Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      The Supreme Court Finally Strikes the Right Balance on Voting Rights

      by

      One of the most important realities of American life is this: No nation can fully undo the effects of 345 years of state-sanctioned bigotry — from slavery to Jim Crow — in 59 years. The time period between the arrival of the first slaves on colonial shores in 1619 and the abolition of legalized discrimination with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 is simply too long, the discrimination too ingrained and the distortion of society too great to wave the wand of legal and cultural reform and quickly realize the dream of American equality.At the same time, there’s another vital American reality: Through grit, determination and immense courage, Black Americans and other marginalized communities have made immense gains, the hearts of countless white Americans have indeed changed and America is a far better and fairer place than it was in even the recent past.And now, at last, in the vital area of voting rights, Supreme Court authority reflects both these truths.Earlier this month, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case called Allen v. Milligan that surprised many legal observers by striking down an Alabama redistricting map that would have preserved the state’s recent tradition of maintaining only one majority Black district out of seven in a state with a 27 percent Black population.Voting in Alabama is extremely racially polarized. For example, in the 2020 presidential election, 91 percent of Black voters in the state voted for Joe Biden, while only 20 percent of white voters did so. In practice, this persistent polarization, combined with GOP-drawn district maps, has meant that Black voters were able to elect only one of Alabama’s seven congressional representatives.Voting rights jurisprudence is extremely complicated, but I’ll do my best to be succinct and accurate in describing both the issues and one key reason for the surprise: The author of the majority opinion in Allen — which, again, generally cheered liberals and disappointed conservatives — was Chief Justice John Roberts. Ten years ago, he had written one of the most contentious Supreme Court opinions of the 21st century, Shelby County v. Holder.In Shelby County, a sharply divided 5-to-4 court gutted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by striking down elements of Section 4 that required the federal government to “preclear” or preapprove changes to the voting laws of a limited number of American states, counties and townships, essentially placing these jurisdictions under federal supervision to prevent them from enacting (or, more precisely, re-enacting) discriminatory voting laws. Each of the jurisdictions had an especially pernicious history of racial discrimination in voting.The states included seven of the old Confederacy, plus Alaska and Arizona, as well as a handful of counties and towns in other states (including the counties of New York, Bronx and Kings, or Brooklyn, in New York City, each of which had extraordinarily low Hispanic voter registration rates as well as a legacy of English literacy tests). In 1966, the Supreme Court had upheld the Voting Rights Act in an 8-to-1 decision, holding that “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.”In 2013, however, the Roberts court decided that some of those “exceptional conditions” no longer pertained. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Census Bureau data indicate that African American voter turnout has come to exceed white voter turnout in five of the six States originally covered by §5, with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one percent.”The decision didn’t gut the entire act. Section 2, which prohibits “denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote” on the basis of race, remained in force. But the meaning of Section 2 has been a subject of intense debate. Gerrymandering has been at the heart of that debate.If a state “cracks” a Black community (i.e., splits it apart into multiple districts) or “packs” one (i.e., concentrates its voters into supermajority districts) in a manner that leaves Black voters with diminished voting power, does that violate the act? It certainly does if it’s done with an explicit racial motive.But what if the state claims that the motive isn’t racial, but partisan? The Supreme Court has long granted states greater leeway to tilt the partisan playing field, and in a 2019 case, Rucho v. Common Cause, it seemed to throw up its hands entirely, holding that complaints against partisan gerrymandering weren’t “justiciable.” In other words, the solution to partisan gerrymandering abuses should be located in the political branches of government, not the courts.This ruling potentially created an immense opening for disguised racial gerrymanders, especially in heavily racially polarized states. Even worse, Alabama wanted the Supreme Court to modify existing precedent to give states even greater leeway in the face of claims of race discrimination. If Alabama prevailed, a Republican-dominated state could crack or pack Black communities and say that it was done not because the communities were Black, but because they were Democratic. Though the result — less Black representation in Congress — would be the same, the motive would be legal.Or would it? In Allen, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the three Democratic-appointed justices said no, not always. Under highly racially polarized voting conditions, Supreme Court authority will require the creation of majority-minority districts when, to quote Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, “(i) a State’s redistricting map cracks or packs a large and ‘geographically compact’ minority population and (ii) a plaintiff’s proposed alternative map and proposed majority-minority district are ‘reasonably configured.’”To translate the legalese: States and regions that are highly racially polarized can’t fracture or compress minority voting districts when reasonably drawn alternative maps would more closely maintain the relative power of minority voters. If anything, by reaffirming and clarifying existing precedents in the face of substantial legal doubt, the Court strengthened Section 2.I know that’s a lot to take in, but here’s where things get interesting. If you peruse recent exit polls, you’ll quickly observe that many of the old preclearance states retain exactly the kind of racially polarized voting patterns that, thanks to the Allen ruling, can trigger judicial skepticism. I quoted Alabama’s voting stats above. But what about other old preclearance states? In 2020, 77 percent of white Louisiana voters voted for Donald Trump, and 88 percent of Black voters voted for Joe Biden. In Mississippi, 81 percent of white voters voted for Trump and 94 percent of Black voters voted for Biden. In South Carolina, 69 percent of white voters voted for Trump and 92 percent of Black voters voted for Biden.While I certainly won’t argue that most white voters in those states are racist (indeed, a supermajority of voters in South Carolina supported Tim Scott, a Black Republican, for Senate), those numbers are not the American norm. Racial polarization exists more broadly, but not to the same extent. Nationally, for example, 55 percent of white voters voted for Trump, while 92 percent of Black voters voted for Biden. In some states, such as California and New York, Joe Biden received a majority of white and Black votes.Racially polarized voting isn’t proof of racism in any given voter’s heart. But it is part of the legacy of American bigotry and racial divisions. By preserving and clarifying the core of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — especially when voting is highly racially polarized — and by rejecting Alabama’s effort to limit Section 2, Chief Justice Roberts has subtly limited the reach of his own precedent. Now, thanks to Allen, many preclearance states will face greater scrutiny — unless and until their own cultural and political changes bring them closer to broader American partisan norms.That’s the legal impact, but there’s a cultural impact as well. In a tangible way, Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson brought the court’s precedent closer in line with the nation’s reality. Our country has made real progress in addressing racist violations of voting rights. The ruling in Shelby County reflected that encouraging truth. At the same time, our nation still hasn’t cleansed itself of racism or fully addressed the legacy of bigotry. The court’s holding in Allen acknowledged that sad fact.The law does not always align with the facts of American life, but in this case, the Supreme Court has brought it closer to proper balance. The Court is an embattled institution, yet it still retains some bipartisan wisdom. America has come so very far, so we must not despair as if all is lost. America still has so far to go, so we must not celebrate as if all is won.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Fact-Checking Nikki Haley on the Campaign Trail

      by

      The Republican presidential candidate has made inaccurate or misleading claims about abortion, trans youth, foreign policy and domestic issues.Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was the first prominent candidate to announce a challenge to former President Donald J. Trump’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination.Since entering the race in February, Ms. Haley has weighed in on social issues and tapped into her experience as a former United Nations ambassador under Mr. Trump to criticize current U.S. foreign policy.Here’s a fact check of her recent remarks on the campaign trial.Sex and gender issuesWhat Ms. Haley SAID“Roe v. Wade came in and threw out 46 state laws and suddenly said abortion any time, anywhere, for any reason.”— in a CNN town hall in JuneThis is exaggerated. Ms. Haley is overstating the scope of the landmark ruling Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion. The 1973 decision also ensured that states could not bar abortions before fetal viability, or when a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. That is not the same as “any time,” as Ms. Haley said. That moment was around 28 weeks after conception at the time of the decision and now, because of advances in medicine, stands at around 23 or 24 weeks.Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe in June 2022, most states had laws banning the procedure at some point, with 22 banning abortions between 13 and 24 weeks and 20 states barring abortion at viability. A spokesman for Ms. Haley noted that six states and Washington, D.C., had no restrictions when Roe was overturned.What Ms. Haley SAID“How are we supposed to get our girls used to the fact that biological boys are in their locker rooms? And then we wonder why a third of our teenage girls seriously contemplated suicide last year.”— in the CNN town hallThis lacks evidence. In February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported record levels of sadness and suicidal ideation among teen girls. And depression among teenagers, particularly girls, has been increasing for over a decade. The causes are debated, but experts said no research points to the presence of trans youth athletes in locker rooms, or increased awareness of L.G.B.T.Q. issues in general, as a causal or even contributing factor.“I can say unequivocally that there is absolutely no research evidence to support that statement,” said Dr. Kimberly Hoagwood, a child psychologist and professor at New York University. “The reasons for the increased prevalence of depression and suicide among teenage girls are complex, but have been researched extensively.”Dr. David Brent, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, noted that teen depression rates have been increasing since the 2000s while widespread discussion and awareness of gender issues are a more recent development.“It could be stressful for some people, for the trans kids as well,” he said. “But to try to say that this is the cause, well, it just can’t be because this is a public health crisis has been going on for 15 years.”Possible factors in rising rates of teen depression include economic stress, the rise of social media, lower age of puberty, increased rates of opioid use and depression among adult caretakers, Dr. Brent said. There is also the general decrease in play and peer-related time, decreases in social skills, and other social problems, Dr. Elizabeth Englander, a child psychologist and professor at Bridgewater State University, wrote in an email. L.G.B.T.Q. youth also have a higher risk for mental health issues, according to the C.D.C.“Even if someone has found an association between being around trans or L.G.B.T.Q. youth and increased depression in heterosexual youth (which, to my knowledge, no one has), it seems incredibly unlikely that such contact is an important cause of the current crisis in mental health that we see in youth,” Dr. Englander added, calling Ms. Haley’s theory “outrageous.”Ms. Haley has weighed in issues of identity and abortion and tapped into her experience as former United Nations ambassador.John Tully for The New York TimesForeign policyWhat Ms. Haley SAID“If we want to really fix the environment, then let’s start having serious conversations with India and China. They are our polluters. They’re the ones that are causing the problem.”— in the CNN town hallThis needs context. Ms. Haley has a point that China is the top emitter of greenhouse gasses and India is the third-largest emitter, according to the latest data from the European Commission. But the United States is the second-largest emitting country.Moreover, India and China are the most populous countries in the world and release less emissions per capita than many wealthier nations. In 2021, China emitted 8.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide per capita and India 1.9 metric tons, compared to the 14.24 metric tons of the United States.Ms. Haley’s spokesman noted that emissions from China and India have increased in recent years, compared with the United States’ downward trend, and are the top two producers of coal.Still, the two developing countries bear less historical responsibility than wealthier nations. The United States is responsible for about 24.6 percent of historical emissions, China 13.9 percent and India 3.2 percent.What Ms. Haley SAID“Last year, we gave over $50 billion in foreign aid. Do you know who we gave it to? We gave it to Pakistan that harbored terrorists that try to kill our soldiers. We gave it to Iraq that has Iranian influence, that says ‘death to America.’ We gave it to Zimbabwe that’s the most anti-American African country out there. We gave it to Belarus who’s holding hands with Russia as they invade Ukraine. We gave money to communist Cuba, who we named a state sponsor of terrorism. And yes, the most unthinkable, we give money to China.”— in a June fund-raiser in IowaThis is misleading. In the 2022 fiscal year, which ended in September, the United States gave out $50 billion in foreign aid. But the six countries Ms. Haley singled out received about $835 million total in aid or 1.7 percent of the total. Moreover, most foreign aid — about 77 percent, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service — is channeled through an American company or nonprofit, international charity or federal agency to carry out projects, and not handed directly to foreign governments.Zimbabwe received $399 million, Iraq $248 million, Pakistan $147 million, Belarus $32.8 million, Cuba $6.8 million and China $1.7 million.The biggest single contracts to aid Zimbabwe and Pakistan were $30 million and $16.5 million to the World Food Program to provide meals and alleviate hunger. In Iraq, the largest contract of $29 million was awarded to a United Nations agency. And in Cuba, the third-largest contract was carried out by the International Republican Institute — a pro-democracy nonprofit whose board includes Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, the host of the fund-raiser Ms. Haley was speaking at.In comparison, the country that received the most foreign aid, at about $10.5 billion or a fifth of the total amount, was Ukraine, followed by Ethiopia ($2.1 billion), Yemen ($1.4 billion), Afghanistan ($1.3 billion) and Nigeria ($1.1 billion).Another $12 billion was spent on global aid efforts in general, including about $4 billion in grants to the Global Fund, an international group that finances campaigns against H.I.V., tuberculosis and malaria.Domestic policyWhat Ms. Haley SAID“We will stop giving the hundreds of billions of dollars of handouts to illegal immigrants.”— in the CNN town hallThis is disputed. Unauthorized immigrants are barred from benefiting from most federal social safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps. But the spokesman for Ms. Haley gave examples of recent payments made by local governments that allowed unauthorized immigrants to participate in benefit programs: $2.1 billion worth of one-time payments of up to $15,600 to immigrants in New York who lost work during Covid-19 pandemic, totaling $2.1 billion; $1 million for payments to families in Boston during the pandemic; permitting unauthorized immigrants to participate in California’s health care program for low-income residents, which could cost $2.2 billion annually.These, however, do not add up to “hundreds of billions.” That figure is in line with an estimate from an anti-immigration group that other researchers have heavily criticized for its methodological flaws.The group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, estimated in March that illegal immigration costs the United States and local governments $135.2 billion each year in spending on education, health care and welfare, as well as another $46.9 billion in law enforcement.But the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, has found that an earlier but similar version of the estimate overcounted welfare benefits that undocumented immigrants receive, and undercounted the taxes that they pay. The net cost, according to Cato, is actually $3.3 billion to $15.6 billion.The American Immigration Council similarly concluded that education and health care account for more than half of the costs, and that the benefits were afforded to many American-citizen children of undocumented immigrants.The estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States are barred from the vast majority of the federal government’s safety net programs. In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that immigration, illegal and legal, benefited the economy.What Ms. Haley SAID“Let’s start by clawing back the $500 billion of unspent Covid dollars that are out there.”— in the CNN town hallThis is exaggerated. Ms. Haley overstated the amount of unspent coronavirus emergency funding. In reality, the amount is estimated to be much smaller, roughly $60 billion. What is more, a budget deal between President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy that was signed into law a day before Ms. Haley spoke rescinded about $30 billion of that leftover money.Lawmakers passed trillions of dollars in economic stimulus and public health funding, most of which has already been spent. The federal government’s official spending website estimates that Congress has passed about $4.65 trillion in response to Covid-19 (referred to as “budgetary resources”) and, as of April 30, paid out $4.23 trillion (or “outlays”), suggesting that about $423 billion has not gone out the door. But that calculation fails to consider the promises of payment (or “obligations”) that have been made, about $4.52 trillion. That is a difference of about $130 billion, but some of initially approved funding that was unspent and not yet promised has already expired.In April, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that rescinding unobligated funding from six laws between 2020 and 2023 — the four coronavirus packages, President Donald J. Trump’s last spending measure, and President Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus package — would amount to about $56 billion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that supports reduced government spending, estimated about $55.5 billion in unspent funds. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Finland Shifts Right With Coalition Including an Anti-Immigration Party

      by

      When the party of the country’s political rock star, former Prime Minister Sanna Marin, lost in April, a center-right party’s power rose.Finland’s main conservative party announced a new coalition government on Friday after weeks of negotiations, in a deal that moves the country firmly to the right and follows a pattern of similar political shifts elsewhere in Europe.Petteri Orpo, leader of the center-right National Coalition Party, would become prime minister under the coalition, which includes the right-wing nationalist Finns Party.“Finland needs change,” Mr. Orpo said at a news conference on Friday. “Our prosperity is hanging in the balance.”Assuming the coalition is approved when lawmakers vote on the prime minister in Parliament, probably next week, it will leave in opposition the more liberal Social Democratic Party led by the former prime minister Sanna Marin, who became a political rock star during her tenure. The new government is expected to introduce an era of financial belt-tightening and stricter immigration policies.Who won Finland’s election?A National Coalition Party election event in Helsinki in April. The party claimed a narrow win in the voting.Alessandro Rampazzo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesDespite popular support for Ms. Marin’s handling of issues such as the war in Ukraine and Finland’s joining NATO, the election in April largely hinged on economic concerns like high inflation and rising public debt. Right-leaning parties made gains by focusing on worries about the country’s financial situation and by calling previous migration policies too permissive. They also criticized high spending on the welfare system.The National Coalition Party, led by Mr. Orpo, promoted a conservative economic agenda, including cuts to some housing allowances and unemployment benefits, and claimed a narrow victory, with 20.8 percent of the vote. The Finns Party came second, at 20.0 percent, campaigning on pledges to cut immigration, reduce financial contributions to the European Union and slow down action on climate change. The Social Democrats were third, with 19.9 percent, underlining the closeness of the vote.Other European countries have tacked to the right in recent years, including Italy, which is governed by a coalition under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, leader of a party with post-Fascist roots; Sweden, which in September swapped a center-left government for a right-wing bloc; and Spain, which will hold a snap national election next month after the Socialist Workers’ Party of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was thumped in regional and local elections.Who is in the coalition?Representatives of the coalition parties, from left: Anna-Maja Henriksson of the Swedish People’s Party, Mr. Orpo, Riikka Purra of the Finns Party and Sari Essayah of the Christian Democrats.Heikki Saukkomaa/Lehtikuva, via Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAfter no party reached a majority in Parliament, National Coalition Party leaders began efforts to form a government in talks that would stretch for weeks. Mr. Orpo said the negotiations lasted so long because the potential coalition partners were trying to decide where to make onerous spending cuts and how to increase revenue. Mr. Orpo ultimately struck a deal with the Finns, but also with two other smaller parties which got about 4 percent of the vote each.One is the Swedish People’s Party, which aims to represent Finland’s minority Swedish-speaking population. The party, which is centrist, pro-European and socially liberal, was also part of Ms. Marin’s government.The other party in the coalition is the Christian Democrats, a center-right group.On Thursday, representatives of the parties gave a joint news conference to announce that they had reached consensus on a government program.“We have been able to find accord under heavy pressure,” Mr. Orpo said. “What unites us is that we want to fix Finland.”What is the coalition likely to change?Helsinki, the capital of Finland, last year. The election in April largely hinged on economic concerns.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesThe new coalition plans to bring down the debt level by implementing measures such as cutting subsidies, according to the program.Direct cuts to public spending would amount to €4 billion, or $4.37 billion, Mr. Orpo said at the news conference on Friday.“This is not easy,” he added. “We have to make cuts where it feels bad.”The coalition also vowed to halve the number of refugees that Finland accepts every year, to 500, from about 1,000, and in general to take a harder stance on immigration.The coalition also committed to keep Finland’s military spending in line with NATO’s goal of at least 2 percent of gross domestic product and to promote membership in the alliance for both Sweden and Ukraine. Some formal steps still need to be taken before the new government is installed, but Jenni Karimaki, a political scientist at the University of Helsinki, said that, with the details already ironed out by the parties in the coalition, she did not expect any last-minute changes.Who will be the next prime minister?Mr. Orpo campaigning in Vantaa, Finland, in April. “Finland needs change,” he said at a news conference on Friday. “Our prosperity is hanging in the balance.”Antti Aimo-Koivisto/Lehtikuva, via ReutersMr. Orpo, 53, has already served in past administrations as finance minister and deputy prime minister and has held several other ministerial roles. He is now poised to take the top job.Known for being a compromiser and a negotiator and for having an austere approach to public finances, Mr. Orpo’s style contrasts with that of his predecessor.“Finland’s prosperity cannot be based on debt,” he said on Friday.Ms. Marin, 37, gained a global profile for her defense of Ukraine and for her off-duty activities, too, having been caught on private videos partying with her friends, creating some debate within Finland about the appropriateness of her behavior. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Election Probe in Thailand Targets Pita Limjaroenrat

      by

      Activists say the case against the candidate, Pita Limjaroenrat, is part of a broader effort to nullify election results and further erode democracy in Thailand.Thailand’s Election Commission has announced that it will investigate Pita Limjaroenrat, the front-runner in the May general election, to determine whether he violated election rules that would disqualify him from becoming the country’s next prime minister.The investigation, announced last week, is centered on Mr. Pita’s shares of iTV, a company that used to be a news broadcaster but is now focused on advertising. Mr. Pita, 42, said he inherited the shares from his father. Thai law prohibits parliamentary candidates from owning media shares.Thailand’s Election Commission said it needs 60 days to certify the results of the vote, after which the House of Representatives and the military-appointed Senate are expected to jointly vote for the prime minister in August.But a month after Thai voters delivered a stinging rebuke to the military junta and handed Mr. Pita’s Move Forward Party a decisive victory, his fate as an elected leader remained unclear. Here’s what to know about the investigation.What’s at stake?Activists say the case against Mr. Pita and the Move Forward Party is part of a broader effort to roll back the results of the election and erode democracy in Thailand.The May election had a record turnout and was seen by many to be a vote against military rule. It also showed broad support for Move Forward, one of the few major political parties in Southeast Asia with a progressive platform.Arnon Nampa, a prominent Thai human rights lawyer, wrote on Facebook on Saturday that “people will take to the streets if the Thai elite makes elections meaningless.”Mr. Pita’s party wants to overhaul the old power structures that have dominated Thailand for decades, shrink the military’s budget, eliminate conscription and weaken a law that criminalizes criticism of the Thai monarchy.Move Forward has also said it wants to abolish monopolies, threatening the fortunes of the country’s wealthy aristocrats.What happens next?On June 20, a Senate committee will review the election commission’s order to investigate Mr. Pita, according to Senator Seree Suwanpanont.A former elections commissioner, Somchai Srisutthiyakorn, said the iTV case could go to the Constitutional Court if at least 50 members of Parliament or 25 senators sign a petition against Mr. Pita’s bid for prime minister.Even before this case, Mr. Pita was contending with an obstinate Senate unlikely to support him as prime minister. Mr. Somchai wrote on Facebook that now, the investigation could result in more senators refusing to back him.If Mr. Pita’s bid for prime minister fails, Pheu Thai, the second-largest party in Mr. Pita’s coalition, could field a candidate on its own as an alternative. Many expect Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the youngest daughter of Thaksin Shinawatra, a former prime minister now living in exile, to be in the running.Pheu Thai could also break away from Move Forward to form a new coalition that is more aligned with conservative parties. Pheu Thai has denied such plans.Has this happened before?Mr. Pita’s case echoes one filed against his predecessor, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, in 2019. That year, the Constitutional Court disqualified Mr. Thanathorn from elected office because he was found to have held shares in a media company. He argued unsuccessfully that he had sold the shares to his mother before running for Parliament.Mr. Thanathorn was the leader of the Future Forward Party, which was disbanded in 2020 by the Constitutional Court and is the predecessor of the Move Forward Party.Last week, the Election Commission dismissed several complaints from critics of Mr. Pita seeking to disqualify his candidacy, but the commission decided to launch its own criminal probe to find out if Mr. Pita ran for Parliament knowing he was ineligible because of his iTV shares.If he is found guilty, Mr. Pita could face up to 10 years in prison and a 20-year ban on voting.On Tuesday, Mr. Pita told reporters that he was confident about his legal standing, saying the investigation “will not be an obstacle to me becoming Thailand’s 30th prime minister.”On Thursday, iTV said that the minutes of the meeting did not intend to imply that it was still operating as a media company.What are the details of the complaint?Politicians from the Move Forward Party have said the case is a blatant attempt to prevent them from forming a new government and taking back power from the conservative establishment and military-appointed Senate.Earlier this month, Mr. Pita posted on Facebook that iTV had not operated as a media company since March 2007.Thailand has been roiled by a leaked audio recording released last weekend of an April 26 iTV shareholders’ meeting. In the recording, the president of the company tells a shareholder that iTV is no longer in the media business.But the recording contradicts the minutes of the same meeting, in which the president calls iTV a media entity. Those minutes have been submitted in the complaint against Mr. Pita.In his Facebook post, Mr. Pita said that the shareholder raised the question a few days before he applied to run for prime minister and suggested that the inquiry was politically motivated.Muktita Suhartono More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Greece Continues Search for Migrants After Crowded Ship Capsizes

      by

      The authorities revised the official toll of the deadly shipwreck down by one, to 78, but there are fears that hundreds of people may be missing.The grim search by Greek authorities for migrants after the country’s deadliest shipwreck in years moved into a second day on Thursday, though the prospects of finding survivors was slim and hundreds were feared to be missing after their fishing ship capsized about 50 miles off the coast.Scores of bodies were recovered from the sea and 104 people were rescued on Wednesday, after their vessel foundered in the Mediterranean Sea, off the southern coast of Greece, five days after setting sail from Libya bound for Italy.As several vessels helped gather the bodies from the sea, the Greek Shipping Ministry lowered the number of confirmed deaths by one, to 78, on Thursday morning after a count at the port of Kalamata, but the full toll is believed to be much higher.Survivors have told Greek officials that as many as 500 people were aboard, according to a Shipping Ministry official, who spoke on a condition of anonymity in keeping with the ministry’s past practice.Panagiotis Nikas, the regional governor for the Peloponnese region, told Greek news outlets on Wednesday that some survivors had suggested as many 750 passengers were on the ship, adding that the claim was being checked.Photographs of the vessel, a fishing trawler, taken by a Greek Coast Guard helicopter on Tuesday showed it to be hugely overcrowded with people none of whom appeared to be wearing life vests.Emergency workers rushed some survivors on stretchers to a nearby tent to receive medical aid.Hellenic Coastguard, via Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA C-130 transport plane aided the search overnight, according to the ministry, launching flares into the night sky to illuminate the sea and trace any survivors, but no one was found.Officials have conceded that any hopes of finding additional survivors, or even victims, are remote, because the boat sank in one of the deepest spots of the Mediterranean, where the seabed is at a depth of 4,000 meters, or about 2.5 miles.Nevertheless, the efforts continued on Thursday. “There is no plan to stop the search,” Nikolaos Alexiou, a spokesman for the Greek Coast Guard, told state television. “We’re continuing and the search will broaden.”The survivors will be moved to a state camp in Malakasa, north of Athens, as soon as processing by coast guard officials has been completed, the migration ministry said. The authorities were questioning several people from the ship who were believed to be smugglers, state television reported.The survivors, all men, are believed to be from Syria, Egypt and Pakistan. It remained unclear how many women and children might be among the missing.The tragedy unfolded as Greece is preparing for a general election on June 25, and it has prompted political leaders to suspend campaigning as a caretaker government announced three days of national mourning.The migration issue is already very sensitive in Greece, especially in light of the government’s tactics aimed at deterring migration, an approach that has widespread support but has been roundly criticized by rights groups.Greece is a major destination for migrants trying to make their way to Europe, and the sinking was the deadliest such episode off its coast since before 2015, when 70 people died after a boat carrying migrants sank near the island off Lesbos, according to the International Organization for Migration. More

    • 63 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and the Fun Factor

      by

      How his legal challenges play into his reputation as an entertainer.When Donald Trump was indicted on criminal charges in New York City two months ago, I tried to make sense of the political fallout with my colleague Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst. After poring over traditional markers about fund-raising and poll numbers, Nate mentioned another standard I’ve been thinking about over the past few days: Do Trump’s legal challenges make him more (or less) fun?The question is awkward, as it suggests that the reasons some Americans are drawn to politicians are divorced from the seriousness of their office. But after Trump’s arraignment in federal court in Miami this week, I’m reminded of its importance. Nate wasn’t calling Trump fun as a self-evident fact, but rather identifying a set of voters who are attracted to showmanship and celebrity, are distinct from Trump’s base and follow politics only casually, if at all.These voters matter for Trump’s 2024 campaign. Five percent of Trump’s voters in 2016 were disengaged from politics, a study by Democracy Fund, a pro-democracy group, found, and that is the type of margin that made a difference in such a close contest.What distinguishes this group? Perhaps you have a friend who doesn’t care about politics, but can’t believe Trump said THAT. Or who recognizes the belittling nicknames he bestowed on Republicans in the 2016 primary, like “Little Marco” Rubio and “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz, monikers that have stuck beyond Republican circles.Such awareness is part of the effect of Trump’s celebrity and ability to command attention in ways no other candidate can. When Trump was at his political peak, that quality extended beyond his most ardent supporters to political outsiders who were attracted to his style — or were at least entertained by it.2024 challengeAhead of the 2024 election, though, Trump’s crusade for supporters is failing to live up to his 2016 effort. At both of Trump’s arraignments, the number of people who came to the courthouse to defend him was smaller than expected. I’ve heard from Republican leaders — on Capitol Hill and in early voting states like Iowa — who say they have gotten fewer calls defending Trump than they anticipated. Even his return to CNN, in a widely criticized town hall last month, fell short of the ratings that Trump once delivered for cable networks.Perhaps most important, Trump himself looks miserable. Even as Republican voters have largely rallied behind him, and even as he remains the front-runner to secure the Republican nomination despite his cascading legal problems, he appears to be wrestling with the reality that his freedom is in jeopardy.“Some birthday,” he grumbled in Miami this week, ignoring a clear attempt by supporters to cheer him up on the week he turned 77.According to my colleagues Shane Goldmacher and Maggie Haberman, who have closely followed Trump’s political career, his speech in New Jersey after his arraignment brought down the mood of the party instead of jump-starting it. Trump turned what was meant to be a moment of defiance into a familiar litany of grievances. He invoked the tone of personal victimhood that Republicans have told me cost them votes in the 2022 midterms, when Trump focused on the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him.It’s not just that the indictments distract Trump from laying out an affirmative vision for the country. They can also stop him from being the most free version of himself.In a competitive Republican primary where another candidate can gain traction with the electorate (a possibility that remains to be seen), Trump’s inability to summon his freewheeling style is the type of difficult-to-quantify factor that can keep him from securing votes — and leave opportunities for opponents.Trump can, of course, return anytime to the unconstrained approach that won him so much attention in 2016 and since. His Republican primary competitors are already dreading the amount of media coverage they will lose this summer to his indictments, my colleagues Jonathan Swan and Jonathan Weisman reported.Yet these factors are part of the reason that many Democrats feel good about a potential matchup between President Biden and Trump. They argue that the electorate is simply exhausted with the chaos that he brought to national politics and that his legal troubles are a reminder of that aspect of his presidency. What was once fun (for some) no longer is.More Trump newsTrump’s own aides and lawyers could become witnesses against him.Judge Aileen Cannon is presiding over Trump’s case. Her experience as a judge in criminal cases has included just 14 trial days.The trial will test the legal system’s ability to guard national secrets while guaranteeing a fair and open trial, Politico writes.Groups like the Proud Boys have called for retribution, but large protests haven’t materialized outside Trump’s court appearances.Trump tried to undermine the charges by lashing out at Biden.Former Trump advisers are drawing up a plan to minimize the Justice Department’s independence from a future president.THE LATEST NEWSBusinessThe Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged after more than a year of increases. Officials say rates could rise twice more this year.European Union legislators took a major step toward regulating artificial intelligence. They want to put guardrails on risky uses of the technology.Retailers are fleeing downtown San Francisco. Read an interview with the mayor, who said she wants to turn offices into homes.Google is offering a small payment to anyone who clicked a search link between 2006 and 2013 to settle a lawsuit over privacy violations.InternationalThe U.S. has quietly resumed diplomacy with Iran, negotiating to limit Iran’s nuclear program and free imprisoned Americans.Boris Johnson misled British lawmakers over Covid lockdown parties, a damning report concluded. He quit Parliament last week after seeing an early version of the findings.Some Republicans want to cut military aid to Ukraine at a critical moment in the war. Here’s what you need to know about the counteroffensive.Pakistan is in political crisis. The military is cracking down on supporters of former Prime Minister Imran Khan as elections approach.A prominent journalist in Guatemala was sentenced to prison. Critics say the trial is a sign that the country’s democracy is crumbling.ClimateThe U.S. is paying Russia billions for enriched uranium for nuclear power.Global oil demand is likely to drop sharply over the next five years because of a shift to electric vehicles and other cleaner technologies.Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota residents have been under the polluted, orange skies seen in New York last week.South Korea is converting food waste, a major source of emissions, into fuel and fertilizer. See the process.Other Big StoriesA Baptist pastor appealing a decision to expel her church from the denomination.Christiana Botic for The New York TimesSouthern Baptists voted to restrict women in church leadership, opening hundreds of churches to investigation and expulsions.Francis Suarez, Miami’s mayor, entered the race for the Republican presidential nomination.A morgue manager at Harvard Medical School sold body parts from donated cadavers and let buyers choose which parts they wanted, prosecutors say.Starbucks workers in 21 states were told by their managers not to decorate for Pride Month, a union said.OpinionsNew York has a flooding problem. But proposed flood walls won’t solve it — and will block off beloved waterfront areas, Robert Yaro and Daniel Gutman write.Here are columns by Pamela Paul on estimating time and Charles Blow on Florida’s anti-transgender legislation.MORNING READSEid prayer in Brooklyn.Jonah Markowitz for The New York TimesDawn to dusk: A photographer spent two years immersed in Brooklyn’s fast-growing Bangladeshi community.Discovery: One of Saturn’s moons has all the ingredients for life, scientists found.Coming of age: In Detroit, a debutante ball where young Black women feel like they belong.The fixer: When he accidentally stole a Picasso, he knew who to call: Dad.Adjust your expectations: Lots of couples skip wedding night sex.Lives Lived: The editor Robert Gottlieb shaped novels, nonfiction books and magazine articles by a pantheon of acclaimed writers. He died at 92.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICBeal’s murky future: The Washington Wizards and Bradley Beal will work together to trade him if the team decides to rebuild.Messi’s M.L.S. limbo: Lionel Messi’s announcement last week that he plans to come to Inter Miami caught M.L.S. officials by surprise, a big reason he hasn’t yet finalized his contract.ARTS AND IDEAS The dad influencers Dave Ogleton, left, and Aaron Martin.via @fitdadceo, @stayathomedadDigital fatherhood: Dad influencers are finding big audiences on social media. The trend exploded during the pandemic, when many fathers were suddenly home all the time, and it has grown as men become more comfortable sharing the joys and struggles of parenting — often with dad jokes.“Our goal was mostly to have fun,” said Kevin Laferriere, a comedian who posts about his home life on TikTok. “Then we heard from dads who said heartfelt things like, ‘I’m the only stay-at-home dad I know, and your content helped me feel seen.’”More on cultureCormac McCarthy, who died this week at 89, was part of a generation that expanded what American prose could do, The Times’s A.O. Scott writes.Nine women filed a sexual assault lawsuit against Bill Cosby in Nevada. The state recently eliminated the statute of limitations for civil cases.The executive director of American Ballet Theater resigned without explanation.THE MORNING RECOMMENDS …Bobbi Lin for The New York TimesServe this pasta salad the day you make it for the brightest flavor.Stay calm during a bumpy flight with these tips.Try these $30 earbuds that tricked Wirecutter’s testers.Protect your eyes with cheap, yet effective sunglasses.Squash spotted lanternflies, an invasive species. They’re back for another summer.GAMESHere are today’s Spelling Bee and the Bee Buddy, which helps you find remaining words. Yesterday’s pangram was headwind.And here are today’s Mini Crossword, Wordle and Sudoku.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Key Environmentalists Back Biden, Despite Broken Oil Promises

      by

      Four major environmental groups are endorsing President Biden’s re-election bid, but some climate activists say his approval of drilling projects has been a betrayal.Four of the country’s largest environmental organizations said they are endorsing President Biden’s bid for re-election, despite anger from activists over his approval of a string of fossil fuel projects, including an enormous oil drilling plan in Alaska and a natural gas pipeline from West Virginia through Virginia.The League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and NextGen America said they were setting aside their concerns over those projects — and the planet-warming emissions they will release.The endorsements are some of the earliest by major environmental groups in a presidential contest. It is also the first time the four groups have made a joint endorsement.In lining up behind the president more than 16 months before the election, some advocates said they hoped to remind Democratic voters that Mr. Biden had enacted the biggest climate legislation in U.S. history, pouring at least $370 billion into clean energy and electric vehicles. His administration has also proposed strict regulations on pollution from automobiles, trucks and power plants that are designed to slash the nation’s emissions to their lowest levels in decades.“This is an administration that has done more to advance climate solutions than any by far,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the senior vice president of government affairs for the League of Conservation Voters.The joint endorsement was announced Wednesday night at the League’s annual dinner event in Washington, where Mr. Biden gave remarks showcasing his environmental record. He is expected to pick up another endorsement, from the A.F.L.-C.I.O., at a labor rally in Philadelphia on Saturday.“Certainly we don’t agree with every decision that they’ve made, but on balance this administration has done far more than any in history,” Ms. Sittenfeld said. She said the groups intend to recruit members to raise money for Mr. Biden’s campaign, participate in phone banks and attend rallies, particularly in battleground states.Mr. Biden campaigned in 2020 on the most ambitious climate agenda of any candidate, promising to slash U.S. emissions roughly in half this decade. Young voters, who surveys show are particularly concerned about global warming, turned out in force during that election. Half of eligible voters aged 18 to 29 cast ballots in that election, one of the highest rates of participation since the voting age was lowered to 18, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University.The landmark climate law Mr. Biden signed last year is projected to reduce America’s climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions by up to one billion tons in 2030, and proposed regulations could eliminate as much as 15 billion tons of carbon dioxide by 2055.But Mr. Biden also promised “no more drilling on federal lands, period. Period, period, period.”Despite that pledge, he has agreed to green-light a drilling project known as Willow on pristine federal land in Alaska and mandated the sale of offshore drilling leases as part of a deal to pass the climate bill. During negotiations with Republicans on the debt ceiling last month, Mr. Biden agreed to expedite the $6.6 billion Mountain Valley Pipeline, intended to carry natural gas about 300 miles from the Marcellus shale fields in West Virginia through Virginia to the North Carolina line. Environmental activists have been fighting that project for nearly a decade.For many young climate activists, it was the final straw.“You cannot honor the president and call him a climate champion when he is actively approving new fossil fuel projects,” said Michael Greenberg, president of Climate Defiance, a nonprofit group that has been disrupting events featuring Biden administration officials and other Democrats.Climate Defiance members intended to protest outside the League of Conservation Voters dinner on Wednesday night, Mr. Greenberg said.At a demonstration against the Mountain Valley Pipeline in front of the White House last week, Alice Hu, 25, said Mr. Biden’s climate legacy has been undercut by his approval of oil and gas development. As smoke from hundreds of Canadian wildfires hung in the air, Ms. Hu said the president needed to take on the fossil fuel industry in order to get her vote.“If he wants to count on progressive votes, if he wants to count on youth votes, he needs to stop being a climate villain,” she said.Cristina Tzintzun Ramirez, president of NextGen America, which is focused on young voters’ participation, said her group hoped to counter that dissent by endorsing Mr. Biden now. She noted that since Mr. Biden was elected in 2020, 17 million people have reached voting age.“We know we need to spend the time and money to tell young people about why their vote still matters, and that’s why we’re doing this endorsement so early.,” she said.The front-runner in the 2024 Republican field, former President Donald J. Trump, has attacked Mr. Biden’s climate policies, mocked climate science and championed the production of the fossil fuels chiefly responsible for warming the planet.Geoff Garin, a Democratic strategist and pollster, said young, climate-minded voters are going to be critical to Mr. Biden’s re-election. But he also argued that while young people want to see the president do more to tackle climate change, there is little evidence that those angry over Willow or the Mountain Valley Pipeline will have much influence.Still, Mr. Garin said, the Biden campaign needs to be better at communicating his climate achievements. “For Biden, what he’s dealing with young voters is a lack of recognition of what he’s done rather than hostility to any particular decision or policy,” he said. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      A President Governing From Behind Bars?!

      by

      Watching the torrent of invective and megalomania pouring from Donald Trump on Tuesday after his arraignment for a second time, what struck me was not so much the falsehoods as the desperation.“I am the only one that can save this nation,” Trump declared. He spoke of “the most evil and heinous abuse of power in the history of our country” — meaning his own “persecution.” He denounced the special counsel, Jack Smith, as “deranged.”Trump’s delirium didn’t seem to energize either him or the crowd, however, and this classic con man has seemed to shrink under prosecutorial scrutiny. It was difficult to avoid thinking of other leaders I’ve covered over the decades when they were scrambling to avoid prison; under investigation, they deflated before our eyes. Now the net is tightening around Trump.An absurd question keeps nagging at me: Could an inmate in a federal prison get a leave to attend his own presidential inauguration?I wonder about that because Trump seems to be moving simultaneously in two opposing and irreconcilable directions. First, it seems increasingly plausible that he will become the first former president to be convicted of a felony. Second, he also seems increasingly likely to win the Republican nomination for president, with the betting markets also giving him about a 22 percent chance of going on and actually being elected president.Any defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But some smart lawyers believe that for Trump, the “peril is extreme,” as one former federal prosecutor put it. Trump’s own attorney general William Barr said, “If even half of it is true, then he’s toast.”Trump could, of course, catch a break. The evidence from his own lawyer could be declared inadmissible in trial, or maybe the trial judge will allow stalling tactics by the defense, or maybe a die-hard sympathizer on the Florida jury will refuse to convict. But Trump could eventually be indicted in four separate criminal cases, and with so many cases swirling about, the odds increase that he may find himself convicted of at least some felonies.He would be a first offender, and it’s not certain that he would do prison time. Officials so far have been very deferential toward Trump: He hasn’t been handcuffed or subjected to a mug shot.Still, deference may end upon conviction, and defendants in less serious cases have ended up with substantial prison sentences. Just this month, a former Air Force officer was sentenced to three years in prison for keeping classified documents — and he had pleaded guilty and thus presumably received leniency. And during Trump’s presidency, Reality Winner leaked a single document and was sentenced to more than five years in prison.Even if Trump is convicted and imprisoned, he could continue to run for office and even presumably hold the office of president, if he isn’t too busy in the prison factory making license plates. Eugene Debs, the socialist candidate, famously ran for president from federal prison in 1920, receiving almost one million votes.I guess accommodations could be made so that prison officials didn’t listen in on phone conversations between federal inmate No. 62953-804 and Chinese and Russian leaders. Perhaps summits could be held in a larger cell? State banquets in the prison dining hall?One low-level precedent: Joel Caston, while serving a sentence for murder, was elected in 2021 to be an advisory neighborhood commissioner in Washington, D.C. But that’s an unpaid two-year advisory position, a bit different from the presidency.If Trump is both incarcerated and elected president, perhaps his cabinet could invoke the 25th Amendment and declare him unable to serve. But Trump presumably would carefully choose cabinet members who would never do that. Alternatively, maybe if elected, would he try to pardon himself?Is it conceivable that voters would actually choose as president a man who had been convicted of felonies, or was about to be? It seems hard to believe, but I also thought Trump was unelectable in 2016. It’s notable that as the legal cases against Trump have gained ground this year he has also risen in Republican polling.A plausible guess, based in part on the latest polling since the federal indictment, is that prosecutions could help him in the Republican primaries while hurting him in the general election. Looking ahead, news organizations must not drop the ball as they did in 2016, giving Trump a platform without adequately fact-checking him. We should enable democracy, not empower an antidemocratic demagogue.All in all, I think Trump is going down. But my nightmare is that the United States slips into a recession that voters blame on President Biden, that there is a Middle East crisis that raises oil and gas prices and that there is a third-party candidate who draws more votes from Biden than from Trump. Or perhaps Biden has a health crisis and the Democratic nominee is Kamala Harris, who I fear would be a substantially weaker candidate. In short, Trump’s election as president seems unlikely, but not impossible — and the consequences could be catastrophic.A sitting president governing from behind bars? It’s utterly unimaginable — right? The uncertainty speaks to a tragedy for our nation.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. More