Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Can Republicans and Democrats Find a Way Forward on Immigration?

      by

      Any hope for immigration reform on undocumented Dreamers, border security or legal immigration will likely hinge on compromise, something that has eluded lawmakers for decades.WASHINGTON — A drug needle goes into a person’s arm; an adult and child walk through a graveyard; and footage of migrants walking along a sandy stretch of a border wall, in Yuma, Arizona, streams while ominous music plays in the background of this video.It is a 40-second political ad in support of Blake Masters, the Republican candidate for Senate in Arizona, who is running against Mark Kelly, the incumbent Democrat. The ad connects fatal overdoses of fentanyl and methamphetamines to a spike in illegal migration at the southwestern border. It is one of more than 400 political ads tying immigration to drugs this election cycle, according to America’s Voice, a pro-immigration advocacy group.And it is part of a false G.O.P. narrative that connects fatal overdoes of fentanyl to a spike in illegal migration and presents Republican immigration hard-line immigration policies as an answer to crime and the drug epidemic. Most of the fentanyl comes into the country through official ports of entry on the southwestern border, hidden in legitimate commerce.The false narrative, which resonates with voters across the country, is just one example of how toxic the issue of immigration has become. Republicans have stepped up attacks against President Biden as weak and ineffective on immigration, making it even more difficult for the Biden administration to secure any meaningful immigration reform after the midterm elections, especially if the G.O.P. controls at least one legislative chamber.But even if Republicans win control in Congress and want to advance their immigration policies, particularly on border security, they will have to find some compromise with Democrats to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate — something that has been elusive for years, regardless of party control.Here are some of the major immigration issues facing the Biden administration that would require striking a compromise with Republicans for any legislation to move forward.The DreamersImmigration advocates demonstrating in front of the Capitol to support protections for DACA recipients earlier this year.Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesThe Obama-era program, known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the country as children and have grown up in the United States. Court challenges against the policy have been successful and appeals have largely been exhausted, leaving the fate of these immigrants — many of whom hold jobs in sectors that are already struggling to find workers, such as agriculture and manufacturing — in the hands of Congress.If Congress is unable to come to an agreement to enshrine the policy in law, and a judge stops allowing current participants, known as “Dreamers,” to renew their status, about 1,000 of them will lose the ability to work every business day over a two-year period, said Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, an immigration reform advocacy group that draws support from the tech industry.“This would cause terrible, unneeded human and economic hardship for millions of individuals,” Mr. Schulte said in a recent letter to Democrats, referring to the Dreamers, others who would be eligible for the benefit and their family members. He said the results of so many forced out of the work force “would be extremely harmful” for the country’s economy.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.House Democrats: Several moderates elected in 2018 in conservative-leaning districts are at risk of being swept out. That could cost the Democrats their House majority.A Key Constituency: A caricature of the suburban female voter looms large in American politics. But in battleground regions, many voters don’t fit the stereotype.Crime: In the final stretch of the campaigns, politicians are vowing to crack down on crime. But the offices they are running for generally have little power to make a difference.Abortion: The fall of Roe v. Wade seemed to offer Democrats a way of energizing voters and holding ground. Now, many worry that focusing on abortion won’t be enough to carry them to victory.The top Republican in the House, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, who is in line for the speaker role, has said that if the G.O.P. wins back control, striking a deal to protect DACA recipients in exchange for border security is a non-starter. But significant job losses in Republican districts among DACA recipients could force the Republicans’ hands if their employers put pressure on their elected officials to find a solution.There has been and continues to be bipartisan support to create a pathway to citizenship for the Dreamers, according to a recent poll commissioned by FWD.us. But previous efforts have failed without enough Republican support.“It’s put up or shut up time” for Republicans if they actually want to do something on border security, Mr. Schulte said in an interview with The New York Times.Democrats have already shown that they are open to some kind of compromise measure.Border SecurityA Border Patrol agent detaining migrants who crossed the border near Yuma, Ariz.John Moore/Getty ImagesFor Republicans, when it comes to immigration, border security is the top priority.During Mr. Biden’s time in office, there has been a record-breaking spike in illegal migration at the southwestern border, part of a global trend exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic.Many migrants are fleeing violence and poverty with the hope that they will find work or asylum in the United States. They are coming across the southwest border illegally, because there are not enough legal pathways for them to come to the United States. Limits on visas were set based on the U.S. economy in the 1990s and have largely remained the same, even though the country’s economy has grown more than twice as large since then.Even so, Republicans blame the Biden administration. House Republicans have threatened to impeach the Homeland Security secretary, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, should they retake the majority, blaming him for the extraordinary number of illegal border crossings. They have also threatened to impeach the attorney general, among other officials.For Republicans, improving border security starts with restoring former President Donald J. Trump’s restrictive immigration measures. Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the first step is completing Mr. Trump’s border wall, a pricey project that Mr. Biden paused when he took office. Fights over the wall also led to a government shutdown in 2018. Democrats say the wall is ineffective and sends a message that the country does not want to let anyone in.Republicans also argue that restricting asylum and withholding welfare benefits for immigrants are two policy changes that would deter migrants from crossing the southwestern border illegally, though undocumented immigrants are not eligible for most federal public benefits.“We have plenty of welfare recipients; we need productive citizens instead,” Mr. Scott said on his campaign website.There may be room for movement. Legislation introduced last year by Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, had the support of two Democratic senators, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Krysten Sinema of Arizona, and could provide a road map for compromise. The bill calls for hiring more people in the immigration agencies to address spikes in migration and speeding the process for determining an asylum case in immigration court. That proposal did not include a pathway to citizenship for the Dreamers, and the measure has yet to advance.So far, bills that included both border security and new pathways for legal immigration have hit dead-ends. Senator Dick Durban, Democrat of Illinois, recently reminded Republicans of a proposal in 2013 that had bipartisan support in the Senate. Mr. Durbin said if the legislation had passed, the country would not be in the current situation where there are not enough immigrants legally authorized to work in the agriculture sector. Legal ImmigrationFarm workers harvesting asparagus in Firebaugh, Calif.Ryan Christopher Jones for The New York TimesAnother challenge facing the Biden administration is the labor shortage across the country, which continues to worsen as the economy adds new jobs, even as fears of a recession grow. Democrats and many businesses that employ both low and high-skilled workers argue the labor shortage could be addressed through issuing work authorizations and paths to citizenship as well as expanding programs for immigrants to come work in the United States.Many businesses argue that allowing the expiration of work authorizations for Dreamers and other immigrants in the country on a temporary status would result in significant disruptions to the work force. Businesses pushing for immigration reform have pressed Congress to pass measures providing work authorizations that could give an immediate boost to the economy, lower food prices and fill critical job openings.Businesses, particularly in the agriculture industry, are also pushing to fix the country’s current farm labor shortages by passing new laws for immigrants to work in the agriculture work force.The House last year approved measures that would give about four million immigrants currently in the United States without documentation or with expiring permissions a path to citizenship. But the bills died without enough support in the Senate.While Democrats want to expand legal immigration, Republicans typically want to decrease it. Many Republicans see adding more paths to citizenship for immigrants already in the country on an expired or temporary status as a form of amnesty. They also argue that immigrants take jobs away from Americans.What’s NextMigrants seeking asylum wait to be processed by Border Patrol agents along a section of border wall near Yuma, Ariz.John Moore/Getty ImagesFor years, Republicans have largely owned the narrative on immigration, which is mostly focused on illegal immigrants and border crossings. In this election cycle, Republicans outspent Democrats on immigration-related ads on streaming services and traditional television nearly 15 to 1 — with $119.4 million compared to Democrats’ $8.1 million, according to BPI, a communications and marketing agency that tracks this data.Democrats see little political advantage in talking about immigration during the campaign. But letting Republicans fill that void means the G.O.P. message is often the only narrative Americans hear about immigration.In general, border and immigration policy are two of Mr. Biden’s least favorite issues to discuss, his staff has said, since it is an enormous challenge with no clear, quick solution. And there has been disagreement within the Biden administration over how to approach the border, with some aides supporting some of the restrictive policies of the last administration, according to two people familiar with the discussions.But immigration advocates say if Mr. Biden is serious about protecting Dreamers and pursuing other immigration reforms, Democrats must start reclaiming the narrative on immigration with a positive message that resonates with voters.“They’d better get on the messaging train,” said Beatriz Lopez, the chief political and communications officer with the advocacy group, Immigration Hub.There are brighter messages on immigration for Democrats to talk about, Ms. Lopez said. Her organization has found that voters in battleground states largely agree on protecting the Dreamers. She said they also approve of what the Biden administration has done to reunite immigrant families who were separated during the Trump administration. And voters support efforts to crack down on international drug cartels.Customs and Border Protection, for example, seized 14,700 pounds of fentanyl between October of last year and the end of September, which is more than five times the amount in 2019. About 80 percent of the fentanyl seized by the agency last year was done at ports of entry on the southwestern border.“Democrats have an opportunity to lean in,” said Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigration group. “Talk about the fact that we can do big things, and get the ball rolling on affirmative positive immigration action, versus just playing into the right and talking about enforcement.”Jeanna Smialek More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Most Candidates Running on Crime Don’t Have Much Power to Solve It

      by

      Your congressman doesn’t control the police budget. Your senator probably doesn’t know where the worst hot spots are.Politicians around the country have promised in the closing days of the midterm election to crack down on crime. Would-be governors will crack down on crime. Senators will crack down on crime. Members of Congress will do it, too. Obviously, their opponents won’t.The law-and-order messaging is often disconnected from the nuance of crime trends (in 2022, homicide is up in some places, but down in others like New York City; yes, Oklahoma has higher violent crime rates than California). But it’s also devoid of the reality that these offices generally have little power to bend crime trends on the ground tomorrow.Crime surges and falls for reasons that experts don’t fully understand, and it’s hard for even the most proven ideas to quickly reverse its direction. But the people with ready levers to pull are not sitting in the Senate. And your current sense of order in your community is definitely not controlled by your congressman.“You’re not going to fix the problems from there,” said Jeff Asher, a crime analyst and consultant with AH Datalytics in New Orleans (and a former Upshot contributor). “If you want to fix the problems, go run for mayor.”Your governor isn’t going to solve a spike in murder, he added. And it’s generally not the governor who’s been failing to solve it, either. As for Senate candidates who say they will make sure we keep criminals behind bars who don’t belong on our streets?“U.S. senators don’t determine state prison release policies,” said John MacDonald, a professor of criminology and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. “Who you elect to Senate is going to have zero impact on state prisons.”When voters choose candidates for higher office thinking of crime, they often misunderstand where and how criminal justice decisions get made, said Amy Lerman, a political scientist at Berkeley. The federal government controls a small fraction of the whole picture. In the U.S., there are 51 prison systems, and about 18,000 police departments.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Biden’s Speech: In a prime-time address, President Biden denounced Republicans who deny the legitimacy of elections, warning that the country’s democratic traditions are on the line.State Supreme Court Races: The traditionally overlooked contests have emerged this year as crucial battlefields in the struggle over the course of American democracy.Democrats’ Mounting Anxiety: Top Democratic officials are openly second-guessing their party’s pitch and tactics, saying Democrats have failed to unite around one central message.Social Security and Medicare: Republicans, eyeing a midterms victory, are floating changes to the safety net programs. Democrats have seized on the proposals to galvanize voters.If you see a police officer while walking or driving around your community, that officer is most likely a local one. And those local officers generally report to locally elected bosses like sheriffs, or people appointed by locally elected officials like mayors, said Thomas Ogorzalek, a visiting scholar at the Center for Urban Research at CUNY.Those are the people, in turn, who decide what share of the city budget the police get, how many officers they’ll hire, where those officers will focus, if they’ll wear body cameras, and whether they’ll work alongside violence interruption workers, social workers and mental health clinicians.This may seem counterintuitive to voters: Broad crime trends are often national in scale (that was the case when crime plummeted across the country starting in the 1990s, and when gun violence surged just about everywhere during the pandemic). But it doesn’t follow that the answers are primarily federal ones.“We have a national problem that isn’t solved at the national level,” said Phillip Atiba Goff, a Yale professor and co-founder of the Center for Policing Equity. “But our national narrative makes it harder to solve it at the local level — which is the only level where it’s going to get solved.”The federal government does play an important role. It funnels money to states and local governments, and often uses that money to incentivize local police to shift policies. Major components of the 1994 crime bill, for example, dedicated federal money to hire local police officers, fund victims’ services and construct state prisons.The federal government has also sent military-grade equipment to local police, although research suggests that has done little to reduce crime. In its other roles, the federal government offers technical assistance to local agencies and supports research on which policing strategies work.And it has a bully pulpit. President Biden signed an executive order in May directing federal law enforcement to restrict tactics like chokeholds and no-knock warrants. While the order has a limited reach, it could still nudge cultural changes among local departments. And individual senators and members of Congress can use their own megaphones to push policing priorities to local officials.As a whole, Congress could play a bigger role — but often chooses not to.“One of the reasons that we talk about the federal government having so little authority is not just because it can’t do a lot of things, but also because it won’t do certain things,” said Thomas Abt, a senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank, and chair of the Violent Crime Working Group. “The single biggest thing that the federal government could do to limit violent crime in particular would be to pass reasonable regulations that limit access to deadly firearms.”Relaxed gun laws at the federal and state level have allowed more guns on the street and made the problem of local violent crime worse, said Darrel Stephens, a retired chief of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, and former longtime head of the Major Cities Chiefs Association.With that solution off the table, the Council on Criminal Justice released earlier this year a report on tangible actions that could reduce violence now, all of them aimed at local officials. A central tactic involves identifying the small subset of residents and places that drive the bulk of violence, a pattern that occurs across cities. Officials can then target those areas with police resources, outreach workers, city programs and community partnerships.“The strongest evidence deals with focusing on concentrations,” Mr. Stephens said, including crime that victimizes a small concentration of people. “What you’re trying to do is to tailor your response to your understanding of what’s contributing to the problem.”That might mean changing traffic patterns on specific streets, or offering behavioral therapy programs to particular residents. That level of specificity isn’t something you would expect a senator or governor to know much about: this intersection, this family, this apartment with unsecured doors.Local officials, on the other hand, oversee many of the levers voters may not think of as part of crime policy — whether that’s street lighting, public schools, summer jobs programs, recreation departments or housing programs. And they wield the most influence over other kinds of disorder, like uncleared trash, graffiti and vacant properties, that may shape the sense of unease voters connect to their fears of crime.Those other tools are “extremely important,” said Art Acevedo, a former chief of police in Houston, Austin and Miami. He offered as an example pre-K education, citing the greater likelihood that students who eventually drop out of school will go to prison.Mr. Acevedo lamented national politicians who parachute into communities after mass shootings, offer prayers and no legislation, while local police and elected officials face those families and manage everyday violence.“When it comes to actually being closest to it, and actually focusing on good policy — rather than good politics — it’s those local officials,” he said.There is a parallel case that good crime policy at the state and federal level is inseparable from education investments, safety-net supports and housing programs that could help break up concentrated poverty and despair. Research, for example, suggests that people newly released from prison who are given federal health coverage through Medicaid are less likely to return to prison.But these interconnected benefits play out over years, not immediately in the midst of a crime surge. And this is not the conversation about crime that’s happening in 30-second campaign ads and on debate stages with an election around the corner. More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Cherokees Ask U.S. to Make Good on a 187-Year-Old Promise, for a Start

      by

      The demand that Congress honor a treaty and seat a nonvoting delegate comes amid growing clashes over sovereignty and a tight race for Oklahoma’s governor, a Cherokee citizen.TAHLEQUAH, Okla. — In 1835, U.S. officials traveled to the Cherokee Nation’s capital in Georgia to sign a treaty forcing the Cherokees off their lands in the American South, opening them to white settlers. The Treaty of New Echota sent thousands on a death march to new lands in Oklahoma.The Cherokees were forced at gunpoint to honor the treaty. But though it stipulated that the Nation would be entitled to a nonvoting seat in the House of Representatives, Congress reneged on that part of the deal. Now, amid a growing movement across Indian Country for greater representation and sovereignty, the Cherokees are pushing to seat their delegate, 187 years later.“For nearly two centuries, Congress has failed to honor that promise,” Chuck Hoskin Jr., principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, said in a recent interview in the Cherokee capital of Tahlequah, in eastern Oklahoma. “It’s time to insist the United States keep its word.”The Cherokees and other tribal nations have made significant gains in recent decades, plowing income from sources like casino gambling into hospitals, meat-processing plants and lobbyists in Washington. At the same time, though, those tribes are seeing new threats to their efforts to govern themselves.A U.S. Supreme Court tilting hard to the right seems ready to undermine or reverse sovereignty rulings that were considered settled, while new state laws may affect how schools teach Native American history. And tribes are embroiled in a caustic feud with Oklahoma’s Republican governor — despite his distinction as the first Cherokee citizen to lead the state — that has helped to make his re-election bid next week a tossup.Amid such challenges, the Nation is trying to cobble together bipartisan support for its delegate, who, if seated, would resemble the nonvoting House members representing several territories and the District of Columbia. Such delegates cannot take part in final votes, but can introduce legislation and serve on committees.A new hospital for the Cherokee Nation in Tahlequah. Many tribal nations are pouring income from sources like casino gambling into health care and other needs.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesKimberly Teehee, the Cherokee Nation’s nominated delegate for a nonvoting seat in Congress. She is a Democrat and former adviser to President Barack Obama.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesKimberly Teehee, nominated in 2019 for the delegate position, said the role would open a new space for Indigenous representation. “We have priorities that are similar to other tribes when it comes to deployment of dollars, accessing health care, public safety, preserving our culture,” Ms. Teehee said. “This treaty right allows us to have a seat at the table.”The Cherokee Nation has about 430,000 citizens, Ms. Teehee said, which is more than the combined population of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands, all of which have their own delegates in Congress.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Governor’s Races: Democrats and Republicans are heading into the final stretch of more than a dozen competitive contests for governor. Some battleground races could also determine who controls the Senate.Democrats’ Mounting Anxiety: Top Democratic officials are openly second-guessing their party’s pitch and tactics, saying Democrats have failed to unite around one central message.Social Security and Medicare: Republicans, eyeing a midterms victory, are floating changes to the safety net programs. Democrats have seized on the proposals to galvanize voters.Debunking Misinformation: Falsehoods and rumors are flourishing ahead of Election Day, especially in Pennsylvania. We debunked five of the most widespread voting-related claims.So far, the Nation has drawn backing from Native American leaders across the country, as well as measured support from members of Oklahoma’s congressional delegation, including Representative Tom Cole, a Republican and member of the Chickasaw Nation.The House Rules Committee, led by Mr. Cole and Representative Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts, is expected to hold a hearing on the Cherokee delegate in mid-November. Even if control of Congress changes in next week’s midterm elections, that could open the way for a vote before the end of the year.Tribal nations across the United States are closely following the debate, eyeing the possibility that it could set a precedent. The Choctaw Nation may also have the right to a delegate under the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek of 1830, signed before its removal from what is now Mississippi. Similarly, the Delaware Nation’s treaty with the United States in 1778 could allow its members a delegate.“I think you’ll see a significant outcry from the rest of Indian Country saying, ‘We want one, too,’” said M. Alexander Pearl, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma and a citizen of Chickasaw Nation. “And I think that they’re right.”Still, the Cherokees could face headwinds in the deeply divided House. Ms. Teehee is a Democrat and former adviser to President Barack Obama. A spokesman for Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the Cherokees’ effort.Mr. Cole, the Oklahoma Republican, has said that he doesn’t object to seating the delegate, but he also noted that “there’s a lot of challenges to it,” including the question of dual representation in the House.“There’s a lot of people that will say, ‘Well, that delegate’s chosen by a council, not by a general election,’” Mr. Cole said this year. “And Cherokees then get two votes: your vote for a council member and their vote for the congressman of their own district, so they sort of get to two bites of the apple.”Downtown Tahlequah on the Cherokee Reservation. The Cherokees were forced to march to Oklahoma after their land in the American South was signed over for use by white settlers.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesSeveral Cherokee leaders and representatives of the federal government celebrated the opening of a meat-processing plant in Tahlequah last month.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesA report by the Congressional Research Service raised other potential legal issues, including the possibility that the delegate provision would not apply now that Oklahoma is a state, not Indian Territory.The debate is lifting the veil on one of the most contentious periods between the United States and Indigenous peoples, when about a quarter of the 16,000 Cherokees who walked what’s known as the Trail of Tears died on their way to Oklahoma. “This is a chance to finally reckon with ethnic cleansing, and massive and catastrophic loss of life,” said Julie Reed, a historian and Cherokee Nation citizen who teaches at Penn State University.The push for a delegate after nearly two centuries also reflects the wider effort by Native Americans to exercise self-governance in ways that would have been unrecognizable to previous generations in Indian Country, a federal designation for land under tribal jurisdiction.Native candidates have recently won congressional seats in states ranging from Alaska to Kansas. Some tribes are buying back ancestral lands. And Indigenous nations are expanding their own criminal justice systems across the country.“The 1950s was the lowest point of Indian sovereignty,” said Robert J. Miller, a citizen of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and a law professor at Arizona State University, citing the failed attempt by the U.S. government to disband tribes and relocate their members to cities. “The comeback has been incredible.”Such breakthroughs, however, are taking place against the backdrop of other challenges, including those before the Supreme Court. In one ruling in June that upended longstanding precedents, the justices expanded the power of state governments over tribal nations.The 5-4 ruling, which allows states to charge non-Indians for crimes committed against Indians on tribal land, stunned experts on Native American law and weakened a major decision from just two years before that had established the authority of tribal or federal courts on Indian land. (Tribal courts would retain authority over Native Americans who commit crimes on the reservation.)Another case set to be heard by the court this year, challenging a 1978 law giving Native Americans preference in adopting Native children, could be just as unsettling. The law was intended to put an end to policies allowing Native children to be forcibly taken from their homes and placed by child welfare agencies in non-Native homes.Plaintiffs, including the State of Texas, argue that the law created a system illegally based on race. But many tribal nations, including the Cherokees, have lined up against the challenge.New measures at the state level are also flaring tempers, including an Oklahoma law banning schools from teaching material that could cause students discomfort or psychological stress because of their race.Fourth graders studying at the Cherokee Immersion School. A lawsuit by teachers and civil rights advocates says that an Oklahoma law could limit the teaching of Native American history.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesChuck Hoskin Jr., principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, center, said it was “time to insist the United States keep its word” and seat a Cherokee delegate to Congress.Joseph Rushmore for The New York TimesGov. Kevin Stitt signed the law as part of a wave of legislation against “critical race theory,” a phrase used by conservative leaders to describe what they see as efforts to infiltrate classrooms with lessons about structural racism.A lawsuit by teachers and civil rights advocates warned that the law could silence classroom discussion about subjects like the Trail of Tears. And a high school English teacher in the town of Dewey, Okla., recently said she would stop teaching “Killers of the Flower Moon,” the best-selling book by David Grann about the murders of wealthy Osage people in the 1920s.Because the Osage were targeted for their race, the teacher told The Oklahoman that she was afraid of losing her license under the new law.Whitney Red Corn, a director of an early learning center and member of the Osage Nation Congress, said the law felt like “pushback” at a time when tribal nations were exercising rights. “It’s heartbreaking for me that something from our history could be avoided because it’s hard to hear,” said Ms. Red Corn, who took part in an Osage vote calling for the repeal of the law.One of the most bitter disputes of the moment involves Oklahoma’s largest tribes and Governor Stitt, a mortgage banker. After taking office, the governor proposed sharp increases in the fees that the tribes pay to operate more than 100 casinos around the state, prompting backlash.Mr. Hoskin, the Cherokee chief, said he expected a different approach from Mr. Stitt as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. (The New York Times and High Country News previously reported on claims that his citizenship may have been fraudulently obtained by an ancestor, which Mr. Stitt has called “unsubstantiated slander.”)Mr. Stitt has clashed repeatedly with Oklahoma’s tribes. In June, he celebrated the Supreme Court ruling diluting the authority of tribal nations. Donelle Harder, a spokeswoman for Mr. Stitt, declined to say directly whether he supported or objected to the efforts to seat a Cherokee delegate.Regarding Mr. Stitt’s relations with tribal nations, Ms. Harder said, “Governor Stitt has worked to create more fair opportunities for all sovereign nations and all people who call Oklahoma home.”Five of Oklahoma’s largest tribes have publicly endorsed Mr. Stitt’s rival, Joy Hofmeister, a former Republican who switched parties last year. Recent polls in the heavily Republican state have shown the race in a dead heat.Mr. Hoskin called the clash with Mr. Stitt a crucial factor in the Cherokee efforts to bolster sovereignty: “I think he’s the most anti-Indian tribe governor in the history of this state.”Emily Cochrane More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      We Are Very Far From Turning the Page on Trump

      by

      It’s often said that hindsight is 20/20. As far as politics goes, I’ve never believed it. Much punditry relies on what I’ve come to think of as the counterfactual fallacy. It goes like this: The party in power did X rather than Y. X didn’t work out as well as Democrats or Republicans hoped. They clearly should have done Y.We only get to run the tape once. We can never know if different decisions would have nudged us toward a better world or returned yet worse outcomes. But elections force an assessment of how the party in power has performed, despite the unknowability of other paths. And so, with Election Day nearing and voting underway all over America, I’ve been trying to work through my own answer to the question: How well did the Democrats do with the power they had, given the constraints they faced?I find it useful to think back to the three interlocking promises Democrats ran on. First and foremost, they ran on bringing competent, concerned governance to Covid. Second, they ran on a Franklin Roosevelt-size legislative agenda, believing this a Great Depression-like moment of rupture that demanded a new vision of what the state could and must do. And they ran vowing to restore the soul of America, to reestablish a civic promise and communal decency that Donald Trump and the Republican Party never understood and regularly betrayed.The Covid record is more mixed than I wish. Judged by what was promised in 2020, the Biden administration made remarkable strides. About 80 percent of Americans have had at least one vaccination, and anyone, anywhere in the country, can get shots and boosters with little effort and at no cost. Rapid tests rolled out slowly, but they are here now, and for a while the government would send them, free, to your door. The U.S. government bought up more Paxlovid than any other country in the world, and it is now widely available. Masks are cheap and plentiful.But judging by what was possible by 2022, even four of President Biden’s former Covid advisers wrote in The Times that they “are deeply dismayed by what has been left undone.” The shift from emergency response to a new architecture for preparedness never came. At-home testing was never integrated into any kind of collective policy or even data reporting system. The funding for the government to provide tests directly lapsed, with little protest from the White House. Wastewater monitoring “remains limited, uncoordinated and insufficiently standardized for a robust national surveillance system,” Biden’s former advisers wrote. So much more could have been done to improve indoor air quality and to make it clear which buildings meet the higher standards.After I criticized the Biden administration for failing to build on the successes of the Operation Warp Speed program, I heard from its Covid coordinator, Ashish Jha, that the White House was pushing Congress for $8 billion to create a Warp Speed-like program called Covid Shield for next-generation vaccines. But that push was quiet, and the administration committed itself to a bipartisan path that never opened. When Congress failed to provide the money, the administration never went public, much less turned to hardball measures. Biden could have refused to sign spending bills that didn’t include the Covid preparedness money he sought. Democrats should have made this a must-pass provision of the Inflation Reduction Act; as the past few years have proved, little is worse for inflation than a raging pandemic.The White House understands all of this. Jha is out there, even now, raising the alarm that current treatments are losing efficacy and future variants might evade them more easily. “Lack of congressional funding has made it difficult for us to replenish our medicine cabinet,” he said on Wednesday. “Because of a lack of congressional funding, the medicine cabinet has actually shrunk, and that does put vulnerable people at risk.” Republicans deserve scorn for refusing to fund pandemic preparedness. But Democrats deserve blame for letting it sink to one priority among many.To be fair, there’s been much else on the Democrats’ agenda. The central tension of Biden’s legislative strategy is that it paired ambitions of astonishing scale with congressional majorities that barely existed. The Senate, in a technical sense, saw no majority at all: It’s a 50-50 split, and Democrats carry votes only because Vice President Kamala Harris has the constitutional authority to break ties. It is remarkable how much Democrats have done, even so.There were two sides to Biden’s long-term agenda: construction and care. The construction side — decarbonizing the country, building and repairing infrastructure, and investing in semiconductor production and scientific research — largely passed. And much of what passed is thrilling.Trump was much mocked for infrastructure weeks that almost never resulted in new infrastructure. Biden and the Democrats have set the conditions for an infrastructure decade that could transform what America makes and how it’s made. And to my surprise, Biden has put invention at the center of his policymaking, and while we cannot yet know what fruits that will bear, it may prove his most lasting legacy.But the care side of Biden’s agenda — universal pre-K, the expanded child tax credit, subsidies for child and elder care, paid leave — collapsed almost entirely (the sole exception being an increase to the subsidies under Obamacare). Was that inevitable?This is murky territory, given the contradictory accounts that Biden and Senator Joe Manchin have given of their negotiations. Was there truly a $1.8 trillion Build Back Better package that Manchin would have voted for? The Biden team thought they had a deal. Manchin says they never did. And at the end of the day, no one forced Manchin to decide child care wasn’t worth doing and child poverty wasn’t worth reducing. That so many in the Senate care so much for bridges and so little for bodies is a scandal.Still, if you’d told me in 2020 that the next Democratic president would have a 50-50 Senate, with Manchin as the hinge vote, and a House margin of just a handful of members, I would not have predicted that the Democrats could pass more than $400 billion in climate investments or significant corporate tax increases or the most important infusion of cash and capital into scientific research in a generation.Three criticisms are worth airing. One is that Democrats could have gotten more of the care agenda passed by refusing to allow a separate vote on the infrastructure bill. The Biden administration believes now, and believed then, that it didn’t have the votes to tie the two together. That strategy ran an unacceptable risk of nothing passing. Given that Manchin proved perfectly willing to kill huge swaths of Biden’s agenda and let the administration twist in the wind for month after month, I suspect they’re right. But there’s no way to truly know.Another is that the American Rescue Plan was too large, and however well meaning the intentions behind it were, it was a handmaiden to inflation. I think the Biden administration erred on the right side of the ledger here. Unemployment is 3.5 percent. Workers got raises and stimulus checks. Poverty fell — sharply. The unemployed weren’t forced into indigency. All of this is easy to dismiss now, but none of it was guaranteed. And with inflation running at 10 percent in Germany and Britain and 7 percent in Canada, I’m skeptical of explanations that make one piece of legislation passed in one country too central to the story.I think the case is stronger that the Fed should’ve raised interest rates earlier and that Biden and the Democrats should’ve undershot economic support in the teeth of a pandemic that had frozen the global economy. Perhaps the rescue plan should’ve been built with more automatic stabilizers so aid rose as unemployment rose and vanished more quickly if it fell. But that’s true in every economic downturn, and for reasons I don’t fully understand, Congress refuses to learn that lesson.That leaves a criticism that I think is fairer: The Biden administration and congressional Democrats have had a the-more-the-merrier approach to every piece of legislation they’ve pushed. One reason the expanded child tax credit expired quickly was that the rescue plan was stuffed with so many policies, all of which needed funding. One reason Build Back Better was hard to defend was that so much was jammed into the package that the main thing anyone knew about it was its $3.5 trillion price tag. The push for a package of democracy reforms was similarly unfocused. It included virtually everything anyone who was worried about voting rights or campaign financing could think of and yet would have done little to block the kind of electoral subversion that Trump and his supporters attempted in 2020 and appear to be gathering forces to attempt again in 2024.Even when cornered, the Democrats kept trying to resist prioritization: Manchin said at the time that the White House lost his vote on Build Back Better by trying to keep the package intact and simply letting the policies expire earlier, in the hopes that they’d be extended en masse. He saw it as a gimmick that brought down the bill’s price tag without bringing down its long-term cost, and he abandoned the process.Whether that’s truly what motivated Manchin is debatable. What’s not debatable is that Democrats ran a very loose policy process. Compared with past administrations and Congresses I’ve covered, it felt as if Democratic leaders said yes to almost everything. Perhaps Democrats simply did not want to negotiate among themselves, knowing that Manchin or Senator Kyrsten Sinema or the Republicans would cull on their behalf. But the result was many policies that were poorly or opaquely constructed and packages that were hard to explain or defend.Biden always framed 2020 as a fight for America’s soul, not just its steering wheel. This is harder to assess. I’ve never believed he thought he could knit together a divided nation. He’s an optimist but not a fantasist. On a more literal level, he’s done what he promised — he has run a low-drama, low-scandal White House and comported himself with dignity and grace.But Biden has also run a relatively quiet administration. He gives comparatively few interviews, news conferences and speeches. He has filled the office Trump vacated but not the space Trump took up in the national conversation. I have argued that Biden’s laid-back approach is, in some ways, a strategy: By letting Trump and his successors fill the airwaves, Biden and the Democrats remind their voters what’s at stake. But this strategy runs deep risks. Biden’s low-drama approach to leadership leaves room for Trump’s high-drama antics.Politics has not moved on from Trump, in ways that it might have under a president who created new political cleavages and alignments. Biden has not been a strong enough communicator or presence to make Trump seem irrelevant. To make this more concrete: I wonder whether Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren could have won in 2020. But if one of them had, I suspect politics would have reorganized around their concerns and conflicts and Trump would seem a more passé figure. I worry that Biden thinks too much about America’s soul and not enough about its attention.What can be said, I think, is this: Biden and the Democrats got a lot done, despite very slim majorities. They rolled out vaccines and therapeutics nationwide but we remain far from finishing the job on pandemic preparedness. They have run the government in a dignified, decent way, but we remain far from turning the page on Trump.Next week, I’ll take a closer look at what Republicans are promising to do if they are given the power to do it. Because these elections are more than just a referendum. They are a choice.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

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Las encuestas electorales en Brasil se equivocaron, y ahora Bolsonaro quiere penalizar a las que fallen

      by

      El presidente Jair Bolsonaro y los legisladores conservadores de Brasil quieren ilegalizar la publicación de encuestas que no coinciden con los resultados de las elecciones.BRASILIA — Este mes se celebró la primera vuelta de las elecciones en Brasil, que han sido observadas con detenimiento, y las encuestas mostraron un pronóstico errado porque subestimaron el apoyo con el que cuenta el presidente en funciones, Jair Bolsonaro, un líder de extrema derecha, y otros candidatos conservadores de todo el país.Muchos integrantes de la derecha se pusieron furiosos y criticaron las encuestas por estar desconectadas del electorado brasileño.Esa reacción no fue ninguna sorpresa. Lo que pasó después, sí lo fue.A instancias de Bolsonaro, algunos líderes políticos brasileños ahora buscan tipificar como delito las predicciones incorrectas de una elección.La Cámara de Diputados de Brasil ha acelerado un proyecto de ley que penalizaría la publicación de una encuesta que luego se compruebe que estuvo fuera de su margen de error. Se prevé que la Cámara Baja, controlada por aliados de Bolsonaro, vote para aprobar la medida en los próximos días.El contenido y destino finales de la propuesta de ley aún no están claros. Los líderes legislativos han insinuado que podrían cambiar algunos aspectos de la legislación, y las posibilidades de que se apruebe en el Senado, donde los oponentes a Bolsonaro son mayoría, parecen mucho menos certeras.Sin embargo, independientemente del futuro de esa propuesta, tanto ese proyecto como otras iniciativas para investigar a las encuestadoras por sus recientes errores de cálculo forman parte de una narrativa más amplia, sin evidencias, promovida por Bolsonaro y sus aliados, según la cual la clase política y la izquierda de Brasil tratan de amañar las elecciones en su contra.Mientras Brasil se prepara para votar en la segunda vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales el 30 de octubre, las encuestas siguen mostrando que Bolsonaro está rezagado detrás de su rival de izquierda, el expresidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, aunque la contienda luce cada vez más cerrada.Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva celebrando los resultados de la primera vuelta de las elecciones en São Paulo, a principios de este mes.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesPor su parte, Bolsonaro optó por tildar a las empresas encuestadoras de “mentirosas” y denunciar que sus errores cambiaron hasta tres millones de votos a favor de Da Silva en la primera ronda electoral, y ha abogado para que las firmas enfrenten consecuencias. “No es por haberse equivocado, ¿OK? Una cosa es cometer un error”, puntualizó. “Es por los delitos que cometieron”.Bolsonaro no ha aclarado qué delitos considera que se cometieron.La Asociación Brasileña de Empresas Encuestadoras declaró en un comunicado que estaba “ofendida” por los intentos de criminalizar las encuestas que arrojan pronósticos equivocados.“Iniciar este tipo de investigación durante el periodo de campaña para la segunda vuelta electoral, cuando las encuestadoras están realizando su trabajo, demuestra otro intento flagrante de obstruir la investigación científica”, aseveró el grupo.Las firmas encuestadoras agregaron que su trabajo no era predecir elecciones, sino brindar un panorama general de las intenciones de los electores en el momento en que se realiza una encuesta.El proyecto de ley en el Congreso no es el único recurso que se ha entablado contra las encuestadoras. A petición de la campaña de Bolsonaro, el ministro de Justicia y Seguridad Pública de Brasil le ordenó a la policía federal que abriera una investigación contra las encuestadoras por los sondeos que realizaron antes de la primera ronda electoral. Además, la agencia federal antimonopolio de Brasil inició sus propias pesquisas sobre las principales instituciones encuestadoras de la nación por posible colusión.Alexandre de Moraes, juez del Supremo Tribunal Federal y director del tribunal electoral del país, no tardó en ordenar la suspensión de ambas investigaciones, tras señalar que carecían de jurisdicción y parecían cumplir las órdenes políticas del presidente. A su vez, Moraes le ordenó al tribunal electoral de Brasil investigar si Bolsonaro trataba de usar de manera indebida el poder que tiene sobre las agencias federales.En este último año, Moraes se ha posicionado como el principal contrapeso al poder de Bolsonaro, lo cual le ha valido algunas críticas por medidas que, según expertos en derecho y gobernanza, representan un giro represivo para el máximo tribunal de Brasil.Entre otras decisiones, Moraes encarceló a cinco personas sin juicio previo por hacer publicaciones en redes sociales que él consideró que eran ataques contra las instituciones brasileñas. El 20 de octubre, los funcionarios electorales ampliaron aún más su poder al otorgarle la autoridad unilateral para suspender las plataformas de redes sociales en Brasil que no obedecieran de inmediato sus órdenes de eliminar la desinformación.Alexandre de Moraes en Brasilia antes de la primera vuelta de las elecciones, a principios de este mes.Dado Galdieri para The New York TimesMoraes y el Senado del país parecen estar listos para proteger a las encuestadoras de las medidas en contra de sus sondeos.Sin embargo, las acusaciones reiteradas de que las encuestadoras son corruptas podrían socavar aún más su capacidad para brindar la mejor estimación posible de la opinión pública. Algunos de los asesores principales de Bolsonaro han hecho un llamado para que sus partidarios ignoren a los encuestadores con el fin de sabotear los resultados.“¡¡¡No le respondan a ninguno de ellos hasta el final de la elección!!! Así será seguro desde el principio que cualesquiera de sus resultados son fraudulentos”, escribió Ciro Nogueira, el jefe de gabinete de Bolsonaro, en su cuenta de Twitter. “¿Fue un delito su absurdo error? Solo una investigación profunda lo determinará”.Las firmas encuestadoras más importantes habían pronosticado que Bolsonaro recibiría alrededor de un 36 por ciento del voto en la primera ronda electoral. Recibió un 43,2 por ciento, una brecha de siete puntos porcentuales fuera del margen de error de prácticamente todas las encuestadoras.Sus pronósticos fueron aún peores en muchas contiendas por cargos de menor relieve. En Río de Janeiro, los sondeos mostraron que el candidato conservador a gobernador llevaba una ventaja de unos nueve puntos porcentuales. En cambio, ganó por 31 puntos.En São Paulo, algunas encuestas mostraron que un candidato de izquierda que aspira a llegar al Senado llevaba una delantera de 14 puntos porcentuales frente a su oponente antes de la primera ronda de elecciones. En cambio, un candidato de derecha ganó por casi el mismo margen, una diferencia de 28 puntos porcentuales de lo que predijeron los sondeos previos a la elección.Las empresas encuestadoras han atribuido sus pronósticos fallidos a una variedad de factores, entre ellos los datos obsoletos del censo, los cuales minaron su capacidad de encuestar a una muestra estadísticamente representativa de electores. Esas firmas mencionaron que sus encuestas también fueron deficientes porque una ola de votantes más grande de lo esperado cambió su voto para apoyar a Bolsonaro en el último minuto.Algunas encuestadoras también comentaron que creían que muchos electores conservadores no estuvieron dispuestos a responder sus encuestas.La proporción de votantes de mayor edad excedió por mucho sus expectativas, tal vez debido a un anuncio que hizo el gobierno este año de que votar era una nueva manera de dar fe de vida y mantener activos sus beneficios de jubilación. Las encuestas en la víspera de las elecciones mostraron que los electores mayores apoyaban a Bolsonaro más que a Da Silva.Brasil está lejos de ser el único país donde las encuestas luchan por dar una imagen precisa del electorado, particularmente la fuerza del apoyo conservador.En 2016, las encuestas en Estados Unidos no pronosticaron con precisión el apoyo a Donald Trump, y las empresas dieron razones similares para el error, incluido que algunos votantes de derecha no estaban dispuestos a responder las encuestas.El presidente Jair Bolsonaro, en São Paulo, a principios de este mes.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesLa credibilidad de las empresas de encuestas en Brasil se vio afectada después de la primera vuelta de las elecciones, y algunos periodistas se han mostrado reacios para compartir las encuestas antes de la segunda vuelta del domingo.Ricardo Barros, un congresista conservador que está ayudando a impulsar el proyecto de ley para criminalizar las encuestas defectuosas, dijo que la legislación obligaría a las empresas encuestadoras a ser más cuidadosas con sus resultados. Según la ley propuesta, solo las encuestas que se equivocan fuera de su margen de error enfrentarían responsabilidad.“Si no están seguros del resultado, usen un margen de error del 10 por ciento”, dijo. “Pierden credibilidad, pero no desinforman a los votantes. El problema es que hoy en día siempre se presentan como una verdad absoluta”.Los legisladores tanto de la Cámara como del Senado también han reunido suficientes firmas para abrir investigaciones en el Congreso sobre las firmas de encuestas, aunque se espera que el líder del Senado tome medidas para bloquear la investigación.Alexandre Cordeiro Macedo, director de la agencia federal antimonopolio de Brasil que fue designado por Bolsonaro, trató de ir más allá que Barros al señalar la supuesta responsabilidad de las firmas de encuestas.Antes de que Moraes interviniera y detuviera la investigación, Cordeiro Macedo acusó a las principales encuestadoras de colusión basándose en lo que calificó como la improbabilidad estadística de que todas hubieran subestimado el apoyo de Bolsonaro por un margen tan significativo. Afirmó que el escenario era tan probable como ganar la lotería varias veces.Pero Alexandre Patriota, profesor de estadística en la Universidad de São Paulo, lo cuestionó y dijo que probar la colusión basada únicamente en esa única medida sería casi imposible.“Incluso si todos los institutos se equivocaron de la misma manera, eso no es una prueba de colusión”, dijo. “Para tener un toque de malicia, necesitas algo más que números”.Jack Nicas es el jefe de la corresponsalía del Times en Brasil, que abarca Brasil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay. Antes cubría tecnología desde San Francisco. Antes de unirse al Times, en 2018, trabajó durante siete años en The Wall Street Journal. @jacknicas • Facebook More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The John Fetterman-Mehmet Oz Debate: The Midterms in Miniature

      by

      Let’s imagine that someone wanted to design a debate scenario that captured the high-stakes, uncertain, migraine-inducing essence of this freaky election cycle. (Don’t ask me why. Politics makes people do weird stuff some times.) The final result could easily wind up looking an awful lot like the Senate showdown in Pennsylvania on Tuesday night between John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz.Here we are, two weeks out from Election Day, with Pennsylvania among a smattering of states set to determine which party controls the Senate. For various reasons, Pennsylvanians have had limited opportunities to take an extended measure of the candidates. With the race now tighter than a bad face lift, this debate may be the candidates’ last big chance for a breakout performance — or a catastrophic belly flop. Rarely have so many expectations been heaped onto one measly debate.Consider the stark contrast between the candidates’ core brands. On the Republican side, there’s Dr. Oz: a rich, natty, carpetbagging TV celebrity with a smooth-as-goose-poop manner and Mephistophelean eyebrows. Mr. Fetterman, the state’s Democratic lieutenant governor, is 6-foot-8 and beefy, with tats, a goatee and the sartorial flair of a high school gym teacher — an anti-establishment, regular-Joe type better known for his trash-tweeting than for his oratorical prowess.Hovering over this hourlong prime-time matchup are questions about Mr. Fetterman’s health. He suffered a stroke in May that has left him with auditory processing issues, and he will rely on a closed captioning system in the debate. Voters can be unforgiving — and the opposition ruthless — about verbal stumbling. (Just ask President Biden.) And the closed captioning technology Mr. Fetterman uses can lead to lags between questions being asked and answered.Already there has been chatter about his performance on the stump. This month, an NBC reporter said that, in a pre-interview sit-down, Mr. Fetterman seemed to be having trouble understanding her. Republicans have accused him of lying about the severity of his condition and suggested he is not up to the job. A major blunder on the debate stage, or even the general sense that Mr. Fetterman is struggling, could prove devastating.On the other hand … Dr. Oz and his team have mocked Mr. Fetterman’s medical travails — which seems like a particularly jerky move for a medical professional. This may tickle the Republican base but risks alienating less partisan voters. In appealing to a general-election audience, Dr. Oz will need a better bedside manner to avoid coming across as a callous, supercilious jackass.And here’s where the dynamic gets really tense: After much back-and-forth between the campaigns, Mr. Fetterman agreed to only a single debate, pushed to this late date on the campaign calendar. There are no second chances on the agenda, and precious little time to recover if something goes sideways for either candidate.While the particulars of the Pennsylvania race are unusual, the minimalist approach to debating is ascendant. For the past decade, the number of debates in competitive races has been on a downward slide, and they appear headed the way of floppy disks and fax machines. This election season, barring unforeseen developments, the major Senate contenders in Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina and Florida, as in Pennsylvania, will face off only once — which is once more than those in Nevada, where debates seem to be off the table altogether. Likewise, the Republican and Democratic candidates in Missouri have yet to agree on conditions for appearing together.This trend is not limited to the Senate. Several candidates for governor have so far opted to shun debates. And starting with the 2024 presidential election, the Republican National Committee has voted to keep its candidates out of events hosted by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates unless it overhauls its rules for how the debates are conducted, including when they are held and who can be a moderator. Even if the committee eventually backtracks (which seems likely), its threat emphasizes just how far debates have fallen.This is a not-so-great development for a democracy already under strain.Once upon a time, candidates felt obligated to participate in debates. But as campaigning increasingly take place inside partisan bubbles, and the ways to directly communicate with voters proliferate, the contenders have become less inclined to brave this arena. Why endure intense, prolonged, unscripted scrutiny when it is so much less stressful to post on social media? Increasingly, campaigns are deciding these showdowns simply aren’t worth the work or the risk involved.But this misses the point. Debates aren’t supposed to be conducted for the electoral advantage of the candidates. They are meant to benefit the voting public. Debates require political opponents to engage face-to-face. They give voters an opportunity to watch the candidates define and defend their priorities and visions beyond the length of a tweet or an Instagram post. They are one of the few remaining political forums that focus on ideas. They contribute to an informed citizenry. Failure to achieve these aims suggests that the practice should be reformed, not abandoned.Admittedly, this seems like wishful thinking as members of both parties grow more comfortable with ducking debates. Republicans in particular are conditioning their supporters to believe that such matchups, and the journalists who typically run them, are biased against them.Those who view debates as some combination of boring, artificial and pointless will probably cheer their decline. (I feel your pain. I really do.) But the loss of this ritual is another troubling sign of our political times, and of a democracy at risk of sliding farther into crisis as its underpinnings are being steadily eroded.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

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Brazil’s Polls Were Wrong. Now the Right Wants to Criminalize Them.

      by

      President Jair Bolsonaro and conservative lawmakers in Brazil are trying to make it illegal to publish polls that later do not match the election results.BRASÍLIA — In the first round of Brazil’s closely watched elections this month, the polls were off the mark. They significantly underestimated the support for the far-right incumbent, President Jair Bolsonaro, and other conservative candidates across the country.Many on the right were furious, criticizing the pollsters as out of touch with the Brazilian electorate.That response was expected. What happened next was not.At the urging of Mr. Bolsonaro, some of Brazil’s leaders are now trying to make it a crime to incorrectly forecast an election.Brazil’s House of Representatives has fast-tracked a bill that would criminalize publishing a poll that is later shown to fall outside its margin of error. The House, which is controlled by Mr. Bolsonaro’s allies, is expected to vote and pass the measure in the coming days.The bill’s final shape and fate is unclear. House leaders have suggested they may soften the legislation, and its prospects in the Senate, where opponents of Mr. Bolsonaro are in the majority, appear far less certain.Still, whatever the measure’s fate, the proposal and other efforts to investigate pollsters for their recent miscalculations are part of a broader narrative pushed by Mr. Bolsonaro and his allies, without evidence, that Brazil’s political establishment and the left are trying to rig the election against him.As Brazil prepares to vote in a presidential runoff on Oct. 30, the surveys continue to show Mr. Bolsonaro trailing his left-wing rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former president, though the race seems to be tightening.Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva celebrating the results of the first round of elections in São Paulo earlier this month.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesFor his part, Mr. Bolsonaro has taken to calling the polling firms “liars,” claimed that their mistakes swung up to three million votes to Mr. da Silva in the first round, and has advocated for the firms to face consequences. “Not for getting it wrong, OK? An error is one thing,” he said. “It’s for the crimes they committed.”He has not said what crimes he believes were committed.The Brazilian Association of Pollsters said in a statement that it was “outraged” at the attempts to criminalize surveys that turn out to be inaccurate.“Starting this type of investigation during the runoff campaign period, when the polling companies are carrying out their work, demonstrates another clear attempt to impede scientific research,” the group said.Polling firms added that their work was not to predict elections, but to provide a snapshot of voters’ intentions at the time a survey is conducted.The bill in Congress is not the only effort to target pollsters. Following a request from Mr. Bolsonaro’s campaign, Brazil’s justice minister ordered the federal police to open an investigation into polling firms over their surveys before the first election round. And Brazil’s federal antitrust agency opened its own inquiry into some of the nation’s top polling institutions for possible collusion.Alexandre de Moraes, a Supreme Court justice and Brazil’s elections chief, quickly ordered both of those investigations halted, saying that they lacked jurisdiction and that they appeared to be doing the president’s political bidding. In turn, Mr. Moraes ordered Brazil’s election agency to investigate whether Mr. Bolsonaro was trying to use his power over federal agencies inappropriately.Mr. Moraes has emerged as the top check on Mr. Bolsonaro’s power over the past year, drawing criticism at times for measures that, according to experts in law and government, represent a repressive turn for Brazil’s top court.Among other moves, he has jailed five people without a trial for posts on social media that he said attacked Brazil’s institutions. On Thursday, election officials further expanded his power by giving him unilateral authority to suspend social media platforms in Brazil that do not quickly comply with his orders to remove misinformation.Alexandre de Moraes in Brasília before the first round of elections earlier this month.Dado Galdieri for The New York TimesMr. Moraes and Brazil’s Senate appear poised to protect polling firms from measures that target their surveys.Yet repeated claims that pollsters are corrupt could further weaken their ability to provide the best possible gauge of public opinion. Some of Mr. Bolsonaro’s top advisers have urged his supporters to ignore survey takers in order to sabotage their results.“Do not respond to any of them until the end of the election!!! That way, it’ll be certain from the start that any of their results are fraudulent,” Ciro Nogueira, Mr. Bolsonaro’s chief of staff, wrote on Twitter. “Was their absurd screw-up criminal? Only a deep investigation will tell.”The top polling firms had forecast that Mr. Bolsonaro would receive roughly 36 percent of the vote in the first round. He received 43.2 percent, a seven-point gap that was outside virtually all polls’ margins of error.Their performance was even worse in many down-ballot races. In Rio de Janeiro, the polls showed that the conservative candidate for governor was ahead by about 9 percentage points. Instead, he won by 31 points.In São Paulo, some polls showed that a left-wing candidate for Senate was ahead of his opponent by 14 percentage points heading into the first election round. Instead, a right-wing candidate won by nearly that same margin — a swing of 28 percentage points from what the pre-election polls had found.The polling firms have blamed a variety of factors for their flawed forecasts, including outdated census data that hampered their ability to survey a statistically representative sample of voters. The firms said their polls were also undercut because a larger-than-expected wave of voters switched their ballots to Mr. Bolsonaro from third-party candidates at the last minute.Some polling firms also said they believed that many conservative voters were unwilling to answer their surveys.The share of older voters far exceeded expectations, potentially because of a government announcement this year that voting was a new way to establish proof of life and keep retirement benefits active. Polls on the eve of the election showed that older voters supported Mr. Bolsonaro over Mr. da Silva.Brazil is far from the only country where polls struggle to give an accurate picture of the electorate, particularly the strength of conservative support.In 2016, polls in the United States did not accurately forecast the support for Donald J. Trump, and the firms gave similar reasons for the miss, including that some right-wing voters were unwilling to answer surveys.President Jair Bolsonaro in São Paulo earlier this month.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesThe credibility of Brazil’s polling firms was damaged after the election’s first round, and some journalists have become more hesitant to share surveys ahead of Sunday’s runoff.Ricardo Barros, a conservative congressman who is helping to push the bill to criminalize faulty polls, said the legislation would force polling companies to be more careful with their findings. Under the proposed law, only polls that err outside their margin of error would face liability.“If you’re not sure of the outcome, then place a margin of error of 10 percent,” he said. “It loses credibility, but it doesn’t misinform voters. The problem is that today it’s always being presented as an absolute truth.”Lawmakers in both the House and Senate have also gathered enough signatures to open congressional investigations into the polling firms, although the leader of the Senate is expected to move to block that chamber’s investigation.Alexandre Cordeiro Macedo, the head of Brazil’s federal antitrust agency and an appointee of Mr. Bolsonaro, tried to go further than Mr. Barros in taking aim at polling firms.Before Mr. Moraes intervened and stopped the inquiry, Mr. Cordeiro Macedo had accused top polling companies of collusion based on what he said was the statistical improbability that they all had underestimated Mr. Bolsonaro’s support by such a significant margin. He claimed that the scenario was about as likely as winning the lottery several times.But Alexandre Patriota, a statistics professor at the University of São Paulo, disputed that, saying proving collusion based solely on that single measure would be nearly impossible.“Even if all the institutes got it wrong in the same way, this is not an indication of a cartel,” he said. “To have a hint of malice, you need something more than numbers.” More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Politician, Thy Name Is Hypocrite

      by

      What’s worse — politicians passing a bad law or politicians passing a bad law while attempting to make it look reasonable with meaningless window dressing?You wind up in the same place, but I’ve gotta go with the jerks who pretend.Let’s take, oh, I don’t know, abortion. Sure, lawmakers who vote to ban it know they’re imposing some voters’ religious beliefs on the whole nation. But maybe they can make it look kinda fair.For instance Mark Ronchetti, who’s running for governor in New Mexico, was “strongly pro-life” until the uproar following the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe. Now, his campaign website says he’s looking for a “middle ground” that would allow abortions “in cases involving rape, incest and when a mother’s life is at risk.”That’s a very popular spin. The public’s rejection of the court’s ruling, plus the stunning vote for abortion rights in a recent statewide referendum in Kansas, has left politicians looking for some way to dodge the anti-choice label. Without, um, actually changing. “I am pro-life, and make no apologies for that. But I also understand that this is a representative democracy,” said Tim Michels, a Republican candidate for Wisconsin governor, when he embraced the rape-and-incest dodge.Mehmet Oz, who’s running for Senate in Pennsylvania, used to support abortion access back when he wanted the world to call him “Dr. Oz.” But now that his day job is being a conservative Republican, he’s “100 percent pro-life.” Nevertheless, he still feels there should be an exception for cases of … rape and incest.We’ve come a long — OK, we’ve come at least a little way from the time, a decade ago, when Todd Akin, the Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, argued it was impossible for a woman to get pregnant from “legitimate rape.” And Akin did lose that race.The backtracking can get pretty creative — or desperate, depending on your perspective. In New Hampshire, Don Bolduc, who’s running for the Senate, was strongly anti-choice before he won the Republican primary. (“Killing babies is unbelievably irresponsible.”)Now, Bolduc the nominee feels a federal abortion ban “doesn’t make sense” and complains that he’s not getting the proper respect for his position. Which is that it’s a state issue. And that his opponent, Senator Maggie Hassan, should “get over it.”These days, it’s hard to sell an across-the-board rule that doesn’t take victims of forced sex into account. In Ohio recently, Senate candidate J.D. Vance tried to stick to his anti-abortion guns, but did back down a smidge when questioned about whether that 10-year-old Ohio rape victim who was taken out of state for an abortion should have been forced to have a baby.And then Vance quickly changed the subject, pointing out that the man accused of raping her was an “illegal alien.” This is an excellent reminder that in this election season there is virtually no problem that Republicans can’t find a way of connecting to the Mexican border.As sympathetic as all rape victims are, the exemption rule would not have much impact. No one knows exactly what proportion of pregnancies are caused by rape and incest, but the number “looks very, very small,” Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute told me.And what about, say, a young woman who’s already a teenage mother, working the night shift at a fast-food outlet, whose boyfriend’s condom failed? No suggestion for any special mercy there. You can’t help thinking the big difference is a desire to punish any woman who wanted to have sex.Another popular method of dodging the abortion issue is fiddling with timelines. Blake Masters, the ever-fascinating Arizona Senate candidate, originally opposed abortion from the moment of conception. (“I think it’s demonic.”) Now his revamped website just calls for a national ban once a woman is six months pregnant.And we will stop here very, very briefly to mention that the number of six-month abortions is infinitesimal.Whenever this issue comes up, I remember my school days, which involved Catholic education from kindergarten through college. Wonderful world in many ways, but there wasn’t much concern about keeping religion out of public policy. Especially when it came to abortion. Any attempt to stop the pregnancy from the moment of conception on was murder.That’s still Catholic dogma, you know. Politicians who think they can dodge the issue with their rape-and-incest exceptions appear to ignore the fact that as the church sees it, an embryo that’s the product of a rape still counts as worthy of protection.It took me quite a while to get my head around the abortion issue and I have sympathy for people who have strong religious opposition to ending a pregnancy.Some folks who hold to that dogma try to encourage pregnant women to have their babies by providing counseling, financial support and adoption services, all of which is great as long as the woman in question isn’t being forced to join the program.But anti-abortion laws are basically an attempt to impose one group’s religion on the country as a whole. It’s flat-out unconstitutional, no matter how Justice Samuel Alito feels.And the rape-or-incest exception isn’t humanitarian. It’s a meaningless rhetorical ploy intended to allow politicians to have it both ways.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