Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Issue 1: Why Ohio’s Abortion Ballot Question Is Confusing Voters

      by

      Ballot questions have been a winning strategy for abortion rights, even in red states. But complicated ballot language and misinformation have some abortion rights supporters worried.Volunteers canvassing in favor of a ballot initiative to establish a constitutional right to abortion stopped Alex Woodward at a market hall in Ohio to ask if they could expect her vote in November.Ms. Woodward said she favors abortion rights and affirmed her support. But as the canvassers moved on through the hall, she realized she was not sure how to actually mark her ballot. “I think it’s a yes,” she said. “Maybe it’s a no?”Anyone in Ohio could be forgiven some confusion — the result of an avalanche of messaging and counter-messaging, misinformation and complicated language around what the amendment would do, and even an entirely separate ballot measure with the same name just three months ago. All this has abortion rights supporters worried in an off-year election race that has become the country’s most watched.Across the country, abortion rights groups have been on an unexpected winning streak with ballot measures that put the question of abortion straight to voters. They have prevailed in six out of six since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, even in red states like Kansas.Abortion rights volunteers gathered at the Van Aken Market Hall in Shaker Heights, Ohio, to encourage people to vote “yes” on Issue 1 next week. Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesBut the measure in Ohio is their toughest fight yet. It is the first time that voters in a red state are being asked to affirmatively vote “yes” to a constitutional amendment establishing a right to abortion, rather than “no” to preserve the status quo established by courts. Ohio voters have historically tended to reject ballot amendments.Republicans who control the levers of state power have used their positions to try to influence the vote, first by calling a special election in August to try to raise the threshold for passing ballot amendments, then when that failed, by using language favored by anti-abortion groups to describe the amendment on the ballot and in official state communications.Anti-abortion groups, which were caught flat-footed against the wave of voter anger that immediately followed the court overturning Roe, have had more time to sharpen their message. They have stoked fears about loss of parental rights and allowing children to get transition surgeries, even though the proposed amendment mentions neither.Democrats nationally are watching to see if the outrage that brought new voters to the party last year maintains enough momentum to help them win even in red states in the presidential and congressional races in 2024. And with abortion rights groups pushing similar measures on ballots in red and purple states next year, anti-abortion groups are hoping they have found a winning strategy to stop them.“Certainly, we know that all eyes are on Ohio right now,” said Amy Natoce, the spokeswoman for Protect Women Ohio, a group founded by national anti-abortion groups including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America to oppose the amendment.Simone Davis, left, and her mother, Ruth Hartman, canvassed for Planned Parenthood on the Saturday after the start of early voting.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesWith early voting underway since mid-October, the state is a frenzy of television and social media ads, multiple rallies a day and doorknobs laden with campaign literature, with each side accusing the other of being too extreme for Ohio.A “yes” on Issue 1, a citizen-sponsored ballot initiative pushed largely by doctors, would amend the state’s constitution to establish a right to “carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including on abortion.The amendment explicitly allows the state to ban abortion after viability, or around 23 weeks, when the fetus can survive outside the uterus, unless the pregnant woman’s doctor finds the procedure “is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.”But that language does not appear on the ballot. Instead, voters see a summary from the Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, a Republican who opposes abortion and pushed the August ballot measure to try to thwart the abortion rights amendment. That summary turns the provision on viability on its head, saying the amendment “would always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability.”Other Republicans have helped spread misinformation about the amendment. The state attorney general, who opposes abortion, issued a 13-page analysis that said, among other claims, that the amendment would invalidate law requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortion. (Constitutional scholars have said these claims are untrue. And the amendment would allow some restrictions on abortion.)The ballot measure Republicans put forward in August trying to make this one harder to pass was also called Issue 1. Across the state, some lawns still have signs up from abortion rights groups urging “No on Issue 1.”Members of the anti-abortion group Students for Life handed out information and talked to students at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio, to encourage them to vote “no” on Issue 1.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesAbortion rights groups have reminded voters of the consequences of Ohio’s six-week abortion ban that was in effect for 82 days last year — and could go into effect again any day, pending a ruling from the state’s Supreme Court. They repeatedly mention the 10-year-old rape victim who traveled to Indiana for an abortion after doctors in Ohio refused to provide one because of the ban.In a television ad, a couple tells of their anguish when doctors told them at 18 weeks that a long-desired pregnancy would not survive, but that they could not get an abortion in Ohio, forcing them, too, to leave the state for care: “What happened to us could happen to anyone.”The “yes” side has also appealed to Ohioans’ innate conservatism about government overreach, going beyond traditional messages casting abortion as critical to women’s rights. John Legend, the singer-songwriter and Ohio native whose wife, Chrissy Teigen, has spoken publicly about an abortion that saved her life, urged in a video message, “Issue 1 will get politicians out of personal decisions about abortion.”The “no” side makes little mention of the six-week ban, or abortion. Yard signs and billboards instead argue that a “no” vote protects parents’ rights. Protect Women Ohio has spread messages on social media and in campaign literature claiming that because the amendment gives “individuals” rather than “adults” the right to make their own reproductive decisions, it could lead to children getting gender transition surgery without parental permission — which constitutional scholars have also said is untrue. The anti-abortion side is trying to reach beyond the conservative base, and it will have to in order to win.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesThe anti-abortion side is trying to reach beyond the conservative base, and it will have to in order to win. In polls in July and October, 58 percent of Ohio residents said they would vote in favor of the amendment to secure abortion rights, and that included a majority of independents.Kristi Hamrick, the vice president of media and policy for Students for Life, which opposes abortion and has been “dorm knocking” on college campuses in Ohio, said the anti-abortion side had relied too much on “vague talking points” to try to win earlier ballot measures. “It wasn’t direct in what was at stake and how people would be hurt,” she said. “What is at stake is whether or not there can be limits on abortion, whether we can have unfettered abortion.”A box containing literature from the group Students for Life. Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesIn Ohio, the anti-abortion side has leaned into arguments that the amendment would encourage “abortion up until the moment of birth.” An ad aired during the Ohio State-Notre Dame football game featured Donald Trump warning, “In the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother.”Data shows late-term abortions are rare and usually performed in cases where doctors say the fetus will not survive. In Ohio, there were roughly 100 abortions after 21 weeks of pregnancy in 2020.National groups have poured in money, making this an unusually expensive off-year race. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the coalition of abortion rights groups supporting the amendment, has spent $26 million since Labor Day, nearly three times as much as Protect Women Ohio, and most of that money has come from outside the state.At the market hall, the group of pediatricians leading the canvass for the “yes” side landed mostly on people who had heard about the amendment and supported it.Marsha Chenin, left, and Dr. Lauren Beene, executive director for Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, talking with people about Issue 1.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesOne voter, Ashley Gowens, introduced herself to one of the doctors as “Stephanie’s mom,” thanking him for “standing up for my daughter’s rights.” Ms. Gowens worried that abortion rights supporters would be misled by the language on the ballot, or not realize they had to vote again — and differently — after the August election called by Republicans. “I know that it was done purposefully,” she said. “The only way they could knock this down was to confuse people.”David Pepper, a former state Democratic Party chair, said he too feared the August election had sapped some energy, and that the anti-abortion messages against extremism will appeal to Ohioans’ reluctance to change their Constitution.“You kind of have to run the table on your arguments, and they all have to be pretty persuasive for people to vote yes,” he said. “All you have to do to convince someone to vote “no” is give them one reason.” More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Democrats Are Their Own Worst Enemy

      by

      This should be the Democratic Party’s moment. Donald Trump’s stranglehold has lurched the G.O.P. toward the fringe. Republican congressional behavior echoes that of an intemperate toddler and the party’s intellectual and ideological foundations have become completely unmoored.But far from dominant, the Democratic Party seems disconnected from the priorities, needs and values of many Americans.Current polls show a 2024 rematch between Trump and Joe Biden too close for true comfort; the same is true should Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis be the Republican nominee. Many constituents who were once the Democratic Party’s reliable base — the working class, middle-class families, even Black and Latino Americans and other ethnic minorities — have veered toward the G.O.P. In a development that has baffled Democrats, a greater share of those groups voted for Republican candidates in recent elections.Something worrisome has happened to the party of the people.This worry isn’t entirely new. In 2004, Thomas Frank’s book asked, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” Why, Frank wondered, did working- and middle-class Americans vote Republican when Democratic policies were more attuned to their needs?The question to ask now is: Why isn’t the Democratic Party serving their needs either?John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira, authors of 2002’s hugely influential “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” might seem like the last people to have an answer, given that book’s failed prophecy that America would be majority Democratic by 2010 given shifts in the electorate and the population.But in “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” they give a pretty persuasive explanation — one that should be read as a warning.If the answer to Frank’s question was that cultural issues can trump issues of class in ways that favor Republicans, Judis’s and Teixeira’s answer looks doubly troubling to Democrats: Not only is the Democratic Party increasingly failing on matters of culture (despite its strength on abortion rights), it’s also seen as failing in matters of class. In a country that has become more overtly populist in its values and needs, Democrats are the ones who look like the party of out-of-touch elitists.“We’ve had this peculiar situation where the reigning power in the Democratic Party has been between progressive social organizations and the neoliberal business elite,” Judis told me when I spoke to him last week. The majority of Americans are feeling left behind.This bodes ill for Democrats. As he and Teixeira write in the book, “The Democratic Party has had its greatest success when it sought to represent the common man and woman against the rich and powerful, the people against the elite, and the plebians against the patricians.”When it comes to economics, the authors say, Democrats have too often pursued the interests of their own elites and donors. Since the 1990s, the party has pursued policies that worsen the economic plight of Americans who are not well off. President Bill Clinton, for example, supported NAFTA and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, which undermined American manufacturing; the administration also endorsed the Banking Act of 1999, which accelerated the financialization of the American economy. While Barack Obama conveyed a populist message on the campaign trail, as president, they say, he became captive to neoliberal Washington.Much of the Democratic Party’s agenda has been set by what Judis and Teixeira call the “shadow party,” a mix of donors from Wall Street, Hollywood and Silicon Valley, wealthy foundations, activist groups, the media, lobbyists and scholars.Democratic leaders seem too willing to settle for a kind of cheap progressivism — a carbon-neutral, virtue-signaling, box-checking update on what was once called limousine liberalism. But the Democratic Party cannot win and America cannot flourish if it doesn’t prioritize the economic well-being of the American majority over the financial interests and cultural fixations of an elite minority.Biden has curtailed some of its shadow party’s economic agenda — less so its cultural and social policies. There, Judis and Teixeira argue, the party seems bent on imposing a narrow progressive stance on issues like race, “sexual creationism” (commonly known as gender ideology), immigration and climate, at the expense of more broadly shared beliefs within the electorate.The moral values may differ at each extreme of the two parties, but their efforts to moralize can sound an awful lot alike to many Americans. Even though Democrats themselves are adopting “a pretty aggressive way to change the culture,” Teixeira told me, the Democratic Party acts as if anyone who reacts against the assumptions of its progressive wing is completely off base.“There’s a certain amount of chutzpah among Democrats to assume that it’s only the other side pursuing a culture war,” he said.For too long, the Democratic Party depended on shifting demographics to shore up its side. Then it relied on the horror show of the G.O.P. to scare people onto its side. Both have been an effective and damaging distraction. As Judis and Teixeira put it, Democrats “need to look in the mirror and examine the extent to which their own failures contributed to the rise of the most toxic tendencies on the political right.”We can no longer afford to avoid the hard truths. If the Democratic Party doesn’t focus on what it can deliver to more Americans, it won’t have to wonder anymore where all the Democrats went.Source images by John McKeen and phanasitti/Getty ImagesThe Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Did Democrats Lose Control of State Agriculture Policy?

      by

      How Did Democrats Lose Control of State Agriculture Policy?Democrats once dominated statewide elections for the influential post of agriculture commissioner. Now they’re hoping to win just one.Kentucky is one of 12 states with elected agriculture commissioners. Clockwise from top left: A soybean farm in Adairville; harvesting apples in Nancy; a tractor caution sign in Pulaski County; a livestock auction in Somerset.Nov. 1, 2023Jonathan Robertson was preparing to start the workday on his family cattle farm when a campaign ad in the race for agriculture commissioner of Kentucky flashed across his television.He couldn’t hear the narrator, but he noticed that the candidate — the name was Shell, he believed — was shown on the screen baling hay and driving farm equipment.“I haven’t heard anything about who’s running,” Mr. Robertson, 47, recalled a few hours later, stopping with his brother for the $5.99 lunch special at the Wigwam General Store in Horse Cave., Ky. “Who’s his opponent?”Neither Mr. Robertson nor his brother, Josh, 44, knew who was in the race, but they had no doubt how they would vote: “I’m a straight-ticket Republican,” Josh said.Democrats face daunting odds in races for the under-the-radar but vitally important position of state agriculture commissioner — and not just in Kentucky, where the two people competing on Nov. 7 are Jonathan Shell, a former Republican state legislator, and Sierra Enlow, a Democratic economic development consultant.Jonathan Shell, the Republican candidate for Kentucky agriculture commissioner, is a former state legislator and a fifth-generation farmer.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How Germany’s Green Party Lost Its Luster

      by

      The party was riding high when it entered the government two years ago. Now it is stumbling, blamed for driving voters to the far right.Germany’s Green Party entered the government in 2021 with the best election showing of its history, establishing itself for the first time as a true mainstream party with the potential of one day even yielding a chancellor.It won five cabinet positions in the three-party coalition, including the powerful economy and foreign ministries. It seemed to have a strong mandate to advance the country’s economic transition toward a greener future.What a difference two years make. And a Russian invasion of Ukraine. And rising energy costs. And a host of missteps that some even within the party concede has stalled the Greens’ momentum.Today the Greens are widely viewed as a drag on the government of the Social Democratic chancellor, Olaf Scholz, which one poll gave a mere 19 percent approval rating. The Greens have drawn withering attacks from even their own coalition partners. To their opponents, the Greens have overreached on their agenda and become the face of an out-of-touch environmental elitism that has alienated many voters, sending droves to the far right.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Poland’s Ruling Party Casts Doubt on Election That Cost It Power

      by

      Loyalists of Poland’s Law and Justice party are questioning the legitimacy of the election won this month by an alliance of opposition parties.After eight years of pumping out vitriol against opponents of Poland’s governing party, state-controlled television has rallied to an unlikely new cause: a free media and fair play.Unsettled by the election this month of a new Parliament controlled by political forces it previously vilified, Poland’s main public broadcaster last week set up a telephone hotline as part of what it described as a “special campaign to defend media pluralism” and counter “increasingly frequent attacks on journalists.”The abrupt about face by a public broadcaster notorious for its often vicious, one-sided coverage reflected Poland’s febrile political atmosphere as loyalists of the defeated Law and Justice party scramble to keep their jobs by presenting themselves as victims of persecution and of a compromised election.That loyalists have much to lose as a result of the Oct. 15 vote was made clear last week when Gazeta Wyborcza, a liberal newspaper, published a long list of journalists and other Law and Justice supporters who “will have to say goodbye to their positions” in media, state corporations and other state-controlled entities. The list has since been expanded as readers send in the names of more people they want gone, too.Pleas for “media pluralism” by a public broadcasting system that for years froze out opposition voices and served as a propaganda bullhorn for Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the chairman of the nationalist governing party, have mostly been met with guffaws and cries of hypocrisy.But the effort pointed to the obstacles ahead for the election victors as the losing side digs in, fighting to hang on to jobs, and promotes often wild conspiracy theories to explain and, in some cases, deny Law and Justice’s defeat at the polls.The logo of TVP, Polish state television, is seen on the roof of the company’s building, in Warsaw, in September.Kacper Pempel/Reuters“They are trying to create the myth of a stolen victory,” said Jakub Majmurek a prominent commentator on Polish politics and culture. But, he added, “Kaczynski is not Donald Trump” and “I don’t think we are going to see scenes of January 6 in Poland.”Polish politics, he said, “are very unpredictable” and “very polarized” but are still even-tempered enough to make a replay of the storming of the Capitol highly unlikely in Warsaw. “It wouldn’t work. They would have to confront huge crowds on the streets and they don’t know how the police will react,” Mr. Majmurek said.More likely, most observers say, is a long drawn-out struggle by Law and Justice appointees — who are now in control of public broadcasting, the judiciary and other institutions — to resist being replaced by more neutral, or at least less brazenly partisan, figures.TVP Info, the public broadcaster’s news channel, this year gave 66 percent of its airtime to Law and Justice and just 10 percent to the main opposition party. This airtime gap was only 5 percent in favor of Poland’s previous governing party in 2014, the year before Law and Justice rose to power.Law and Justice won more votes than any other single party in the recent election but an alliance of its opponents won a clear majority in Parliament. They have proposed Donald Tusk, the leader of Civic Coalition, the biggest opposition party, as prime minister at the head of a new coalition government.But, more than two weeks after its victory, the opposition has still not been asked to form a government by Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, an ally of Law and Justice.The constitution gives Mr. Duda 30 days to make a decision, a long pause that diehard supporters of the defeated party are now using to try to delay and even derail the consequences of their electoral defeat.Daniel Milewski, a member of Parliament for the governing party, appealed to Mr. Duda “to prevent Donald Tusk from becoming prime minister” and vowed that Law and Justice “will do everything to stop this from happening.”Poland’s main opposition leader, Donald Tusk, is surrounded by journalists and supporters after leaving a voting station in Warsaw, in October.Petr David Josek/Associated PressAs well as veering close to Trump-like pleas to “stop the steal,” Law and Justice has insisted that foreign interference cost them the election, echoing the claims of Democrats in the United States stunned by Hillary Clinton’s upset defeat in 2016.“A question worth asking,” the party’s chairman, Mr. Kaczynski, told Gazeta Polska, a conservative magazine, is “to what extent is our public life autonomous from external forces?” Pointing a finger at Germany and Russia, he complained of “forces at work here all the time” to unfairly influence Polish voters.Antoni Macierewicz, a veteran Law and Justice legislator notorious for promoting apocalyptic conspiracy theories, on Monday accused the leader of Third Way, a centrist grouping allied with Mr. Tusk, of having ties to Russian intelligence and predicted that letting the opposition take power would risk World War III.Another senior Law and Justice legislator, Ryszard Terlecki, warned of dire consequences, including an upsurge in L.G.B.T.Q. activism that he described as a “rainbow flood,” if the opposition was allowed to form a government. But he assured supporters that “all is not lost” and “we still have hope” that right-wing forces might be able to form a coalition government “that will stop the catastrophe.”Particularly shocking to Law and Justice is that it lost the election despite having near total control of public broadcasting, a nationwide network of television and radio stations, and a firm grip on many regional newspapers that were purchased in 2021 by the state oil giant, PKN Orlen, which is itself headed by a former Law and Justice politician.A report on Poland’s election by observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe said the election had been tarnished by “distorted and openly partisan coverage by the public broadcaster.” This, the observers said, “provided a clear advantage to the ruling party, undermining the democratic separation of state and party.”Restoring that separation, however, will be difficult because of the lingering grip of Law and Justice on a raft of bodies it set up after it took power in 2015 and began remaking the system to try to ensure that, no matter the results of future elections, its supporters would remain deeply entrenched.TVP, the Polish state broadcaster, was a target of protesters at a pro-European Union demonstration in Gdansk, in 2021. Mateusz Slodkowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOne such body is the National Media Council, an organization that, controlled by Law and Justice appointees, was given the power to appoint and dismiss public broadcasting executives. In a statement released after the election, the council rejected any attempt by the opposition to break Law and Justice’s hold on public television and radio, vowing to “defend public media and their employees” against what it described as “illegal activities” by the new majority in Parliament.Getting rid of the council — and similar bodies set up by Law and Justice to control judicial appointments — would require new legislation, but any move by Parliament aimed at creating a more level playing field would likely be vetoed by President Duda. The opposition doesn’t have a large enough majority to override his veto.Law and Justice, said Mr. Majmurek, the commentator, “built a lot of traps into the system and did everything to make sure that it still controls many vital state institutions even after losing an election.”The task now faced by the opposition, he added, is “like dismantling a very complicated and potentially deadly bomb.”Anatol Magdziarz More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      El gobierno de Maduro va contra la oposición previo a la elección de 2024

      by

      La decisión de anular las primarias en las que se eligió a una candidata unitaria para enfrentar al presidente Nicolás Maduro plantea dudas sobre su compromiso con un proceso libre.Luego de años de un gobierno autoritario, parecía que se abría un pequeño resquicio de esperanza para los partidarios de la democracia.La elección de una candidata de la oposición para enfrentarse en las urnas al presidente de Venezuela, que derivó del compromiso del gobierno de celebrar elecciones libres y justas el próximo año, generó un optimismo moderado en los venezolanos y observadores internacionales sobre la posibilidad de un retorno a la democracia.Pero ahora el gobierno del presidente Nicolás Maduro está atacando las primarias de la oposición celebradas este mes, lo que ha suscitado preocupaciones de que Maduro oponga resistencia a cualquier desafío serio a su poder, el cual tiene desde hace 10 años, incluso mientras su país sigue padeciendo las consecuencias de las sanciones internacionales.Las primarias de la oposición en Venezuela, país sudamericano de unos 28 millones de habitantes, se llevaron a cabo sin el apoyo oficial del gobierno. La votación, en cambio, fue organizada por la sociedad civil y se instalaron mesas electorales en viviendas, parques y sedes de partidos de la oposición.Más de 2,4 millones de venezolanos votaron, una cifra considerable que podría indicar el compromiso de los electores rumbo a las elecciones generales previstas para 2024.Pero en los días posteriores a la votación, el presidente de la Asamblea Nacional, organismo controlado por Maduro, afirmó que la participación electoral estaba inflada y calificó a los organizadores de “ladrones” y “estafadores”, y describió las elecciones como una “farsa”.“Las primarias enviaron un claro mensaje de que el pueblo venezolano es, en esencia, profundamente democrático”, dijo Tamara Taraciuk Broner, quien realiza investigaciones sobre Venezuela para Diálogo Interamericano, una organización con sede en Washington. “Y si tienen la opción de votar, se expresarán a través del voto. Y eso es un enorme desafío para los que están en el poder”.La semana pasada, el Ministerio Público venezolano anunció que estaba investigando a 17 miembros de las comisiones nacionales y regionales que supervisaron los comicios bajo cargos de usurpación de funciones electorales, usurpación de identidad, legitimación de capitales y asociación para delinquir.Si el fiscal general presenta cargos penales, los acusados se enfrentarían a un juicio y a una posible sentencia a prisión.Y el lunes, el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia del país emitió una sentencia que deja sin efecto las primarias. Pero dado que el gobierno no desempeñó ningún papel en los comicios, no está claro cuál será el efecto práctico o qué implicaciones tendrá la sentencia de cara al futuro.El gobierno del presidente Nicolás Maduro ha centrado su atención en los organizadores de las primarias de la oposición que María Corina Machado ganó.Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters“Se suspenden todos los efectos de las distintas fases del proceso electoral conducido por la Comisión Nacional de Primarias”, dice la sentencia.Juan Manuel Rafalli, abogado constitucionalista en Venezuela, dijo que es probable que el Ministerio Público solicite a los organizadores de las primarias la entrega de documentos que utilizará para tratar de invalidar los resultados de la votación o para convocar a una nueva.“Han soltado todo el aparato judicial que ellos controlan para tratar de anular lo que ocurrió”, dijo Rafalli. “No le busques explicación jurídica a esto porque no la van a encontrar”.Maduro asumió el poder en 2013, tras la muerte de Hugo Chávez, quien lideró una revolución de inspiración socialista a finales de la década de 1990. Bajo el mandato de Maduro, Venezuela, cuyas enormes reservas de petróleo convirtieron al país en uno de los más ricos de Latinoamérica, ha experimentado un declive económico que ha desencadenado una crisis humanitaria. Unos siete millones de venezolanos —una cuarta parte de la población— han salido del país.El mes pasado, el gobierno de Maduro y la oposición firmaron un acuerdo que buscaba encaminar al país a unas elecciones libres y justas, que incluía permitirle a la oposición elegir un candidato de cara a la elección presidencial del próximo año.María Corina Machado, candidata de centroderecha y exdiputada venezolana, ganó con el 93 por ciento de los votos en una contienda con 10 aspirantes.Pero el gobierno de Maduro la inhabilitó por 15 años para ejercer cargos públicos, alegando que no completó su declaración de bienes e ingresos cuando era diputada. Se trata de una táctica empleada de manera usual por Maduro para mantener alejados de las urnas a los contendientes más fuertes.Machado es una política experimentada, a quien se le ha apodado la “Dama de Hierro” por su relación confrontativa con los gobiernos de Maduro y Chávez. Algunos analistas afirman que, si se le permitiera presentarse, probablemente derrotaría a Maduro.Pero sus posturas de línea dura y su insistencia en responsabilizar penalmente a miembros del gobierno de Maduro por abusos contra los derechos humanos también podrían hacer menos probable que el gobierno le permita llegar al poder.“Es una contradicción que se firme un acuerdo. Y, acto seguido, en los días que siguen, se proceda a violar los primeros puntos del acuerdo”, dijo Machado en un discurso el jueves, refiriéndose a las investigaciones contra los organizadores de las primarias.El gobierno de Maduro inhabilitó a Machado para presentarse en las elecciones. Algunos analistas creen que si se le permitiera contender, vencería con facilidad a Maduro.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez para The New York TimesEl gobierno de Biden ha retirado algunas de las sanciones impuestas a la crucial industria petrolera de Venezuela en respuesta a algunas de las recientes concesiones de Maduro. El gobierno venezolano, entre otras cosas, ha accedido a aceptar a los venezolanos que han sido deportados de Estados Unidos y a liberar a un puñado de presos políticos.Pero el gobierno de Biden también espera que Venezuela restituya los derechos políticos de los candidatos a los que se inhabilitó de participar en las elecciones nacionales o, de lo contrario, que enfrente el restablecimiento de las sanciones.El Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos declaró estar al tanto de la decisión del tribunal venezolano sobre las primarias de la oposición e instó al gobierno de Maduro a cumplir el acuerdo de celebrar elecciones creíbles el próximo año.“Estados Unidos y la comunidad internacional siguen de cerca la implementación de la hoja de ruta electoral, y el gobierno estadounidense tomará medidas si Maduro y sus representantes no cumplen sus compromisos”, se lee en el comunicado.Otros dos miembros de la comisión nacional que organizó las primarias de la oposición, y que no están bajo investigación, criticaron la legitimidad de la medida del gobierno de Maduro.“Ellos no estaban conscientes del nivel de participación que se iba a producir y creo que los agarró de sorpresa a ellos y a nosotros”, dijo Víctor Márquez, integrante de la comisión. “Ya quedó claro que el gobierno actual no tiene ninguna posibilidad de ganar las elecciones”.Pedro Benítez, un analista político venezolano, dijo que el gobierno de Maduro estaba siguiendo un manual conocido para tratar de aplastar las amenazas a su poder.Lo que están tratando de hacer, “es subir la apuesta para impedir que la hayan elegido como candidata”, dijo Benítez, refiriéndose a Machado. “El objetivo es desanimar a la oposición, dividir a la oposición, crear conflictos en la oposición, desmoralizar a su base”.“Esa es la primera fase”, añadió. “Luego va a venir la siguiente fase que ya la ofensiva directamente contra el proceso”. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Maduro Tries to Squash Venezuela’s Election Campaign Before it Even Starts

      by

      The government’s move to annul the election of a candidate to challenge President Nicolás Maduro raises questions about its commitment to a free election.It seemed like a small glimmer of hope for supporters of democracy, after years of authoritarian rule.The election of an opposition candidate to challenge Venezuela’s president, which followed on a commitment from the government to hold free and fair elections next year, led to cautious optimism among Venezuelans and international observers about the possibility of establishing a path back to democracy.But now the government of President Nicolás Maduro is taking aim at the opposition election held this month, raising concerns that Mr. Maduro will resist any serious challenge to his 10-year hold on power even as his country continues to suffer under international sanctions.The opposition primary in Venezuela, a South American nation of roughly 28 million people, took place with no official government support. Instead, the vote was organized by civil society, with polling stations in homes, parks and the offices of opposition parties.More than 2.4 million Venezuelans cast ballots, an impressive number that suggests how engaged voters could be in the general election that is supposed to take place in 2024.But in the days that followed, the president of the Maduro-controlled legislature has claimed that the voter turnout was inflated and called the organizers “thieves” and “scammers,” and the election a “farce.”“The primaries sent a clear message that the Venezuelan people are, in essence, profoundly democratic,” said Tamara Taraciuk Broner, who researches Venezuela for the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research organization. “And if they have the option to vote, they will express themselves through the vote. And that is a huge challenge to those in power.”Venezuela’s attorney general’s office announced last week that it was investigating 17 members of the national and regional commissions that oversaw the balloting, based on allegations of violating electoral functions, identity theft, money laundering and criminal association.If the attorney general files criminal charges, the defendants would face a trial and possible imprisonment.And on Monday, the country’s supreme court issued a ruling effectively annulling the primary. But since the government played no role in the election, it is not clear what the practical effect will be or what the ruling will mean going forward.President Nicolás Maduro’s government has taken aim at organizers of the opposition election won by Ms. Machado.Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters“All effects of the different phases of the electoral process conducted by the National Primary Commission are suspended,” the ruling said.Juan Manuel Rafalli, a constitutional lawyer in Venezuela, said the attorney general’s office will likely ask the primary’s organizers to hand over documents that it will use to try to invalidate the election results or to call for a new one.“They have unleashed all the judicial apparatus that they control to try to annul what happened,” Mr. Rafalli said. “Don’t look for a legal explanation for this because you won’t find one.”Mr. Maduro assumed power in 2013, following the death of Hugo Chávez, who had led a socialist-inspired revolution in the late 1990s. Under Mr. Maduro, Venezuela, whose vast oil reserves made it one of Latin America’ wealthiest nations, has been in an economic free fall, which has set off a humanitarian crisis. About seven million Venezuelans — one quarter of the population — have left the country.The Maduro government and the opposition signed an agreement last month that was intended to move the country toward free and fair elections, including allowing the opposition to choose a candidate for next year’s presidential contest.María Corina Machado, a center-right candidate and former member of Venezuela’s legislature, won with 93 percent of the vote, in a 10-candidate race.But Mr. Maduro’s government has barred her from running for office for 15 years, claiming that she did not complete her declaration of assets and income when she was a legislator. It is a tactic commonly used by Mr. Maduro to keep strong competitors off the ballot.Ms. Machado is a veteran politician, nicknamed “the Iron Lady” to reflect her adversarial relationships with the governments of Mr. Maduro and Mr. Chávez. If Ms. Machado were allowed to run, some analysts say, she could likely defeat Mr. Maduro.But her hard-line positions and insistence on holding members of the Maduro administration criminally responsible for human rights abuses could also make it less likely that the government would allow her to assume power.“It is a contradiction to sign an agreement and then, in the days that follow, they proceed to violate the first points of the agreement,” she said in a speech on Thursday, referring to the investigations of the organizers of the primary.Ms. Machado has been barred from running for office by the Maduro government. Some analysts believe that if she were allowed to run, she would easily beat Mr. Maduro.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York TimesThe Biden administration has lifted some sanctions on Venezuela’s crucial oil industry in response to some of Mr. Maduro’s recent overtures, which have included accepting Venezuelans that have been deported from the United States and releasing a handful of political prisoners.But the administration also expects Venezuela to reinstate candidates prohibited from participating in the national election or face the restoration of sanctions.The U.S. State Department said it was aware of the Venezuelan high court’s decision regarding the opposition primary and urged the Maduro government to abide by its agreement to hold a credible election next year.“The United States and the international community are closely following implementation of the electoral road map, and the U.S. government will take action if Maduro and his representatives do not meet their commitments,” the statement read.Two other members of the national commission that organized the opposition election, and who are not under investigation, criticized the legitimacy of the Maduro government’s move.“They were not aware of the level of participation that was going to happen and I think it caught them and us by surprise,” said Víctor Márquez, a commission member. “It is clear that the current government has no chance of winning the elections.”Pedro Benítez, a Venezuelan political analyst, said the Maduro government was following a familiar playbook in trying to squelch threats to its power.“What they are trying to do is up the ante to prevent her from being chosen as a candidate,” Mr. Benítez said, referring to Ms. Machado. “The objective is to discourage the opposition, to divide the opposition, to create conflicts in the opposition, to demoralize its base.”“That is the first phase,” he added. “Then the next phase will come, which will be the direct offensive against the process.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Maduro podría perder las elecciones de Venezuela en 2024

      by

      Nicolás Maduro lleva 10 años en el poder en Venezuela. En esa década, ha supervisado un periodo de colapso económico, corrupción, un aumento importante de la pobreza, la destrucción medioambiental y la represión estatal de los disidentes y la prensa. Esto ha provocado un éxodo de más de 7 millones de venezolanos.Ahora Venezuela se encuentra en una encrucijada que definirá su próxima década y tendrá consecuencias cruciales para el mundo. Venezuela celebrará sus elecciones presidenciales en 2024, unas elecciones que Maduro podría perder, siempre que la oposición participe unida, la comunidad internacional siga implicada y los ciudadanos se sientan inspirados para movilizarse.Recientemente, dos acontecimientos importantes revelaron una oportunidad única de cara a las elecciones: primero, la participación masiva en las primarias de la oposición del 22 de octubre, que otorgaron a María Corina Machado, exdiputada de Venezuela, un sólido primer lugar como la candidata unitaria. Segundo, el régimen no impidió judicialmente ni con violencia que se celebraran estas elecciones. Fue una de las concesiones que hizo en un acuerdo con Washington y la oposición a cambio de que Estados Unidos suavizara las sanciones impuestas durante el mandato de Trump a las industrias del petróleo y el gas.El éxito de las primarias de la oposición podría haber sorprendido a Maduro, y estamos siendo testigos de un mayor hostigamiento contra los organizadores de las elecciones y declaraciones de funcionarios que niegan la posibilidad de levantar la inhabilitación impuesta a varios líderes políticos de la oposición, incluida Machado, de presentarse a las elecciones del próximo año.A pesar de la alentadora participación en las primarias y los avances en las negociaciones, hay una narrativa pesimista —tanto en el extranjero como en Venezuela— de que Maduro se aferrará inevitablemente al poder. He visto y he experimentado lo equivocado que es ese punto de vista. En realidad, las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año brindan la mejor oportunidad hasta la fecha para derrotar al chavismo —el movimiento de inspiración socialista iniciado por Hugo Chávez en el que milita Maduro— desde que llegó al poder hace más de dos décadas.Llevo desde 2013 trabajando como organizador comunitario en los barrios en sectores populares de Venezuela, antes bastiones del chavismo. He trabajado con líderes de la comunidad, la mayoría de los cuales eran chavistas cuando empezamos. He visto con mis propios ojos que, en lugares donde Chávez obtenía antes el 90 por ciento de los votos en las elecciones nacionales, ahora la inmensa mayoría desea un cambio. Hace poco, una exintegrante de la estructura política del partido gobernante, cuyo nombre no desea revelar por temor a las repercusiones, me dijo que Maduro y sus secuaces ya no son una opción para muchos venezolanos: “Ya no quiero nada con ellos ni la comunidad tampoco”. Añadió que “mientras ellos comen como unos reyes”, en los barrios comían muy mal.Para aprovechar esta oportunidad inusual, tienen que ocurrir tres elementos. El primero es que la oposición debe mantenerse unida en las urnas y en defender los votos. El segundo es que la comunidad internacional debe seguir presionando por mejores condiciones electorales y exigir respeto a los derechos humanos en Venezuela. También deben contribuir a bajar los costos de una posible salida de Maduro y su estructura. Y la tercera es que los políticos y los líderes de toda Venezuela deben volver a centrar el discurso en un mensaje lleno de esperanza, en vez de ceder a la tentación de alimentar aún más la polarización.El régimen de Maduro es consciente del riesgo que corre en las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año. Su objetivo es convencer a la gente de que el cambio es imposible, y de que a los venezolanos les irá mejor si se quedan en casa en lugar de ir a votar. La oposición de Venezuela debe contrarrestar esas tácticas con un firme llamado a la participación.También debe enfrentarse a un dilema más fundamental que es común a todos los sistemas electorales autoritarios: participar en unas elecciones que no serán libres y limpias, o boicotearlas.En las últimas elecciones presidenciales, en 2018, parte de la oposición, incluida Machado, boicoteó las elecciones. Como miembro de un partido político de la oposición —Primero Justicia—, yo también decidí no votar. Pero, ahora, tras casi seis años más de consolidación autoritaria, creo que nuestra estrategia fue errada. Pedirle a la gente que se quede en casa en lugar de movilizarse es caer en la trampa de Maduro.Para ser claros, las elecciones presidenciales de 2024 no serán un momento de celebración de la democracia; aún no se dan las condiciones para unas elecciones libres y limpias, y, francamente, puede que nunca se den. No obstante, si la oposición participa y los venezolanos votan en masa, Maduro puede perder.Algunos se preguntan si el régimen permitirá siquiera que se cuenten los votos el año que viene. Mi respuesta es que Maduro necesita hacerlo. Enfrentada a una monumental crisis social y económica, la élite chavista tiene que ofrecerles a los venezolanos un relato que les otorgue legitimidad interna, y eso, en Venezuela, solo puede venir de unas elecciones. Al igual que otros regímenes autoritarios del mundo, su mayor gancho publicitario es afirmar que cuentan con el respaldo del pueblo. Pero lo cierto es que su base sigue menguando drásticamente: hoy, el índice de aprobación de Maduro es del 29 por ciento, según una investigación de Consultores 21, con sede en Caracas.Una victoria arrolladora de la oposición es la mejor protección contra las trampas. Hay un ejemplo reciente de ello en Venezuela. Hace un año, en unas elecciones regionales en Barinas, el estado en el que nació Chávez, el partido gobernante perdió con un margen considerable, a pesar de utilizar toda su artillería de trampas. Aunque se trató de unas elecciones regionales y no estaba en juego el poder presidencial, la experiencia en el estado, unida a los acontecimientos del 22 de octubre, dan una lección sobre lo que debemos hacer para recuperar la democracia en 2024.El punto de partida es que la oposición debe adoptar una estrategia realista, que sea consciente de la desigualdad de condiciones en un sistema autoritario, y que ponga en primer plano la participación del pueblo venezolano. En Barinas, el partido en el poder intentó empujar a la oposición a boicotear las elecciones invalidando ilegalmente los resultados y prohibiendo a varios candidatos que se presentaran. Sin embargo, la oposición permaneció unida y mantuvo su compromiso de participar, a pesar de las injusticias.Para reforzar la unidad ahora, los partidos de la oposición deben priorizar el desarrollo de un mecanismo para tomar decisiones en conjunto que permita alcanzar consensos en una coalición diversa. Los dos pilares de esa unidad deberían ser la lucha por los derechos políticos de todos los líderes —sobre todo los de Machado tras su victoria— y el compromiso firme de participar en las elecciones del año que viene. En el mejor escenario, el gobierno de Maduro levantaría todas las inhabilitaciones antes de las elecciones como parte de las negociaciones. Pero, aunque eso no sucediera, participar y lograr una victoria aplastante en unas elecciones viciadas es el mejor camino que tenemos para avanzar en la democratización.La oposición también necesita un compromiso más firme de otros países latinoamericanos, de Estados Unidos y de Europa con las negociaciones. El régimen de Maduro ha demostrado que hará concesiones en materia de elecciones y derechos humanos si recibe los incentivos adecuados. Necesitamos líderes demócratas con disposición a asumir riesgos y a predicar con el ejemplo en su defensa de la democracia, que exijan la libertad de todos los presos políticos, y mejoras en las condiciones para las elecciones del año que viene. Además, necesitamos que la comunidad internacional acelere la entrega de las ayudas que tanto necesitan los más vulnerables de la sociedad. La oposición y el partido en el poder llegaron a un acuerdo hace un año para que los fondos públicos congelados en el extranjero a causa de las sanciones se transfieran a la ONU con fines humanitarios. Hasta la fecha, esos fondos no han sido implementados.Por último, la oposición tiene que ofrecer una verdadera alternativa a la división promovida por el establishment de Maduro. Inspirar a la gente a participar requiere unir al país en torno a un nuevo relato. El mensaje tradicional de la oposición, entre la polarización con el chavismo y la nostalgia de un pasado que no volverá, está condenado al fracaso.Un nuevo relato para Venezuela debería inspirar a los jóvenes, centrarse en ayudar a las personas en sus dificultades diarias (con servicios públicos, educación y acceso a anticonceptivos) y desarrollar una economía más diversificada que genere empleos bien remunerados para reducir la desigualdad. El nuevo mensaje debería aspirar también a sanar una de nuestras heridas más profundas: la separación de las familias debido a la migración masiva. La reunificación de nuestro país puede convertirse en una motivación personal y emocional para que cada venezolano participe y obre el cambio. Reunir a la familia venezolana es algo por lo que vale la pena luchar.Roberto Patiño, activista venezolano y antiguo dirigente del movimiento estudiantil, es fundador de Alimenta la Solidaridad y Mi Convive, que trabajan en las comunidades vulnerables de Venezuela, y miembro de la junta directiva del partido político Primero Justicia. More