Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      House Passes Overhaul of Electoral Count, Moving to Avert Another Jan. 6 Crisis

      by

      WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday took the first major step to respond to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol, voting mostly along party lines to overhaul the 135-year-old Electoral Count Act, the law that former President Donald J. Trump tried to exploit that day to overturn his defeat.The bill was the most significant legislative answer yet to the riot and the monthslong campaign by Mr. Trump and his allies to invalidate the 2020 presidential election, but it also underscored the lingering partisan divide over Jan. 6 and the former president’s continuing grip on his party.It cleared a divided House, passing on a 229 to 203 vote. All but nine Republicans opposed the measure, wary of angering Mr. Trump and unwilling to back legislation co-written by Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and a leader of the House select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 and what led to them.The partisan division could complicate future negotiations with the Senate, which is moving ahead with its own bipartisan version of the legislation that differs from the House bill in some significant respects. Lawmakers now say they do not expect final approval before Congress returns for a lame-duck session after the Nov. 8 midterm elections.The legislation is aimed at updating the law that governs Congress’s counting of the electoral votes cast by the states, the final step under the Constitution to confirm the results of a presidential election and historically a mostly ceremonial process. Democrats said that the aftermath of the 2020 election — in which Mr. Trump and his allies’ attempts to throw out legitimate electoral votes led to the violent disruption of the congressional count by his supporters on Jan. 6 — made clear that the statute needed to be changed.“These are common-sense reforms that will preserve the rule of law for all elections moving forward,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Rules Committee. “Time is running out before the next election.”One key provision in the bill, which is also contained in the Senate proposal, would clarify that the role of the vice president, who by law presides over the counting of the ballots in his capacity as president of the Senate, is strictly ministerial. After the 2020 election, Mr. Trump and his advisers tried but failed to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to accept electoral votes from states where Trump was falsely claiming victory.The measure also would raise the threshold substantially for Congress to consider an objection to a state’s electoral votes, requiring that at least one-third of the House and Senate sign on to such a challenge, up dramatically from the one member of each chamber that is now required. The Senate proposal has a lower threshold, requiring one-fifth of the House and Senate to agree.Members of both parties have raised objections in recent elections, though none have been sustained by a majority of the House and Senate. The House bill would also more narrowly define the grounds for an objection to those with a defined constitutional basis.“Ultimately, this bill is about protecting the will of the American voters, which is a principle that is beyond partisanship,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who leads the Administration Committee and introduced the measure with Ms. Cheney. “The bottom line is if you want to object to the vote, you’d better have your colleagues and the Constitution on your side.”Passage of the bill comes as the Jan. 6 committee is wrapping up its work after a summer of high-profile hearings and preparing an extensive report, which is expected to include recommendations for how to confront the threats to democracy raised by the riot and Mr. Trump’s drive to overturn the election. Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the panel, said the next and likely final hearing would take place on Sept. 28.“We have substantial footage of what occurred that we haven’t used; we’ve had significant witness testimony that we haven’t used,” Mr. Thompson said in an interview. “This is an opportunity to use some of that material.”The legislation was also a direct response to Mr. Trump’s efforts to orchestrate the submission of fake slates of electors in states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. It would require that states choose their electors under laws in place before the election, a provision intended to prevent states from reversing course if they do not like the result. And the bill would allow candidates to sue state officials if they failed to submit their electors or certified electors that did not match the election results..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-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs 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.It also would lay out the circumstances in which a federal judge could extend an election following a catastrophe and force election officials to count ballots or certify an election if they refused to do so.Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, sponsored the bill along with Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California.Kim Raff for The New York TimesRepublicans said the legislation represented a renewed Democratic attempt to exert more federal control over elections that are usually the responsibility of state officials and courts.Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, called it “another attempt to federalize elections at the expense of states.” Other Republicans accused Democrats of rushing the legislation to the floor without review by the appropriate committees or engaging Republicans.They also accused Democrats of using the bill to take aim at Mr. Trump, portraying the legislation as an extension of the work of the special committee investigating Jan. 6, which most House Republicans denounce as a partisan exercise aimed at blaming Mr. Trump for the assault on the Capitol.“This is nothing more than an attack on President Trump and the 2020 election, an attack on a man who has not been in office for nearly two years,” said Representative Guy Reschenthaler, Republican of Pennsylvania.Lawmakers said the legislation’s close association with Ms. Cheney led House Republicans to abandon it in large numbers. Her aggressive criticism of Mr. Trump prompted Republicans to remove her from a party leadership position in May last year, and she lost her re-election primary last month.But Ms. Cheney noted strong support for the measure from conservative jurists and analysts and called on Republicans to embrace it.“If your aim is to prevent future efforts to steal elections, I would respectfully request that conservatives should support this bill,” she said on the House floor. “If instead your aim is to leave open the door for elections to be stolen in the future, you might decide not to support this or any other bill to address the Electoral Count Act.”Leaders of the bipartisan group behind the Senate bill, which was made public in July, were surprised by the sudden House action on the legislation just days after it was introduced and after months with few details on how the House was proceeding. Backers of the Senate bill said the House approach could lead to more election lawsuits, a prospect that could increase Republican opposition. But they remained hopeful the bills could be reconciled.“We can work together to try to bridge the considerable differences,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and one of the chief authors of the Senate bill. “But it would have been better if we had been consulted prior to the House sponsors deciding to drop their bill.”The Senate Rules Committee is scheduled to consider that chamber’s version next week. Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and the chairwoman of the panel, is preparing a new version that incorporates changes sought by election experts and other lawmakers in hopes of enhancing its chances of approval. The legislation so far has at least 10 Republican backers, meaning it could overcome a G.O.P. filibuster if all Democrats supported it.Despite the differences, supporters of the legislation said it needed to become law.“Failure is not an option,” said Representative Pete Aguilar of California, a member of the Democratic leadership and the Jan. 6 panel. “We’ve got to put a piece of reform on the president’s desk. We’ve got to protect democracy.”Luke Broadwater More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Law Enforcement Funding Package Splits Democrats Ahead of Midterm Elections

      by

      A measure to provide more money for local police departments has become mired in a long-running debate among Democrats about the politics of crime, as Republicans step up attacks.WASHINGTON — Legislation to increase funding for local police departments has hit a snag on Capitol Hill amid deep Democratic divisions, as progressives balk at steering more money to law enforcement and moderates clamor for action that could blunt Republicans’ efforts to paint them as soft on crime ahead of the midterm elections.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged for weeks to bring up a package of bills that would provide funding for hiring more police officers, increasing salaries, investing in officer safety and training and body cameras, as well as mental health resources for officers.But the measures, championed by vulnerable Democrats from conservative-leaning districts, have become mired in a yearslong internal feud about the politics of crime, leaving the party without an answer to Republican attacks and some of its members livid.“I have heard a whole host of reasons for people wanting to excuse inaction,” said Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, who is in a difficult re-election race in a competitive district that includes the suburbs of Richmond, and is a lead proponent of the legislation. “The sort of generalized excuses — I’ve heard it a lot. Tomorrow it will be, ‘It’s raining.’”Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who pressed successfully for the package to include measures to strengthen accountability for police misconduct, have also pushed to move ahead with it.A spokesman for the caucus said that the issue remains a priority for the group.Yet a small group of progressives has so far refused to back the legislation, leaving Democrats short of the votes they would need to bring it up. House Democratic leaders do not want to put their party’s divisions on display at a time when the political map is looking more favorable for them than it did just a few months ago. So Ms. Pelosi has been holding off on announcing any vote, as lawmakers continue discussions with those withholding their support.Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington and the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has positioned herself as the principal roadblock to the legislation, arguing that it would provide a blank check to police departments.“The answer is not just putting more money in,” Ms. Jayapal said. “I’m not sure that this has a chance of moving forward, given all of the challenges around it.”Because of Democrats’ slim majority in the House, the opposition of Ms. Jayapal and just three other liberals would be enough to block it from proceeding to a vote. Talks among her, moderate Democrats and party leaders were continuing on Monday, according to a person familiar with the negotiations, with some still hopeful for a potential breakthrough.Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, has been pushing for a vote on the measure this week, a second person familiar with the talks said.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Echoing Trump: Six G.O.P. nominees for governor and the Senate in critical midterm states, all backed by former President Donald J. Trump, would not commit to accepting this year’s election results.Times/Siena Poll: Our second survey of the 2022 election cycle found Democrats remain unexpectedly competitive in the battle for Congress, while G.O.P. dreams of a major realignment among Latino voters have failed to materialize.Ohio Senate Race: The contest between Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance, appears tighter than many once expected.Pennsylvania Senate Race: In one of his most extensive interviews since having a stroke, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee, said he was fully capable of handling a campaign that could decide control of the Senate.Yet time is running short for Democrats to act before the midterm elections, in which Republicans have once again made crime a major point of attack. With the legislation languishing, vulnerable Democrats are losing out on a potential political boost from passing a pro-police bill. There is little time remaining before November to campaign on such a vote or to produce an advertisement attempting to claim credit.Republicans have tried for years to portray Democrats as soft on crime and bent on defunding the police — a mantra that many progressives embraced amid a series of high-profile cases of excessive violence by law enforcement, particularly against people of color.The Republican criticism has sharpened around election time, including in recent weeks, as gas prices have fallen and the party has searched for other ways to tarnish Democrats in the eyes of suburban voters, such as spotlighting the dysfunctional immigration system and the continuing toll of inflation..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-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs 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.Before the 2018 midterm elections, President Donald J. Trump branded Democrats the “party of crime,” even though crime rates had risen in cities with leaders of both political parties. Since 2019, murders have spiked by nearly 40 percent, and violent crimes, including shootings and other assaults, have increased overall.The drama that is playing out now is the latest chapter in a long-running fight about the issue among Democrats. After the party’s disappointing results in the 2020 midterm elections, as Democrats bickered internally about what had gone wrong, Ms. Spanberger privately vented her frustration about progressive colleagues who had embraced the “defund the police” movement, arguing that Democrats had to push back much more forcefully against Republican efforts to caricature them as anti-law enforcement.At the time, progressives including Ms. Jayapal angrily rejected the criticism, arguing that they had helped to turn out the party’s liberal base by speaking to the issues that animated core supporters, including people of color, allowing Democrats to hold the House majority.Those pressing to pass the legislation this year argue that it goes beyond politics and would make communities safer by helping police departments focus on community-oriented approaches. And they have tried to address broad concerns among Democrats about including meaningful police accountability measures.Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey, has introduced the Invest to Protect Act, which would direct the Justice Department to award grants to local or tribal governments with fewer than 200 law enforcement officers to improve recruitment, purchase body cameras and provide de-escalation training.Police officers in a school active shooter drill in Oriskany, N.Y.Juan Arredondo for The New York Times“We have to make it clear to the country that we’re a party that’s tough on crime and supports protecting our communities and those who do,” Mr. Gottheimer said.Mr. Hoyer said in a recent letter to Democrats that the House would be “ready to consider” the legislation this month.“Democrats are not for defunding the police,” Mr. Hoyer told reporters, adding that party members had voted for police funding. “We voted for it in the last budget, the budget before that, and every budget since I’ve been here to make sure that law enforcement have the resources it needed.”Civil rights groups including the N.A.A.C.P. are also pressing for passage of the legislation, making the case that additional police funding should be paired with accountability measures.“A wealth of evidence supports the fact that certain preventative measures, such as violence prevention programs and other community investments, can dramatically improve safety outcomes,” the organization wrote in a letter to Democratic leaders last month.But with the legislative calendar dwindling, many pressing for action said they remained skeptical there would be any real effort to move forward.“I keep hearing from leadership, ‘We really want to bring these bills,’ ” Ms. Spanberger said. “And yet.”Democrats had originally hoped to vote on the police funding bills over the summer and were planning to pair them with legislation to ban assault weapons that passed in July, before lawmakers left Washington for their August recess. But when disagreements emerged about accountability measures in the police bills, Ms. Pelosi chose to move ahead with just the assault weapons ban and revisit the law enforcement legislation in the fall.Now the House is back, but the police funding issue has not yet been settled.Representative Yvette D. Clarke, Democrat of New York, said she recognized the need for additional police funding, but still had reservations that the measures lacked sufficient accountability measures for law enforcement, which she described as “a tacit acceptance of abusive behaviors.”“It’s important that we have the personnel in place to make sure that our cities are safe,” Ms. Clarke said. “We also need to make sure that there’s the proper training in place, so that communities of color feel like they’re in partnership with their police departments.”Jonathan Martin More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Social Media Companies Still Boost Election Fraud Claims, Report Says

      by

      The major social media companies all say they are ready to deal with a torrent of misinformation surrounding the midterm elections in November.A report released on Monday, however, claimed that they continued to undermine the integrity of the vote by allowing election-related conspiracy theories to fester and spread.In the report, the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University said the social media companies still host and amplify “election denialism,” threatening to further erode confidence in the democratic process.The companies, the report argued, bear a responsibility for the false but widespread belief among conservatives that the 2020 election was fraudulent — and that the coming midterms could be, too. The report joins a chorus of warnings from officials and experts that the results in November could be fiercely, even violently, contended.“The malady of election denialism in the U.S. has become one of the most dangerous byproducts of social media,” the report warned, “and it is past time for the industry to do more to address it.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Echoing Trump: Six G.O.P. nominees for governor and the Senate in critical midterm states, all backed by former President Donald J. Trump, would not commit to accepting this year’s election results.Times/Siena Poll: Our second survey of the 2022 election cycle found Democrats remain unexpectedly competitive in the battle for Congress, while G.O.P. dreams of a major realignment among Latino voters have failed to materialize.Ohio Senate Race: The contest between Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance, appears tighter than many once expected.Pennsylvania Senate Race: In one of his most extensive interviews since having a stroke, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee, said he was fully capable of handling a campaign that could decide control of the Senate.The major platforms — Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and YouTube — have all announced promises or initiatives to combat disinformation ahead of the 2022 midterms, saying they were committed to protecting the election process. But the report said those measures were ineffective, haphazardly enforced or simply too limited.Facebook, for example, announced that it would ban ads that called into question the legitimacy of the coming elections, but it exempted politicians from its fact-checking program. That, the report says, allows candidates and other influential leaders to undermine confidence in the vote by questioning ballot procedures or other rules.In the case of Twitter, an internal report released as part of a whistle-blower’s complaint from a former head of security, Peiter Zatko, disclosed that the company’s site integrity team had only two experts on misinformation.The New York University report, which incorporated responses from all the companies except YouTube, called for greater transparency in how companies rank, recommend and remove content. It also said they should enhance fact-checking efforts and remove provably untrue claims, and not simply label them false or questionable.A spokeswoman for Twitter, Elizabeth Busby, said the company was undertaking a multifaceted approach to ensuring reliable information about elections. That includes efforts to “pre-bunk” false information and to “reduce the visibility of potentially misleading claims via labels.”In a statement, YouTube said it agreed with “many of the points” made in the report and had already carried out many of its recommendations.“We’ve already removed a number of videos related to the midterms for violating our policies,” the statement said, “and the most viewed and recommended videos and channels related to the election are from authoritative sources, including news channels.”TikTok did not respond to a request for comment.There are already signs that the integrity of the vote in November will be as contentious as it was in 2020, when President Donald J. Trump and some of his supporters refused to accept the outcome, falsely claiming widespread fraud.Inattention by social media companies in the interim has allowed what the report describes as a coordinated campaign to take root among conservatives claiming, again without evidence, that wholesale election fraud is bent on tipping elections to Democrats.“Election denialism,” the report said, “was evolving in 2021 from an obsession with the former president’s inability to accept defeat into a broader, if equally baseless, attack on the patriotism of all Democrats, as well as non-Trump-loving Republicans, and legions of election administrators, many of them career government employees.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Don’t Let Republicans Off the Hook on Same-Sex Marriage

      by

      Why is it always on the Democrats to compromise?To be the nice ones? To take the high road to nowhere?On Thursday, the bipartisan group of senators behind the Respect for Marriage Act, which would have enshrined federal protections for same-sex marriage, announced a delay on putting the measure to a vote, which had been expected to take place this week.According to the bill’s lead sponsor, Senator Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, postponing the vote until after the November elections would increase the likelihood of getting the 10 Republicans on board necessary to push it through today’s filibustery Senate, where 60 votes would be needed for it to advance.Baldwin, and Democrats generally, are essentially conceding that it will be hard to get Republicans to commit to a measure that’s anathema to their base prior to the midterm elections. That in the interest of actually passing the bill, as opposed to putting Republicans on the record with an unpopular, anti-same-sex-marriage vote, Democrats should be generous and allow Republicans more time to muster support.Really? We’re supposed to believe it will be easier to bring Republicans on board after the election? If the Democrats retain the Senate post-election, Republicans will have little reason to vote against their base. If the Republicans retake the Senate, they’ll have less incentive still.Please. This just makes things easier on Republican lawmakers: A vote would force them to dissatisfy either swing voters, with whom same-sex marriage is highly popular, or their extremist base, with whom (to put it mildly) it is not. Easier for Republicans to scurry away from a proposal that’s politically risky, just as they did earlier last week with Lindsey Graham’s unpopular bill on abortion. And they’re doing this at the expense of the many Americans in same-sex relationships — married, engaged or on the cusp of commitment — for whom this just makes life harder and more precarious.This is exactly the moment to hold Republicans’ feet to the fire. It’s the moment for those Republicans who are in favor of gay marriage to stand up for what has become a clear majority position in the country, or to cave spectacularly to the prejudices of their base. As Senator Elizabeth Warren put it: “Every single member of Congress should be willing to go on the record. And if there are Republicans who don’t want to vote on that before the election, I assume it is because they are on the wrong side of history.”Maybe they are, and maybe they aren’t. They could be true believers, or they could simply be selling their souls in the interest of staying in office. But those who do support gay marriage need to act. Particularly given the ominous words of Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which many interpreted as a threat to revisit the landmark 2015 decision establishing the right to same-sex marriage.If that right is no longer settled law, as had previously been assumed, it’s certainly a settled moral principle. Over the past seven short years and following the course of many long ones, same-sex marriage has reached the status of a basic and bedrock civil right. Currently 71 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage. This not only includes the vast majority of Democrats, but as of 2021, 55 percent of Republicans according to Gallup. That is the definition of bipartisan consensus.In theory, I’m as much in favor of bipartisanship as the next pragmatist, despite the consistent battering the practice has gotten, especially from Obama’s failed efforts to woo Republicans on the Affordable Care Act onward. It’s hard to hold much hope in the ideal.When it comes to polarizing culture war issues, gay marriage may be the most unifying policy there is. Even under the capacious L.G.B.T.Q. umbrella, where disparate issues around sexual orientation, gay rights and gender identity split Americans across the political spectrum, you can’t get much closer to consensus than same-sex marriage. It may be the one clear-cut policy here that unites people rather than divides them.Alas, and unsurprisingly, it was Republican senators who requested the delay. According to Politico, a number of Republican senators complained that if Chuck Schumer forced a vote on the measure on Monday, they’d view it as politically motivated. As if delaying the vote for explicitly political reasons wasn’t politically motivated?What’s on Democrats here is the failure, once again, to play hardball — in the same way Republicans have done repeatedly and without remorse. To take just one recent and brazen example, Republicans pushed through a vote on Amy Coney Barrett days before an election, despite Democrats’ simmering fury over McConnell refusing to even consider Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination eight months before an election.Instead, Democrats are effectively joining Republicans in putting politics ahead of principle — and purely on behalf of Republicans. If politics were remotely fair play, Republicans would return the favor by voting overwhelmingly in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act during the post-midterm lame-duck session.Who here is holding their breath?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

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans on the Defensive on Abortion and Other Social Issues

      by

      Republican missteps have helped to spotlight the party’s divisions on abortion and same-sex marriage, two issues on which their base is out of step with the general public.WASHINGTON — Republicans have perfected the art of keeping the heat on Democrats on the searing social issues of the day, but this election year, it seems to be Republicans who are getting scorched.During a midterm cycle that seemed tailor-made for significant Republican gains in the House and Senate, Democrats have managed to grab the advantage on abortion rights and same-sex marriage, steering the conversation away from topics that are thornier for them, such as inflation and crime.They have had substantial help from Republican miscues, confounding Democrats who typically expect more craftiness from across the aisle.“They can’t seem to get out of their own way,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, one of the Democratic incumbents on the ballot in November.One reason for their struggles is that a large swath of the Republican base has fallen out of step with broader public opinion on these issues. Most Americans favor same-sex marriage rights and at least some abortion rights, but many Republican voters continue to oppose same-sex marriage and want strict abortion limits if not an outright ban. The disconnect makes navigating those topics treacherous for Republicans, who are faced with the choice of turning off their core supporters or alienating the independents whose support they need to prevail in November.The trouble shows.On Thursday, Democrats announced they would postpone until after the election a vote to protect same-sex marriages because its backers had failed to secure enough Republican support to overcome a G.O.P. filibuster.It was an intriguing decision by Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and majority leader, who is not usually inclined to pass up an opportunity to inflict political pain on the opposition. But he acquiesced to a request from bipartisan backers of the legislation for more time — and a less charged environment.Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and majority leader, decided to postpone a vote on legislation to protect same-sex marriages at the request of its bipartisan backers.Al Drago for The New York TimesWhile it spared Republicans what was looking like a difficult moment, damage had already been done.The threatened filibuster made it clear that some Republicans weren’t comfortable voting in favor of same-sex marriage before the midterm election, and others didn’t want to go on record against it at an inopportune time. Either way, Republicans looked shaky on an issue that most Americans consider to be long resolved.The Republican posture in the Senate was sufficient to prompt hundreds of prominent Republicans, including Senate candidates in Pennsylvania and Colorado, to sign a letter calling for passage of the same-sex marriage legislation to “reaffirm that marriage for gay and lesbian couples is settled law.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Midterm Data: Could the 2020 polling miss repeat itself? Will this election cycle really be different? Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, looks at the data in his new newsletter.Republicans’ Abortion Struggles: Senator Lindsey Graham’s proposed nationwide 15-week abortion ban was intended to unite the G.O.P. before the November elections. But it has only exposed the party’s divisions.Democrats’ Dilemma: The party’s candidates have been trying to signal their independence from the White House, while not distancing themselves from President Biden’s base or agenda.On abortion, Republicans knew that the Supreme Court ruling striking down Roe v. Wade would complicate their push to reclaim Congress, and they sought to quickly rid themselves of the problem. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said a G.O.P.-controlled Congress could pursue a nationwide abortion ban, but Republicans soft-pedaled that idea and instead chose to emphasize that the ruling returned the question of abortion rights to each state, where they said it belonged. Case closed.Enter Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who surprised his colleagues on Tuesday by rolling out his plan, backed by anti-abortion groups, to enact a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks, which would impose federal restrictions on blue and purple states that have not joined the post-Roe race to enact strict new limits on the procedure.Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, introduced a bill that would implement a national ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. “When the dust settles, this will all make sense,” he said.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesTo cringes from many of his Republican colleagues, Mr. Graham declared that the coming election was essentially a referendum on abortion — and that if his party won control of Congress, it would, in fact, consider a ban..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-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs 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.Despite their determination to shift the issue away from the Capitol, Senate Republicans — and their midterm candidates — suddenly found themselves forced to answer whether they backed such a prohibition, potentially driving off suburban women who will be crucial to the election outcome. Again, some Republican lawmakers and candidates sought to distance themselves from the proposal.Privately, many of Mr. Graham’s colleagues wanted to throttle him. Others were more diplomatic.“I didn’t know anything about it,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. “I don’t know what his motivation was.”Democrats could not believe their good fortune. On the day new inflation numbers were driving down the stock market, Mr. Graham had turned the conversation back to a topic that has so far proved advantageous for Democrats in the aftermath of the court ruling, which Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, said had already shocked much of the nation.“Republicans, having succeeded in putting in a conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade, are proposing to go even farther,” Mr. Coons said of the Graham legislation.Mr. Graham insists he will be proved right in the end.“I think that my position is reasonable and logical and over time, I feel good about it winning the day,” he said. “When the dust settles, this will all make sense.”Until then, Democrats are gleefully running ads portraying Republicans as reactionaries.Republicans were also in danger of running afoul of public opinion on another volatile social issue — immigration — after Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida sent air charters of migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, the island retreat in the blue state of Massachusetts. The stunt was aimed at highlighting the uneven impact of federal border policies, and had many Republicans celebrating having steered the campaign conversation to the dysfunctional immigration system.But it also risked spurring a backlash. While polls show that most Republicans draw a hard line on immigration, they also find that the majority of Americans regard immigration as a positive and are particularly sympathetic to refugees, suggesting that the G.O.P. stunt — which stranded vulnerable people in a place unprepared for their arrival — could also prompt outrage among voters who regard it as cruel.Republicans concede they could do without the turmoil surrounding the abortion rights and same-sex marriage battles, but contend that the focus on those issues is mainly a Washington preoccupation.“Could we do without the distractions?” asked Senator Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota. “Perhaps. But I think the voters are still focused on the main things.”“At the end of the day, I think it is still the economy, stupid,” he added, quoting the famous line from Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign. “Everybody is still paying too much for groceries and other things, and that’s what the election is going to be about.”Republicans are also trying to regain the upper hand on abortion, portraying Democrats as extremists who don’t support any restrictions at all, a position that is also at odds with those of many Americans.“The Democrat position used to be Roe v. Wade,” said Mr. Cornyn. “Now it is abortion without limitations up to the time of delivery. It is just shocking to me. Most people’s views on this are more nuanced. They may be pro-choice but would say there is a limit.”Democrats have not explicitly proposed such a sweeping policy, but they have put forward legislation that would protect abortion access nationwide by prohibiting a long list of abortion restrictions, including some enacted after Roe was decided in 1973. It failed in May when Senate Republicans, joined by one Democrat, blocked it.Mr. Cornyn joined the Republican chorus in saying that the economy, border security and rising crime would remain the decisive topics in the election, even as he conceded that Democrats had been successful in stoking voter enthusiasm on the social issues.“Inflation is not going away, the Fed is going to raise interest rates more,” Mr. Cornyn said. “People are still going to be grumpy.”Democrats, more accustomed to being on the losing end of the culture clash, say Republicans are misreading where the public stands on such issues and will pay a price for it.“Republicans are just way out of the American mainstream,” said Mr. Blumenthal. “On a woman’s right to make a personal decision, individual women may make very different decisions. But the vast majority think they ought to be trusted to make those decisions — not some government official.” More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Delay Senate Vote to Protect Gay Marriage as GOP Balks

      by

      WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats decided on Thursday to postpone a planned vote on legislation to provide federal protections for same-sex marriage until after the midterm elections in November, amid dimming hopes of drawing enough Republican support to ensure its passage with tight races on the line.Senator Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin and the lead sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, said that delaying action would increase the chance of getting the 10 Republican votes needed to push it through the evenly divided Senate, where 60 would be necessary to move it forward.The decision to do so came as a relief to Republicans, the vast majority of whom oppose the measure and were worried that voting against it so close to the elections would alienate voters.It spared Republican senators in difficult re-election races, including Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Marco Rubio of Florida, a fraught choice of casting a vote that would anger their party’s conservative base or one that could sour independent voters in the closing days of the campaign. The amended legislation would also have to go back to the House, where Representative Ted Budd of North Carolina, who is running for the Senate, would then be forced to vote against it for a second time.But the delay angered some Democrats who argued that Republicans should be forced to go on the record with their stance.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Midterm Data: Could the 2020 polling miss repeat itself? Will this election cycle really be different? Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, looks at the data in his new newsletter.Republicans’ Abortion Struggles: Senator Lindsey Graham’s proposed nationwide 15-week abortion ban was intended to unite the G.O.P. before the November elections. But it has only exposed the party’s divisions.Democrats’ Dilemma: The party’s candidates have been trying to signal their independence from the White House, while not distancing themselves from President Biden’s base or agenda.“We need to vote on equal marriage today,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts. “Every single member of Congress should be willing to go on the record. And if there are Republicans who don’t want to vote on that before the election, I assume it is because they are on the wrong side of history.”Polls show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, but Republicans are split. At a private lunch with fellow Republicans this week, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina made the case to his colleagues that it would be politically wise for them to support the measure, according to a Senate aide who described the meeting on the condition of anonymity.But the turnabout suggested that most Republicans preferred to steer clear of an issue on which their party is split. It was the second time in a week that the G.O.P. had struggled to articulate its position on a major social issue. On Tuesday, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, introduced a federal 15-week abortion ban, reigniting debate on the issue at a time when polls have shown that voters are already alarmed about the demise of abortion rights. Many Republicans distanced themselves, eager to turn the campaign conversation away from a subject that they believe hurts their candidates.The abrupt change of plans on the marriage bill was the latest surprising turn for the measure, which began as a messaging bill but morphed into a concerted legislative effort after an unexpected number of House Republicans voted for it.“We’re very confident that the bill will pass,” Ms. Baldwin said on Thursday. “But we will need a little more time.”.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-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs 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.Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, had been eager to hold a vote before the elections, even if only to put Republicans on the record voting against a broadly popular position on a social issue. But he deferred to Ms. Baldwin and senators in both parties with whom she had been working to reach a compromise.“Leader Schumer is extremely disappointed that there aren’t 10 Republicans in the Senate willing to vote yes on marriage equality legislation at this time,” Justin Goodman, Mr. Schumer’s spokesman, said in a statement. He added that Mr. Schumer would “hold the bipartisan group to their promise that the votes to pass this marriage equality legislation will be there after the election.”The intense legislative push in the Senate began in July, after the House passed the same-sex marriage bill with 47 Republicans voting in favor. At the time, Mr. Schumer said he was encouraged by the amount of G.O.P. support it had garnered, and promised to work to find the necessary votes to move the measure past a filibuster and to a vote.Ms. Baldwin expressed confidence that she could bring at least 10 Republicans on board, and said that she expected even more to vote in favor of the legislation when it came to the floor.Democrats have been pressing to enact the legislation after the Supreme Court ruling in June that overturned the nearly 50-year-old right to an abortion, and amid concerns that precedents protecting same-sex marriage rights could be the next to fall.But the momentum on the issue faded as Democrats spent the final days before the August recess pushing through the Inflation Reduction Act, the core of President Biden’s domestic agenda.And since returning to Washington last week, Republican senators have expressed concerns about whether the bill would violate the religious liberty of those who do not accept same-sex marriages as valid. The bill would require the government to recognize same-sex marriages, and enshrine marriage equality for the purposes of federal law.But mostly, the concerns that Democrats heard were political, related to the risks of taking such a vote just weeks before the midterm elections.Mr. Schumer wanted to move quickly. He briefly floated the idea of linking the marriage equality legislation to a bill to fund the government that must pass by Sept. 30. And aides said Democrats were considering moving as early as Thursday to set up a floor vote next week on the marriage bill.But Ms. Baldwin demanded more time to find the Republican votes to pass the bill, rather than holding a vote this month in which it would fail at the hands of the G.O.P.“I think we’re in very good shape,” said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the Republicans involved in the negotiations. “This bill is going to pass. I think we’ve managed to thread the needle on the religious liberty concerns. We’ve taken a lot of input.”Emily Cochrane More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Censorship Is the Refuge of the Weak

      by

      Some threats to freedom of expression in America, like online harassment and disinformation, are amorphous or hard to pin down; others are alarmingly overt. Consider these recent examples of censorship in practice: A student newspaper and journalism program in Nebraska shut down for writing about L.G.B.T.Q. issues and pride month. Oklahoma’s top education official seeking to revoke the teaching certificate of an English teacher who shared a QR code that directed students to the Brooklyn Public Library’s online collection of banned books. Lawmakers in Missouri passing a law that makes school librarians vulnerable to prosecution for the content in their collections.In Florida today it may be illegal for teachers to even talk about whom they love or marry thanks to the state’s so-called Don’t Say Gay law. Of course, it goes far beyond sex: The Sunshine State’s Republican commissioner of education rejected 28 math textbooks this year for including verboten content.This year alone, 137 gag order bills, which would restrict the discussions of topics such as race, gender, sexuality and American history in kindergarten through 12th grade and higher education, have been introduced in 36 state legislatures, according to a report released last month by PEN America, a free speech organization. That’s a sharp increase from 2021, when 54 bills were introduced in 22 states. Only seven of those bills became law in 2022, but they are some of the strictest to date, and the sheer number of bills introduced reflects a growing enthusiasm on the right for censorship as a political weapon and instrument of social control.These new measures are far more punitive than past efforts, with heavy fines or loss of state funding for institutions that dare to offer courses covering the forbidden content. Teachers can be fired and even face criminal charges. Lawsuits have already started to trickle through the courts asking for broad interpretations of the new statutes. For the first time, the PEN report noted, some bills have also targeted nonpublic schools and universities in addition to public schools.It wasn’t all that long ago that Republican lawmakers around the country were introducing legislation they said would protect free speech on college campuses. Now, they’re using the coercive power of the state to restrict what people can talk about, learn about or discuss in public, and exposing them to lawsuits and other repercussions for doing so. That’s a clear threat to the ideals of a pluralistic political culture, in which challenging ideas are welcomed and discussed.How and what to teach American students has been contested ground since the earliest days of public education, and the content of that instruction is something about which Americans can respectfully disagree. But the Supreme Court has limited the government’s power to censor school libraries, if not curriculums. “Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion,’” Justice William Brennan wrote in a 1982 decision.There may not even be wide disagreement over what American students are being taught. Despite the moral panic over teaching about gender and race, American parents overwhelmingly say they are satisfied with the instruction their children receive. A poll from National Public Radio and Ipsos earlier this year found that just 18 percent of parents said their child’s school “taught about gender and sexuality in a way that clashed with their family’s values,” while 19 percent said the same about race and racism. Only 14 percent felt that way about American history.And yet, some Republican candidates are using the threat of censorship as a show of strength, evidence of their power to muzzle political opponents. Last year in Virginia, Glenn Youngkin won the governorship after a campaign in which he demagogued the Pulitzer Prize-winning book “Beloved” by the Nobel Prize-winning Toni Morrison. Other candidates are looking to make issues around censorship a centerpiece of their pitch to voters in the midterm elections in races from Texas to New Jersey.Some want to extend censorship far beyond the classroom. In Virginia, a Republican state representative tried to get a court to declare as obscene two young adult books that are frequently banned in schools, “Gender Queer,” by Maia Kobabe, and “A Court of Mist and Fury,” by Sarah Maas. The case was dismissed on Aug. 30, but if it had been successful, it could have made it illegal for bookstores to sell the books to children without parental consent.Right-wing lawmakers are also looking to restrict what Americans can say about abortion. Model legislation from the National Right to Life Committee, which is circulating in state legislatures, aims to forbid Americans to give “instructions over the telephone, the internet or any other medium of communication regarding self-administered abortions or means to obtain an illegal abortion.” That prohibition would extend to hosting websites that contain such information.Even when such bills fail, these efforts to censor create a climate of fear. Across the country, libraries in small towns are being threatened with closure and library staff members are being harassed and intimidated. The Times reports that librarians “have been labeled pedophiles on social media, called out by local politicians and reported to law enforcement officials. Some librarians have quit after being harassed online. Others have been fired for refusing to remove books from circulation.” The American Library Association has documented nearly 1,600 books in more than 700 libraries or library systems that have faced attempted censorship.There are factions on both the left and the right that are insecure enough in their ideas that they’ve tried to ban discussion of certain facts or topics out of discomfort, or simply to score political points. But only right-wing legislators are currently trying to write censorship into law. This is not only deeply undemocratic; it is an act of weakness masquerading as strength. A political project convinced of the superiority of its ideas doesn’t need the power of the state to shield itself from competition. Free expression isn’t just a feature of democracy; it is a necessary prerequisite.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