Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republican 2024 Hopefuls Flock to N.R.A. Meeting in the Wake of Mass Shootings

      by

      The current and potential 2024 presidential candidates are expected to show support for gun owners’ rights — a core issue for the party’s base, but one that can be a tougher sell in a general election.INDIANAPOLIS — In 2018, prominent Republicans affirmed their strong support for gun owners’ rights at the annual gathering of the National Rifle Association, three months after a gunman had murdered 17 people in Parkland, Fla.In 2022, they descended on the N.R.A.’s event a few days after a gunman had killed 21 in Uvalde, Texas.And on Friday, some of the most talked about current and potential Republican presidential candidates will address the N.R.A.’s convention in Indianapolis, even as Nashville and Louisville are still mourning the latest massacres in the nation’s gun violence epidemic.The pattern — a devastating mass shooting, followed by Republican displays of fealty to a group that rejects even many modest efforts to curb gun violence — underscores a central and deepening tension in the broader American culture wars.Despite a relentless drumbeat of gun violence that has outraged the public, galvanized a youth movement and spurred Democrats and some Republicans to action, conservative activists and organizations like the N.R.A. still often demand unwavering and virtually unlimited allegiance to the rights of gun owners, complicating any effort by candidates to meet the alarmed mood of the nation without alienating the base.“I would hope that presidential candidates would acknowledge that there is tremendous fear in the country of mass shootings,” former Representative Susan W. Brooks, an Indiana Republican, said in urging the candidates to press for bipartisan negotiations on confronting the issue. That is something she pursued in Congress, though there is now little appetite for that among Republicans in Washington.“They’re happening at much greater frequency than they used to,” she added of the shootings. “They are impacting, I think, our children and the next generation.”Expected speakers on Friday, according to the N.R.A.’s lobbying arm, include former President Donald J. Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence, Governors Chris Sununu of New Hampshire and Kristi Noem of South Dakota, former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur, author and “anti-woke” activist.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who recently signed a bill allowing Florida residents to carry concealed guns without a permit; Nikki Haley, a former ambassador to the United Nations; and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina are scheduled to send video messages.“They are all going because there’s a competitive presidential primary,” said Robert Blizzard, a Republican pollster. “In states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which are really the only states that matter on the calendar for the time being, most Republican primary voters are gun owners and strong supporters of the N.R.A.”The N.R.A. meeting was on the books well before the most recent shootings, though according to the latest schedule, the violence did not appear to prompt high-profile skipping of the event, in contrast to the actions of some Republicans who did so after the Uvalde shooting.Some of those current and would-be candidates are also expected in Nashville this weekend for a Republican donor retreat — a site that has left some in the grieving city on edge.Following the mass shootings at a bank this week in Louisville, Ky., and at a Nashville school last month, presidential hopefuls, expressing varying degrees of outrage, have emphasized mental health issues and school security, seemed to focus on the gender identity of the Nashville shooter, or managed to keep largely quiet on the matter of combating gun violence.But the issue, which inspires great zeal among many Republican primary voters — as evidenced by how many Republicans featured guns in their primary ad campaigns last year — gets far more complex in general elections, especially for any candidate who would theoretically be inclined to endorse even narrow changes to the nation’s gun laws.Voters rarely cite guns as their most important issue in general elections. But public sentiment is clear: A recent Morning Consult poll found that 67 percent of voters support stricter gun control laws, including nearly half of Republicans surveyed. And Democrats have used Republican inaction on the issue as part of their broader argument that the G.O.P. is outside the American mainstream.“One of the challenges that Republicans face in suburban areas across the country is they are being viewed, in light of Trump, in light of abortion, and to some extent on guns,” Mr. Blizzard said, “as being a little bit too extreme on their positions.”He stressed that the gun issue had not been as politically potent in general elections as strong feelings about Mr. Trump or abortion rights, and that the defense of Second Amendment rights “is part of the Republican Party’s DNA.”The political impact of mass shootings has not been lost on Republican leaders, however. Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, said as much last year as the Senate approved bipartisan legislation intended to curb gun violence. Mr. McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said he hoped “it will be viewed favorably by voters in the suburbs we need.”In a briefing with the news media on Thursday organized by the Democratic National Committee, Senator Christopher Murphy of Connecticut, a Democrat who has been heavily involved in efforts to combat gun violence, said that Republicans were courting electoral disaster with their approach to guns.He noted that in Nashville, it was young people who were especially involved in protesting for stricter gun control, including amid the expulsions of two Black lawmakers who led a gun control protest on the state House floor. (The lawmakers have since been reinstated.)“As the Republican Party continues to give the middle finger to kids,” he said, “they are just asking for an electoral tidal wave. I don’t want that. I want Republicans to join with the rest of us and work to build a bipartisan majority behind common-sense gun laws. But it appears that they’re not ready for that.”Representatives for the N.R.A. and the Republican National Committee did not respond to requests for comment.For now, much of the activity is happening through executive actions, at the federal and state levels. Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee, a Republican whose wife lost a close friend in the Nashville shooting, signed an executive order this week focused on toughening background checks, and he urged state lawmakers to take broader action, though that may face a difficult road.And in Michigan on Thursday, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, signed anti-gun-violence measures into law following a recent shooting at Michigan State University. Minnesota Democrats are moving to do the same.Mayor Tim Kelly of Chattanooga, Tenn., who said he is not affiliated with a political party but has contributed to both Republicans and to Democrats including Mr. Biden, has been a vocal advocate for stricter gun measures. He said he was encouraged by Mr. Lee’s actions.“To see him change his views on it — frankly, I do have hope that perhaps we’re reaching a tipping point,” said Mr. Kelly, who said he is himself a gun owner. “People have just had enough.” More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Facing Tough Senate Race, Montana G.O.P. Looks to Change the Rules

      by

      An election bill moving through the Republican-led Legislature would rewrite the rules for a single race: the looming battle against Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat.HELENA, Mont. — Republicans typically cry foul when accused of rewriting election laws to benefit their candidates. But as the Montana Legislature debates a new voting bill, even some G.O.P. lawmakers concede that this one appears designed to help them win elections — more precisely, one very important election.The bill would rewrite the rules for the state’s next U.S. Senate race and only that race. The 2024 fight to oust Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat, is expected to be one of the tightest in the country.The legislation would shift the contest from a traditional election into a “top two” primary system, making it exceedingly difficult for third parties to reach a general election ballot. Some believe the system would keep the state’s vibrant Libertarian Party from siphoning votes from the Republican nominee.The 2024 fight to oust Jon Tester, a Democratic senator from Montana, is expected to be one of the tightest in the country.Sarah Silbiger/ReutersWhile supporters of the bill say it makes elections fairer, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Helena have claimed that the bill reeks of political interference. Some have chafed at the involvement of Washington operatives, especially allies of Senator Steve Daines. A Montana Republican and head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Mr. Daines is leading the party’s campaign to win control of the Senate in 2024.Brad Molnar, a Republican state senator who opposes the bill, criticized Washington meddling in Montana politics, saying that if national Republicans get involved, “we will lose.” He predicted that the bill would backfire on Republicans if angry Libertarians flock to Democrats. “They will be angry. Why wouldn’t they be? I’m not a libertarian, and I’m angry.”The bill’s sponsor, State Senator Greg Hertz, said he was trying to ensure that Montana’s senator would win with more than 50 percent of the vote and to also tamp down on parties’ interference with third-party candidates.Mr. Hertz said he had designed the bill to apply only to the upcoming Senate race because he saw it as a test run. He expected the Legislature to examine expanding the system to congressional, state legislative and other statewide races in the future.The system would mirror California’s primaries, where all the candidates from all the parties appear on the same ballot, and the top two vote-getters face off in the general election.The bill passed the Montana Senate last week by a narrow margin, with seven Republican senators voting against it. A House committee will hold a hearing on the bill on Friday.State Senator Greg Hertz, the bill’s sponsor, says he was trying to tamp down on parties’ interference with third-party candidates.Janie Osborne for The New York TimesMultiple former Republican officials are expected to testify against it. The Libertarian Party has also been organizing opposition to the bill. The state’s Republican governor has not weighed in.But the forces crafting the bill and pushing it through are powerful.Chuck Denowh, a lobbyist who worked for Mr. Daines’s 2020 campaign and has ties to the Montana Republican Party, has been working closely with Mr. Hertz. At one point he suggested critical changes that focused the bill on Mr. Tester’s race, according to emails reviewed by The New York Times.“We would like it to apply only to United States Senate races,” Mr. Denowh said in an email sent on March 26 to multiple lawmakers, including Mr. Hertz. “We’d like a sunset in 2025,” he added. It was not clear whom “we” was referring to, and Mr. Denowh declined to answer questions.Mr. Hertz quickly agreed with the changes and asked State Senator Steven J. Fitzpatrick, the House majority leader, who was copied on the email chain, to make the newly reworked proposal “a priority bill.”The sudden changes and swift reintroduction after an initial failure in committee caught Republican lawmakers by surprise.In a text message chain among eight Republican senators, Mr. Fitzpatrick answered lawmakers’ concerns by telling them the bill “came from Daines” and that it was the “brainchild of the Jason Thielman,” according to screenshots of the texts obtained by The New York Times. Mr. Thielman is a longtime Daines aide who is now the executive director of the N.R.S.C.“No wonder I don’t like it,” responded Senator Dan Salomon, a Republican state senator who voted against the bill.When asked about the text messages, Mr. Fitzpatrick said that he had never spoken directly with Mr. Daines about the bill, but that he believed the effort originated with national Republicans.Mr. Daines has not weighed in publicly. Rachel Dumke, a spokeswoman for Mr. Daines’s office, declined to comment.At least two Republican lawmakers in Montana said they had been pressured by Mr. Daines’s office to support the bill. And one Republican state senator received a text message from state Republican Party officials explicitly saying the bill was needed to defeat Mr. Tester. The lawmakers asked for anonymity to disclose private discussions.In an interview, Mr. Hertz said he had been working on election issues since last September, initially exploring adding a runoff election. But he acknowledged that his efforts seemed to gain national interest when he zeroed in on the Senate race.“Yeah, I heard from a lot of people in D.C. at that point in time,” Mr. Hertz said. He added that he hadn’t spoken with Mr. Daines personally but had spoken with Mr. Thielman repeatedly about the status of the bill.A spokesman for the N.R.S.C., Mike Berg, declined to comment on Mr. Thielman’s involvement.“The optics of the situation, I felt, were bad … I want to do it across the board,” said Jason Small, a Republican state senator who voted against the bill.Janie Osborne for The New York TimesMr. Hertz said that he thought the changes would help third parties. “This gives them an opportunity in the primary to win more votes. And if you have enough support, you will end up on the general ballot, and that will give you an opportunity to make your case to the voters of Montana.”A spokeswoman for Gov. Greg Gianforte declined to respond to questions, pointing to the governor’s brief statement at a news conference on Thursday.“A number of other states have tried things like this,” Mr. Gianforte said. “I think it’s kind of an interesting idea, but we won’t take a firm position until we actually see the final legislation.”Some Republican lawmakers who were supportive of the idea of a top-two election system balked when they saw that the proposal had been amended to apply only to the 2024 Senate election.“If we’re going to do a top-two primary, I’m all for it. I think it’s wonderful,” said Jason Small, a Republican state senator who voted against the bill. “The optics of the situation, I felt, were bad if we’re going to just single out one particular race and try it there. I want to do it across the board.”Some Republicans in the statehouse noted that the bill might not have much of an impact on the outcome. They cited a recent study by the election website FiveThirtyEight that found that Mr. Tester was likely to have prevailed in all of his elections even if the Libertarian candidate hadn’t run.The Tester campaign accused Montana Republicans of attempting a power grab.Republicans are “trying to change local election laws to look more like California’s in an attempt to gain political power for themselves,” said Shelbi Dantic, a spokeswoman for Mr. Tester’s re-election campaign.So far, no front-runner has emerged to challenge Mr. Tester in November. Republicans in Helena expect Representative Matt Rosendale, a conservative who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election, to explore a run. Tim Sheehy, a wealthy businessman and military veteran, is being recruited by some Republicans in Washington to run, as first reported by Axios, though he has not made any formal announcement.As news about the bill spread around the state, Republican lawmakers said they were receiving calls and texts from constituents claiming an unease with the bill. Senator Jeff Welborn, a Republican state senator, noted that the complaints weren’t coming from just Democrats.Mr. Welborn said that he had received multiple text messages, including one from a constituent who said the bill amounted to election interference. “This guy also has Republican candidate signs in his yard,” Mr. Welborn said. “He saw this as a really, really bad look on Montana as a state for trying this one on.”Former Republican leaders in the state have also been vocal in their opposition.“It’s a horrible commentary about how you value the votes of your fellow citizens,” said Marc Racicot, a former Republican governor and former chair of the R.N.C. “They didn’t sign up as guinea pigs.”Republicans in favor of the bill said that they believed it would cut down on the interference by major parties with third-party candidates. In the past, Democrats have attempted to promote Libertarian candidates to try and divert votes from Republicans, and Republicans have fought to get Green Party candidates on the ballot to try and draw support away from Democrats.“I think at least with the top-two primary you eliminate some of that nonsense,” Mr. Fitzpatrick said, adding, “It’s dirty politics at its worst.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Are Forgetting One Crucial Truth About People and Their Bodies

      by

      In the homestretch of the epic Wisconsin Supreme Court race that ended last week with a blowout victory for liberals, voters’ cellphones pinged incessantly with text message ads.“Woke trans activists have their candidate,” one text message said, according to Wisconsin Watch, a local nonprofit news site. “Schools across Wisconsin are stripping away parental rights and trans kids behind parents backs. There’s only one candidate for the Supreme Court who will put an end to this. Vote for Judge Daniel Kelly by April 4 and protect your children from trans madness.”For a judicial race that centered on two big issues the Wisconsin Supreme Court is likely to consider soon, abortion and voting, it might seem odd that these ads in support of the conservative candidate chose to focus on an issue nowhere near the top of the agenda on the court’s upcoming docket.For reasons that are now obvious, conservative groups supporting Kelly largely avoided touting his opposition to abortion. That’s a sure loser, as the G.O.P. is rapidly learning. It probably wouldn’t have been a good idea to run on preserving the right-wing gerrymander that gives conservatives a total lock on Wisconsin’s Legislature and congressional delegation either. So some supporters reached for the wedge issue du jour: transphobia.An article of faith has emerged among hard-right conservatives — and has been worried over by some centrist pundits — that parental concerns about health care and social support for transgender children make for a potent wedge issue. After all, it has all the hallmarks of an effective culture war hot button: It involves strange new social and medical practices and unfamiliar ways of life, and children are sometimes concerned. But it’s not working the way conservatives expected.The end of Roe has reversed the tides of the culture war. The right has now lost it by winning the biggest victory of all. State legislatures across the country are enacting draconian abortion bans that are producing predictably tragic outcomes. Americans don’t have to imagine what the right will do with its power over women’s lives because we see it in every headline about women risking death because a doctor is too scared of running afoul of an anti-abortion law to provide a necessary medical procedure. It has become blindingly obvious what happens when Republicans legislate what Americans do with their sex organs. And voters, understandably, don’t like what they see.For years even before the fall of Roe, conservatives have used hard-edge anti-trans messaging in both red and swing state races, only to come up short. They tried it in North Carolina’s 2016 governor’s race, in the aftermath of a controversial bill requiring people to use the bathroom associated with their sex assigned at birth. The Democrat, Roy Cooper, won despite a hail of anti-trans ads. They tried it against Andy Beshear, the Democratic candidate for governor in deep-red Kentucky in 2019, and failed. In 2022, G.O.P. candidates tried to use L.G.B.T. issues as a wedge in races in swing states from the Midwest to the Sunbelt to New England. The data suggest that opposition to trans rights cannot overcome — or possibly even make a dent in — the advantage that comes to Democrats in swing states for supporting abortion rights. It’s not even close.“Transphobia was, and is, the dog that couldn’t hunt,” wrote the anonymous but eerily prescient polling analyst who writes a Substack newsletter under the name Ettingermentum.Wisconsin was the most recent example of this failure. The American Principles Project, a Virginia organization that is a driving force behind the harsh anti-transgender laws sweeping red states, spent almost $800,000 on ads supporting Kelly in the State Supreme Court race, according to Wisconsin Watch. A video paid for by the organization’s PAC accompanied text messages that described his liberal opponent, Judge Janet Protasiewicz, as “endorsed by all the woke activists that are stripping parents of their rights in Wisconsin schools and forcing transgenderism down our throats,” Wisconsin Watch reported.In one mendacious video advertisement the narrator claims that a 12-year-old was medically transitioned without parental consent. The video shows images of surgical scarring and implies that this child underwent surgery at the behest of school officials. This is absolutely false. The child in question merely changed their name and pronouns.But any hopes that this messaging would drive swing voters seems to have fallen flat. Indeed, the margin of victory in Wisconsin exceeded predictions. Joe Biden won the state by just 20,000 votes in 2020. Protasiewicz won by 200,000.The failure of anti-trans messaging as a wedge issue may seem surprising because the Democratic Party really does seem to have a problem when it comes to parents and schools. Resentment over Democrats’ support for school closures during the pandemic has become a liability for the party among educated suburbanites, as the 2021 governor’s race in Virginia demonstrated.But Republicans seem to be making the grave error of assuming that someone angry about school closures in the fall of 2021 is a potential conscript in their war today against drag queens and trans people. So far there appears to be little appetite among swing-state voters for laws that could — if our worst fears are realized — allow school officials to demand inspections of their child’s genitals before soccer matches and swim meets. Besides, there’s a far more urgent issue when it comes to students’ safety: In a country where child shooting deaths went up 50 percent from 2019 to 2021, who would trust their children to the political party that opposes gun regulation?There is no doubt that attitudes about gender are changing quickly, and changing especially quickly among young people. But it’s hard to draw firm conclusions about how Americans really feel about this. In a Pew poll last June, a large majority of respondents said they favor legal protections for trans people from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces. Other findings suggest unease: 43 percent said gender identity norms were changing too quickly. Majorities support requiring athletes to compete as their sex assigned at birth. Depressingly, 46 percent said they supported criminalizing gender-affirming care for minors.But one finding from that same poll stood out to me: 68 percent of respondents aren’t paying close attention to the trans bills popping up across the country, and three-quarters of self-identified moderates said they weren’t following the issue closely. But that doesn’t mean they are interested in restrictive or repressive laws, much less willing to vote on the basis of support for such policies.Of course, this lack of attention can cut both ways. Voters who aren’t paying attention to the issue are unlikely to be drawn to the polls to vote against a transgender care ban, either. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis, presumed to be a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, has been able to defy post-Roe gravity and increase his support despite prosecuting an aggressive culture war campaign against queer people. It remains to be seen how this would play out in a presidential election, which would run smack into swing states that have recently rejected in statewide elections both anti-abortion and anti-trans candidates.Democrats — and all Americans — should support the rights of all queer people, not just for electoral advantage but as a matter of principle. There is a clear line from the fight over bodily autonomy in reproductive rights to the fight for access to medical care for trans people. It’s a matter of dignity, too. Trans rights, much like abortion, present a profound challenge to the gender binary, which upholds the world’s oldest and most persistent hierarchy. People who don’t want to or cannot fit within their traditionally prescribed roles — mother, father, woman, man, boy, girl — increasingly have the freedom to live their lives beyond those circumscribed identities.The right has responded to this flowering of freedom with a barrage of repression. In states where Republicans have an ironclad grip on power, they have been incredibly successful. There are hundreds of bills passed or pending that vary in their intrusion on personal liberty but share the goal of giving right-wing politicians the power to control the bodies of citizens through law. On Thursday, this frenzy reached cruel new heights when the attorney general of Missouri issued new emergency rules that put up steep barriers to transgender care, not just for children but also for adults. These barriers could amount to a virtual ban on gender-affirming care for most transgender people in the state.In the face of this onslaught, some centrists seem determined to keep flirting with trans skepticism. It is easy to see why trans issues have become the place for certain centrists to try to perform their moderation — queer people have served this purpose for decades. While other forms of open bigotry became taboo, homophobia and the view that queer people’s rights were a marginal concern has persisted. It has happened before. Bill Clinton heavily courted the gay vote to win the presidency in 1992, only to turn around and sign into law two odious policies: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Clinton has since rent his garments over his regrets, but the fact remains that he enshrined discrimination against queer people into federal law.Republicans like to say they are the party of common sense. But what they seem to have forgotten is the commonest sense of all: Most people do not want the government making personal decisions for them. People want to control their own bodies. People want the freedom to decide when and how to form families. Suddenly, after years of pointing fingers at the left for so-called cultural totalitarianism, Republicans have now decisively revealed themselves to be the “jackbooted thugs” wanting details on your teenage daughter’s menstrual cycle. It’s hard to imagine a less appealing message to swing voters than that.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

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Response to Crime

      by

      Republican lawmakers are putting limits on progressive prosecutors.A fight has erupted in several states between Republican lawmakers and locally elected Democrats over how to respond to crime.Democratic district attorneys (often serving cities with many Black and Latino voters) say they are prioritizing serious crimes. In response, Republicans (often representing mostly white and rural areas) have accused them of ignoring criminal law and are making it easier to remove them from office.Today, I’ll explain what’s happening and why it matters.The policy fightSince 2015, dozens of prosecutors promising progressive reforms have taken office across the country. They vowed to send fewer people to prison and reduce the harms to low-income communities that are associated with high incarceration rates.To achieve that goal, many of these prosecutors said they would use the discretion the law generally allows them to decline to charge categories of crimes, like low-level marijuana offenses. About 90 prosecutors, out of more than 2,000 nationwide, also pledged not to prosecute violations of abortion bans. Many of these prosecutors have been re-elected, a sign of sustained voter support.Still, conservatives argue that the district attorneys are shirking their duty. Declining to prosecute a particular case is legitimate, they say; ruling out charges for a category of offenses is not. As a Republican legislator in Tennessee put it, “A district attorney does not have the authority to decide what law is good and what law isn’t good.” The conservative Heritage Foundation devotes a section of its website to attacking “rogue prosecutors.”Challenging local controlIn Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee and elsewhere, Republican lawmakers have moved to oust or constrain prosecutors and officials who oversee the court system. The Republicans, who largely represent rural areas, are often aiming to thwart voters in cities, including many Black and Latino residents, who elected candidates on platforms of locking up fewer people.Examples include:In February, the Mississippi House passed a bill that establishes a new court system in part of the state capital, Jackson, a majority Black city run mostly by Black officials. In the neighborhoods where most of Jackson’s white residents live, the legislation would effectively replace locally elected judges with state-appointed ones and city police with a state-run force.Tennessee lawmakers in 2021 gave the state attorney general the authority to ask a judge to replace local prosecutors in cases in which they refuse to bring charges. Republican lawmakers criticized the district attorney in Nashville, Glenn Funk, who said he would no longer prosecute simple marijuana possession. Funk also said he would not charge businesses that ignored a state law requiring them to post signs saying transgender people could be using single-gender bathrooms.When Deborah Gonzalez, a progressive, ran for district attorney in Athens, Ga., in 2020, Gov. Brian Kemp tried to cancel the election. Kemp lost in court, and Gonzalez won the seat.In Florida last August, Gov. Ron DeSantis ousted Andrew Warren, the elected Democratic prosecutor in the district that includes Tampa, who had pledged not to prosecute offenses related to abortion or transgender health care.Changing the rulesThese actions upend a longstanding tradition of local control over criminal justice. In the 19th century, many states embraced local elections of prosecutors to ensure that they “reflect the priorities of local communities, rather than officials in the state capital,” according to one history. Criminal laws are largely enacted at the state level, and prosecutors, meant to be accountable to their communities, decide how to enforce them.Since prosecutors lack the resources to bring charges for every arrest, their discretion is a feature of the system. In the past, prosecutors usually used their discretion to act tough on crime. “Now you’re seeing a state effort to subvert the will of local voters who have elected prosecutors who use their discretion for a more compassionate and equitable system,” Marissa Roy, a lawyer for the Local Solutions Support Center, said. “It’s inherently undemocratic.”The new state billsIn a few states, Republicans are considering legislation that would give them power to remove local prosecutors. Georgia legislators recently passed a bill that would create a commission with the power to remove prosecutors. It awaits Kemp’s signature.The Missouri House passed a bill to allow the governor to appoint a special prosecutor for violent crimes for five years. The bill was originally written to target St. Louis, where the elected city prosecutor, Kimberly Gardner, is a progressive Black Democrat.In Texas, dozens of such bills are in play. One, which passed the Texas Senate this week, would bar prosecutors from adopting policies that refrain from prosecuting a type of offense. Another would create a council dominated by political appointees that could refer prosecutors to a trial court to be dismissed for incompetence. Republican supporters of the legislation targeted five district attorneys, from large metropolitan areas, who said they would not prosecute certain offenses, including some related to abortion or transgender medical treatments for minors.When a new type of legislation pops up in different states, a national policy organization sometimes promotes it. That may be happening with these bills. Last July, a Heritage Foundation staff member met by video with Republican lawmakers about curbing prosecutors’ authority, according to a person familiar with the Texas bills. The legislation became a priority of the Texas House speaker and lieutenant governor. “The Heritage Foundation meets with a variety of people and organizations about public policy topics,” a spokeswoman said.Given the conservative momentum behind the bills, Roy expects to see more. “All of this is connected to the backlash to the movement for racial justice and criminal justice reform,” she said.THE LATEST NEWSPoliticsThe Tennessee representatives Justin Jones, left, and Justin Pearson before a vote to expel them.Jon Cherry for The New York TimesTennessee House Republicans voted to expel two Democrats who protested in the legislative chamber for stricter gun laws.For decades, Justice Clarence Thomas has taken luxury vacations funded by a Republican megadonor, ProPublica reported.The U.S. should have evacuated Americans and others from Afghanistan earlier at the end of the war in 2021, the Biden administration acknowledged.The Supreme Court ruled that a transgender girl in West Virginia could compete on girls’ sports teams at her middle school while her appeal moved forward.Separately, the Biden administration proposed a rule that would bar schools from categorically banning transgender athletes but that would leave room for individual exclusions.The I.R.S. is planning to improve its customer service and to crack down on wealthy tax evaders.Trump IndictmentThe judge in Donald Trump’s case asked him to refrain from making incendiary comments. Trump responded by going after the judge’s family.The new publisher of the National Enquirer says the tabloid no longer buys stories to bury them. The practice put the company at the center of Trump’s indictment.Other Big StoriesGaza City last night.Mohammed Abed/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIsraeli jets struck southern Lebanon and Gaza overnight in response to an unusually heavy rocket barrage from militias in Lebanon. The violence ebbed after sunrise.New textbooks in India have purged parts of the country’s Muslim history that conflict with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist vision.Secret documents detailing American and NATO plans for building up the Ukrainian military have appeared on Twitter and Telegram.A French minister has posed (with her clothes on) in Playboy. Critics are questioning her choice of publication.“Refilled with love and titanium”: The actor Jeremy Renner described his recovery from a snow plow accident that broke 30 of his bones.OpinionsMath and literature often seem like opposites. But whether it’s needing structure or searching for truth, they have a lot in common, Sarah Hart says.Economic competition, protectionism and even trade wars aren’t barriers to solving climate change; they’re assets, Robinson Meyer argues.The deaths of children — from guns, suicide and car crashes — are fueling America’s falling life expectancy, David Wallace-Wells writes.MORNING READSThe classic Peeps.Christopher Payne for The New York TimesPeeps: Visit the factory that makes the fluffy marshmallow chicks.Sonny Angel: These tiny dolls offer stress relief.Modern Love: Seduced by a charming chatbot.Advice from Wirecutter: Clean your phone. (It’s probably getting gross.)Lives Lived: Mimi Sheraton, the food writer and restaurant critic, was the first to wear a disguise to get a normal diner’s experience for her Times reviews and worked for many publications in a six-decade career. She died at 97.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICThe Masters: After shooting a 2-over-par 74 yesterday, Tiger Woods — who is struggling with leg issues — is in danger of missing the cut. It was part of an exhilarating first round in Augusta, Ga.N.B.A.’s regular season closes: The top of the Eastern Conference is set, as the Bucks, Celtics, 76ers, Cavaliers, Knicks and Nets have clinched postseason spots. The Western Conference, though, is wide open.ARTS AND IDEAS Mario and Princess Peach.Nintendo/Nintendo and Universal Studios, via Associated PressThe original ‘Mario’ movie“The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is now in theaters, and it faithfully recreates the colorful Mushroom Kingdom. Everything looks and sounds as it does in the games (except maybe Mario himself, who sounds an awful lot like Chris Pratt).Thirty years ago, the first big-screen adaptation of the video game series tossed aside the cartoonish setting in favor of a live-action, dystopian version of New York. The film was largely shot in an abandoned cement factory; sticky fungus was key to the plot. The movie was a flop.For The Times, Darryn King revisited that original film and the small but dedicated fan group who consider it a cult classic.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookLinda Xiao for The New York TimesRoasted radishes are juicy and sweet.What to WatchA new documentary about the director Alan Pakula has the feel of an A-list memorial service.TravelWhat to do for 36 hours in Tokyo.Late NightThe hosts discussed Marjorie Taylor Greene’s visit to New York.News QuizHow well did you keep up with the headlines this week? Test your knowledge.Now Time to PlayThe pangrams from yesterday’s Spelling Bee were diabolic and diabolical. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Useless stuff (four letters).And here’s today’s Wordle.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. The New York Times Presents is back on TV tonight with an episode about the hip-hop producer J Dilla, at 10 p.m. Eastern on FX and Hulu.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about migration.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com. More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump Prepares to Surrender

      by

      The Manhattan indictments may not even present his biggest legal threat.Donald Trump is expected to turn himself in to the Manhattan authorities today. Further down, you can read about the latest developments and what to expect today.I also want to devote part of today’s newsletter to the other three criminal investigations of Trump — because at least one of them could end up being more significant than the charges in Manhattan, both legally and politically.Why?For one thing, some legal experts view the Manhattan case skeptically. The closest analogy to it may be the 2012 trial of John Edwards, the former Democratic presidential candidate, who was accused of violating campaign-finance law by hiding payments to cover up an extramarital affair. Jurors acquitted Edwards of one charge and deadlocked on the others, a reminder that many people are uncomfortable criminalizing scandals that revolve around consensual sex.The political impact of sex scandals is similarly questionable. Trump has a long, public history of cheating on his wives, as any reader of New York’s tabloid newspapers knows. It did not keep him from being elected president any more than Bill Clinton’s reputation for infidelity kept him from winning in 1992. Clinton also lied about an affair while he was president — under oath, no less — but many Americans nonetheless believed he should remain in the job.The case against Trump could turn out differently, of course: He could be convicted. Even if he is, though, the charges do not seem likely to change many voters’ views of Trump.Two of the other three investigations into Trump are somewhat different. They are about democracy, not sex, and there is already reason to believe that they are more politically threatening to him.One of the two is a federal investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The second involves those same efforts, but only in Georgia, where local prosecutors are looking into his failed attempt to overturn the result. Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will bring charges in either case.Both stem from Trump’s rejection of basic democratic principles that other leaders of both parties have long accepted — that the loser of an election should concede; that politicians should not tell brazen and repeated lies; that violence is an unacceptable political tactic. Over the past few years, a small — but crucial — slice of voters who are otherwise sympathetic to the Republican Party have indicated that they are uncomfortable with Trump’s attacks on democracy.In 2020, he became only the fourth president in the past century to lose re-election, even as Republican congressional candidates fared better than expected. Last year, Trump’s preferred candidates performed about five percentage points worse than otherwise similar Republicans, my colleague Nate Cohn estimates. As a result, every election denier who ran to oversee elections in a battleground state last year lost.An indictment and a trial in either the Jan. 6 case or the Georgia case would again focus attention on Trump’s anti-democratic behavior. Most of his supporters would probably stick by him, but the cases probably present a greater risk to his standing with swing voters than a case revolving around the cover-up of an affair. And if polls were to show Trump clearly losing a hypothetical rematch with President Biden, some Republican primary voters might become nervous, hurting Trump in the primaries.I’m not predicting that outcome or any other specific scenario. There is a great deal of uncertainty about Trump’s legal problems and the 2024 election. I merely want to remind you that while attention will understandably focus on the Manhattan case this week, Trump’s legal problems are larger than this one case.Here’s our overview of the other three cases, compiled by my colleague Ian Prasad Philbrick.1. Jan. 6This is a federal investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The investigation appears to be focusing on Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack, on attempts by him and his allies to recruit fake presidential electors in key states, and on their fund-raising off false voter-fraud claims.Typically, the Justice Department tries to avoid taking actions that could influence the outcome of a campaign that has formally begun. (James Comey’s rejection of this tradition in the Hillary Clinton email case was a major exception.) If Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing this Trump inquiry, follows the tradition, Smith may make an announcement about whether to bring charges well before the end of this year.“He wants to resolve things quickly. But we cannot say how quickly,” my colleague Alan Feuer, who’s been covering the case, said.2. GeorgiaAfter Trump lost the 2020 election, he pressured Georgia’s top elections official “to find 11,780 votes,” enough to overturn his defeat. A grand jury investigating those efforts heard from 75 witnesses, including Rudy Giuliani and Lindsey Graham, and recommended that prosecutors charge multiple people with crimes. It’s unclear whether Trump is among them, because much of the grand jury’s report remains secret. But the jury’s forewoman has hinted he was among them.The charges could include attempted election fraud and racketeering related to Trump’s involvement in a plan to recruit fake presidential electors. Prosecutors will likely decide whether to charge anyone by next month.3. Government documentsThe third case — involving the handling of classified documents — is probably less threatening to Trump, at least from a political standpoint. Many politicians, apparently including Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence, have broken the rules for handling classified material. It’s partly a reflection of what many experts consider the over-classification of documents, including many that contain mundane information.Trump’s case does seem more extreme, however. He not only took hundreds of classified documents from the White House but also repeatedly resisted giving many of them back. Charges could include obstruction of justice for defying a subpoena. Smith is overseeing this inquiry as well, and the timing of a resolution remains unknown.The latest newsPolice officers and Secret Service agents will escort Trump from his home in Trump Tower to the district attorney’s office in Lower Manhattan, where he will surrender. Follow today’s developments.The New York Police Department has been put on alert. But officials say they do not expect a major backlash.Trump added a lawyer to his defense team, a former federal prosecutor with experience in white-collar cases.The case against Trump could hinge on an untested legal theory. Here’s what we know.THE LATEST NEWSPoliticsVoters head to the polls today to decide the runoff for Chicago mayor and to choose a new judge for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.About 15 million Americans could soon lose their health insurance because of the expiration of a pandemic program that automatically extended Medicaid coverage.Some Republicans fear that legislation to limit press freedom in Florida, drafted at Ron DeSantis’s urging, could expose conservative outlets to libel suits.Other Big StoriesClockwise from left: Christina Koch, Victor Glover, Jeremy Hansen and Reid Wiseman.Josh Valcarcel/NASA Johnson Space Center, via ReutersMeet the astronauts of the Artemis II mission: They’ll be the first people to fly around the moon in more than 50 years.Finland joins NATO today. It’s a strengthening of the Western alliance and a strategic setback for Vladimir Putin.More severe weather is on the way to the Midwest and parts of the South, the same area that tornadoes hit a few days ago.From convenient to a nuisance: Parisians voted to ban electric rental scooters.Freeing Paul Rusesabagina, depicted in the movie “Hotel Rwanda,” involved secret diplomacy, lawsuits and Hollywood.A ranch owner in Arizona was charged in the shooting death of a migrant. Some conservative ranchers say the owner was the real victim.OpinionsMatthew Walther supports gun rights, but he thinks that the fetishism of AR-15 fandom is dangerous.Baseball’s new rules are a desperately needed makeover, Steve Kettmann writes.MORNING READSA member of the Blackfeet Nation in Montana resting after shooting a bison last month.Michael Hanson for The New York TimesThe hunt: Their job is to kill bison who roam beyond Yellowstone’s borders.Up in the air: Take a close look at California’s snowy mountains.Baby’s first social media handle: Sorry, that profile name is taken. It belongs to a newborn.Love story: She thought her crush on a colleague was secret. Until someone asked, “Why do you have Jake pinned to your screen?”A Morning watch: She survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. This is her story, in her voice.Lives Lived: As a young man, Raghavan Iyer didn’t know how to cook a simple potato curry. He went on to teach America’s heartland how to prepare Indian cuisine. Iyer died at 61.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICConnecticut players celebrating their win yesterday.Godofredo A. Vasquez/Associated PressN.C.A.A. men’s tournament winners: The UConn Huskies claimed their fifth national title with a 76-59 drubbing of upstart San Diego State. They survived a chaotic men’s tournament which saw all four No. 1 seeds lose before the Elite Eight.From the sideline: UConn’s dominance in the men’s tournament has brought out the inner calm in its head coach.A possible invite: Jill Biden suggested that the women’s runner-up, Iowa, could also be invited to the White House alongside national champion L.S.U. Tigers star Angel Reese responded with laughing emojis.Oral history: Twenty years ago, the Boston Red Sox created “the most fun clubhouse in baseball.” The Athletic called those players.ARTS AND IDEAS Revising classicsAuthors’ estates have been altering the text of well-known books to remove language that some may consider offensive, raising questions about art and censorship. But for publishers, there’s another important factor: making sure those books still sell.Agatha Christie continues to find new fans, and her estate had those readers in mind when it recently removed bigoted language from some of her novels. Christie’s estate learned long ago how lucrative such a change could be: In the 1980s, it dropped the title from the U.K. edition of one novel, which contained a slur, and adopted the U.S. title, “And Then There Were None.” It remains her best-selling book.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookDavid Malosh for The New York TimesPair radicchio with a tasty dressing.What to WatchThe documentary “Pretty Baby: Brooke Shields” includes an absorbing collage of archival footage.What to ReadIn “A Fever in the Heartland,” Timothy Egan traces the Ku Klux Klan’s expansion in the 1920s.Late NightStephen Colbert wondered if Trump would get a mug shot taken.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was commodity. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Sports stadium (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidP.S. We have winners in The Morning’s March Madness pools: “KarlyRenee” in the women’s bracket, and “Archytas” in the men’s. Congratulations! If you’re one of them, email us at themorning@nytimes.com to receive your prize.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      New Jersey Gov. Murphy Signs Bill That Reshapes Campaign Finance Laws

      by

      The bill doubles New Jersey’s campaign contribution limits and quashes investigations by a watchdog agency.In January, a watchdog agency created 50 years ago to safeguard the integrity of campaign fund-raising in New Jersey filed four complaints. Three cited irregularities in powerful Democrat-led accounts, and one dinged a committee set up to elect Republicans.All of the complaints had the potential to result in hefty fines. And all of them vanished Monday afternoon when the governor, Philip D. Murphy, signed a controversial bill that fundamentally reshapes New Jersey’s campaign finance laws.The bill, which narrowly cleared the State Legislature last week, began as a way to double donation limits to candidates and to require some so-called dark money fund-raising groups to disclose large donors, whose identities are currently secret.But as the legislation moved through Trenton, where Democrats control the Assembly and Senate, amendments were added that make it harder to rein in — or police — campaign spending.One change gives Mr. Murphy an easier way to replace the executive director of the Election Law Enforcement Commission, known as ELEC. Another lets state and county political committees collect contributions to pay for operating expenses — funds that Philip Hensley, a policy analyst for the League of Women Voters of New Jersey, has decried as unregulated “slush money.”And a third alteration to the bill slashes the time for investigating allegations of impropriety to two years, down from 10. The change is retroactive, and the four complaints filed in January, which stem from fund-raising done in 2017, will be quashed, along with an estimated 80 percent of the agency’s other open investigations, officials have said.On Monday afternoon, the governor’s office sent an email that noted he had signed the bill, but it offered no additional comment.The overhaul of New Jersey’s campaign finance rules comes 13 years after a United States Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizens United unleashed limitless federal spending by corporations and unions. Since then, some Republican and Democrat-led states have also taken steps to curb the enforcement powers of agencies set up to limit the influence of money in government. “At a time when people everywhere are concerned about the health of democracy in our country,” Mr. Hensley said, “this is just the antithesis of good government.”He called New Jersey’s new law a “frontal assault on some of the rules that have protected good government.”After the bill passed, the election agency’s three commissioners — two Democrats and one Republican — resigned in protest. The fourth seat on the board had been vacant.Stephen M. Holden, a Democrat and former state judge who quit the board last week, called the legislation a “transparent abuse of power.”“It eviscerates our authority and independence,” he said.The two-year time clock for investigations will start at the moment an infraction occurs. But allegations of impropriety rarely surface until at least six months to a year after an election, Mr. Holden said.“If we didn’t get to you within two years, you’re home free,” he said ruefully.Nicholas Scutari, the Democratic president of the State Senate and a sponsor of the bill, has defended the altered statute of limitations, likening the 10-year time frame to a police officer writing a ticket long after a traffic infraction.The agency’s executive director, Jeffrey M. Brindle, had argued that a five-year window would be appropriate, bringing New Jersey in line with many other states.Opponents of the bill said that the two-year statute of limitations was a bald political effort to quash pending investigations and to be free of risk from any as-yet-undiscovered campaign finance violations that took place before April 2021.“What is in those previous eight years yet to be investigated that they don’t want to be investigated?” asked Assemblyman Brian Bergen, a Republican and one of the most vocal opponents of the bill.“Just wiping it off the books? This doesn’t pass the sniff test,” he added.He found rare common cause with many of the state’s left-leaning advocacy organizations, which fought for over a month against the bill.“It rolls back decades of reform,” Mr. Bergen said.The bill became intertwined with the Murphy administration’s efforts to remove Mr. Brindle from a job he has held for 14 years after the discovery of an email he wrote, which the attorney general’s office later concluded was “demeaning” to members of the gay community.Mr. Brindle has since sued the governor and several aides for what his lawyer has said was an effort to extort Mr. Brindle’s resignation by threatening to publicize the email. Mr. Murphy’s spokesman has said that Mr. Brindle was never threatened.The new law gives Mr. Murphy 90 days to appoint an entirely new four-person election board, circumventing the traditional approval needed from the State Senate. The commissioners, who are empowered to hire and fire the agency’s executive director, would also be paid a $30,000 annual stipend.In Mr. Murphy’s most recent comments about the legislation, during a March 22 radio broadcast, the governor declined to discuss the merits of the bill, instead noting that his administration had expanded voting access over the last several years.“Anything that we believe is on the side of transparency that is responsible, that opens up democracy, that shines a light as opposed to the opposite, assume that we’re going to be for it,” he said, noting that at the time, the bill was still being amended. “I think we wait and see what the final, what this looks like as it iterates.” More

    • 50 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      The Year’s Biggest Election

      by

      The battle for a state Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin.Wisconsin is a microcosm of the country. It is narrowly divided politically, though Democrats have a slight advantage in the popular vote in statewide elections. And, as in Washington, Republicans have structural advantages in the government that give them outsize power.Conservatives have controlled the state’s Supreme Court since 2008, and Republicans have held a hammerlock on the Legislature since 2011, when the party drew itself an impenetrable majority after taking control in a wave election.Tomorrow, Wisconsin will hold an election for a seat on its Supreme Court, and it is no exaggeration to call the race, for a 10-year term, the single most important American election of 2023. It is already the most expensive judicial race in the nation’s history. The candidates and the super PACs supporting them have spent nearly three times as much on this race as in any prior court election.Why is a single state race crucial? Because whichever side prevails will hold a 4-to-3 court majority, and this is the first American election in which the winner will single-handedly determine two big issues: the fate of abortion rights and whether the state has a functional representative democracy. The winner will also set the course for the 2024 presidential election in a state where fewer than 23,000 votes decided four of the last six such races.If the liberal candidate, Janet Protasiewicz, wins, Wisconsin will almost certainly become the first state to allow abortion again after outlawing it with last summer’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. And because Democrats are likely to challenge the makeup of the state’s legislative districts if the court has a liberal majority, the near supermajorities that Republicans enjoy in the State Legislature would also probably not survive until the 2024 election.A victory for the conservative candidate, Daniel Kelly, would mean abortion remains illegal, the gerrymandered maps stay in place, and Wisconsin remains a dysfunctional democracy for the foreseeable future.Janet Protasiewicz and Daniel Kelly.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesThe biggest prizeAbortion became illegal in the state last June, when the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, throwing the question to the states. Wisconsin’s near-total ban on abortion — enacted in 1849, a year after statehood and seven decades before women could vote — suddenly became the law again.Protasiewicz (pronounced pro-tuh-SAY-witz) is a judge and former prosecutor from Milwaukee who has so emphasized her support for abortion rights that nobody could be confused about how she’d rule on the 1849 law. In interviews and television advertisements and during the lone general election debate, she has stressed her belief that abortion decisions should be left to women and their doctors, not to state legislators.Kelly, a conservative former state Supreme Court justice who lost a re-election bid in 2020, has the backing of the state’s leading anti-abortion organizations and has repeatedly stressed his opposition to the practice.Protasiewicz has bet that her support for abortion rights will energize Democratic voters and persuade enough independents and moderate Republicans to win. It is a big wager on the continuation of the politics that helped Democrats exceed expectations in last year’s midterm elections.Democracy is on the lineWhen I got my first full-time job in journalism at The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2002, Wisconsin was an evenly divided state but one where control regularly switched back and forth between the two parties.That ended after the 2010 Republican wave, when the party took both chambers of the Legislature and Scott Walker was elected governor. The G.O.P. weakened public-sector labor unions and drew itself the most aggressive gerrymander in the country — near supermajority control of both chambers in a 50-50 state. In 2020, Joe Biden won Wisconsin but carried only 37 out of 99 State Assembly districts.Republicans also changed state law to make voting more onerous, enacting a strict voter ID law, while the state’s Supreme Court banned drop boxes for absentee ballots last year. Wisconsin now ranks 47th out of 50 states on how easy it is to vote, according to the 2022 Cost of Voting Index.Protasiewicz calls the Republican-drawn maps “rigged,” has suggested the labor law is unconstitutional and says she agrees with the liberal dissent in last year’s Supreme Court drop box ruling. Kelly says redistricting is a political problem to be solved by legislators — the very people who created it.This race will have real impact on national issues, too.Wisconsin’s Supreme Court was the only one in the country that agreed to hear Donald Trump’s challenge to the 2020 election, eventually rejecting — by a single vote — his attempt to throw out 200,000 ballots in the state’s two big Democratic counties. Kelly, when I interviewed him in February, declined to say whether he agreed with the decision to uphold the 2020 results.The 2024 presidential election in the state may be close enough to be contested in the courts again. New congressional maps could also put up to three Republican-held House seats in play.Tomorrow’s other big election: Chicago’s mayoral runoff race has focused on crime. The election pits a former schools executive, Paul Vallas, who is campaigning largely on a pro-police platform, against Brandon Johnson, a county commissioner who favors solutions that go beyond policing. Here’s what matters in four of the city’s wards.More politics newsDemocrats are using messages about abortion in their campaigns, even when the office they’re running for has little say on the issue.Asa Hutchinson, a former governor of Arkansas and a Trump critic, announced his bid for the 2024 Republican nomination.The Biden administration blacklisted a spyware firm. But the government signed a secret contract with the company.THE LATEST NEWSTrump’s IndictmentDonald Trump is using his criminal indictment to raise money and promote his 2024 presidential campaign.Trump spent the weekend making plans for his arrest, while officials in New York prepared for potential turmoil.War in UkraineThe Russian authorities said they had detained a woman in the killing of a pro-war blogger in a bombing in St. Petersburg, Russia, yesterday.In a call with his Russian counterpart, Secretary of State Antony Blinken demanded the release of the imprisoned American journalist Evan Gershkovich.A Russian children’s rights advocate says she’s rescuing abandoned Ukrainian children. The International Criminal Court accuses her of abducting them.Residents in a Ukrainian city near active combat refuse to leave. The Times rode with the police trying to evacuate them.InternationalSaudi Arabia, Russia and their oil-producing allies said they would cut production, an apparent effort to increase prices.The Israeli government moved forward with a plan to establish a national guard, a political victory for a far-right minister.Sanna Marin, Finland’s prime minister who found international popularity, lost a national election.Pope Francis left the hospital after receiving treatment for bronchitis.Other Big StoriesStorms have resurrected a California lake that was drained.Mark Abramson for The New York Times“This could be the mother of all floods”: California residents are bracing for the melt of this winter’s snowfall.Anti-abortion groups argue abortion pills are dangerous. More than 100 scientific studies have concluded that they are safe.The police found the body of a 2-year-old boy in the jaws of an alligator in Florida after his mother was stabbed to death.OpinionsGail Collins and Bret Stephens discuss Trump’s indictment and the 2024 election.Women’s sports deserve to be mythologized like men’s sports are, Kate Fagan writes.“The Last of Us” is right: In a warming world, fungal infections are a public-health blind spot, Dr. Neil Vora says.MORNING READSSecret to happiness: People in Finland say it’s knowing when you have enough.Looking for love? Move abroad.Metropolitan Diary: Getting his daily steps in. (All 113,772 of them.)Quiz time: Take our latest news quiz and share your score (the average was 8.8).Advice from Wirecutter: The best creamy peanut butter.Lives Lived: Seymour Stein championed acts including the Ramones, Talking Heads and the Pretenders on his label Sire, and helped found the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. He died at 80.SPORTS NEWSThe victorious L.S.U. players.Tony Gutierrez/Associated PressN.C.A.A. champions: Louisiana State beat Iowa, 102-85, winning its first national title in women’s basketball, The Athletic writes. “I think we have a lot to be proud of,” an emotional Caitlin Clark, Iowa’s star, said after the game.Colorful and divisive coach: Kim Mulkey, L.S.U.’s coach, wore a tiger-striped pantsuit of pink and gold sequins. But don’t mistake her for any triviality, Jeré Longman writes in The Times. It was Mulkey’s fourth national title as head coach.Chaos on the track: Max Verstappen won the Australian Grand Prix yesterday, but it was not a leisurely competition for the title front-runner, The Athletic’s Madeline Coleman writes.ARTS AND IDEAS Leonard Scheicher and Girley Jazama in “Measures of Men.”Julia Terjung/Studiocanal GmbHHistory on screenModern Germany has frequently grappled with the Holocaust, but it has not paid much attention to its role in the 20th century’s first genocide, when German colonial forces killed many people in what is now Namibia. A movie, “Measures of Men,” aims to change that.The film tells the story of the killings through the eyes of a German anthropologist who becomes complicit in the slaughter. It has been screened for lawmakers in Germany’s Parliament and will be shown in schools too. “Cinema allows us to awaken emotions, and implant images that can let you see events differently,” Lars Kraume, the director, said.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookLinda Xiao for The New York TimesMaqluba is a Palestinian dish made with rice, meat and fried vegetables.TheaterThe Broadway adaptation of “Life of Pi” is rich and inventive.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was pocketbook. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Get down (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. Wordplay columnist Rachel Fabi’s mom engaged in some lighthearted trolling in the comments section of a recent Times Crossword puzzle.Here’s today’s front page. “The Daily” is about Trump’s indictment.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Run on Abortion, Even for Offices With Little Say on the Issue

      by

      GREEN BAY, Wis. — Eric Genrich is running a full-throated campaign in support of abortion rights, reminding voters of his position at every turn and hammering his anti-abortion opponent in television ads. At a recent event, he featured an obstetrician who now commutes to a state where abortion is legal to treat patients and a local woman who traveled to Colorado to terminate a nonviable pregnancy.There’s just one inconvenient reality: Mr. Genrich is running for re-election as mayor of Green Bay, Wis., an office that has nothing to do with abortion policy.Even before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, putting back into effect a Wisconsin law from 1849 that bans nearly all abortions, the city did not have a clinic that performed the procedure, nor a health department that regulated it.Mr. Genrich is one of several candidates for municipal offices on the ballot this spring in races in Wisconsin, Chicago, St. Louis, Lincoln, Neb., and elsewhere who are making their support for abortion rights — and often their opponent’s past opposition — a centerpiece of their campaigns, even though abortion policy in all of these places is decided at the state level.Mayor Eric Genrich of Green Bay, Wis., left, has made abortion rights central to his re-election campaign. At a recent news conference, one speaker was Dr. Anna Igler, second from right, a Wisconsin obstetrician-gynecologist who traveled to Colorado for an abortion because her fetus had a severe abnormality.Kayla Wolf for The New York TimesDemocrats used a muscular defense of abortion rights to great success in the midterm elections last fall, and, if that strategy works again, they are likely to copy it next year in races at all levels of government, including in President Biden’s campaign if he seeks re-election.The focus on abortion rights in down-ballot races, however, reflects Democrats’ increased nationalization of local politics. For decades, local Republican candidates ran on issues like abortion, immigration and national security, putting them in simple terms: “A noun, a verb and 9/11,” Mr. Biden once said in describing the phenomenon.Now Democrats are doing the same on abortion in left-leaning cities, hoping to win over independent voters and some moderate Republicans.Doing so allows Democrats to avoid discussing crime rates or other less appealing campaign topics. But beyond that, they recognize and emphasize that in today’s tribal politics, the precise responsibilities of an office matter less than sending a strong signal to voters about one’s broader political loyalties.“It’s definitely not a municipal issue per se,” Mr. Genrich said in an interview. “Voters don’t care about some of these parochial distinctions between municipal boundaries. This is a city issue, a state issue, a federal issue. Some of their most important questions are, what do you stand for fundamentally?”Mr. Genrich declined repeated opportunities to explain what, precisely, the mayor of Green Bay could do about abortion in his city.Still, Republicans running for mayor find themselves doing a political tap dance, trying to de-emphasize but not disavow their opposition to abortion rights, which is not an electoral winner in Democratic cities. In Green Bay, Mr. Biden won 53 percent of the vote in 2020; last year, Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, took 55 percent of the city’s vote.Mr. Genrich’s opponent in Tuesday’s officially nonpartisan election, Chad Weininger, is a former state legislator who cast a series of votes to restrict abortion rights before last year’s Supreme Court ruling. Now, as television ads and campaign mail blast his stance and label him “MAGA Chad” to emphasize his Republican politics, he is trying to change the subject.Chad Weininger, who is running for mayor against Mr. Genrich in Green Bay, is a former state legislator who has opposed abortion rights in the past. Kayla Wolf for The New York Times“I’m running for mayor, I’m not debating abortion,” Mr. Weininger said. “We could have discussions about nuclear arms, but guess what? Can’t do anything about it. We can have discussions about securing our borders, but there’s nothing we can do about it.”National Democratic organizations that do not typically involve themselves in local elections are using abortion policy to promote and raise money for candidates who back abortion rights.Emily’s List, a group that backs women who support abortion rights, has endorsed mayoral candidates in Jacksonville, Fla., Madison, Wis., and Lincoln, Neb.In Lincoln, where Mr. Biden won 54 percent of the vote in 2020, Mayor Leirion Gaylor Baird, a Democrat, said her constituents had demanded to know what she could do about proposed legislation in the Nebraska Legislature that would restrict abortion rights. Her answer: speak out against the bills.Mayor Leirion Gaylor Baird of Lincoln, Neb., has urged constituents to speak out in favor of abortion rights. Madeline Cass for The New York TimesVoters, Ms. Gaylor Baird said, are “much more interested in knowing where people stand. So I expect that people will want to know where I stand on this issue, even if it isn’t a local issue typically.”Her main opponent, Suzanne Geist, a Republican state senator who has sponsored bills to restrict or ban abortion in Nebraska, said her actions in the State Capitol should have little bearing on how she would run the state’s capital city. She said she would prefer to focus on issues like public safety and the health of the city’s business community.Talking about abortion, Ms. Geist said, is “a way of avoiding what the present issues are and trying to get the public wrapped around something that really has nothing to do with the mayor’s office or the mayor’s race.”Suzanne Geist, a Republican state senator running for mayor of Lincoln, Neb., said that talking about abortion was “a way of avoiding what the present issues are and trying to get the public wrapped around something that really has nothing to do with the mayor’s office or the mayor’s race.”Madeline Cass for The New York TimesPast opposition to some abortion rights has become a political liability even for candidates who support them now. In Chicago, Paul Vallas, the former Chicago Public Schools chief executive who is running for mayor, is being attacked by his more liberal opponent, Brandon Johnson, for a 2009 television interview in which Mr. Vallas said, “Fundamentally, I oppose abortion.”Mr. Vallas’s statement, which he made when he being asked about possibly running for state office as a Republican, came after he had declared himself “personally pro-choice” but said he would favor banning some late-term abortions.Mr. Johnson is now broadcasting ads with a clip of Mr. Vallas’s statement that he opposed abortion; Mr. Vallas has responded with advertising declaring that he supports abortion rights.In an interview on Sunday at a Greek restaurant, Mr. Vallas said Mr. Johnson had taken his past abortion comments out of context.“It’s had some impact,” he acknowledged.In other races, municipal candidates are trying to find ways to make their cities have some influence over abortion access.Daniela Velázquez, a public relations executive running for the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, has proposed providing money for women seeking abortions to travel across the Mississippi River to Illinois, where the procedure remains legal. While abortion became illegal in Missouri after the Supreme Court’s decision, Ms. Velázquez said many in St. Louis supported abortion rights.“I have been knocking on doors and people have looked at our lit and been like, ‘Oh, you know, pro-choice,’” she said. “Then they say, ‘Yeah, I’m going to vote for you.’”Democrats are open in their belief at the current moment, the best way to win votes is to focus on the abortion fight.“Abortion and reproductive rights is the No. 1 issue in 2023,” said Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, which has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to back Mr. Genrich in Green Bay and Mayor Cory Mason in Racine, who is making similar arguments there. “It’s the No. 1 issue that moves voters that normally vote Republican to vote for someone else and it’s the No. 1 issue to get Democrats off the couch and casting ballots.”Beyond the Green Bay mayoral election, abortion is a major issue in Wisconsin’s race for the State Supreme Court, which will finish on Tuesday and is likely to decide whether the procedure remains illegal in the state. Kayla Wolf for The New York TimesIn November, Racine asked voters on the midterm-election ballot if Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban should be repealed — and 71 percent said yes. Mr. Mason is now running television ads highlighting his stance in favor of abortion rights and attacking his opponent.Abortion, Mr. Mason said, comes up in his discussions with voters as much as snow plowing, public safety and housing.“These two big issues around freedom, the freedom to vote and the freedom to make your own health care decisions, they are every bit as front and center in this race as anything else that we deal with at the municipal level,” Mr. Mason said.Mr. Mason’s opponent, Henry Perez, a Republican city alderman opposed to abortion rights, said voters in Racine did not care much about the issue. He said that he did not remember how he had voted in the November abortion referendum, and that too much fuss was being made over abortion being banned in Racine when it was available across the state line in Illinois, roughly 25 miles south of the city.“A lot of people I’ve talked to say, ‘Henry, abortion, really?’” Mr. Perez said. “What do we care about it here? I mean, it’s not a thing that we do. And there’s always options like going out of town, you know, or going over to the next state to take care of an abortion if they need to.”Mitch Smith More