijo que aunque nadie en su posición había prohibido la presencia de un candidato en la boleta electoral con fundamento en la sección 3 de la enmienda, “ningún candidato presidencial ha participado antes en una insurrección”.Horas después, la secretaria de Estado de California anunció que Trump permanecería en la boleta electoral en la entidad más poblada del país, donde los funcionarios electorales tienen un poder limitado para eliminar a los candidatos.En Colorado, la Corte Suprema del estado decidió la semana pasada en un fallo 4-3 que al expresidente no se le debe permitir aparecer en la boleta para las primarias allí porque participó en una insurrección. La sentencia no abordó las elecciones generales.Los jueces en Colorado dijeron que si su fallo fuera apelado ante la Corte Suprema de EE. UU., entonces a Trump se le permitiría permanecer en la boleta electoral hasta que el tribunal superior decidiera el asunto. La secretaria de Estado de Colorado ha dicho que la orden seguirá vigente el 5 de enero, cuando el estado tenga que certificar las boletas electorales.El miércoles, el Partido Republicano de Colorado dijo que había pedido a la Corte Suprema que escuchara una apelación a la decisión de Colorado.En Míchigan y Minnesota, los tribunales han dictaminado que los funcionarios electorales no pueden impedir al Partido Republicano incluir a Trump en sus boletas para las elecciones primarias. Pero ambos fallos dejaron abierta la puerta a nuevas impugnaciones que le impidan aparecer en la boleta electoral para las elecciones generales.¿En dónde más hay impugnaciones para que Trump no aparezca en la boleta electoral?Se presentaron demandas para sacar a Trump de la boleta electoral en unos 30 estados, pero muchas fueron desestimadas; según una base de datos mantenida por Lawfare, un sitio web de asuntos legales y de seguridad nacional, hay demandas activas en 14 estados.Esos estados son: Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Nueva Jersey, Nuevo México, Nueva York, Oregón, Carolina del Sur, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Virginia Occidental, Wisconsin y Wyoming. (Un juez ha desestimado la demanda de Arizona, pero se apeló el fallo).¿De qué tratan las impugnaciones?Las iniciativas de descalificación se fundamentan en la 14ª enmienda de la Constitución, que fue adoptada en 1868 y tiene una sección que descalifica de ocupar cargos públicos a los exfuncionarios de gobierno que han traicionado sus juramentos al participar en actos de “insurrección o rebelión”. La disposición, incluida en la sección 3, tenía la intención de prohibir que funcionarios confederados pudieran trabajar para el gobierno de EE. UU.La disposición específicamente dice que cualquier persona que haya fungido como “funcionario de Estados Unidos”, juró apoyar la Constitución y, si luego “participó en insurrección o rebelión”, no podrá ocupar ningún cargo gubernamental. Incluye una disposición en la que el Congreso puede dispensar la prohibición con un voto de dos tercios en la Cámara y el Senado.Al aumentar las impugnaciones legales, se prevé que la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. aborde el tema, y los expertos dicen que el alcance del fallo determinaría si las impugnaciones se manejan rápidamente o se prolongan durante meses.Ashraf Ahmed, profesor de la Escuela de Derecho de Columbia que estudia la ley electoral, dijo que si la Corte Suprema llega a examinar el caso, podría evitar profundizar en los asuntos más importantes, como definir la sección 3. En cambio, dijo, los jueces podrían emitir un fallo en gran medida en función de las cuestiones procesales.¿Qué estados podrían decidir el asunto próximamente?Se espera una decisión pronto en Oregón, donde el mismo grupo que presentó la demanda en Míchigan, Free Speech for People, busca que la Corte Suprema del estado elimine a Trump de la boleta para las elecciones primarias allí. En ese caso, la secretaria de Estado ha pedido a la corte que acelere su consideración del caso porque debe dar los toques finales a la boleta para las primarias antes del 21 de marzo.John Bonifaz, presidente de Free Speech for People, dijo que el grupo planea presentar nuevas impugnaciones en otros estados próximamente, aunque no quiso decir en cuáles.Free Speech for People también ha pedido directamente a los principales funcionarios electorales en los 50 estados, así como en Washington, D.C., que retiren a Trump de las boletas en esos estados.Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs es reportero de noticias nacionales en Estados Unidos y se enfoca en la justicia penal. Es de Nueva York. Más de Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Ballot Challenges: What to Know

      by

      There are lawsuits pending in more than a dozen states seeking to have Donald J. Trump disqualified from appearing on primary ballots.The campaign to have former President Donald J. Trump removed from the ballot over his efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election has kicked into high gear, with decisions in two states, Maine and Colorado, barring him from the primary ballots.Challenges are still underway in many more states, based on an obscure clause of a constitutional amendment enacted after the Civil War that disqualifies government officials who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.Over the years, the courts and Congress have done little to clarify how that criterion should apply, adding urgency to the calls for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the politically explosive dispute before the upcoming election.Here’s what to know about the challenges.Which states have already decided the matter?The Maine secretary of state said on Thursday that Mr. Trump did not qualify for the Republican primary ballot there because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. She agreed with a handful of citizens who claimed that he had incited an insurrection and was thus barred from seeking the presidency again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.In a written decision, the secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, said that while no one in her position had ever barred a candidate from the ballot based on Section 3 of the amendment, “no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”Hours later, the secretary of state in California announced that Mr. Trump would remain on the ballot in the nation’s most populous state, where election officials have limited power to remove candidates.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Matt Damon, Fran Drescher and an Indian Soybean Farmer on 2024

      by

      What are your hopes for 2024? See how they compare with those of 11 people I put that question to. (Most of them replied by email. The people from Afghanistan and India spoke by phone.)Fran Drescher, an actress and the president of SAG-AFTRA, which staged a 118-day strike against movie and television producers this year:In 2024, I am looking forward to a sudden and essential collective human emotional growth spurt, whereby empathy becomes the main emotion that informs all behavior.Andrew Marsh, the chief executive of Plug Power, a fuel cell supplier:My hope is to see 2024 as the year we get serious about decarbonizing hard-to-abate heavy industrial manufacturing sectors. Building out a nascent U.S. hydrogen industry is essential to moving these industrial processes to carbon neutrality.Uri Levine, an entrepreneur and a co-founder of Waze:I want people to find a purpose in life. When you have a life purpose or figure out what your destiny is, your life becomes simpler, everything is clearer, and you’re happier, healthier and richer. You know what you have to do. The purpose becomes the north star to guide you. My purpose is to create value.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More