Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      In Turkey, Erdogan Loyalists Can’t Imagine Anyone Else in Charge

      by

      Staunch supporters of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan still like his tough-guy rhetoric and critiques of the West and see no viable alternative, though he has been accused of mismanaging the economy.Memis Akbulut, a cellphone salesman, listed the reasons that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan could count on his support in elections on Sunday that could drastically change the course of the country: He is charismatic, a world leader who has strengthened Turkey’s defenses and battled terrorism.And thanks to a regulation that Mr. Erdogan pushed in the months leading up to the vote, Mr. Akbulut will soon receive an early pension from the government — at age 46.“Everything is a 10,” he said recently in the central city of Kayseri. “I will vote for the president,” he added. “Is there anyone else?”The presidential and parliamentary elections are shaping up to be Mr. Erdogan’s toughest electoral fight during his two decades as Turkey’s predominate politician. A cost-of-living crisis has angered many voters, and his government stands accused of mismanaging the initial response to catastrophic earthquakes in February. Recent polls suggest a tight race — and, perhaps, even a defeat — for Mr. Erdogan.The political opposition has formed a broad coalition aimed at ousting him. Six parties are backing a joint presidential candidate, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, a former civil servant who has vowed to undo Mr. Erdogan’s legacy and restore Turkey’s democracy.Mr. Erdogan’s die-hard supporters, which pollsters estimate to be about one-third of the electorate, see no reason for Turkey to change course. They love the president’s nationalist bombast, religious outlook and vows to stand up for the country against an array of forces they view as threats, including terrorist organizations, gay rights activists, the United States and NATO.“Erdogan succeeded in building a close relationship with his electorate over the past 20 years,” said Akif Beki, a former adviser to the president who has broken with him and his governing party.Muslims praying in a mosque at the end of the holy fasting month of Ramadan in Kayseri last month. Mr. Erdogan has expanded the place for religious people in Turkey’s secular state.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesOthers have benefited in concrete ways, either politically or financially, from links to Mr. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, also known as the A.K.P., Mr. Beki said.“There is a new class that has arisen in his 20 years, and their interests are overlapping with Erdogan’s,” Mr. Beki said. “It is expecting them to act against their interests to expect them to go against the A.K.P. and Mr. Erdogan.”Mr. Erdogan’s critics note that Turkey’s gross domestic product began declining about a decade ago, and annual inflation, which surpassed 80 percent last year, has left many Turks feeling poorer. Most economists say Mr. Erdogan’s unorthodox financial policies have exacerbated the crisis.During his years in power, the president has consolidated his control over much of the state, tilting Turkey toward autocracy, while frustrating the United States and other NATO allies by maintaining a close relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia after his invasion of Ukraine last year.Kayseri, in central Turkey, has long been a stronghold of Mr. Erdogan, voting for him and his party, often overwhelmingly so, in every election since 2002. Recent conversations with more than two dozen voters there showed that many still admire his leadership while others simply can’t imagine anyone else in charge.When Mr. Erdogan appeared on the national scene as a young, dynamic prime minister in 2003, he and his party promised competent governance, reliable services and economic growth.And for many years, they delivered it.Turks’ incomes rose as their cities became cleaner and better organized. Between 2003 and 2013, the national economy grew threefold, new hospitals, airports and highways were built around the country, and voters rewarded Mr. Erdogan at the ballot box, electing him president in 2014 and 2018.Kayseri has voted for Mr. Erdogan and his party in every election since 2002.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesKayseri, an industrial city of 1.4 million people in the shadow of a snow-capped peak, benefited during the Erdogan era, developing into an attractive city, with subway and tram lines, universities and factories that produce everything from shipping containers to furniture — much of it for export.Sevda Ak, an Erdogan supporter, acknowledged that the high inflation had harmed her family’s purchasing power. But she was counting on Mr. Erdogan to fix it.“If we shop for one child, we can’t shop for the other,” said Ms. Ak, 38 and a mother of three. “But it is still Erdogan who can solve it.”Her sister, Ayse Ozer, 32, credited Mr. Erdogan with developing the country but said he should crack down on merchants she accused of price gouging.Extremely high inflation, which surpassed 80 percent last year, has left many Turks feeling poorer.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesMr. Erdogan’s critics, on the other hand, accuse him of weakening Turkey’s democracy. And many in the West see him as problematic partner, a leader of a NATO country who snarled the alliance’s plans to expand after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Turkey waited many months to accept Finland into the alliance, but has still refused to admit Sweden.Mr. Erdogan’s most loyal followers, however, see those actions as signs of strength.“He doesn’t bow to anyone,” said Mustafa Akel, 48, a laborer in a door factory. “He built ships. He built drones. If he leaves, the one who will replace him is going to work to fill his own pockets.”He acknowledged that Mr. Erdogan had profited, too, during his time in power. But no matter.“I don’t think anyone else can rule this country,” he said.Nor did many voters in Kayseri fault Mr. Erdogan’s government for its initially slow response to the earthquakes on Feb. 6 that killed more than 50,000 people in southern Turkey. The high death toll raised questions about whether his emphasis on new construction ignored regulations designed to make buildings safe.“They did their best and they are still doing it,” said Rukiye Yozgat, 35.Rubble in Kahramanmaras, Turkey, after earthquakes on Feb. 6 killed more than 50,000 people.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesMs. Yozgat also praised Mr. Erdogan for granting more rights to religious women like her, recalling that when she had started university in 2009, she had been barred from wearing a head scarf on campus.Although a predominately Muslim country, Turkey was founded in 1923 as a secular republic that sought to keep religion out of public life by, for example, barring women in government jobs from wearing head scarves. Mr. Erdogan has branded himself as the defender of the devout and expanded the role of religion in public life, pushing to expand Islamic education and loosening rules like the head scarf ban, which has won him the support of many religious voters.In the months leading up to the vote, Mr. Erdogan has also tapped the power of his office to appeal to voters and mitigate the effects of inflation by raising the minimum wage, boosting civil servants’ salaries and changing retirement regulations to allow millions of workers to receive early pensions.And in recent weeks, he has invoked national pride in ways that appeal to many Turks.He had a new, Turkish-built warship, the TCG Anadolu, dock in central Istanbul, where voters could walk aboard. He became the first owner of the first Turkish-built electric car. Via video link, he welcomed the first fuel delivery to a Russian-built nuclear power plant near the Mediterranean. He announced the start of production of Turkish natural gas in the Black Sea and promised free shipments to Turkish homes.Few voters in Kayseri seemed impressed with the opposition, and many doubted its six parties could work together effectively.Askin Genc, a parliamentary candidate for the opposition Republican People’s Party, said he expected the economy to give the opposition an opening.“The cost of living will have an effect at the ballot box,” he said.A political rally in central Kayseri last month. About six million young Turks will be able to vote for the first time, and analysts say Mr. Erdogan has struggled to entice them.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesThe opposition was also hoping to attract young voters, he said. About six million young Turks, out of 60.6 million eligible voters, will be able to vote for the first time, and analysts say Mr. Erdogan has struggled to entice them.Many voters expressed frustration with Mr. Erdogan’s stewardship of the economy, but few said they would switch to the opposition because of it.Ali Durdu, who was shopping with his family at an outdoor market, said he had long voted for Mr. Erdogan but was mad about high prices and would sit out this election. His wife, Merve, was also mad at Mr. Erdogan, but would vote for him anyway.“Erdogan has his mistakes,” she said. “But he’s the best of the worst.”An election poster of Mr. Erdogan in Kayseri. He has tapped the power of his office to appeal to voters and mitigate the effects of inflation.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Your Tuesday Briefing: Texas Reels From Mass Shootings

      by

      Also, evacuation orders in occupied Ukraine.A memorial to shooting victims outside a shopping mall near Dallas, Texas.Cooper Neill for The New York TimesTexas shaken by mass shootingsThirteen people have been killed in mass shootings in Texas in the past two weeks. The mass murders have fueled a new openness to gun regulation among some Texans, but Republican lawmakers have shown no interest in taking action to address the violence.In fact, Texas has increased access to guns during the past two years even as the state endured more than a dozen mass killings, including a shooting at a school in Uvalde, where a gunman killed 19 children and two adults. The state did away with its permit requirements to carry handguns. It also lowered the age to carry handguns to 18 from 21.While less supportive of stricter gun regulation than Americans as a whole, Texans support some limited gun control measures, polls show. Over the past few years views on guns among Republican voters in Texas have appeared to moderate somewhat.But Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, said that there would be no new effort by his administration to limit access to firearms, because it would not work.Recent shootings: On Sunday, a gunman killed eight people in a mall outside Dallas, before the police killed him. The gunman may have espoused white supremacist ideology; authorities are examining a social media profile, rife with hate-filled rants against women and Black people, that they believe belonged to him. A week earlier, five people were killed after they asked their neighbor to stop shooting in his front yard.The national picture: A nonprofit group has counted more than 200 mass shootings in the U.S. this year.Russian shelling damaged this building in the Zaporizhzhia region.Andriy Andriyenko/Associated PressRussia prepares for a counteroffensiveWith heavy fighting expected very soon, Russian officials in some occupied areas of Ukraine have ordered evacuations. But some Ukrainians there are staying, and residents described an atmosphere of confusion, defiance and scarcity.About 70,000 people were expected to move from the Zaporizhzhia region after officials issued evacuation orders for 18 towns and villages. The region is one of the areas along the long front line where Ukraine could try to break through the Russian defenses.But while the evacuation was described as mandatory, there appeared to be little effort to force people to leave. In Zaporizhzhia, in fact, few people appeared to be heeding the orders. More than a dozen people there, and in the Kherson region, told our colleagues that gas stations were running dry, grocery store shelves were emptying and A.T.M.s were out of cash.Fighting: In Zaporizhzhia, there was no indication of a Russian withdrawal, Ukrainian military officials and Western military analysts said. Instead, Russia’s troops are expanding defensive fortifications — a sign that they are digging in for coming battles.Other updates from the war:Russia launched a large wave of attack drones at Kyiv overnight. Ukraine said it had shot all of them down. Russia’s celebrations for Victory Day today have been scaled back because of security concerns. President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to address the nation.Investigators inspected the scene of the deadly hospital fire in Beijing.Kevin Frayer/Getty ImagesChina hospital fire exposes elder care shortfallA fire at a hospital in southern Beijing last month left at least 29 dead, many of them older people with disabilities who had been at the facility for months, and in some cases years. The hospital was not licensed to provide long-term elder care.The tragedy exposed a serious problem: the country’s supply of nursing home beds has not kept pace with its rapidly aging population. The authorities have recognized the urgency of addressing the shortage, but many obstacles remain.The stigma against retirement facilities abounds in a culture that emphasizes children’s duties toward their parents. Public facilities have long waiting lists, and private ones can be prohibitively expensive. In addition, getting a facility licensed to offer elder care in the first place is a complicated bureaucratic process, leading some private companies to operate underground.THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificA local police officer said the boat was “overcrowded.” Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAt least 22 people, many of them children, died in the Indian state of Kerala when a tourist boat capsized.China’s foreign minister met with the U.S. ambassador to China in Beijing yesterday, a sign of a possible thaw in relations.Other Big StoriesAs Britain’s coronation celebrations ended, there were signs that both the nation and its royal family were preparing for a new era.Israel’s court crisis is at the front line of a longstanding dispute between ultra-Orthodox Jews and those who support religious pluralism and secularism.Floods and landslides have killed more than 400 people in the Democratic Republic of Congo. More rain is expected in the coming days.Wildfires have burned almost 1 million acres in Western Canada.Here is King Charles’s official portrait. The photographer had just minutes to capture the image.A Morning ReadCalla Kessler for The New York TimesFor canine experts, an invitation to be a judge at the Westminster Dog Show is an honor and a serious responsibility. In all, more than 2,500 dogs are competing, with the Best in Show prize to be awarded today in New York City.“It’s harder to become a dog judge than a brain surgeon, to tell you the truth,” a veteran judge said.ARTS AND IDEASDancers practiced in Hawaii last month.Brendan George Ko for The New York TimesPreserving the “heartbeat” of HawaiiIn the imaginations of many outside Hawaii, hula may conjure images of coconut bras and cellophane skirts, a misunderstanding perpetuated by pop cultural representations in film and television.But hula is an ancient and often sacred dance, one of the ways Native Hawaiians documented their history, mythology, religion and knowledge. And the Merrie Monarch Festival is hula’s Olympics.For the last 60 years, the festival, held in the sleepy town of Hilo, has helped reclaim Hawaii’s native culture, language and identity. The festivities honor King David Kalakaua, who assumed the throne of Hawaii in 1871, and is credited with reviving many ancient practices, most notably, hula, which he called “the heartbeat of the Hawaiian people.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookRyan Liebe for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Barrett Washburne.Lime and habaneros make this saltfish buljol, a Caribbean cod dish, taste spiky and bright.What to WatchIn “Slava Ukraini,” Bernard-Henri Lévy documents the war in the second half of 2022.What to Read“King: A Life” is the first major biography of Martin Luther King, Jr., in decades.ParentingTips to help a teen with insomnia.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Pig food (four letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you tomorrow. — Amelia and JustinP.S. The Times won two Pulitzers for our reporting in Ukraine and on Jeff Bezos.“The Daily” is on the U.S. Supreme Court.We welcome your feedback. You can reach us at briefing@nytimes.com. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why Joe Biden Needs a Primary Challenger in the 2024 Race

      by

      To understand why progressives should challenge Joe Biden in the upcoming Democratic presidential primary, remember what happened during the last one.When Bernie Sanders exited the 2020 race — after winning more than 1,000 delegates — he cashed in his votes for public policy clout. Mr. Sanders’s supporters joined Mr. Biden’s allies in working groups that crafted a common agenda on the economy, education, health care, criminal justice, immigration and climate change. From those task forces came what Barack Obama called “the most progressive platform of any major-party nominee in history.” And that progressivism continued into Mr. Biden’s presidency. One hundred days after he took office, The New York Times concluded that he had “moved leftward with his party, and early in his tenure is driving the biggest expansion of American government in decades.”By challenging him from the left, Mr. Sanders didn’t only change Mr. Biden’s candidacy. He also made him a better president. But only on domestic policy. There was no joint working group specifically devoted to foreign affairs — and it shows. With rare exceptions, Mr. Biden hasn’t challenged the hawkish conventional wisdom that permeates Washington; he’s embodied it. He’s largely ignored progressives, who, polls suggest, want a fundamentally different approach to the world. And he’ll keep ignoring them until a challenger turns progressive discontent into votes.Take China. America’s new cold war against Beijing may enjoy bipartisan support in Washington, but it doesn’t enjoy bipartisan support in the United States. According to an April Pew Research Center poll, only 27 percent of Democrats see China as an enemy — roughly half the figure among Republicans. In a December 2021 Chicago Council survey, two-thirds of Republicans — but less than four in 10 Democrats — described limiting China’s global influence as a very important foreign policy goal.Grass-roots Democratic voters dislike the government in Beijing. But they oppose a new cold war for two key reasons. First, their top foreign policy priorities — according to an April Morning Consult poll — are combating climate change and preventing another pandemic. Treating China as an enemy undermines both. Second, they oppose higher military spending, which a new cold war makes all but inevitable.But the Biden administration isn’t listening. When Secretary of State Antony Blinken outlined the administration’s China policy in a speech last May, it took him 38 minutes to even mention climate or public health. As the Brookings Institution detailed last November, the growing animosity between the United States and China “pushes solutions to global challenges such as climate change, pandemic crises and nuclear proliferation farther out of reach.”Mr. Biden isn’t listening to ordinary Democrats on military spending, either. In March, he proposed lavishing more on defense, adjusted for inflation, than the United States did at the height of the last Cold War.China is not the only place where Mr. Biden’s policies more closely resemble Donald Trump’s than those desired by his party’s base. Despite polls early in Mr. Biden’s presidency showing that almost three-quarters of Democrats wanted him to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal that Mr. Trump exited, Mr. Biden refused to sign an executive order doing that. He instead made additional demands on Tehran, which prompted negotiations that squandered the final months of President Hassan Rouhani’s relatively moderate government. By the summer of 2021, Iran had a hard-line president, which made reviving the deal nearly impossible. Now Tehran is on the verge of being able to build a nuclear bomb.A similar pattern characterizes Mr. Biden’s policy toward Cuba. When President Obama opened relations with the island, ordinary Democrats applauded. Then Mr. Trump reimposed sanctions, many of which Mr. Biden has kept. In so doing, according to Ben Rhodes, Mr. Obama’s former deputy national security adviser, Mr. Biden has chosen to “legitimize what Trump did by continuing it.”Mr. Biden has mimicked his predecessor on Israel, too. Mr. Trump closed America’s consulate in East Jerusalem, which served the largely Palestinian half of the city. It remains closed. Mr. Trump shuttered the Palestine Liberation Organization’s office in Washington, the closest thing that Palestinians had to an embassy. It’s still shut. And despite polls showing that more Democrats now sympathize with the Palestinians than with Israel, the Biden administration will not even investigate whether Israel’s use of American weapons to abuse Palestinian human rights violates U.S. law.There are exceptions to this pattern. Grass-roots Democrats generally support the administration’s Ukraine policy, which has twinned support for Kyiv with efforts to avoid direct confrontation with Moscow. And Mr. Biden fulfilled a progressive demand by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan — although that commendable decision now looks less like an effort to restrain American militarism than to redirect it toward China.Overall, however, Mr. Biden’s foreign policy has been more hawkish than Mr. Obama’s, even as his domestic policy has been more progressive. Only a 2024 primary challenge offers any hope of changing that.Long before Bernie Sanders ran for president, progressives had a long history of using primary challenges to convey their frustration with Democratic Party elites. By winning 42 percent of the vote in the 1968 New Hampshire primary, Eugene McCarthy exposed dissatisfaction with Lyndon Johnson’s war in Vietnam. In 2004, Howard Dean did something similar when he almost upset a Democratic field composed largely of legislators who had voted to invade Iraq. And although they both lost, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Dean each laid the groundwork for antiwar candidates — George McGovern in 1972 and Barack Obama in 2008 — who won the Democratic nomination four years later.Foreign policy doesn’t motivate voters today in the way it did when American troops were dying in Vietnam and Iraq. But an outsider candidate need not do as well as Mr. McCarthy or Mr. Dean to show the Biden foreign policy team that it’s out of step with the party’s base.And that challenger would enjoy other advantages. Close to half of Democratic voters think Mr. Biden should not run again, which makes him vulnerable to a challenger who mobilizes ideological discontent. That doesn’t mean a challenger would undermine Mr. Biden’s chances in the general election. Democrats — including supporters of Mr. Sanders’s insurgency — turned out for him in November 2020 because they were terrified of a Republican in the White House. They remain terrified today. Given the disillusionment with American military intervention coursing through the Trump-era G.O.P., a less confrontational foreign policy might even attract some on the political right.A primary opponent would risk the Democratic establishment’s wrath. But he or she could put into circulation ideas that won’t otherwise get a hearing in official Washington: a joint U.S.-China initiative to support green energy in the developing world, a ban on U.S. policymakers cashing in with weapons makers and foreign governments once they leave office, the repeal of sanctions that immiserate ordinary people while entrenching rather than dislodging repressive regimes.Mr. Biden’s presidency has a split personality. On domestic policy, he’s been the most progressive president since Lyndon Johnson. But on Israel, Cuba and Iran, he’s continued some of Mr. Trump’s dumbest and cruelest policies. On China, he’s leading the United States into a cold war that imperils public health, ecological survival and global peace. Next year’s election offers the best chance to make him change course. But only if some enterprising progressive puts foreign policy on the ballot.Peter Beinart (@PeterBeinart) is a professor of journalism and political science at the Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He is also an editor at large of Jewish Currents and writes The Beinart Notebook, a weekly newsletter.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

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Your Monday Briefing: Kishida Visits Seoul

      by

      Also, the U.S. braces for a surge of immigrants this week.President Yoon Suk Yeol’s critics say he has given too much and has received too little in return from Japan.Pool photo by Jung Yeon-JeJapan’s leader visits SeoulPrime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan is in South Korea today, where he is meeting President Yoon Suk Yeol in an effort to nurture a fledgling détente. Yesterday, in Seoul, the two leaders agreed to press ahead with joint efforts to improve bilateral ties — even though Kishida did not apologize for Japan’s colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula in the early 20th century.Kishida went no further than saying that Japan stood by past statements, when some of his predecessors expressed remorse and apologies. He said that his “heart ached” when he thought of the suffering of the Koreans, but his words fell short of the clear and direct apology that many South Koreans, including the head of the main opposition party, had demanded.Yoon said he would not dwell on seeking such an apology, despite criticism from some Koreans: “It’s not something we can unilaterally demand; it’s something that should come naturally from the other side’s sincerity.” Instead, Yoon urged his nation to focus on the immediate challenges from North Korea and China.Context: Kishida’s two-day trip follows a visit in March by Yoon to Tokyo. It means that shuttle diplomacy is back on track after regular exchanges between the countries’ leaders ended in 2011 over historical differences.The U.S. angle: The vows to deepen national ties are another encouraging sign for the U.S., which has been urging Japan and South Korea to let go of past grievances and cooperate.In El Paso, Texas, migrants wait outside churches where they can get donated food and clothing. Justin Hamel for The New York TimesU.S. readies for immigration surgeThe U.S. is preparing to lift a pandemic-era emergency health rule that prevented hundreds of thousands of people from entering the country. It is bracing for a crush of people at the border with Mexico — and a flare in political tensions.The U.S. is expecting as many as 13,000 migrants each day beginning Friday, immediately after the measure expires. That’s up from about 6,000 migrants on a typical day. Three cities in Texas declared a state of emergency, and President Biden recently ordered 1,500 troops to the border.More people are coming from far-flung nations in economic distress or political turmoil — like Venezuela, China, India and Russia. Inside the U.S., the debate over the broken immigration system is still polarized and overheated, posing a serious political risk as the 2024 campaign starts.Context: The order, known as Title 42, allowed the U.S. government to swiftly expel citizens of several countries back to Mexico. Asylum: A tough new rule that disqualifies asylum seekers who did not first seek protection elsewhere will go into effect on Thursday.Mayor Ken Sim, right, in Vancouver’s Chinatown.Jackie Dives for The New York TimesDid China interfere in Canadian elections?The mayor of Vancouver, Ken Sim, is caught in a political storm over reports of Chinese efforts to sway elections. Sim, Vancouver’s first mayor of Chinese descent, said his sweeping victory had been hard won and suggested that he was being targeted because of his ethnic background.The debate gained steam in February when the Globe and Mail newspaper said classified intelligence reports showed that China tried to manipulate Canadian elections — including in Vancouver. The reports have not been made public, but are said to conclude that China tried to ensure victory for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party in the two most recent federal elections and support for candidates of Chinese descent.China’s former consul general in Vancouver sought to groom local Chinese Canadian politicians, according to the reports. Sim’s rival is also calling for China’s interference to be investigated. Sim rejects claims that Beijing meddled, and instead points to his tireless campaigning and more appealing policies to explain his landslide victory. “If I was a Caucasian male, we wouldn’t be having this conversation,” he said.Analysis: Canada’s former ambassador to China said that Canada was seen by Beijing as a target of influence partly because Beijing sought to use Canada as a lever to press the U.S. to soften its opposition to China.THE LATEST NEWSAround the WorldAs of May, a nonprofit group has recorded 192 mass shootings in the U.S.Jeremy Lock/ReutersAt least nine people died, including the gunman, in a mass shooting at a mall in Texas.King Charles III was crowned on Saturday. Here are pictures from the coronation.Arab nations agreed to let Syria rejoin the Arab League, a step toward ending the country’s 12-year-long international ostracism.Israel is refusing to hand over the body of a prominent Palestinian prisoner, drawing scrutiny of the country’s practice of keeping bodies as leverage to bargain for Israeli remains.The War in UkraineUkraine is feeling immense pressure from Western allies for success in a looming counteroffensive.More than 5.5 million Ukrainians who left after the war began have returned home — even if it is near the front line.The Dnipro River, a front line in the war, is an ancient battleground. Our photographer spent weeks traveling along the waterway. See her images.Asia PacificThe violence in Manipur erupted over a question of who gets to claim special tribal status.Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesEthnic clashes have killed dozens of people in Manipur, a remote state in northeast India.A group of top Indian wrestlers, who accused the sport’s top official in the country of serial sexual harassment, vowed to continue pushing for his arrest.DNA evidence helped confirm that a “great father” who lived in Australia under an alias was actually a convicted killer and an escaped inmate from Nebraska.Netflix, encouraged by the success of “The Glory,” plans to spend $2.5 billion more on Korean content.The Australia Letter: Can Warner Bros. stop a Tasmanian sports team from being called the Tasmanian Devils?A Morning ReadSaumya Khandelwal for The New York TimesSherpa guides are leaving the industry of taking trekkers up Mount Everest and encouraging their children to pursue other careers. There are many reasons for the shift: The job is dangerous, the pay is modest and there’s scant job security.“I see no future,” Kami Rita Sherpa, a renowned guide pictured above in blue, told his son.SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAThis family left Khartoum and traveled 10 days to reach Aswan, Egypt.Heba Khamis for The New York TimesOn the run, againSudan’s war, sparked by two feuding generals, has driven more than 100,000 civilians across borders, and aid workers say as many as 800,000 could be forced to flee in the coming months.Thousands have fled to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and to relatively safer towns within Sudan. For many on the run, flight is not new. “The really, really sad thing about this is that this is not the first time these people are fleeing,” said Charlotte Hallqvist, a spokeswoman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for South Sudan.Sudan had more than a million refugees from countries already torn apart by civil war, like Syria and South Sudan. It also had millions of internally displaced people fleeing conflict within Sudan. Now, as the new fighting enters a fourth week, these people are on the move again, facing another wave of violence and trauma.In the Darfur region of Sudan, more than three million were driven from their homes during a civil war in the early 2000s. Just weeks before the latest violence broke out, local authorities had started planning the gradual voluntary return of refugee communities in Darfur, said Toby Harward, principal situation coordinator in Darfur for the U.N.H.C.R. Instead, more are now fleeing the region. — Lynsey Chutel, a Times writer in JohannesburgPLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookKelly Marshall for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Roscoe Betsill. Prop Stylist: Paige Hicks.These toasted sesame and scallion waffles are light and savory.What to Listen toTimes music critics curated a playlist of 11 new songs.The News QuizTest your memory of last week’s headlines.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Theater backdrops (four letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. The W.H.O. announced that smallpox had been eradicated 43 years ago today.“The Daily” is about the Hollywood strike. “Hard Fork” is on the social media site Bluesky.Email us at briefing@nytimes.com.Lynsey Chutel, a Times writer in Johannesburg, wrote today’s Spotlight on Africa. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Roy Saltman, Who Warned About Hanging Chads, Dies at 90

      by

      He foresaw the problems with punch-card ballots that benumbed the nation after Florida’s chaotic vote in the 2000 presidential election. His warnings went largely unheeded.Roy G. Saltman, the federal government’s leading expert on computerized voting whose overlooked warning about the vulnerability of punch-card ballots presaged the hanging chad fiasco in Florida that came to symbolize the disputed recount in the 2000 presidential election, died on April 21 in Rockville, Md. He was 90.His death, in a nursing home, was caused by complications of recent strokes, his grandson Max Saltman said.In a 132-page federal report published in 1988 and distributed to thousands of local voting officials across the country, Mr. Saltman, an analyst working for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, cautioned that the bits of cardboard that voters were supposed to punch out from their ballots, known as chads, might remain partly attached (hence, hanging), or pressed back into the card when the votes were counted.Either event would render the voter’s choice uncertain or, if the ballot appeared to be picking more than one candidate, invalid.“It is recommended,” Mr. Saltman said flatly, “that the use of pre-scored punch card ballots be ended.”His recommendation was largely ignored, certainly in Florida, where the initial count in the 2000 election gave the Republican candidate, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, a 1,784-vote lead over the Democrat, Vice President Al Gore, a margin so close that state law required a recount.Armies of lawyers and political operatives descended on Florida, suits and countersuits were filed, and recounts were started and stopped in various counties. The spectacle of election workers examining punch-card ballots through magnifying glasses, to try to determine a voter’s intent, popularized the term hanging chad as it raised doubts about the accuracy of the count.After five weeks of recounts, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in on Dec. 12, 2000, and, in a 5-to-4 decision, stopped a state court-ordered recount, with Mr. Bush holding a 537-vote lead over Mr. Gore. Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes, and the presidency, were awarded to Mr. Bush.“It has always puzzled me why my report never got a wider acceptance,” Mr. Saltman told USA Today in 2001. “It takes a crisis to move people, and it shouldn’t have.”The counting crisis that crippled the presidential transition in 2000 prompted congressional hearings that led in 2002 to the Help America Vote Act, which outlawed the use of punch cards in federal elections.A member of the canvassing board in Broward County, Fla., examining a disputed election ballot in the 2000 presidential election.Alan Diaz/Associated PressAs recently as last month, Fox News agreed to pay $787.5 million to resolve a defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems after Fox TV personalities falsely claimed that Dominion’s voting machines were susceptible to hacking and had switched votes in the 2020 election from President Donald J. Trump to Joseph R. Biden Jr. The company’s patents cite Mr. Saltman’s early reports on punch-card vulnerabilities as proof that Dominion’s voting technology had overcome those flaws.As early as 1976, Mr. Saltman warned that “we have a serious problem of public confidence in computers and a serious problem of public confidence in public officials, and around election time they tend to coalesce.”When his bosses at the federal agency discounted his early concerns, Mr. Saltman got a $150,000 grant to study voting mishaps around the country.He found a report that reviewed Detroit’s first punch-card voting experience in a 1970 primary election. It turned up “design inadequacies of the voting device” that had invalidated ballots because voters had unintentionally voted for more than the prescribed number of candidates. Similar concerns about punch-card voting were raised after a 1984 election for property appraiser in Palm Beach County, Fla.In 1988, Mr. Saltman’s prescient report, “Accuracy, Integrity and Security in Computerized Vote Tallying,” recommended banning the pre-scored punch-card voting machines that would create the counting crisis in Florida in 2000.He also recommended against the use of computer systems that would prevent voters from examining their ballots for accuracy before leaving the polls, and that would not produce an immediate printed paper trail for election officials to examine in a recount.“The defects in the pre-scored punch card voting system are fundamental and cannot be fixed by engineering or management alterations,” Mr. Saltman wrote. He added that “manual examination of pre-scored punch card ballots to determine the voter’s intent is highly subjective.”“For example,” he continued, “manual counters are forced to determine whether a pinprick point on a chad demonstrated an intent to register a vote.”Max Saltman said his grandfather had expressed concern that nearly all electronic voting systems in the United States still relied on complex operating systems, despite his warnings about their vulnerabilities.Charles Stewart III, an M.I.T. professor of political science who consulted with Mr. Saltman, said by email: “Roy appreciated how computers could help to make election administration better, by automating vote counting, which is a very tedious and error-prone exercise when done by hand. But, he demonstrated that these machines sometimes broke down, and it was foolish not to design systems that took this fact into account.”Roy Gilbert Saltman was born on July 15, 1932, in Manhattan to Ralph Henry Saltman, a son of immigrants from Russia, and Josephine (Stern) Saltman, who had immigrated from Budapest as an infant. His father was a production manager in the garment industry and later at an electrical appliance factory. His mother was a homemaker.Raised in the Bronx and in Sunnyside, Queens, Roy graduated from Brooklyn Technical High School.He earned a degree in electrical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., in 1953. In 1955, he received a master’s in engineering from M.I.T., where he worked on the guidance systems for the Nautilus, the first nuclear submarine. He also studied engineering at Columbia University and was granted a master’s degree in public administration from the American University in Washington in 1976.In 1969, after jobs at Sperry Gyroscope Co. and IBM, he joined the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology, where he worked on software policy and served on the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, the agency charged with maintaining the uniform usage of geographic names within the federal government.His first marriage, to Lenore Sack, ended in divorce. In 1992, he married Joan Ettinger Ephross. She died in 2008.In addition to his grandson Max, he is survived by his sons, David and Steven, and a daughter, Eve, from his marriage to Dr. Sack; his stepchildren, David, Peter and Sara; two other grandchildren; and six step-grandchildren.After he retired in 1996, Mr. Saltman became an election consultant.The belated attention his reports received after the 2000 election, in part as a result of his testimony to the House Committee on Science in May 2001, prompted him to write what became a definitive book, “The History and Politics of Voting Technology” (2006).He also continued to speak out on election issues. In a letter to The Washington Post in 2005, he warned that Georgia’s requirement that voters have a photo ID card, at a cost of $20 every five years, might violate the Constitution’s prohibition of a poll tax.As Sue Halpern wrote in The New Yorker in 2020, plenty of potential problems with electronic voting machines that Mr. Saltman identified remain: “tallies that can’t be audited because the voting machines do not provide a paper trail, software and hardware glitches, security vulnerabilities, poor connections between voting machines and central tabulating computers, conflicts of interest among vendors of computerized systems, and election officials who lack computer expertise.”Mr. Saltman often said that there was no margin of error in voting, that civic engagement and confidence in the electoral system was too vital to a democracy to leave any grounds for misgivings.“An election is like the launch of a space rocket,” he often said. “It must work the first time.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      In Georgia Trump Investigation, Most Fake Electors Take Immunity Deals

      by

      Prosecutors are nearing charging decisions after investigating whether former President Donald J. Trump and his allies illegally meddled in Georgia’s 2020 election.More than half of the bogus Georgia electors who were convened in December 2020 to try to keep former President Donald J. Trump in power have taken immunity deals in the investigation into election interference there, according to a court filing on Friday and people with knowledge of the inquiry.In addition, Craig A. Gillen, the former deputy independent counsel in the 1980s-era Iran Contra scandal, has been hired to represent a fake elector who could still face criminal charges, David Shafer, the head of the Georgia Republican Party. Mr. Gillen specializes in cases involving racketeering, which is among the charges being weighed by Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga.Ms. Willis’s office has spent more than two years investigating whether the former president and his allies illegally meddled in the 2020 election in Georgia, which Mr. Trump narrowly lost to President Biden. A special grand jury that heard evidence in the case for roughly seven months recommended more than a dozen people for indictments, and its forewoman strongly hinted in an interview with The New York Times in February that Mr. Trump was among them.Ultimately, it will be up to Ms. Willis to decide which charges to seek before a regular grand jury, which she has said she will do after a new jury is seated in mid-July. Her case is focused in part on a plan to create the slate of electors pledged to Mr. Trump in the weeks after the 2020 election despite Mr. Biden’s victory in Georgia.Lawyers for the electors have argued they were simply trying to keep Mr. Trump’s legal options open, though when they met on Dec. 14, 2020, three vote counts had all affirmed Mr. Biden’s win there.Even before any indictments are announced, the legal jockeying in the case has become intense. In March, Mr. Trump’s lawyers sought to quash the special grand jury’s final report, most of which remains sealed.In April, Ms. Willis sought to have Kimberly B. Debrow, then a lawyer for 10 of the 16 Trump electors, thrown off the proceedings. According to a motion filed at the time by Ms. Willis’s office, some of the electors recently told prosecutors that Ms. Debrow and another lawyer, Holly Pierson, had not informed them of offers of immunity in exchange for cooperation that prosecutors made last year.Fani T. Willis, center, the Fulton County district attorney, in Atlanta in 2022.Ben Gray/Associated PressMs. Debrow responded with her own filing on Friday, in which she called the accusation “completely without merit” and said she had made her clients fully aware, in writing, of what she called “generalized potential offers of immunity.”Ms. Pierson, who along with Mr. Gillen represents Mr. Shafer, has called the district attorney’s assertions “entirely false.” Both Ms. Debrow and Ms. Pierson have been paid by the state Republican Party.Ms. Debrow’s new filing also revealed that eight of her clients had been offered immunity deals and that all of them had accepted. At least one additional elector who is not represented by Ms. Debrow also has a deal in place, according to people with knowledge of the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity as the investigation is ongoing.Ms. Debrow said in her filing that two clients had not been offered immunity deals and now had new lawyers, though she did not name the clients. A recent filing from Cathy Latham, a fake elector for Mr. Trump who was the Republican Party leader in rural Coffee County, Ga., revealed that she now has her own representation.Ms. Latham played a key role in an effort by Trump allies to access voter data in her county after the 2020 election — another point of scrutiny in the investigation.While all of the fake electors had long been identified by prosecutors as targets who could face criminal charges, three have been considered particularly vulnerable by those with knowledge of the investigation: Mr. Shafer, Ms. Latham and Shawn Still, a Georgia state senator who filed and later withdrew a lawsuit related to the vote count in Coffee County.Mr. Still did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Ms. Willis’s office declined to comment. Her office alleged in a filing last month that some of the Trump electors have accused another of illegal conduct.But in her motion, Ms. Debrow called the allegation “categorically false.” She added that the court “need not take defense counsel’s word for the fact that none of the electors incriminated themselves or each other — these interviews were recorded.”It will be left to Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of Fulton County Superior Court, who has been presiding over the inquiry, to sort through the competing motions.Sean Keenan More

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Something’s Got to Give

      by

      It’s been 52 years since Congress passed, and the country ratified, a constitutional amendment — the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18 in the wake of the Vietnam War and the broader disruption of the 1960s. (The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, was passed in 1789.) It’s been 64 years since Congress added states to the union — Alaska and Hawaii, in 1959. And it’s been 94 years since Congress capped the size of the House of Representatives at 435 members.You might be tempted to treat these facts as trivia. But the truth is that they say something profound about American politics. For more than 50 years, the United States has been frozen in a kind of structural and constitutional stasis. Despite deep changes in our society — among them major population growth and at least two generational waves — we have made no formal changes to our national charter, nor have we added states or rearranged the federal system or altered the rules of political competition.One reason this matters, as Kate Shaw and Julie C. Suk observe in a recent essay for Times Opinion, is that “several generations of Americans have lost the habit and muscle memory of seeking formal constitutional change.” Unaccustomed to the concept and convinced that it is functionally impossible, Americans have abandoned the very notion that we can change our Constitution. Instead, we place the onus for change on the Supreme Court and hope for the best. Out with popular sovereignty, in with judicial supremacy.There is another reason this matters. Our stagnant political system has produced a stagnant political landscape. Neither party has been able to obtain a lasting advantage over the other, nor is either party poised to do so. The margins of victory and defeat in national elections are slim. The Republican majority that gave President George W. Bush a second term in the White House — and inspired, however briefly, visions of a permanent Republican majority — came to just 50.7 percent of the overall vote. President Barack Obama won his second term by around four percentage points, and President Biden won by a similar margin in 2020. Donald Trump, as we know, didn’t win a majority of voters in 2016.Control of Congress is evenly matched as well. Majorities are made with narrow margins in a handful of contested races, where victory can rest more on the shape of the district map — and the extent of the gerrymandering, assuming it holds — than on any kind of political persuasion. That’s the House. In the Senate, control has lurched back and forth on the basis of a few competitive seats in a few competitive states. And the next presidential election, thanks to the Electoral College, will be a game of inches in a small batch of closely matched states rather than a true national election.Past eras of political dynamism often came from some change in the overall political order. Throughout the 19th century, for example, the addition of states either transformed the terrain on which Americans fought partisan politics or opened avenues for long-term success for either one of the two major parties. States could be used to solidify partisan control in Washington — the reason we have two Dakotas instead of one — or used to extend and enlarge an existing coalition.Progressive-era constitutional transformations — the direct election of senators, women’s suffrage and Prohibition — reverberated through partisan politics, and the flood of Black Americans from Southern fields to Northern cities put an indelible stamp on the behavior of Democrats and Republicans.We lack for political disruption on that scale. There are no constitutional amendments on the table that might alter the terms of partisan combat in this country. There’s no chance — anytime soon — that we’ll end the Electoral College or radically expand the size of the House, moves that could change the national political calculus for both parties. There are no prospects, at this point, for new states, whether D.C., Puerto Rico or any of the other territories where Americans live and work without real representation in Congress.There’s nothing either constitutional or structural on the horizon of American politics that might unsettle or shake the political system itself out of its stagnation. Nothing that could push the public in new directions or force the parties themselves to build new kinds of coalitions. Nothing, in short, that could help Americans untangle the pathologies of our current political order.The fact of the matter is that there are forces that are trying to break the stasis of American politics. There’s the Supreme Court, which has used its iron grip on constitutional meaning to accumulate power in its chambers, to the detriment of other institutions of American governance. There’s the Republican Party, which has used the countermajoritarian features of our system to build redoubts of power, insulated from the voters themselves. And there is an authoritarian movement, led and animated by Trump, that wants to renounce constitutional government in favor of an authoritarian patronage regime, with his family at its center.Each of these forces is trying to game the current system, to build a new order from the pieces as they exist. But there’s nothing that says we can’t write new rules. And there’s nothing that says that we have to play this particular game.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

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Devolution of Ron DeSantis

      by

      After a promising start, he has become bogged down in issues that have divided and hurt Republicans in the past.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has fallen sharply in the polls.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesAt the beginning of the year, Ron DeSantis looked as if he might be the answer to all of the Republican Party’s problems.For the first time in decades, a conservative politician rose to national prominence on issues that unified the party’s populist base with its beleaguered establishment — and without triggering a Resistance from Florida Democrats. He seemed to offer Republicans a path beyond the divisions and defeats of the last 15 years.Mr. DeSantis does not seem like the answer anymore. His poll numbers are cratering. His strength as a general election candidate is being questioned. This is partly because he’s fallen flat on the national stage, but it’s also because he’s slowly devolved into an older kind of Republican — the kind without answers to the party’s problems.He’s been bogged down in the very issues that divided and hurt Republicans in the past, like abortion, entitlements, Russia and the conduct of Donald J. Trump. Against Mr. Trump and without Democrats as a foil, his instinct to take the most conservative stance has pushed him far to the right. He’s devolved into another Ted Cruz.Mr. DeSantis will probably never be an entertainer like Mr. Trump, an orator like Ronald Reagan, or someone to get a beer with like George W. Bush. But to compete for the nomination, he will at least need to be who he appeared to be a few months ago: a new kind of conservative, who can appeal to the establishment and the base by focusing on the new set of issues that got him here: the fight for “freedom” and against “woke.”Mr. DeSantis’s varying campaigns against everything from coronavirus restrictions to gender studies curriculums weren’t extraordinarily popular, at least not in terms of national polling, but it was a type of political gold nonetheless. It let him channel the passions of the Republican base and get on Fox News without offending bourgeoise conservative sensibilities on race, immigration and gender. In fact, many elite conservatives disliked “woke” and coronavirus restrictions just like the rank-and-file. Even some Democrats sympathized with his positions. As a result, he won re-election in Florida in a landslide. Democratic turnout was abysmal.This combination of base and elite appeal made him a natural candidate to lead an anti-Trump coalition. In the last presidential primary, in 2016, Mr. Trump held the center of the Republican electorate and left his opposition split on either side. To his right, there was Mr. Cruz and the orthodox conservatives. To his left, there was Marco Rubio, John Kasich and the relatively moderate, business-friendly establishment. None of these factional figures stood a chance of unifying those two disparate groups, but for a fleeting moment after the midterms last year, Mr. DeSantis seemed to assemble all of the various not-necessarily-Trump factions under his banner.Since then, Mr. DeSantis’s coalition has unraveled. His superficial struggles on the campaign trail might be evident to most, but what is more easily overlooked is an overarching struggle to balance the competing needs of an ideologically diverse coalition in a Republican primary.His challenge has two halves. First, his instinct to move to the right has been more fraught in a Republican primary than it was when “woke” liberals were his foil. After all, there’s plenty of room to line up to the right of “woke” without alienating anyone on the right. Trying to be to the right of Mr. Trump, on the other hand, involves greater risk regarding both the general electorate and his relatively moderate supporters.Perhaps surprisingly, Mr. DeSantis actually fares best among moderate voters in Republican primary polling. This probably says more about which Republicans are most skeptical about Mr. Trump than it does about Mr. DeSantis, but it nonetheless means that his conservative instincts routinely put him at odds with his own base.In some cases, the tension between Mr. DeSantis and his base is unavoidable — and his moderate supporters will sometimes lose. A politician can’t always please every constituency. Abortion, for instance, poses a legitimate problem for Mr. DeSantis — and every Republican nowadays.But Mr. DeSantis has not always seemed cognizant of the delicate balancing act ahead of him and has committed errors as a result. His relatively soft position on Russia regarding Ukraine, for instance, overlooked that the elite, hawkish, neoconservative right not only cares deeply about containing Russia but would also inevitably be part of any successful anti-Trump coalition. Mr. DeSantis doesn’t need to be a neocon to hold this support against Mr. Trump, but it does seem he needs to support defending Ukraine.The second half is that the fights for “freedom” and against “woke” have not been a glue that’s held his fractious coalition together. So far this year, he’s struggled to make the race about these issues at all. Instead, abortion, entitlements, Russia and Mr. Trump have dominated the conversation.Of all the things that have happened to Mr. DeSantis so far this year, this might be the most troubling and telling. Tactical mistakes can be fixed, but if fighting for “freedom” and against “woke” isn’t a powerful, organizing theme, then he’s not especially different from any other Republican.This might not be entirely Mr. DeSantis’s fault. The coronavirus pandemic is over — at least for political purposes. The peak of “woke” might have come and gone as well: The arc of new left culture fights seems to have bent into a reactionary phase in which debate centers as much or more on proposed Republican restrictions on books, drag shows and A.P. history curriculums as on the latest controversy about the excesses of the left. Mr. DeSantis’s renewal of a year-old fight against Disney — the exact origins of which I suspect would stump even many regular readers of this newsletter — is a telling indicator that his campaign against “woke” is struggling for oxygen.At the same time as Mr. DeSantis’s new issues have faded, the old issues have come roaring back. The Supreme Court and Vladimir Putin made sure of it. So did Mr. Trump, who attacked Mr. DeSantis for old statements on cutting entitlements. And while all of these issues make Mr. DeSantis vulnerable in various ways, there are few opportunities to attack Mr. Trump as too woke.The devolution of Mr. DeSantis, in other words, is partly due to forces beyond his control. But if “freedom” or “woke” is not enough, he will probably need a new set of issues to unite open-to-anyone-but-Trump voters. More