Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Should Candidates Be Transparent About Their Health?

      by

      More from our inbox:Revised Drone RulesLiving in Political FearPreparing for Future PandemicsHow Fossil Fuel Donations Sway Climate PoliticsLt. Gov. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania greets supporters following a Senate campaign rally.Kriston Jae Bethel/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Candidates Must Disclose Medical Issues,” by Lawrence K. Altman (Opinion guest essay, Sept. 30):Dr. Altman correctly calls for the full disclosure of medical issues by major candidates, especially presidential. He has championed this cause for years, but his voice has gone unheeded.The most famous candidate health cover-up was J.F.K.’s adrenal insufficiency, Addison’s disease. But John McCain’s recurrent melanoma, Bill Bradley’s atrial fibrillation, Joe Biden’s cerebral aneurysm in his 1988 campaign and Bernie Sanders’s significant coronary disease requiring a stent were all either downplayed or denied.The most egregious example of health misrepresentation was in 1992, when Paul Tsongas and his physicians declared he was cured of his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma when he was not. If he had been elected president rather than Bill Clinton, he would have required ongoing cancer treatments while in office, which would have compromised his ability to fulfill his duties. He died on Jan. 18, 1997.With the likelihood of one or more candidates over 75 running for president in 2024, the case for full medical disclosure is more compelling than ever. The country would be well served to remember the advice given by William Safire in 1987, when he wrote, “The president’s body is not wholly his own; that is why we go to such lengths to protect it.”Kevin R. LoughlinBostonThe writer is a retired urologic surgeon and a professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School.To the Editor:I would like to respectfully disagree that candidates owe their voters full medical transparency. Confidentiality of medical records exists for good reason, and to throw it away — citing confusion over John Fetterman’s health in the Pennsylvania Senate campaign — is the wrong approach.For example: Does a female candidate owe it to voters to reveal whether she has ever had an abortion? Some would argue yes, she should. I would argue that it’s none of the voters’ business.What else should a candidate reveal? Therapist’s notes? Past substance use?A real-life example is Thomas Eagleton, who was tapped to be George McGovern’s running mate in 1972 until it was revealed that he had undergone electroshock therapy for depression 12 years earlier. Because of this, he was dropped from the ticket.In the U.S., we are extremely fortunate to have the rights we have, including a right to privacy. We should not be looking for ways to chip away at these rights.Gregory FedynyshynMalden, Mass.Revised Drone RulesAn Air Force Predator drone, right, returning from a mission in the Persian Gulf region in 2016. The new policy suggests that the United States intends to launch fewer drone strikes away from recognized war zones.John Moore/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Rules on Counterterrorism Drone Strikes, Eased by Trump, Are Tightened by Biden” (news article, Oct. 8):Are we supposed to be assured that the United States is now acting ethically, legally and judiciously with President Biden’s revised drone assassination policy?Our clandestine killing of terrorist leaders outside conventional war zones only provokes greater risk for American citizens and soul-searching trauma for drone operators thousands of miles way. It deeply stains our own sense of national righteousness.This is not a policy that needs to be reformed. It’s a policy that should be abandoned for ethical, tactical and practical reasons.Dave PasinskiFayetteville, N.Y.Living in Political FearHouse and Senate leaders have their own security details, including plainclothes officers and armored vehicles, but it can be more difficult for others to obtain such protection.Andrew Harnik/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Lawmakers Fearing the Worst as Intimidation Tactics Grow” (front page, Oct. 2):The appalling acrimony and threats directed against duly elected representatives have a chilling trickle-down effect to citizens as well. I recently received what I considered a banal lawn sign from the League of Women Voters. One side states, “Vote — Our Democracy Depends on It,” and the other, “Vote 411 — Election Information You Need.”In other election years, I would have placed it on my lawn without thinking twice. But after the Jan. 6 insurrection, I’m hesitant. Even though I live in a mostly progressive, blue-voting Westchester community, I know that many of my neighbors hold other political beliefs. There are a surprising number of “Blue Lives Matter” banners and “1776” flags in my neighborhood, which make me wonder how many of these neighbors doubt the legitimacy of the 2020 election.I worry that displaying a message that our democracy depends on voting would be more of a red flag than a civic reminder.And I am ashamed that in our current fractious, and dangerously degraded, political climate, my fear will keep me from exercising my political beliefs.Merri RosenbergArdsley, N.Y.Preparing for Future Pandemics Brynn Anderson/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Unprepared for Covid and Monkeypox. And the Next Outbreak, Too” (news analysis, Oct. 1):Apoorva Mandavilli highlights an important issue when she writes that the United States “remains wholly unprepared to combat new pathogens.”Governments do need to be ready for future pandemics when they hit, but their priority must be preventing them in the first place. We know that most infectious diseases can be traced to pathogen transmission between wildlife and people, particularly in our increasingly degraded and exploited natural world.Governments across the globe must prioritize efforts to reduce the risks of future pathogen spillovers, including via trade and at wildlife markets.A critical first step is recognizing the intrinsic links between the health of humans, animals and the ecosystem, and acknowledging the foundational importance of an intact and functioning environment to our well-being.A new international treaty or agreement can help bring governments together to catalyze needed change. With several hundred thousand yet undiscovered viruses in wildlife that can potentially infect humans, this is not the time to ignore the science and avoid action.The adage that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is now truer than ever.Susan LiebermanChris WalzerDr. Lieberman is the vice president for international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society. Dr. Walzer is its executive director for health.How Fossil Fuel Donations Sway Climate PoliticsFrom left, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, and two senators, Rick Scott and Marco Rubio, in 2019.Kevin Lamarque/ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Republicans Talk About Rebuilding, but Not the Cause of Climate Change” (news article, Oct. 5):Large political contributions from fossil fuel interests are blocking federal action against climate change even in Florida, one of the areas most vulnerable to hurricanes. Its vulnerability is fueled by warmer oceans along with storm surges worsened by rising seas and downpours increased by a warmer atmosphere that holds more moisture.The United States could become the world leader in battling climate change, inspiring and helping other countries to do more while creating millions of jobs. Incredibly, Florida’s Republican governor and two senators have voted against action to mitigate climate change.Why? “If you’re from Florida, you should be leading on climate and environmental policy, and Republicans are still reticent to do that because they’re worried about primary politics,” Carlos Curbelo, a former Republican congressman from South Florida, is quoted as saying.That is, Republicans who stray from the fossil fuel line will face a primary opponent well funded by fossil fuel interests.Public funding of election campaigns must replace big contributions if we want our democracy to stop being distorted. Indeed, if we want to safeguard our planet.Richard BarsantiWestern Springs, Ill. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      This Is How to Put the Supreme Court in Its Place

      by

      I have written before about the ways that Congress could restrain an overbearing and ideological Supreme Court, using its powers under the Constitution.In short, Article III, Section 2 states that the Supreme Court shall have “original jurisdiction” in all cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” And in all other cases, the court shall have “appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”The “exceptions” and “regulations” are key. Most of the business of the Supreme Court is appellate work. It hears cases that have already gone through the federal judicial process. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, for example, began its life as a case before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi before going to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which holds appellate jurisdiction over Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. If Congress can regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, then it can determine which cases it can hear, the criteria for choosing those cases and even the basis on which the court can make a constitutional determination.Congress could say, for instance, that the court needs more than a bare majority to overturn a federal statute. Even if you agree that the court has the mostly exclusive right to interpret the Constitution, it doesn’t therefore follow that five justices can essentially nullify the constitutional views of the legislators who passed a law, the president who signed it and the four other justices who affirmed it. Constitutional meaning, in other words, flows as much from the elected branches (and the people themselves) as it does from courts and legal elites.In the same way that it takes a supermajority of Congress to propose a constitutional amendment, it should probably take a supermajority of the court to say what the Constitution means, especially when it relates to acts and actions of elected officials. If there is any place for mandatory consensus in our government, it should be in an area where any given decision can have broad and far-reaching consequences for the entire constitutional order.Typically when I write about these issues it is all hypothetical, under the assumption that Congress hasn’t ever used its power to shape the court in this manner. But recently, while reading up on legal disputes during Reconstruction, I learned that at one point Congress attempted to do exactly what I’ve described: limit the court’s use of judicial review to overturn congressional statutes by raising the bar for a decision from a simple majority to a supermajority.At issue was the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex parte Milligan. In 1864, Union Army officers arrested a group of Indiana Democrats who had been vocal critics of the Lincoln administration and its allies. A military commission authorized by President Abraham Lincoln under a previously issued executive order charged the men — including Lambdin P. Milligan, a leader in the “Order of American Knights,” a pro-slavery, secessionist group — with, among other things, inciting insurrection and conspiring against the U.S. government. Milligan and others were convicted and sentenced to death.The following year, in May, lawyers for Milligan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court district of Indiana. Shortly thereafter, President Andrew Johnson — who took office the month before in the wake of Lincoln’s assassination — commuted Milligan’s sentence to life in prison. In the meantime, Justice David Davis — who rode circuit in Indiana, hearing cases along with a Federal District Court judge as they moved through the appeals process — reviewed Milligan’s petition. Davis did not think that a military commission was the appropriate way to try Milligan, a civilian in a state where there was no active rebellion. The other judge disagreed.Their disagreement sent the case to the Supreme Court, which held oral arguments the next year, in 1866. Writing for five of the nine justices, Davis declared it unconstitutional to try civilians in military courts when civilian courts were still available. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, along with the remaining three justices, agreed that the use of military courts was inappropriate but disagreed that it was unconstitutional. The overall judgment on Milligan’s treatment was unanimous, but on the constitutional issue, there was a 5-4 split.“For the chief justice,” Walter Stahr explains in “Salmon P. Chase: Lincoln’s Vital Rival,” “the Milligan case was only in part about events in Indiana in the recent past; it was also about the scope of federal authority in the violent present. Chase was well aware that, in many parts of the South, the state civilian courts provided no protections for blacks; only the federal military courts would punish whites for crimes against blacks.”Republicans in Congress, still struggling with Johnson for control of Reconstruction policy, were outraged. The Chicago Tribune spoke for many Republicans when it said that this decision — along with another that concerned the ability of Congress and the states to require a loyalty or “test” oath for former Confederates who wished to serve in public capacity — showed a “deliberate purpose of the Supreme Court to thus usurp the legislative powers of the government to defeat the will of the loyal men of this nation in the interests of a rebellion crushed by military power.”The remedy for this problem, The Tribune wrote, was simple: “We think the time has come for Congress to pass a law requiring the concurrence of three-fourths, or at least two-thirds of the whole bench, to pronounce authoritatively against the constitutionality of any act of Congress.”Republicans took heed of the argument. In 1868, as Congress awaited the court’s decision in another case, Ex parte McCardle, that could undermine its military Reconstruction policies, the House of Representatives debated a bill that would require, according to The New York Herald, “a concurrence of two-thirds of all the members necessary to a decision adverse to the validity of any law of the United States.”Democrats condemned the bill as one of the “very gravest” of “all the revolutionary measures brought before the last or present Congress tending to subvert and destroy the institutions of the country.” If Congress could override the “deliberate judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States,” declared Representative Samuel S. Marshall of Illinois, as recorded by The New York Times, “there would be established a despotism, not of one man, but an oligarchy or a mob, elected by the people, but usurping powers never given to it by the Constitution or the people.”Representative John Bingham of Ohio, author of the 14th Amendment and a Republican, disagreed. “It would be a sad day for American institutions and for the sacred cause of Republican Governments if any tribunal in this land, created by the will of the people, was above and superior to the people’s power.” The Supreme Court, he continued, in a reference to its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, “had disgraced not only itself as a tribunal of justice, but it had disgraced humanity when it dared to mouth from its high seat of justice, the horrible blasphemy that there were human beings, either in this land, or in any land, whose rights white men were not bound to respect.”The bill passed the House and Senate but it was never signed into law. President Johnson simply refused. In February, the House voted overwhelmingly to impeach Johnson, who was eventually acquitted in the Senate by a single vote. After this, as far as I can tell, Republicans in Congress made no further effort to force the issue.In November, Republicans won the White House with Ulysses S. Grant at the top of the ticket. In 1869, a Republican Congress passed a law that set the size of the Supreme Court at nine justices (up from eight) and provided that any justice over 70 with sufficient experience could retire at full salary for the rest of his life. By mid-1870, Grant had appointed two associate justices of the Supreme Court, who would go on to affirm his policies. Republicans were content that the court was in their hands.The point of all this is to say that disputes over the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review are not new. The reforms to curb it, likewise, are not novel. And even if you stipulate that the Republicans of 1868 were motivated by partisan concerns, it is also true that these Republicans — the lawmakers who wrote the Reconstruction amendments and reshaped our entire constitutional order — grasped a serious problem with the Supreme Court’s role in our ostensibly democratic political system. Their experience of the previous decade — of Dred Scott and the secession crisis and the war — had put court reform at top of mind, even if they ultimately only took minor steps to reshape the institution.But this decision to spare the court the rod of discipline undermined the Republicans’ own political project, although they could not see this in the moment. Within 20 years, the Supreme Court would render much of the 13th and 14th Amendments a dead letter. And by the end of the century, the 15th would have almost no impact on life in the South.Despite some of the more interesting ideas that came out of President Biden’s court reform commission, there is no chance at this time for serious court reform. There is no consensus for it within the Democratic Party and there are certainly not the votes for it in Congress. But circumstances do change, often unexpectedly. Should progressives gain the opportunity to make structural changes to the Supreme Court, they should take it. Democrats in the 21st century should not make the same mistake Republicans in the 19th century did.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Turkey Allows Jail Terms for What It Deems ‘Fake News’

      by

      Rights advocates fear the government could use newly passed legislation to restrict speech and target critics in the run-up to crucial elections in June.ISTANBUL — Turkey’s Parliament has passed sweeping new legislation intended to stamp out disinformation, allowing the government to jail journalists and social media users for up to three years for spreading information deemed to be false or misleading.The final piece of the legislation, which also requires social media companies to hand over the personal details of users suspected of spreading “fake news,” was approved on Thursday night with votes from President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s governing party and its allies, who control a parliamentary majority.Mr. Erdogan, who has concentrated more power in his hands in recent years while growing less tolerant of dissent, had argued it was necessary to fight disinformation and called social media a threat to democracy.But a range of critics — including opposition lawmakers, media freedom advocates and legal scholars — have criticized the law itself as a threat to democracy, saying that its vague provisions could have a chilling effect on free expression and enable the government to prosecute critics or journalists who publish information about wrongdoing or corruption.Those worries are particularly acute in the run-up to presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for June, in which Mr. Erdogan and his party will seek to stay in power, despite galloping inflation that has seen their popularity sag in the polls.The disinformation legislation is the most recent step in what rights watchdogs have called a constriction of free expression in Turkey under Mr. Erdogan, who has been the country’s premier politician since 2003 and president since 2014.In recent years, the websites of foreign news outlets, including the Voice of America and Germany’s DW, have been blocked, Turkish TV stations and newspapers have fallen increasingly under the control of the state, and citizens have been arrested on charges for such crimes as “insulting the president.”But social media and online news sites enjoyed a greater degree of free expression, which the new law threatens to undermine.Representatives of journalist associations and unions protested against the new legislation last week in Turkey’s capital, Ankara.Adem Altan/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo drive that point home, Burak Erbay, an opposition lawmaker, spoke from the Parliament’s podium to the millions of young Turks who will be eligible to vote for the first time next year.“You have only one freedom left: the phone in your pocket,” Mr. Erbay said. “If the law here passes in Parliament, you can break your phone like this.”Then he smashed a cellphone with a hammer.Mahir Unal, a senior lawmaker from Mr. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, defended the legislation in Parliament, saying it did not target free expression or criticism that “does not exceed the limits.”During a TV interview in May, after his party proposed the law, he said, “We are working on this so that freedom of expression, criticism and freedom of the press will not be limited.”To come into force, the new legislation must be signed by Mr. Erdogan within 15 days. He can also send it back to Parliament for revision.Turkey was under fire for limiting freedom of expression even before the new legislation. Freedom House, a democracy promotion group, rates Turkey “Not Free” on its Freedom in the World index. Reporters Without Borders ranked Turkey 149 out of 180 countries in its press freedom index.The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s legal advisory body, acknowledged in a legal assessment of the legislation the threat that disinformation poses to democratic societies. But at the same time, it called on Turkey not to enact the law, saying it had “serious doubts” about the need to criminalize disinformation in such a way.It also said the legislation could lead to self-censorship, especially during elections.The legislation is not a new law, but it consists of 40 amendments to existing laws.Of greatest concern to rights advocates is Article 29. It allows for prison terms of one to three years for anyone who “disseminates false information about the country’s domestic and foreign security, public order and general health, with the sole aim of creating anxiety, fear or panic among the public and in a manner that is liable to disturb public peace.”Supporters of the legislation have compared it with similar laws in European countries and say it includes enough safeguards to prevent it from being used to punish peaceful, legitimate speech. But legal scholars say it gives the authorities great flexibility in how to apply it.“It is very vague and arbitrary, it will be used in an arbitrary and discriminatory way in Turkey,” said Yaman Akdeniz, a law professor at Istanbul Bilgi University. “It lacks adequate legal safeguards and provides wide discretion to the prosecutors and courts.”The law also significantly tightens regulations governing the operations of large social media companies in Turkey.If requested by the Turkish authorities, companies like Meta, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube must remove content and provide proprietary information, including user data of suspected perpetrators and algorithmic information used to determine rankings.Companies that fail to comply could face drastic slowdowns in the speed of their services in Turkey, a practice known as throttling, or fines equal to 3 percent of their global income.Mr. Akdeniz said these companies must decide whether they are going to respect the new requirements to continue to operate in Turkey, at the risk of enabling government crackdowns.“If you comply with this,” he said, “you risk becoming the long arm of the Turkish authorities.” More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Announces National Monument at Camp Hale in Colorado

      by

      President Biden on Wednesday announced the creation of the country’s newest national monument, protecting tens of thousands of acres in the mountains of Colorado from mining and development and delivering an election-year gift to Michael Bennet, one of the state’s two Democratic senators.Standing on the grounds of Camp Hale, a World War II military installation that was used to train the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division, Mr. Biden said he was designating 53,804 acres of rugged landscape as the Camp Hale-Continental Divide National Monument.“When you think about the national beauty of Colorado and the history of our nation, you find it here,” the president said moments before signing the proclamation. He pointed to the area’s highlights: “the Tenmile Range, soaring peaks and steep canyons, black bears, bald eagles, moose, mountain lions, wonderful pristine rivers, alpine lakes.”“These treasured lands,” he said, “tell the story of America.”Mr. Bennet has tried to make public land preservation central to his image in outdoor-obsessed Colorado. In March, Mr. Biden signed a measure by Mr. Bennet that established Camp Amache, a World War II detention center for Japanese Americans in southeastern Colorado, as a National Park Service historic site.But Mr. Bennet is in a tougher-than-expected re-election race against Joe O’Dea, a first-time candidate and the head of a Denver construction company who has won the support of national Republicans.In contrast to Republican Senate candidates elsewhere, Mr. O’Dea is running as a moderate and has broken with former President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Bennet is the favorite, and, with the election weeks away, the backing from the White House for the national monument could help raise his profile and demonstrate his influence.Standing next to Mr. Biden, Mr. Bennet thanked the president for the decision to use his executive authority to designate the new monument.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With less than one month until Election Day, Republicans remain favored to take over the House, but momentum in the pitched battle for the Senate has seesawed back and forth.A Surprising Battleground: New York has emerged from a haywire redistricting cycle as perhaps the most consequential congressional battleground in the country. For Democrats, the uncertainty is particularly jarring.Pennsylvania Governor’s Race: Attacks by Doug Mastriano, the G.O.P. nominee, on the Jewish school where Josh Shapiro, the Democratic candidate, sends his children have set off an outcry about antisemitic signaling.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but some conservative Christians have learned to tolerate the behavior of those who advance their cause.“You ensure that, years from now, we can bring our kids, grandkids here and tell them the story of the 10th Mountain Division and their contributions not only to Colorado but to humanity,” Mr. Bennet said. He added, “And for that, Mr. President, Colorado will be forever grateful.”When it was his turn to speak, Mr. Biden joked that Mr. Bennet would probably be grateful, too.“This guy, he made this finally happen,” Mr. Biden said, grasping Mr. Bennet’s hand. “He came to the White House and he said, ‘I told you what I need.’ And I said ‘I’ll do it.’ You know why? I was worried he’d never leave the damn White House.”Mr. Biden greeted officials and members of Colorado’s congressional delegation in Vail.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesThe president’s use of his executive authority under the Antiquities Act to designate the Camp Hale national monument came after nearly a decade of efforts by Democrats to pass legislation to protect the area from mining and timber operations.Republicans accused the president of an “end run” around Congress. In a letter late last month, 11 Republican lawmakers, including Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado, lashed out at Mr. Biden.“For years, partisan big-city Democrats — with the full backing and support of the far-left green energy cartel — have attempted to implement massive new land grabs,” the lawmakers said, noting the failure of legislative efforts to protect the area from development.“We don’t support the efforts of extremist environmentalists who are seeking to hijack this historic place to create a new land designation — a designation that literally does not exist — to prohibit timber harvesting and mining on nearly 30,000 acres of land,” they wrote.Camp Hale, not far from the popular ski areas of Vail and Breckenridge, was used during World War II to train Army soldiers for battles against the Axis forces in the Italian Alps. According to the White House, the soldiers learned “winter survival techniques and to snowshoe, to climb and, most famously, to ski.”In his remarks on Wednesday, Mr. Biden cited the historic role that the site played during World War II and the importance of the land to Indigenous people in the area.“For thousands of years, tribal nations have been stewards of this sacred land, hunting game, foraging medicinal plants and maintaining a deep spiritual bond with the land itself,” he said.The area around the camp had long been important to the Ute Tribes, who were forced off their ancestral homeland in the mid-1800s. The new monument, which sits within the White River National Forest and includes the Tenmile Range, will continue to be used for skiing, hiking, camping and snowmobiling, officials said.In a description of the proclamation the president signed, White House officials said the Ute people returned to the area frequently, to “pray, hold ceremonies, honor their ancestors, hunt, fish and harvest plants.” Officials said the effort to protect the area for recreation and ecology would also safeguard Ute burial sites that are thousands of years old.This is the first time that Mr. Biden has created a national monument through the 1906 Antiquities Act, which Theodore Roosevelt first used to establish the Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming. Since then, 18 presidents of both parties have used it to designate monuments, including the Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty and Colorado’s Canyons of the Ancients, officials said.But Republicans said Mr. Biden was abusing the law in the case of Camp Hale. In their letter, the Republican lawmakers wrote that the president was trying to “weaponize the Antiquities Act,” calling it “an outdated 1906 law.”The partisan back-and-forth underscores the political backdrop for the president’s announcement.Democrats are counting on Mr. Bennet to win re-election in the midterm elections as they work to keep control of the Senate. If Republicans make a net gain of just one seat, they will regain control and the ability to shape the agenda in the chamber for the next two years.With Control of the Senate in Play, These Are the Races to WatchWith the Senate knotted at 50-50 for each party, Republican control is only one seat away. But the elections have been full of surprises.Losing control of the Senate and the House of Representatives would dash any hope that Mr. Biden has of making more legislative progress in the last two years of his term.Mr. Biden also announced a plan on Wednesday to deny new mining for gas and minerals on about 225,000 acres of the nearby Thompson Divide, a vast area that offers expansive wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities and grazing lands, officials said.At Mr. Biden’s direction, the Interior Department and the Agriculture Department will begin a process to prohibit new mining leases on the land for the next 20 years. The president also announced that $4 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act would be spent to mitigate drought in the Lower Colorado River Basin System Conservation and Efficiency Program and invest in the Upper Colorado River Basin.Both are programs backed by Mr. Bennet.Carl Hulse More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Abortion Is Motivating Voters, but Republicans Would Rather Change the Subject

      by

      In Wisconsin, Tim Michels, a Republican running for governor, promised activists that he would never “flip-flop” on his support for an 1849 law that bans abortion except when a woman’s life is threatened. Less than three weeks later, he changed his stance.In the Phoenix suburbs, staffers whisked away Juan Ciscomani, a Republican House candidate, citing an urgent text, after he was asked by a voter whether he supported abortion bans.And in New Hampshire, Don Bolduc, the Republican running for governor, described abortion as a distraction from the “really important issues.”In races across the nation, Republican candidates are waffling on their abortion positions, denying past behavior or simply trying to avoid a topic that has long been a bedrock principle of American conservatism. Less than a month before the midterm elections on Nov. 8, the party lacks a unified policy on abortion, unable to broadly adopt a consistent response in the three and a half months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.Republican positioning on abortion drew renewed attention last week, when Herschel Walker, the party’s Senate nominee in Georgia, was accused by an ex-girlfriend of paying for one abortion and unsuccessfully urging her to get a second one. Mr. Walker takes a hard-line stance against the procedure, supporting abortion bans with no exceptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.For decades, Republicans pushed to overturn federal abortion rights, viewing the issue as an easy rallying cry to identify with a culturally conservative base. Focusing on the country’s highest court allowed them to largely avoid getting into the weeds on thorny issues — life-threatening pregnancy complications, exceptions for child rape, diagnoses of rare and fatal conditions in fetuses. And given that few voters fully believed Roe would be overturned, they were rarely pressed on the specifics of their views.The court ruled in June that each state can formulate its own abortion policy, exactly what small-government conservatives had long wanted. But it had another consequence, plunging the party into months of politically toxic debates.“You hear some of these Republican state legislators, and it’s like, for the first time they are thinking about this and realize that this is a complicated issue with lots and lots of circumstances that are not black and white,” said Christine Matthews, a pollster who has worked for Republicans. “A lot of these male legislators are realizing, ‘Oh, this is really hard to legislate.’”To escape some of those difficult questions, many Republican candidates have been trying to avoid the debate altogether. For weeks, some Republicans have been erasing sections about abortion from their websites, changing their positions on state bans and trying to refocus the national conversation on inflation, crime and the country’s southern border.“I do believe it’s caught them slightly off guard with just how bad an issue this is for them,” said Sarah Longwell, an anti-Trump Republican strategist who leads focus groups. “The party has opted for changing the conversation entirely because abortion is just bad terrain for them.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With less than one month until Election Day, Republicans remain favored to take over the House, but momentum in the pitched battle for the Senate has seesawed back and forth.A Surprising Battleground: New York has emerged from a haywire redistricting cycle as perhaps the most consequential congressional battleground in the country. For Democrats, the uncertainty is particularly jarring.Pennsylvania Governor’s Race: Attacks by Doug Mastriano, the G.O.P. nominee, on the Jewish school where Josh Shapiro, the Democratic candidate, sends his children have set off an outcry about antisemitic signaling.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but some conservative Christians have learned to tolerate the behavior of those who advance their cause.Some party leaders and strategists have urged candidates to adopt poll-tested positions popular with large swaths of independent voters: No restrictions on contraception, no bans before about 15 weeks and including exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. But those policies conflict with the long-held goal of the party’s socially conservative wing that views abortion as akin to murder, and they also clash with some of the past language and positions of Republican candidates.That has left candidates, particularly those in purple states, caught between the more moderate views of independent voters and a conservative base that views the court’s ruling as the beginning of restrictions, not the end. Now, many of the party’s candidates in the most competitive contests are racing to recast their positions.Tim Michels, a Republican running for governor of Wisconsin, said he supported an 1849 law that bans abortion except when a woman’s life is threatened. Weeks later, he changed his stance.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times“I’m winning because people see a strong leader, a man of conviction, a man who doesn’t waffle, a man who doesn’t flip-flop,” Mr. Michels, the Republican nominee for governor in Wisconsin, told Republican activists and officials on Sept. 6 about the state ban. “I’m going to stick with what I know is right.”He reversed his position late last month, saying that, if elected, he would sign legislation to expand exceptions to include rape and incest.Many of the pivots have been even less artful. In Maine, a former governor, Paul LePage, is running to lead the state again and repeatedly stumbled over a question about whether he would sign more restrictive abortion laws if elected. “I don’t know what you mean by 15 weeks, 28 weeks. Because I don’t know,” Mr. LePage said after a protracted exchange on a debate stage last week.And in Arizona, a spokesman for Kari Lake, the Republican nominee for governor, had to clarify last week that Ms. Lake was not advocating changes to the state’s near-total abortion ban after she told a Phoenix talk-radio host that the procedure should be “rare and legal.”In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Ms. Lake said she was trying to articulate how far the Democratic Party had moved from its Clinton-era talking points of “safe, legal and rare,” asserting that the procedure has become “anything but rare.” But she refused to say whether she would pursue restrictions on abortions sooner than 15 weeks into pregnancy, diverting the conversation to adoption and falsely casting her Democratic opponent as supportive of “abortion right up until birth.”Her remarks follow guidance circulated by party strategists who are urging their candidates to flip the script, labeling Democrats as the “extremists” on the issue. A memo from the Republican National Committee offering talking points for candidates encouraged a focus on rising prices and violent crime.Republican strategists and party officials argue that the potency of the issue is fading as economic concerns grow more intense.“To sustain that level of interest and enthusiasm in the current political climate for five months is very difficult, especially with more pressing personal pocketbook issues hurting voters,” said Robert Blizzard, a Republican pollster engaged in a number of midterm races.Mark Graul, a longtime Republican strategist based in Wisconsin, said that right after the Supreme Court decision, the abortion issue was “very much front and center.”But in the final weeks of the race, Mr. Graul said, voters are saying, “‘I care about that, but I care about how much it costs to fill up my car and buy groceries. And is my family going to be safe?’” He added: “I think they’re starting to care about that more.”While polls show that the majority of voters support a federal right to an abortion, Democrats are not favored to maintain control of Congress, given still-high inflation, concerns about crime and President Biden’s low approval ratings.Still, Democrats are trying to ensure that Republicans cannot escape so easily. After decades of treating the issue as a second-tier priority, the Democratic Party has made abortion rights a centerpiece of its fall campaign, spending nearly $213 million to blanket the airwaves with ads about it, according to AdImpact, an advertising-tracking firm.Celinda Lake, a veteran Democratic pollster and strategist, called the political debate over abortion rights “the best thing going for the Democrats.”“It can’t be the only thing going for the Democrats,” she added. But many Republicans, she said, are “having a lot of difficulty” discussing the issue.The need to square decades of opposition to abortion rights with the new political environment has led to some complicated contortions for Republicans, some of whom have tried to cast themselves less as drivers of abortion bans and more as bystanders.Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, a Republican who faces a tough race for re-election, said he supported not only the 15-week federal ban but prohibiting abortion starting at conception. But Mr. Bacon also argues that such a policy would never pass the Senate because it would be unable to garner the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster — essentially telling voters not to worry about his positions because they will be blocked by Democrats.Kari Lake stated that abortions should be “rare and legal” but said she was misunderstood.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times“Whether we have a pro-abortion majority in the House and Senate, or a pro-life majority in the Senate or House, you’re not going to get past a 60-vote threshold in the Senate,” he said, in an interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press.” “So the reality is, most of this is going to be done at the state level.”In his primary race, Joe Lombardo, the sheriff of the Las Vegas area who is running for Nevada governor, summarized his position on abortion with three words: “Joe is pro-life.”But a 747-word note published on his campaign website late last month reversed his stance on an abortion rule in Nevada. He said he would not repeal an executive order protecting women from being prosecuted for seeking an abortion in the state, which has emerged as a safe haven for the procedure as neighboring Utah, Arizona and Idaho have restricted access.An ad by a conservative group in Nevada echoes that argument, accusing Democrats of “scaring” voters about the state’s abortion laws and saying politicians cannot change the rules allowing the procedure until 24 weeks.The claims by Mr. Lombardo and the group ignore the power of executive orders to add new restrictions and the possibility that Congress could pass a national ban, superseding state law with a stricter federal standard.Not all Republicans have been so quick to finesse their stances.A campaign ad released last week by Jeff Crossman, the Democratic candidate for Ohio attorney general, takes aim at the Republican incumbent and his public questioning of the existence of a 10-year-old rape victim who left the state for an abortion. The child was blocked from obtaining an abortion in Ohio because she was three days past a six-week limit on abortions. The attorney general, Dave Yost, initially said the report was likely to be a “fabrication.”“Dave Yost, you disgust me,” a woman identified only as Geri of Northeast Ohio says to the camera in the ad. “When a 10-year-old was raped and impregnated, Yost went on national TV and called it a hoax? I am a grandmother, and I have a 10-year-old granddaughter.”Mr. Yost has resisted calls to apologize for doubting the victim. “I don’t understand what you think I need to apologize for,” he said in an interview with a local television program. “We didn’t even know the identity, and still don’t, of that poor victim.” More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      McConnell Endorses Electoral Count Overhaul, Lifting Chances of Enactment

      by

      The Republican leader’s backing enhanced prospects for legislation drafted to prevent a repeat of the Jan. 6 assault, when rioters tried to pressure the vice president to overturn the election.WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell endorsed a bill on Tuesday to overhaul how Congress counts electoral votes to confirm the results of a presidential election, significantly enhancing the prospects of enacting the most substantial legislative response yet to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.The support from Mr. McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, represented a substantial break with his party in the House, where all but nine Republicans opposed a similar measure that passed last week. It came as the Senate Rules Committee delivered an overwhelming bipartisan vote to send the legislation to the floor.“The substance of this bill is common sense,” said Mr. McConnell, a member of the Rules Committee, about the legislation negotiated in recent months by a bipartisan group led by Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia.One crucial piece of the measure spells out that the role of the vice president, who presides over the counting of the electoral votes as the president of the Senate, is strictly ceremonial. That provision is a direct response to the failed effort by President Donald J. Trump and his allies to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to reject presidential ballots cast in favor of Joseph R. Biden Jr. as part of a scheme to invalidate his victory.The legislation also seeks to prevent state officials from submitting electoral votes that do not align with the popular vote in a state, another answer to Mr. Trump’s election subversion attempt, which included a bid to have allies submit slates of pro-Trump electors in states won by Mr. Biden. It would substantially increase the threshold for Congress to consider an objection to electoral votes, requiring that at least one-fifth of each chamber sign on to such challenges, which currently need only one senator and one House member.“Right now, just two people out of 535 members can object and slow down and gum up the counting,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and the chair of the panel. She said the legislation presented “an opportunity to take strong bipartisan action to protect the cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power.”The Rules Committee incorporated some changes sought by election watchdogs, and Mr. McConnell warned that he would not back any final version if the authors went beyond narrow consensus changes. He also said he would not support the bill approved last week in the House. That legislation raises the threshold for objections even higher, to one-third of both chambers, and also includes provisions that Senate Republicans fear could lead to more court fights over the results — an outcome they are eager to avoid..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 is clear that only a bipartisan compromise originating in the Senate can actually become law,” Mr. McConnell said. “One party going it alone will be a nonstarter and, in my view, the House bill is a nonstarter. We have one shot to get this right.”Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas and one of the senators who lodged objections to the electoral count in 2021, was the sole member of the Rules Committee to oppose the legislation.“This bill is all about Donald J. Trump, and in our lifetimes, no one has driven Democrats in this body more out of their minds than President Trump,” said Mr. Cruz. He said the legislation raised serious constitutional questions and was an attempt by Democrats to gain control over elections that should remain the responsibility of the states.“I don’t believe senators from this side of the aisle should be supporting a bill that enhances the federalization of elections and reduces the ability of Congress to respond to the very serious problem of voter fraud,” he said.Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and majority leader, also made clear that he was behind the legislation. A spokesman said that Mr. Schumer “looks forward to continuing to have bipartisan, bicameral discussions about the best way to ensure Electoral Count Act reform legislation is signed into law soon.”Backers of the bill say it must be approved this year and would have no chance if Republicans claimed control of the House in the upcoming midterms. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Lawmakers Propose Measure to Avert Government Shutdown

      by

      The package would also provide major new aid to Ukraine, but its fate in an initial Senate vote on Tuesday is uncertain.WASHINGTON — Top lawmakers proposed a stopgap funding package on Monday night that would avert a government shutdown at the end of the week and set aside a major new round of emergency aid to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia.With funding set to run out when a new fiscal year begins on Saturday, lawmakers are aiming to quickly move the legislation through both chambers in the coming days to keep the government funded through Dec. 16. But even as the final details of the package came together, it faced an increasing likelihood that it could not pass in its current form.Most of the measures in the package, which would punt difficult negotiations over the dozen annual spending bills to after the November midterm elections, appeared to generate little opposition. It would provide just over $12 billion in military and economic aid to Ukraine, and ensure the federal government could quickly spend money on natural disaster recovery efforts, according to a summary from the Senate Appropriations Committee. It also notably sidestepped the Biden administration’s request for emergency funds to combat the coronavirus pandemic and monkeypox, given Republican opposition.But the regular autumn scramble to avoid a shutdown has been complicated by the inclusion of a plan that would make it easier to build energy infrastructure across the country. The legislation is the product of a Democratic deal that helped secure the vote of Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a centrist Democrat, for the tax, health and climate law known as the Inflation Reduction Act, but lawmakers in both parties have objected to tying it to the must-pass spending bill.“I am disappointed that unrelated permitting reform was attached to this bill,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement. “However, with four days left in the fiscal year, we cannot risk a government shutdown; we must work to advance this bill,” he added.The sentiment was echoed in a separate statement by his House counterpart, Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, who noted that “while the bill provides a bridge to the omnibus, it is not perfect.”The Senate is set to take a first procedural vote on Tuesday, and it appears increasingly unlikely that the stopgap bill will advance with the permitting overhaul bill in tow. Should the package fail to secure enough support, lawmakers may strip out the permitting proposal and pass the government funding bill on its own to avoid a shutdown.Several Republicans, whose votes are essential in order to clear the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the evenly divided Senate, have said they have little interest in helping to deliver on a promise that prompted Mr. Manchin to drop his opposition to the broader health, climate and tax plan and allow it to pass over their party’s unanimous opposition.In a statement, Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, acknowledged the “significant progress” made toward a short-term bill that “is as clean as possible.” But, he warned, “if the Democrats insist on including permitting reform, I will oppose it.”Lawmakers in both parties have expressed opposition to the details of the permitting legislation, which Mr. Manchin released last week. Republicans have said the legislation does not go far enough to ensure projects are approved more quickly, while liberal Democrats are alarmed at provisions that would make it easier to build fossil fuel infrastructure and guarantee completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a natural gas project that passes through West Virginia..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.In an effort to speed up the permitting process, the legislation would instruct agencies to complete required environmental reviews within about two years for major projects and limit the window for court challenges.Some Democrats, including climate hawks, have signaled they will support the permitting package because they say it will help speed up the construction of transmission lines and other infrastructure needed to combat climate change and help deliver on President Biden’s pledge to cut United States emissions roughly in half by 2030.“To meet our climate goals, and as renewable energy projects continue to become more economically viable, we must enact reasonable permitting reform — which includes expedited review processes that also maintain fundamental environmental protections,” said Representative Sean Casten, Democrat of Illinois, in a statement. “Anything less is failing to do what is scientifically necessary to preserve our planet.”But at least one member of the Democratic caucus, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has confirmed that he will vote against the stopgap spending bill because of the permitting reform legislation, meaning 11 Republicans will need to back the measure to avoid a filibuster if all 49 remaining senators in the Democratic caucus vote for it. In the House, dozens of liberal Democrats have called for a separate vote on the permitting measure.“Congress has a fundamental choice to make,” Mr. Sanders wrote in a letter urging his colleagues to reject the measure. “We can listen to the fossil fuel industry and climate deniers who are spending huge amounts of money on lobbying and campaign contributions to pass this side deal. Or we can listen to the scientists and the environmental community who are telling us loudly and clearly to reject it.”Mr. Manchin has begun a persuasion campaign centered on his Republican colleagues, including an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal and an appearance on Fox News.“It would be basically a lost moment in history if we don’t do this,” Mr. Manchin declared in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” Referring to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, he added: “I’m hoping that they will look at what we have in front of us — the energy independence, security, stopping Putin dead in his tracks, being able to do what we need to do to reduce the price of energy and helping people in their homes as far as energy cost there. We have a golden opportunity.”Ukraine’s recent military success, including reclaiming territory from Russia this month, has rallied lawmakers, who have already approved roughly $54 billion in military, economic and humanitarian aid this year, behind the prospect of pouring more money into the effort.The new package would set aside $3 billion for training, equipment, weapons and intelligence support for Ukrainian forces, as well as $4.5 billion for the Economic Support Fund, which is intended to help the Ukrainian government continue to function. It also would allow Mr. Biden to authorize the transfer of up to $3.7 billion of American equipment and weapons to the country.The legislation also aims to address a few domestic needs. In addition to providing $20 million to help address the water crisis in Jackson, Miss., and $2 billion for a block grant program to help communities rebuild after natural disasters in 2021 and 2022, it would give the federal government more flexibility to spend existing disaster aid quickly.The package also includes language that would ensure the Food and Drug Administration maintains the ability to collect industry fees that make up much of its budget.Catie Edmondson More