Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Under Pressure as Anti-Abortion Activists Call for a National Ban

      by

      Activists are pushing for tougher abortion restrictions, while politicians fear turning off swing voters who don’t support strict limits like a national ban.For decades, opposition to abortion was a crucial but relatively clear-cut litmus test for Republican candidates: support overturning a constitutional right to an abortion, back anti-abortion judges and vote against taxpayer funding for the procedure.But now, six months after the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights, the test has grown a whole lot harder — and potentially more politically treacherous.Even after a backlash in support of abortion rights cost Republicans key seats in the midterm elections, a restive socially conservative wing is pushing the party’s lawmakers to embrace deeper restrictions. That effort is likely to be on stark display on Friday in Washington, when anti-abortion activists gather for what is expected to be a lower-key version of their annual march. Historically, the event attracted top Republicans, including former President Donald J. Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence and former Speaker Paul Ryan. This year, the list of speakers circulated in advance included two lawmakers: Representative Steve Scalise, the Republican majority leader, and Representative Chris Smith, one of the leaders of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.These activists and their allies are pressuring potential Republican presidential contenders to call for a national ban. Raising the stakes nearly two years before the 2024 contest, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the most powerful anti-abortion groups, said that any candidate who does not support federal restrictions should be “disqualified” from winning the party’s nomination.But some Republican strategists worry that such a position could repel general-election swing voters, who polls show are turned off by the idea of a national ban.Other conservative activists are pushing for a new series of litmus tests that include restrictions on medication abortion, protections for so-called crisis pregnancy centers that discourage women from having abortions, and promises of fiercely anti-abortion appointees to run the Justice Department and the Food and Drug Administration.For Republican politicians, these activists are forcing the question of what, exactly, it means to be “pro-life” in a post-Roe v. Wade era.In Grand Rapids, Mich., last November, opponents rallied against Proposition 3, a ballot measure that sought to protect abortion rights. Democratic candidates, who supported Proposition 3, did well in the election.Brittany Greeson for The New York Times“This is coming. The pro-life movement is not going to be happy or thanking a candidate simply for saying they are pro-life,” said Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, an anti-abortion group. “We’re in a position where we’re going to get down to the various candidates on how far they are going to go to protect women and children.”Some Republican officials and strategists argue that pitched debates over abortion rights in the midterms — and the party’s inability to quickly adopt a unified message on the issue — contributed to the G.O.P.’s weaker-than-expected performance in battleground states including Michigan, Pennsylvania and Arizona.More on Abortion Issues in AmericaAt a Crossroads: As the 50th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling approaches, anti-abortion activists who fought to have the decision overturned are split about what they should focus on next.In Congress: Republicans used their new power in the House to push through legislation that could subject doctors who perform abortions to criminal penalties.Morning-After Pills: The Food and Drug Administration revised its guidance on the most commonly used emergency contraceptives, making clear they are not abortion pills.Abortion Pills: In a move that could significantly expand access to medication abortions, the F.D.A. moved to allow retail pharmacies to offer abortion pills in the United States.This view is shared by former President Donald J. Trump, who distanced himself this month from a social conservative wing that has been a pillar of his base when he blamed the “abortion issue” for the party’s loss of “large numbers of voters” in November.The comments set off an instant backlash from loyal supporters who once lauded him as the most anti-abortion president in history. Ms. Hawkins described Mr. Trump as “listening to swamp consultants.” The remarks also prompted ridicule from some Republican strategists who noted that Mr. Trump was often a liability in major races last year.Some potential 2024 candidates have begun tussling over the issue as they try to position themselves as the conservative movement’s next standard-bearer. Mr. Trump’s comments drew a rebuke from his former vice president, Mike Pence, who retweeted a statement from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America urging the former president and his possible rivals to embrace an “ambitious consensus pro-life position.”“Well said,” added Mr. Pence, who has cast himself as a true champion of the cause as he promotes the Supreme Court’s ruling in appearances at “crisis pregnancy centers” and movement galas.A spokesman for Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota has accused Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida of “hiding” behind his state’s ban on abortion past 15 weeks of pregnancy, while Ms. Noem has promoted her “aggressive” record on abortion restrictions.“Talking about situations and making statements is incredibly important, but also taking action and governing and bringing policies that protect life are even more important,” she said recently on CBS News..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.And Mr. DeSantis, who shied away from addressing abortion for most of the fall campaign, has said he is “willing to sign great life legislation” and has not ruled out support for a six-week ban.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a bill last year for a ban on abortions after 15 weeks, and he has said he would consider a six-week ban.John Raoux/Associated PressStill, it remains unclear what, exactly, is the new standard for being anti-abortion — even among those pushing for more restrictions. Is it enough to seek to ban abortions after 15 weeks? Or should the bar be roughly six weeks, like the measure that Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia signed into law? Should Republicans support exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother — which Mr. Trump backs — or none at all? And how do you define health anyhow? Do psychiatric crises count?As some Republican-dominated statehouses prepare to further limit abortion, future presidential candidates are also likely to be asked about restrictive measures being proposed, including prosecuting those seeking abortion care in states where it is banned, targeting allies who help women travel across state lines for the procedure, criminalizing the mailing of abortion medication, and granting fetuses the same legal rights as people through fetal personhood bills.“Conservatives will not allow a Republican to be elected as their candidate that’s not pro-life,” said Penny Nance, the chief executive of Concerned Women for America, a group that argues that life begins at conception.Asked how conservatives now defined “pro-life” credentials — in terms of embracing abortion restrictions after a certain pregnancy threshold, simply looking for candidates who seemed to be fighters on the issue, or something else — Ms. Nance replied, “I think we’ll grapple with that.”Several activists have suggested that they expect this grappling to unfold in the context of a presidential primary campaign, as possible candidates race to demonstrate their anti-abortion bona fides.Democrats are avidly watching from the sidelines, keeping close tabs on the abortion stances of potential 2024 rivals. Their hope is that Republicans adopt positions that might be popular with their base but that will cost them the moderate suburbanites who are critical in the general election. Polling conducted by some Democratic strategists during the midterms found that voters strongly rejected any discussion of a national abortion ban.“They’re going to go for a national ban,” Celinda Lake, a longtime Democratic strategist and pollster, said in an interview around Election Day. “That is the most mobilizing statement, the most persuasive.”She added, “And their candidate is going to be pushed into saying it.”Still, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it remains an open question whether social conservatives hold the same king-making power in the primary as they did in 2016, or if they may be forced to accept a candidate who doesn’t go as far on their top issues as they would prefer.Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota has promoted her “aggressive” record on abortion restrictions.Phelan M. Ebenhack/Associated PressThe party remains divided over whether to support any national restrictions. In the House, the new Republican majority opened the session with a package of abortion legislation that did not include a national ban. Because Democrats control the Senate, none of the measures are expected to become law.“A great many Republicans still think the victory in Dobbs was pushing this down to the states,” Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist and longtime adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell, said when asked for his thoughts on the relatively limited action on Capitol Hill. “It is contradictory to simultaneously believe that and then push for a national regime on it.”Mr. Jennings said he thought restricting abortion access after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions, was smart politics, a proposal that candidates could endorse for the states.But when Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina put forward that position in the form of a federal ban before the midterms, the proposal earned a backlash among some Republicans who viewed it, and its timing, as politically foolhardy.Still, in the final weeks of the midterms, many Republicans embraced a central message: a 15-week limit with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. They sought to push Democrats to define their own limits on gestational age — and falsely accused them of supporting “abortion until birth” if they refused. Nearly all Democrats support federal legislation that would reinstate a version of the standard set by Roe: permitting abortion until fetal viability, roughly 23 weeks, and after that point only if the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother’s health.Robert Blizzard, a veteran Republican pollster, noted that several Republican candidates who generally opposed abortion rights won major statewide races in places including Florida, Georgia and Iowa. But elsewhere, for candidates without clearly defined personal brands, he said, “voters can use the abortion issue as a test of how compassionate they are, and how pragmatic they are, in order to solve problems and get things done.”“There were some candidates we had running, specifically in statewide races, that just could never get past the favorability” issue with independent voters, he added.Mr. Blizzard emphasized that it was impossible to know what issues would motivate voters in the 2024 general election. But there is little doubt, he said, that Democrats will continue to use the abortion issue against Republicans — and that in the midterms they often did so effectively.“Every metric you would look at indicates that that energizes the left and energizes the Democratic base, which it certainly did,” he said. “In some cases, where we made the fight over other issues — whether the economy, inflation, the border, whatever else was going on in a particular state or district — we did, I think, well. But in places where we were not able to change the narrative of a race, we didn’t do well.”“In terms of going forward,” he went on, describing the political uncertainties surrounding the issue, “I don’t think anyone has a really solid answer for it.” More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      States Push for New Voting Laws With an Eye Toward 2024

      by

      Republicans are focused on voter ID rules and making it harder to cast mail ballots, while Democrats are seeking to expand access through automatic voter registration.The tug of war over voting rights and rules is playing out with fresh urgency at the state level, as Republicans and Democrats fight to get new laws on the books before the 2024 presidential election.Republicans have pushed to tighten voting laws with renewed vigor since former President Donald J. Trump made baseless claims of fraud after losing the 2020 election, while Democrats coming off midterm successes are trying to channel their momentum to expand voting access and thwart efforts to undermine elections.States like Florida, Texas and Georgia, where Republicans control the levers of state government, have already passed sweeping voting restrictions that include criminal oversight initiatives, limits on drop boxes, new identification requirements and more.While President Biden and Democrats in Congress were unable to pass federal legislation last year that would protect voting access and restore elements of the landmark Voting Rights Act stripped away by the Supreme Court in 2013, not all reform efforts have floundered.In December, Congress updated the Electoral Count Act, closing a loophole that Mr. Trump’s supporters had sought to exploit to try to get Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election results on the day of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.Now the focus has returned to the state level. Here are some of the key voting measures in play this year:Ohio Republicans approve new restrictions.Ohioans must now present a driver’s license, passport or other official photo ID to vote in person under a G.O.P. measure that was signed into law on Jan. 6 by Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican.The law also set tighter deadlines for voters to return mail-in ballots and provide missing information on them. Absentee ballot requests must be received earlier as well.Republicans, who control the Legislature in Ohio, contend that the new rules will bolster election integrity, yet they have acknowledged that the issue has not presented a problem in the state. Overall, voter fraud is exceedingly rare.Several voting rights groups were quick to file a federal lawsuit challenging the changes, which they said would disenfranchise Black people, younger and older voters, as well as those serving in the military and living abroad.Texas G.O.P. targets election crimes and ballot initiatives.Despite enacting sweeping restrictions on voting in 2021 that were condemned by civil rights groups and the Justice Department in several lawsuits, Republican lawmakers in Texas are seeking to push the envelope further.Politics Across the United StatesFrom the halls of government to the campaign trail, here’s a look at the political landscape in America.2023 Races: Governors’ contests in Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi and mayoral elections in Chicago and Philadelphia are among the races to watch this year.Democrats’ New Power: After winning trifectas in four state governments in the midterms, Democrats have a level of control in statehouses not seen since 2009.G.O.P. Debates: The Republican National Committee has asked several major TV networks to consider sponsoring debates, an intriguing show of détente toward the mainstream media and an early sign that the party is making plans for a contested 2024 presidential primary.An Important Election: The winner of a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April will determine who holds a 4-to-3 majority in a critical presidential battleground state.Dozens of bills related to voting rules and election administration were filed for the legislative session that began this month. While many are from Democrats seeking to ease barriers to voting, Republicans control both chambers of the Texas Legislature and the governor’s office. It is not clear which bills will gain the necessary support to become laws.Some G.O.P. proposals focus on election crimes, including one that would authorize the secretary of state to designate an election marshal responsible for investigating potential election violations.“Similar bills have passed in Florida and in Georgia,” said Jasleen Singh, a counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “We should be concerned about whether this will happen in Texas as well.”Under another bill, a voter could request that the secretary of state review local election orders and language on ballot propositions and reject any that are found to be “misleading, inaccurate or prejudicial,” part of a push by Republicans in several states to make it harder to pass ballot measures after years of progressive victories.One proposal appears to target heavily populated, Democratic-controlled counties, giving the state attorney general the power to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate voter fraud allegations if local officials decline to do so. Another bill goes further, allowing the attorney general to seek an injunction against local prosecutors who don’t investigate claims of voter fraud and pursue civil penalties against them.A 19-year-old registering to vote in Minnesota, where Democrats introduced a bill that would allow applicants who are at least 16 years old to preregister to vote. Tim Gruber for The New York TimesDemocrats in Minnesota and Michigan go on offense.Democrats are seeking to harness their momentum from the midterm elections to expand voting access in Minnesota and Michigan, where they swept the governors’ races and legislative control.In Minnesota, the party introduced legislation in early January that would create an automatic voter registration system and allow applicants who are at least 16 years old to preregister to vote. The measure would also automatically restore the voting rights of convicted felons upon their release from prison and for those who do not receive prison time as part of a sentence.In Michigan, voters approved a constitutional amendment in November that creates a nine-day early voting period and requires the state to fund absentee ballot drop boxes. Top Democrats in the state are also weighing automatic voter registration and have discussed criminalizing election misinformation.Pennsylvania Republicans want to expand a voter ID law.Because of the veto power of the governor, an office the Democrats held in the November election, Republicans in Pennsylvania have resorted to trying to amend the state constitution in order to pass a voter ID bill.The complex amendment process, which ultimately requires putting the question to voters, is the subject of pending litigation.Both chambers of the Legislature need to pass the bill this session in order to place it on the ballot, but Democrats narrowly flipped control of the House in the midterms — and they will seek to bolster their majority with three special elections next month.“If the chips fall in a certain way, it is unlikely that this will move forward and it might quite possibly be dead,” said Susan Gobreski, a board member of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. “But it ain’t dead yet.”Gov. Josh Shapiro has indicated an openness to compromise with Republicans on some voting rules.“I’m certainly willing to have an honest conversation about voter I.D., as long as that is something that is not used as a hindrance to voting,” Mr. Shapiro said in an interview in December.First-time voters and those applying for absentee ballots are currently required to present identification in Pennsylvania, but Republicans want to expand the requirement to all voters in every election and have proposed issuing voter ID cards. Critics say the proposal would make it harder to vote and could compromise privacy.Mr. Shapiro has separately said he hoped that Republicans in the legislature would agree to change the state’s law that forbids the processing of absentee ballots and early votes before Election Day. The ballot procedures, which can drag out the counting, have been a flash point in a series of election lawsuits filed by Republicans.Georgia’s top election official, a Republican, calls to end runoff system.Early voting fell precipitously in Georgia’s nationally watched Senate runoff in December after Republicans, who control of state government, cut in half the number of days for casting ballots before Election Day.Long lines at some early-voting sites, especially in the Atlanta area, during the runoff led to complaints of voter suppression.But the G.O.P. lost the contest, after a set of runoff defeats a year earlier that gave Democrats control of the Senate.Now Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who is Georgia’s secretary of state and its top election official, wants to abandon the runoff system altogether, saying that the condensed timeline had put added strain on poll workers.Critics of ranked-choice voting cited the system as being instrumental to the re-election last year of Senator Lisa Murkowski, a centrist Republican.Ash Adams for The New York TimesRepublicans in Alaska want to undo some voting changes approved in 2020.After a special election last year and the midterms, when Alaska employed a novel election system for the first time, some conservatives reeling from losses at the polls have directed their ire at a common target: ranked-choice voting.At least three Republican lawmakers have introduced bills seeking to repeal some of the electoral changes that were narrowly approved by voters in 2020, which introduced a “top-four” open primary and ranked-choice voting in general elections. In addition to deciding winners based on the candidate who receives the most votes, the bills also seek to return to a closed primary system, in which only registered party members can participate.Supporters of the new system contend that it sets a higher bar to get elected than to simply earn a plurality of votes.But critics have called the format confusing. Some have blamed it for the defeat of Sarah Palin, the Republican former governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee, in a special House election in August and again in November for the same office.They also cited the system as being instrumental to the re-election last year of Senator Lisa Murkowski, a centrist Republican who angered some members of her party when she voted to convict Mr. Trump at his impeachment trial after the Jan. 6 attack.Still, Republican foes of ranked-choice elections could face hurdles within their own party. According to The Anchorage Daily News, the incoming Senate president, a Republican, favors keeping the system in place.Nebraska Republicans aim to sharply curb mail voting.Nebraska does not require voters to provide a reason to vote early by mail, but two Republican state senators want to make wholesale changes that would mostly require in-person voting on Election Day.Under a bill proposed by Steve Halloran and Steve Erdman, G.O.P. senators in the unicameral legislature, only members of the U.S. military and residents of nursing homes and assisted living facilities could vote by mail.The measure would further require all ballots to be counted on Election Day, which would become a state holiday in Nebraska, along with the day of the statewide primary.The League of Women Voters of Nebraska opposes the bill and noted that 11 of the state’s 93 counties vote entirely by mail under a provision that gives officials in counties with under 10,000 people the option to do so.“This is an extreme bill and would be very unpopular,” MaryLee Mouton, the league’s president, said in an email. “When most states are moving to expand voting by mail, a bill to restrict vote by mail would negatively impact both our rural and urban communities.”In the November election, Nebraskans overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that created a statewide photo ID requirement for voting.A Republican bill in Missouri would hunt for election fraud.In Missouri, where Republicans control the governor’s office and Legislature, one G.O.P. bill would create an Office of Election Crimes and Security. The office would report to the secretary of state and would be responsible for reviewing election fraud complaints and conducting investigations.Its investigators would also be authorized to enter poling places or offices of any election authority on Election Day, during absentee voting or the canvass of votes. More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Against the Wounded Extremists

      by

      I’ve covered four presidents since joining The Times in 2003. Year after year (except during the Trump years) I go into the White House. The rooms are pretty much the same. The immaculate formality is the same. But the culture of each administration is quite different. The culture is set by the president.The phrase that comes to mind in describing the culture of the Biden White House is the assumption of power. Biden and his team do not see America as some beleaguered, declining superpower. They proceed on the premise that America is in as strong a position as ever to lead the world.Biden’s cheerful confidence is an unappreciated national asset. As American power has come to be underestimated, especially since the election of Donald Trump, a man like Biden, who has been underestimated pretty much his whole life, is in a decent position to help Americans regain confidence in their country and its government.At the moment. Biden is facing several significant headwinds — political, economic, foreign, domestic. I’d describe this administration’s methodology across these different challenges as incremental pressure and steady progress.Last year was awash in examples of this, as Biden did nothing less than help tame the world. He passed major legislation and led the Democrats to a surprisingly successful midterm election. He organized a global coalition to support Ukraine and set Vladimir Putin back on his heels. He took a series of measures to push back against Chinese hegemony, including sweeping semiconductor export controls.Before these events, the momentum seemed to be with Biden’s adversaries in each of these cases. Now the momentum is with Biden and his friends.This year he will face off against the same extremists. But they are weak in crucial ways. The fractured House Republicans are controlled by their wackiest wing. Putin continues to fail in Ukraine. Xi Jinping is beset by numerous crises, from Covid to demographic decline to the economy. Biden will have to manage these wounded adversaries to make sure they don’t lash out in extremis, doing something crazy to disrupt the world.Republican craziness could manifest itself during the looming debt ceiling crisis. A wing of Republican fiscal terrorists could make such outrageous demands that the United States is unable to fulfill its financial obligations. Biden will probably have to work with Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer in the Senate to come up with a plausible debt ceiling compromise. Then he’ll have to cajole or pressure a group of vulnerable and reasonable House Republicans, some in districts Biden won, to break with their party, so that the compromise can get through the lower chamber.Putin’s craziness could manifest as a doubling down on his Ukraine adventure or even the still existing threat of nuclear weapons. The core problem for Putin is that he has no easy way out, short of withdrawal and humiliation. He could try to win the war the traditional Russian way, by throwing masses of men into the quagmire. But suppose that doesn’t work out. All he’s got left is nukes. What does Putin do then?Xi’s craziness could manifest as ever more aggressive moves in his region and beyond, including an invasion of Taiwan. Xi has helped raise millions to middle-class status, but suppose he can’t fulfill the expectations that middle-class status generates? His authoritarian nationalism has provoked the United States to erect trade barriers and impose export controls. Growing levels of American corporate investment can no longer be assumed. How does Xi respond to the hostile environment he has created?The United States, democracy and liberalism are now winning, and the problems of authoritarianism, domestic and international, are exposed. But Biden is going to have to thread a series of needles to be sure the wounded extremists don’t take the world down with them.The stress of this situation doesn’t seem to be weighing heavily on Biden and his team.I’d describe this administration’s methodology with this phrase: steady and incremental pressure. When Putin first invaded Ukraine, the U.S. was wary of acknowledging the ways in which it was militarily aiding the defenders. But it has steadily ramped up the pressure, moving from offering Ukraine Stinger antiaircraft missiles to providing Patriot air defense systems and armored fighting vehicles. Now, my colleagues report, the Biden administration is thinking of helping the Ukrainians go after Russian sanctuaries in Crimea.The Biden administration does not seem to be trying to decouple the American and Chinese economies. A healthy Chinese economy is in America’s interest for the sake of global stability. But the Biden administration has continued to ramp up the pressure on China’s nationalist tendencies, trying to stall Chinese development in, say, computing, biotech and biomanufacturing.Biden’s pressure on the Republicans follows the same incremental and steady pattern. Many of the infrastructure projects that were funded by recent legislation are now getting underway. You can look forward to seeing the president at event after event, like the one he did with Mitch McConnell in Covington, Ky., to tout new funding for the Brent Spence Bridge.The goal is to show the American people that government does work and that Biden himself deserves re-election. Biden’s going to go after G.O.P. extremism, but he hopes to make his own competence the center of his election argument.Bill Clinton’s administration was forever associated with the word “triangulation” — moving beyond left and right. The word to associate with Biden should be “calibration” — this much pressure but not too much. It’s a tricky business. We’ll see if it works out.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

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Gary Hart: The “New Church Committee” Is an Outrage

      by

      To legitimize otherwise questionable investigations, Congress occasionally labels them after a previous successful effort. Thus, the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives’ proposed select committee, which plans to investigate the “weaponization of government,” is being described as “the new Church committee,” after the group of senators who investigated the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and other groups from 1975-76.As the last surviving member of the original Church committee, named after its chairman, the late Senator Frank Church of Idaho, I have a particular interest in distinguishing what we accomplished then and what authoritarian Republicans seem to have in mind now.The outlines of the committee, which Rep. Jim Jordan will assemble, remain vague. Reading between the rhetorical lines, proponents appear to believe agencies of the national government have targeted, and perhaps are still targeting, right-of-center individuals and groups, possibly including individuals and right-wing militia groups that participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrectionist attack on the Capitol.That is almost completely at odds with the purpose of the original Church committee, which was founded in response to widespread abuses by government intelligence agencies. While we sought to protect the constitutional rights and freedoms of American citizens, we were also bound to protect the integrity of the intelligence and security agencies, which were founded to protect those freedoms, too.Our committee brought U.S. intelligence agencies under congressional scrutiny to prevent the violation of the privacy rights of American citizens, and to halt covert operations abroad that violated our constitutional principles. Rather than strengthening the oversight of federal agencies, the new committee seems designed to prevent law enforcement and intelligence agencies from enforcing the law — specifically, laws against insurrectionist activity in our own democracy.It is one thing to intercept phone calls from people organizing a peaceful civil rights march and quite another to intercept phone calls from people organizing an assault on the Capitol to impede the certification of a national election.Rather than weaken our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the Church committee sought to restore their original mandates and increase their focus away from partisan or political manipulation. Our committee was bipartisan, leaning neither right nor left, and the conservative senators, including the vice chair, John Tower, Barry Goldwater, Howard Baker and others, took pains to prevent liberal or progressive members, including chairman Church, Philip Hart, Walter Mondale and me, from weakening our national security.They needn’t have bothered. We all understood, including me, the youngest member, that attacks on federal law enforcement and national security would not go down well among our constituents. Unlike in the 1970s, today’s threat to domestic security is less from foreign sources and more from homeland groups seeking to replace the constitutional order with authoritarian practices that challenge historic institutions and democratic practices.Among a rather large number of reforms proposed by the Church committee were permanent congressional oversight committees for the intelligence community, an endorsement of the 1974 requirement that significant clandestine projects be approved by the president in a written “finding,” the notification of the chairs of the oversight committees of certain clandestine projects at the time they are undertaken and the elimination of assassination attempts against foreign leaders.Despite the concern of conservatives at the time, to my knowledge, no significant clandestine activity was compromised and no classified information leaked as a result of these reforms in the almost half-century since they were adopted. In fact, the oversight and notification requirements, by providing political cover, have operated as protection for the C.I.A.Evidence was provided of the effectiveness of these reforms in the so-called Iran-contra controversy in 1985-87. The Reagan administration sold arms to Iran and used the proceeds to finance covert operations in Nicaragua against its socialist government. Assigning accountability for this scheme proved difficult until a document authorizing it was located in the White House. President Reagan did not remember signing it; however, it bore his signature. This kind of accountability would not have been possible before our reforms were adopted.The rules of the Senate and the House establish what standing committees and what special committees each house may create. The House is clearly at liberty within those rules to create a committee to protect what it perceives to be an important element of its base. And if its purposes are ultimately to protect authoritarian interests, it is presumably free to do so and accept criticisms from the press and the public. It is outrageous to call it a new Church committee. Trying to disguise a highly partisan effort to legitimize undemocratic activities by cloaking it in the mantle of a successful bipartisan committee from decades ago is a mockery.Gary Hart is a former United States senator from Colorado and the author of, most recently, “The Republic of Conscience.”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

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Obamacare Is Everywhere in the Unlikeliest of Places: Miami

      by

      A decade after the Affordable Care Act’s federal health insurance marketplace was created, its outsize — and improbable — popularity in South Florida persists.MIAMI — Lídice Hernández opened an insurance agency last year on a busy street, affixing to the storefront a logo that has become deeply familiar in South Florida: a white sun rising over the red stripes of the American flag, all encased in a big, blue O.“Obamacare,” it read underneath.Similar displays are common along some of Miami’s main thoroughfares, almost 13 years after President Barack Obama’s signature health policy, the Affordable Care Act, became law and critics branded it with his name. Everywhere you look, especially during the open enrollment period that runs from November to January: Obamacare, Obamacare, Obamacare.“If we don’t use it,” Ms. Hernández explained of the moniker, “people don’t know that we sell it.”And in Miami, people really want it.On its face, the program’s outsize popularity in South Florida remains one of its most intriguing data points. The evidence is visible in every Obamacare logo deployed — not just on storefronts but on trucks, flags and billboards — to sell health insurance, as agents in the crowded local market jockey to enroll people. This year’s open enrollment period ends on Sunday.Florida has far more people enrolled in the federal health insurance marketplace created by the Affordable Care Act than any other state does, a distinction that has been true since 2015. Driving those numbers has been the Miami area, where older, Republican-leaning Hispanics appeared loath to embrace government-subsidized health insurance when the law was enacted. At the time, it ignited some of the most pitched partisan battles in the nation’s recent history.In particular, some Miamians who had fled left-wing leaders in Cuba and other Latin American countries chafed at the law’s requirement — later eliminated — that people have health coverage or face a penalty, which critics decried as “socialism.”The region has only tilted more Republican since then, flipping red in the governor’s race last year for the first time in two decades. Yet in 2022, the two ZIP codes with the most enrollees in Affordable Care Act coverage nationwide were in Doral and Hialeah, cities west and north of Miami known for their right-leaning Venezuelan American and Cuban American communities. And the county with most enrollees in the country remained Miami-Dade.Lídice Hernández opened an insurance agency in Miami last year. Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesEverywhere you look, especially during the open enrollment period: Obamacare, Obamacare, Obamacare.Scott McIntyre for The New York Times“It’s ingrained in our community,” said Nicholas X. Duran, a former Democratic state representative who used to work for a nonprofit group that encouraged Americans to enroll in Obamacare plans and now works for the health insurer Aetna. “It’s stuck.”So is the ubiquitous logo, which got its start as the symbol for Mr. Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, said Sol Sender, who designed it. It was never intended to represent the health care law, Mr. Sender said, calling its co-opting by enterprising insurance agents “just pretty organic.”Which is not to say that policyholders, while glad to have coverage, are always happy with their plans. Gisselle Llerena, one of Ms. Hernández’s clients said she had been unable to get her insurer to sign off on a test her doctor recommended.“I have an M.R.I. pending from a century ago,” Ms. Llerena, 50, said in Spanish as she recently dropped in on Ms. Hernández’s office in a modest strip mall. “But the insurance doesn’t want to cover it.”Still, Ivan A. Herrera, the chief executive of the Miami-based UniVista Insurance agency, which caters to Hispanic people and prominently advertises Obamacare plans, said he has seen plenty of evidence that the coverage has helped people.“I know customers who have had open-heart surgery,” he said. “They never went to the doctor. They never had a blood test. They never visited a specialist. And now they can take care of themselves.”Each year, Mr. Herrera’s business has “doubled the amount of people that we have in Obamacare,” he said. “Obamacare is massive.”About 2.7 million Floridians out of the state’s population of about 22 million enrolled in a plan through the federal insurance marketplace, which the health law created, in 2022. Compared with Texas, which has about 30 million people but only about 1.8 million enrollees, “Florida is like an A.C.A. monster,” said Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a charity focused on health.The average monthly premium last year for Floridians with marketplace plans was $611, and for those who qualified for federal premium subsidies, the average amount was $552 per month, slightly higher than the national average, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit health policy group.Early federal data suggests enrollment has jumped again for 2023, with 15.9 million plan selections nationally in the federal marketplace and those run by states, including almost 3.2 million — roughly one-fifth of the total — in Florida.That Obamacare has become part of the fabric of Florida life is also striking given the state’s early opposition to the law, led by Rick Scott, then the Republican governor. Mr. Scott, who is now a U.S. senator, barred “navigators” — those who helped people sign up for coverage — from state health department offices in an effort to undermine enrollment.The Republican-controlled State Legislature has not expanded Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income people, as allowed under the Affordable Care Act, making Florida one of only 11 holdout states. About 790,000 currently uninsured Floridians would be eligible for expanded Medicaid, according to Kaiser; without it, other low-income residents have turned to the federal marketplace for subsidized coverage, which is one reason Florida has such high enrollment.Ivan Herrera, the chief executive and founder of UniVista Insurance, said his company had doubled the amount of clients signed up for federal marketplace plans each year.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesAbout 2.7 million Floridians out of the state’s population of about 22 million enrolled in a plan through the federal insurance marketplace in 2022.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesObamacare is also popular in the state because it is home to many retirees who are younger than 65 and not yet eligible for Medicare, the federal health insurance program for older people. Others opt for the health insurance because they have recently moved from other states and may be in between jobs. And many employers in the state do not offer working Floridians robust benefits that include health care coverage.“In South Florida especially, you’ve got a lot of people who are working in entertainment or restaurants, where they don’t have an offer of health insurance,” said Karoline Mortensen, an associate dean and professor of health management and policy at the University of Miami. That is especially true for Hispanics, she added.When the federal health insurance mandate lapsed, Dr. Mortensen found that some Latinos dropped their coverage, suggesting that they had gotten insurance only because they were required to. But Hispanic people still continued to get medical care at far higher rates than they had before the federal marketplace was created in 2013, she said.The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that Florida is the state with the second-highest percentage of eligible people who have enrolled in an Affordable Care Act plan, said Cynthia Cox, a Kaiser vice president.She credited local leaders and insurance agents with promoting the law’s benefits, even when the state did not. Similarly, Dr. Mortensen referenced a moderate Republican state senator who, when the federal marketplace opened, urged his constituents to enroll.Ilse Torres, an insurance agent in Miami, said she had educated her clients “bit by bit” that Obamacare is not health coverage, as many of them assume, but rather a law that created a federal marketplace and required insurers to cover pre-existing health conditions.After Republicans in Congress tried but failed to repeal the law during the Trump administration, Ms. Torres said, the marketplace stabilized, drawing more major insurers and attracting new policyholders.Ms. Hernández, who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 but later registered as a Republican, lamented that Congress had not updated the Affordable Care Act to make more people permanently eligible for subsidies to help cover their insurance premiums. (Subsidies were temporarily expanded through the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act, and are in effect through 2025 — a major reason for the recent enrollment bumps.) But she was pleased, she said, that Republican lawmakers had stopped trying to repeal the law.“Obamacare needs to be fixed,” she said. “But when I saw how easy it was to get it, I was like, ‘Oh my God, people don’t know about this. Why don’t more people get it?’”She and her family are now insured through the program.Susan C. Beachy More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Suspect in Shootings at Homes and Offices of New Mexico Democrats Is in Custody

      by

      The authorities say that a man is being held on unrelated charges, and that a gun tied to at least one of the episodes has been recovered.The authorities in Albuquerque announced Monday that a suspect in the recent shootings at the homes or offices of a half-dozen Democratic elected officials was in custody on unrelated charges and that they had recovered a gun used in at least one of the shootings.Officials did not release information on the suspect other than to say that he is a man under 50; nor would they say what the unrelated charges were.“We are still trying to link and see which cases are related and which cases are not related,” Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a news conference on Monday afternoon.Officials have ideas about a possible motive, Chief Medina said, but will not release details for fear of compromising the investigation.The authorities have not definitively tied the shootings to politics or ideology.Police officials asked the courts to seal all paperwork related to the case, Chief Medina said. He said that the authorities had numerous search warrants and were waiting for additional evidence.No one was hurt in the shootings, four of which happened in December and two that took place this month. The shootings involved four homes, a workplace and a campaign office associated with two county commissioners, two state senators and New Mexico’s newly elected attorney general.The police had provided details last week on five of the shootings. On Monday, they said that they were also investigating a shooting that occurred in early December and caused damage to the home of Javier Martínez, a New Mexico state representative set to become the State Legislature’s next speaker of the House.Mr. Martínez said he had heard the gunfire in December, and recently discovered the damage after he heard of the attacks related to the other elected officials. He decided to inspect the outside of his home, KOB reported.In addition to the Albuquerque Police Department, the New Mexico State Police and Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office are investigating the shootings.If a federal crime was committed, the Police Department will pursue those charges, Chief Medina said. “The federal system has much stronger teeth than our state system,” he said.The shootings came at a time when public officials have faced a surge in violent threats, extending from members of Congress to a Supreme Court justice.Mayor Tim Keller of Albuquerque said he hoped the fact that a suspect was in custody would provides some comfort to elected officials, who he said should be able to do their jobs without fear.“These are individuals who participate in democracy, whether we agree with them or not,” Mr. Keller said. “And that’s why this act of violence, I think, has been so rattling for so many people.” More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Speaker, Speaker, What Do You See? I See MAGA Looking at Me.

      by

      Bret Stephens: Gail, remember “We Need to Talk About Kevin,” the unforgettable Lionel Shriver novel about a woman whose son murders his classmates? Maybe someone should write the sequel: “We Need to Talk About What They Did to Kevin.”Gail Collins: A book-length disquisition on Kevin McCarthy, Bret? I dunno. Always thought his strongest suit was that he was too boring to hate. But now that he’s apparently promised the Republican right wing everything but permission to bring pet ocelots to the House floor, I can see it.Bret: Too boring to hate or too pathetic to despise? I’ve begun to think of McCarthy almost as a literary archetype, like one of those figures in a Joseph Conrad novel whose follies make them weak and whose weakness leads them to folly.Gail: Love your literary allusions. But let’s pretend you’re in charge of the Republican Party — tell me what you think of him in general.Bret: A few honorable exceptions aside, the G.O.P. is basically split between reptiles and invertebrates. McCarthy is the ultimate invertebrate. He went to Mar-a-Lago just a short while after Jan. 6 to kiss the ring of the guy who incited the mob that, by McCarthy’s own admission, wanted to kill him. He hated Liz Cheney because of her backbone. But he quailed before Marjorie Taylor Greene because she has a forked tongue. He gave away the powers and prerogatives of the office of speaker in order to gain the office, which is like a slug abandoning its shell and thinking it won’t be stepped on. A better man would have told the Freedom Caucus holdouts to shove it. Instead, as a friend of mine put it, McCarthy decided to become the squeaker of the House.Gail: OK, Kevin is House squeaker forever.Bret: If there’s a silver lining here, it’s that the whole spectacle has shown voters what they get for voting for this Republican Party.Gail: Hey, you’re still in charge of Republicans. Now that they’re sort of in command, do you have hopes they’ll make progress on your priorities, like controlling government spending? Without, um, failing to make the nation’s debt payments ….Bret: Buried in the noise about McCarthy’s humiliation is that his opponents had some reasonable demands. One of them was to give members of Congress a minimum of 72 hours to read the legislation they were voting on. Another was to limit bills to a single subject. The idea is to do away with the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink spending packages that Congress has lately become way too fond of.Gail: Yeah, I can buy into that one.Bret: On the other hand, the idea that this Republican clown show is going to accomplish anything significant — particularly since doing so would require them to work with a Democratic president and Senate — is roughly the equivalent of Vladimir Putin leaving the vocation of vile despot to become a … cannabis entrepreneur. Not going to happen.So what do Democrats do?Gail: Well, one plus is that we don’t have to worry about the Republican House passing some terrible, nutty legislation since the Senate is there to put a halt to it. Interesting how much better obstruction looks when your party is doing the obstructing ….Bret: It’s almost — almost — enough to be grateful to people like Herschel Walker and Blake Masters for being such deliriously awful candidates.Gail: When it comes to positive action, like keeping the government running, I’d like to think the moderate Dems and the moderate Republicans could get together and come to some agreement on the basics. Do you think there’s a chance?Bret: What was the name of that Bret Easton Ellis novel? “Less Than Zero.” Bipartisanship became a four-letter word for most Republicans sometime around 2012. If we can avoid another useless government shutdown, I’ll consider it a minor miracle.On the other hand, all this is good for Democrats. In our last conversation, I predicted that McCarthy wouldn’t win the speakership and that Joe Biden would decide against a second term. I was wrong on the first. Now I’m beginning to think I was also wrong on the second, in part because Republicans are in such manifest disarray. What is your spidey sense telling you?Gail: Yeah, Biden knows 80 is old for another run, but the chance to take on Donald Trump again is probably going to be irresistible.Bret: Assuming it’s going to be Trump, which, increasingly, I doubt.Gail: You really think it’s going to be Ron DeSantis? My theory is that if the field opens up at all, there’ll be a swarm of Republican hopefuls, dividing the Trump opposition.Bret: It’ll be DeSantis or you can serve me a platter of crow. Never mind that Trump still managed to seal the deal for McCarthy’s speakership by winning over a few of the last holdouts. It still took him 15 ballots.Gail: But about Biden — if he did drop out, Democrats would have to figure out what to do about Kamala Harris. A woman, a minority, with the classic presidential training job. Yet a lot of people haven’t found her all that impressive as a potential leader.My vote would be for him to announce he’s not running instantly, and let all the other potential heirs go for it.Bret: How do you solve a problem like Kamala? My initial hope was that she’d grow into the job. That hasn’t seemed to happen. My second hope was that Biden would give her a task in which she’d shine. Didn’t happen either. My third hope was that Biden would ask her to fill Stephen Breyer’s seat on the Supreme Court and then nominate Gina Raimondo or Pete Buttigieg to the vice presidency, setting either of them up to be the front-runner in ’24 or ’28. Whoops again. Now Dems are saddled with their own version of Dan Quayle, minus the gravitas.Gail: Not fair to compare her to Dan Quayle. But otherwise OK with your plan. Go on.Bret: I also think Biden should announce he isn’t going to run, both on account of his age and the prospect of running against someone like DeSantis. But the argument is harder to make given the midterm results, Republican chaos, the sense that he’s defied the skeptics to pass a lot of legislation and the increasingly likely prospect that Ukraine will prevail over Russia this year and give him a truly historic geopolitical win.I just hope that if he does run, he switches veeps. It would … reassure the nation.Gail: So happy to hear you’re on a Biden fan track. Does that apply to his new plan for the Mexican border, too?Bret: Not a Biden fan, exactly, though I do root for a successful presidency on general principle. As for the border plan, the good news is that he finally seems to be recognizing the scale of the problem and promising tougher enforcement. It’s also good that he’s doing more for political refugees from oppressive countries like Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.Gail: And next …Bret: The right step now is to start pushing for realistic bipartisan immigration reform that gives Republicans more money for border wall construction and security in exchange for automatic citizenship for Dreamers, an expanded and renewable guest-worker visa that helps bring undocumented workers out of the shadows and a big increase in the “extraordinary ability” EB-1 visas for our future Andy Groves and Albert Einsteins. What do you think?Gail: I was waiting for you to get to the border wall itself, which we disagree about. Terrible symbol, awful to try to maintain and not always effective.Bret: All true, except that it paves the way for a good legislative compromise and can save lives if it deters dangerous border crossings.Gail: Moneywise, the border states deserve increased federal aid to handle their challenges. A good chunk should go to early childhood education, which would not only help the new arrivals but also local children born into non-English-speaking families.The aid should also go to states like New York that are getting busloads of new immigrants — some from those Arizona and Texas busing plots, but a good number just because they’re the newcomers’ choice destination.I believe there was a bipartisan plan hatched in the House that included citizenship for Dreamers — an obvious reform that, amazingly, we haven’t yet achieved. But bipartisan plans aren’t doing real well right now.Bret: It’s still worth a shot. I’m sorry Biden didn’t invest the kind of political capital into immigration reform that he did into the infrastructure and climate change bills. And if Republicans wind up voting down funding for a border wall out of spite for Dreamers, I can’t see how that helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Supporting them seems like smart politics at the very minimum.Before we go, Gail, one more point of note: We just passed the second anniversary of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. I was happy to see Biden honor the heroes of that day at a White House ceremony. Also happy to see the Justice Department continue to prosecute hundreds of cases. And appalled to watch Brazil’s right-wing loons try to imitate the Jan. 6 insurrectionists by storming their own parliament. Any suggestions for going forward?Gail: Well, what we really need to see is an effort by Republicans, some of whom were endangered themselves during the attack, but virtually none of whom have shown any interest in revisiting that awful moment — only one member of the party showed up for that ceremony.Now that Kevin McCarthy has his job in hand, let’s see him call for a bipartisan committee to come up with some suggestions. Ha ha ha.Sorry — don’t want to end on a snippy note.Bret: Not snippy at all. Truthful. We could start by requiring a civics course for all incoming members of Congress. Maybe some of them might learn that their first duty is to the Constitution, not to themselves.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

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Could Congressional Gridlock Lead to More Government Shutdowns?

      by

      Congressional gridlock brought on by far-right Republicans now seems more likely to lead to government shutdowns.The House speaker elections last week turned a typically routine government procedure into a dramatic affair. They also exposed a major vulnerability in Congress: A small segment of lawmakers can stop the process of basic governance to obtain what it wants, with potentially big ramifications for the country.In the speaker fight, the immediate consequences were relatively small. A Republican speaker, Kevin McCarthy, is leading a majority-Republican House.More critical is how Republicans got there. McCarthy made concessions that will weaken his power, make it easier for lawmakers to oust him and give the right-wing rank-and-file greater input in legislation and in lawmakers’ assignments to committees, where Congress does much of its work.The graver consequences will unfold months from now if the ultraconservatives who prolonged the speaker selection again withhold their votes until they have their way on looming spending bills. Congress must pass such legislation to keep the government open and avoid economic calamity. If deadlines for these bills come and go without a resolution, the government could be forced to shut down or, worse, default on its debt obligations, likely triggering a financial crisis. (More on that later.)The right flank has already connected its opposition to McCarthy to such spending bills. In speeches during the four-day speaker battle, far-right Republicans cited a $1.7 trillion spending bill Congress passed last month to argue that establishment figures, including McCarthy, have failed to reduce government spending. Among the concessions that ultraconservatives drew from McCarthy was a promise that any increase on the country’s debt limit, a congressionally set cap on the federal debt, will be paired with spending cuts.Some hard-liners have been clear that they would take drastic action again to have their way on spending. “Is he willing to shut the government down rather than raise the debt ceiling? That’s a nonnegotiable item,” said Representative Ralph Norman, a Republican critic of McCarthy who ultimately voted for him.Representative Matt GaetzHaiyun Jiang/The New York TimesDeliberate gridlockThe ultraconservatives have said that one of their main goals is to shrink the size of government. “If you don’t stop spending money that we don’t have to fund the bureaucracy that is undermining the American people, we cannot win,” said Representative Chip Roy, a Republican who voted against McCarthy in 11 ballots.One way to achieve this goal is by pushing Congress toward inaction. Consider some of the assurances the holdout Republicans received from McCarthy: more time to read and debate legislation, as well as to propose unlimited changes to it.In theory, these changes might sound like common sense, since legislators should, ideally, be taking time to understand and finalize bills. But in practice, these kinds of allowances have slowed Congress’s work, if not halted it altogether, by giving lawmakers more chances to stand in the way of any kind of legislation.This roadblock is especially likely in a closely divided Congress. Since House Republicans have a slim majority of 222 votes out of 435, they must rely on their right-wing faction to reach a majority in any vote (absent unlikely support from Democrats). Last week, that faction showed it will wield its leverage.“It’s all about the ability — empowering us to stop the machine in this town from doing what it does,” Roy said.Coming deadlinesIf the ultraconservatives use these tactics in future legislative debates, Congress could miss deadlines to keep the government open and avoid a financial crisis.Among the looming fights is one over the debt limit. If the government ever reaches this limit, it can no longer borrow money to pay off its debts, potentially forcing a default. That could cause serious damage to the global financial system, which relies on U.S. Treasuries as a safe investment.The government is expected to hit the current debt limit in late summer. Republicans have already suggested that they will try to use negotiations over raising it to draw spending concessions from Senate Democrats and the Biden administration, a tactic that conservatives used during Barack Obama’s presidency. But Democrats have said that they will not negotiate over the debt limit this time.If both sides stick to their word, the government could be on track for the most treacherous debt-limit debate since 2011, my colleague Jim Tankersley reported. That year, Obama and a new Republican House majority nearly defaulted on the nation’s debt before reaching a deal.Similarly, the government will have to pass a spending bill in September to remain open. Republicans have, again, suggested that they will use their control of the House to reduce government spending. Democrats have said that they will push back. If both sides fall short of an agreement, the government will shut down, halting or slowing functions like the payment of military salaries, environmental or food inspections and the management of national parks.The battle over the speaker, then, is potentially a preview of what’s to come: a Congress unable to perform even its basic duties because a small segment of lawmakers are willing to say no.More Congress newsHistory suggests that House Republicans’ plans are likely to bring more gridlock and instability, Carl Hulse writes.House Republicans are preparing to investigate law enforcement and national security agencies.THE LATEST NEWSBrazil RiotsSupporters of Jair Bolsonaro in Brasília yesterday.Evaristo Sa/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThousands of supporters of Brazil’s former president, Jair Bolsonaro, stormed the country’s Congress and presidential offices over false claims of a rigged election.Brazilian authorities cleared the government offices and arrested at least 200 people, an official said.These videos show how rioters stormed government buildings in protests that resemble the Jan 6., 2021, attack in the U.S.Bolsonaro is believed to be in Florida after spending months promoting the myth of a stolen election.InternationalTwo buses collided in Senegal, killing at least 40 people.Ultra-Orthodox politicians in Israel are pushing to cement their community’s special status under Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government.Noma, the Copenhagen restaurant rated the world’s best, will close next year. Its chef says its style of dining is unsustainable.Other Big StoriesPresident Biden made his first visit to the southern border since taking office.Winds knocked out power for hundreds of thousands of people in Sacramento. More storms are coming to California this week.A new Korean War memorial has many names of American service members misspelled or missing.An avalanche buried and killed two snowmobilers in Colorado, emergency responders said.The Phoenix police are investigating their detention of a Black journalist for The Wall Street Journal who was reporting outside a Chase Bank.OpinionsNoncompete clauses lower wages and decrease competitiveness across the economy, says Lina Khan, the Federal Trade Commission chair.Gail Collins and Bret Stephens discussed the speaker chaos.Our society is failing visual thinkers, to everyone’s detriment, Temple Grandin writes.Damar Hamlin’s injury was serious but rare. Head trauma, heart disease and other more common conditions pose greater dangers to football players, Chris Nowinski writes.MORNING READSChatham, N.Y.Lauren Lancaster for The New York TimesExpensive, treacherous, beautiful: The battle over dirt roads.A $17,000 delay: A check-in agent’s mistake made her miss an Antarctic cruise.Metropolitan Diary: Food never tasted as good as it did at 3 a.m.Quiz time: Take our latest news quiz and share your score (the average was 8.7).A morning listen: 2022 was Bad Bunny’s year.Advice from Wirecutter: Stop killing houseplants. Try Lego flowers.Lives Lived: Russell Banks brought his blue-collar background to bear in novels that vividly portrayed working-class Americans. He died at 82.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICBears’ conundrum: Chicago will pick first overall in the 2023 N.F.L. Draft. Should they take an elite college quarterback or continue building around Justin Fields?N.F.L.: The Bills, in their first game since Damar Hamlin’s collapse, beat New England. Detroit’s win over Green Bay sent the Seahawks to the playoffs and cemented postseason seeding. An injury: Kevin Durant injured his right knee in last night’s Nets win over the Heat. ARTS AND IDEAS Kathleen FuThe man behind the memoirOne name you won’t find on the cover of Prince Harry’s memoir, “Spare,” is J.R. Moehringer, the book’s ghostwriter. That’s because the job of ghostwriters — even the famous ones, like Moehringer — is to put ego aside and disappear into their subject’s voice.Michelle Burford, who has written books for several celebrities, explains to her clients that they provide the materials to build a house and she puts it together. “You own the bricks,” she tells them. “But you — and there should be no shame in this — don’t have the skill set to actually erect the building.”Moehringer, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter, is known for his intense process. “He’s half psychiatrist,” said the Nike co-founder Phil Knight, who collaborated with Moehringer on his memoir. “He gets you to say things you really didn’t think you would.”Related: Prince Harry appeared at ease and at times emotional in high-profile interviews.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookRomulo Yanes for The New York TimesBroccoli and Cheddar soup has a following on the internet.What to ReadIn “The Edge of the Plain,” the journalist James Crawford asks whether good fences really make good neighbors.The PlaylistSeven songs we nearly missed last year, including tracks by Flo, Becky G and Karol G, Monster and Big Flock.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was judicial. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Vernon Dursley, to Harry Potter (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — GermanP.S. Sapna Maheshwari, a Times business reporter, will cover TikTok and emerging media.Here’s today’s front page. “The Daily” is about Speaker McCarthy.Matthew Cullen, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More