Midterm Elections (2022)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Ballot Measures in Swing States Could Have Sizable Impact on 2024 Voting

      by

      While the midterm elections in November will decide control of Congress and some governors’ offices, there are other far-reaching issues at stake. Among them: the fate of voter ID rules, early voting expansion and ranked-choice voting.Ballot measures on these issues will appear in several battleground states, where most of the attention has been on marquee races, with a blizzard of campaign ads dominating the airwaves.But the outcome of those measures could weigh significantly on the 2024 presidential election, as Republicans and Democrats haggle over the guardrails of voting.Here is a roundup of ballot measures facing voters across the United States:ArizonaUnder a ballot measure embraced by Republicans, voters would be required to present photo identification when casting ballots in person. If it passes, the state would no longer accept two nonphoto forms of identification — such as a motor vehicle registration and a utility bill — in place of a government-issued ID card or a passport.The measure, which has been criticized by Democrats and voting rights advocates, would also create new requirements for voting by mail. Voters would be required to write their birth date and either a state-issued identification number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on an early ballot affidavit.MichiganA proposed constitutional amendment would create a permanent nine-day period of early in-person voting at polling sites, as well as an expansion of existing options for voters to visit clerks’ offices and other local election offices to cast early ballots.The measure, which was backed by a voting rights coalition and survived a wording-related challenge, with the Michigan Supreme Court weighing in, would also allow voters who are unable to present ID at the polls to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity.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.Arizona’s Governor’s Race: Democrats are openly expressing their alarm that Katie Hobbs, the party’s nominee for governor in the state, is fumbling a chance to defeat Kari Lake in one of the most closely watched races.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but members of his party have learned to tolerate his behavior.Michigan would also be required to pay for drop boxes and return postage for absentee ballots, in addition to mail expenses associated with applications.To prevent partisan groups from subverting election results, as supporters of former President Donald J. Trump tried to do in 2020 in Michigan when they put forward a slate of fake electors, canvassing boards in the state would be required to certify results based only on the official record of votes cast.NevadaNevada voters will decide whether to adopt ranked-choice voting for the general election and to overhaul the state’s primary system.Under a proposed constitutional amendment, primaries for statewide and federal offices, but not for president, would be open to all voters, with the top five vote-getters advancing to the general election. The law currently stipulates that voters must be registered as Democrats or Republicans in order to participate in their parties’ primariesIf approved in November, the measure would be placed on the ballot again in 2024 for voters to decide. The earliest that the changes could take effect would be in 2025.In a ranked-choice system during the general election, voters list candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority, officials would eliminate the last-place finisher and reallocate his or her supporters’ votes to their second choices until one candidate has at least 50 percent of the votes.Alaska recently adopted ranked-choice voting, and some Republicans blamed that system for the defeat of Sarah Palin, a former governor and the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, in a special House election in August.New York, Maine and Utah also have some form of ranked-choice voting, as do dozens of American cities.OhioCities and towns in Ohio would be barred from allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote in state and local elections under a constitutional amendment that seeks to rein in the home rule authority of municipalities.Opponents contend that federal law already bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections. But the measure’s supporters say that an explicit prohibition is needed at the state level, despite instances of voter fraud proving to be rare.The issue arose after voters in Yellow Springs, Ohio, a small village east of Dayton, voted in 2019 to allow noncitizens to vote for local offices. None have registered since then, though, according to The Columbus Dispatch.NebraskaEmulating other red states, Nebraska could require voters to present photo ID at the polls under a constitutional amendment supported by Gov. Pete Ricketts, a term-limited Republican who is leaving office in January. Critics say the rule change would disenfranchise voters.ConnecticutConnecticut is one of a handful of states that do not offer early in-person voting, but a proposed constitutional amendment could change that.The measure directs the Legislature to create a mechanism for early voting, which would be separate from accepting absentee ballots before Election Day. The timing and details would be decided by lawmakers, who could enact the changes by the 2024 election. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Tries to Reassure Voters on Health Care Costs Before Election

      by

      At an event in Southern California, the president says his administration is working to keep costs down and warns that Republicans will drive prices higher if they gain power.LOS ANGELES — President Biden on Friday tried to reassure Americans stung by high inflation that his administration was working to keep health care costs down, promising a community college audience in Southern California that he was committed to doing even more.But his remarks in Irvine, Calif. — the first of two West Coast speeches devoted to health care costs — come just days after government data revealed that overall inflation remains high as voters prepare to go to the polls for midterm elections early next month.Surveys show that Americans are deeply frustrated by the impact of sharply higher prices on their pocketbooks. They are expected to rebuke the president and his party in the elections, with most analysts predicting that Democrats will lose control of one or both chambers in Congress.Speaking to a friendly audience, Mr. Biden argued that Republicans would drive prices higher if they gained power. He noted their opposition to his efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, which he said would force prices down for medication for millions of seniors. And he said Democrats had pushed through price caps on critical drugs like insulin.“If Republicans in Congress have their way, it’s going to mean the power we just gave Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices and other costs over time goes away — gone,” Mr. Biden said, standing in front of signs that said “Lowering Costs for American Families.” “Two-thousand-dollar cap on prescription drugs goes away — gone. The $35 month cap on insulin for Medicare is gone.”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.Arizona’s Governor’s Race: Democrats are openly expressing their alarm that Katie Hobbs, the party’s nominee for governor in the state, is fumbling a chance to defeat Kari Lake in one of the most closely watched races.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but members of his party have learned to tolerate his behavior.Mr. Biden’s three-state, four-day trip is also intended to boost the fortunes of Democratic candidates by using the presidential bully pulpit to highlight the party’s accomplishments. On Wednesday in Colorado, he stood next to Michael Bennet, one of the state’s two Democratic senators, to announce a new national monument — a key campaign promise for the embattled lawmaker.In Los Angeles on Thursday, Mr. Biden hailed the use of money from his infrastructure legislation to help complete a new subway line. During his remarks, he made certain to single out Representative Karen Bass, a Democrat who had fought for a provision that directs jobs on the project to local workers.“Local workers can be first in line for these jobs thanks to Karen,” Mr. Biden said. “I really mean it, Karen. Thank you very much.”At the community college in Irvine, Mr. Biden focused his attention on health care — and on Representative Katie Porter, a two-term Democrat running for re-election in a key swing district in Orange County.Ms. Porter, who is facing Scott Baugh, a Republican former state assemblyman, pushed for the drug pricing measure. At the event on Friday, Mr. Biden singled her out, crediting the success of Democratic legislation to her efforts to fight on behalf of her constituents..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.“That’s why Katie’s leadership and the work of the Democrats in Congress was so consequential,” he said. “Katie, I’m not just being nice because I’m in your district. It happens to be true. No, no. I mean, you’re a fighter. You’re decent. You’re honorable and everybody respects you.”Friday’s event at the Irvine Valley Community College was an official one, not a campaign rally. But Ms. Porter used her time at the podium to assail Republicans.“Every single Republican in Washington voted against patients, against families and against taxpayers,” she said. “In the Senate, Republican politicians voted to limit how much Americans can save on prescription drugs and to prevent all patients from getting insulin. And House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy has vowed that next term it’s his priority to return Big Pharma its unchecked power to charge patients whatever it wants.”She called that a “slap in the face” to the Californians she represents.Republicans sought to portray the president’s efforts to bolster candidates’ prospects as in vain. “Joe Biden is the last person Democrat candidates want to see on the campaign trail,” Michael McAdams, the communications director for the National Republican Campaign Committee, said after the event, noting reports that Democrats recently shifted money away from some California districts to candidates who need help more.“His policies are so unpopular House Democrats are being forced to abandon spending in California districts he won by double-digits,” Mr. McAdams said.Friday evening, Mr. Biden was scheduled to fly to Portland, Ore., a liberal community where the Democratic Party would not normally need the help of the sitting president. But Mr. Biden is hoping to help boost the fortunes of Tina Kotek, the Democratic candidate for governor.Although the state has not elected a Republican leader in decades, polls suggest that Ms. Kotek is in a tight, three-way race with Christine Drazan, the Republican candidate, and Betsy Johnson, a former Democrat who is being financed by Phil Knight, the co-founder of Nike. The White House is hoping that a visit by Mr. Biden will help underscore the party’s commitment to her.Republicans predicted that the president’s trip will not prevent their party from grabbing the top electoral prize in the state.“Joe Biden’s disastrous policies continue to hurt Oregon families, and there has been no bigger fan of his out-of-touch approach,” said Kaitlin Price, a spokeswoman for the Republican Governors Association, citing Ms. Kotek, Ms. Johnson and Kate Brown, the state’s current Democratic governor.“This last-ditch effort from national Democrats is proof of their hysteria as they watch Christine Drazan take hold of once deep-blue Oregon that is desperate for change,” Ms. Price said. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Boys and Girls Off the Bus. Way Off.

      by

      Campaign reporting has changed enormously since the days of Theodore White, Timothy Crouse and Richard Ben Cramer. Today, a chat with two Times reporters who live in the brave new world of American politics.Campaign reporting used to be pretty straightforward: You hopped on the bus and followed candidates around as they spoke at rubber-chicken dinners, Rotary Clubs and union halls, or wormed your way into posh homes to eavesdrop on the pitches they made behind closed doors.That was the old days.Now, the most influential player in a Senate or House race might not be the head of the local Chamber of Commerce, but a MAGA influencer or a TikTok cooking star who dabbles in politics.For better or worse, the smoke-filled rooms where party bosses once decided who won and lost no longer rule. A chat on a platform like Telegram or a sit-down on a seemingly obscure podcast can move more votes than an interview with a local Walter Cronkite on the 11 o’clock news.So, with Election Day now less than a month away, I chatted with two reporters at The New York Times who are steeped in this brave new world of political power — tracking fringe movements and conspiracy theorists, meeting with election deniers and hearing from new breeds of political activists who don’t play by the old rules.Alexandra Berzon focuses on efforts to undermine the security and integrity of the American election system; Ken Bensinger covers the right-wing media outlets and social-media stars that have become central to U.S. politics in the digital age.Here is our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity:Ali, you worked with former colleagues last year on groundbreaking reporting that showed how Steve Bannon and his calls for a “precinct strategy” are shaping the midterms. What are you seeing and hearing now?Alexandra: The false idea that our election system is fundamentally broken — spurred by debunked conspiracy theories from Donald Trump and his allies about the 2020 election — has proved incredibly sticky. You see it in polling of the Republican base, of course, but also in the scores of groups that operate under the moniker of “election integrity,” which have proliferated since 2020 all over the country and have helped keep this notion alive and energized a base of activists who are not just active online but are holding frequent gatherings.It’s really an extension or morphing of the Tea Party movement, but now focused on the actual administration of elections as a core issue — in fact the precinct strategy that you mentioned was an effort for these activists to take over local county Republican groups, which gives them some amount of involvement in the elections process. Nick Corasaniti and I wrote a brief summary yesterday of some of what has happened on this front since Jan. 6, 2021.And Ken, your story on chatter about “civil war” was pretty eye-opening. What did you find the most disturbing as you delved into why the notion that the U.S. could be headed for political violence is gaining so much traction?Ken: Academics and others who track extremism have written extensively over the past couple of years about how a growing slice of the public may be receptive to, or even welcome, political violence. What was once really a fringe sentiment among only the most radicalized of Americans has moved closer to the political mainstream.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.Arizona’s Governor’s Race: Democrats are openly expressing their alarm that Katie Hobbs, the party’s nominee for governor in the state, is fumbling a chance to defeat Kari Lake in one of the most closely watched races.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but members of his party have learned to tolerate his behavior.Research done out of the University of Chicago now indicates that as many as 20 million Americans approve of violence for political ends. While nobody thinks there are millions of folks with assault rifles locked, loaded and ready for battle, it still is a very troubling finding. And it helps explain why politicians seem so much more comfortable with rhetoric about a civil war, or what some politicians call a “national divorce” in which red and blue states are somehow violently separated.Just a few weeks ago, Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser for Trump, claimed in a speech that governors had the power to declare war and “probably will” in the near future. In fact, they cannot do that. The more salient point is this: Flynn was making this speech at a fund-raising event for Mark Finchem, a candidate for secretary of state in Arizona, and the audience — people who paid a minimum of $300 a plate to be there — was eating it up.What are election officials worrying about most right now?Alexandra: The concern I hear about most from election officials (aside from the day-to-day concerns of election administration such as finding venues for polling places and recruiting enough poll workers) is about the impact of misinformation and disinformation. There’s long been a sense that if you bring skeptical people into the process and have them working elections or monitoring them, a lot of their concerns and anxieties will be alleviated.Elections officials and experts are hoping this will be the case now with people who are steeped in election conspiracy theories getting involved in being poll workers and poll watchers. And the officials are certainly expressing confidence that they can run safe and secure elections. But there is also serious anxiety now about these people serving as vigilantes and injecting more uncertainty into the process.Ken, I remember you saying once that you keep your messages open on Twitter as a kind of listening post. What does your direct-message inbox look like on an average week, and are you seeing any trends lately?Ken: I love my fans! As a rule, I like to keep my DMs open because I think it’s important to hear what people have to say, even if it’s not exactly polite. Plus, there are often great story tips buried there between the cryptocurrency spam and scams.Lately, however, I’ve noticed a marked increase in conspiracy-minded messages. A number of people routinely reach out to show me more “proof” that President Biden is dead, or that he has been secretly replaced by a Chinese operative, or that — and I swear I’m not making this up — he’s actually a “lizard person” wearing a cutting-edge silicone mask designed by the C.I.A. You can tell, they say, by the little rubberized tabs visible around the president’s ears.Among a steady stream of Jeffrey Epstein theories and memes plucked straight from 4Chan, I’ve also noticed lately a lot of stuff claiming the Democratic Party is this extremely hawkish institution that wants to trigger global thermonuclear war and is using the conflict in Ukraine as a pathway to do that. It’s an interesting reversal, since for decades it was the Republican Party that was accused of being full of warmongers. I suppose all political trends eventually go full circle.What is happening in American politics that you think deserves more attention?Ken: With each passing day, there seems to be more and more misinformation and disinformation being served up to a public that seems increasingly receptive to it.I’m seeing lots of politicians amplifying this trend in two ways.One is by repeating untruths spread on the internet without attempting to verify them, and becoming some of the primary spreaders of bad info by virtue of their huge followings and reach.The other way is by relentlessly attacking and, lately, ignoring what they call the mainstream media and by telling their followers to do their own research. And while we’ve seen politicians displaying hostility to the press for some time, a new trend seems to be completely ignoring most journalists in favor of communicating directly with voters through social media or a select group of reporters judged to be sympathetic.Candidates like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida rarely, if ever, talk to most reporters, while others, such as Doug Mastriano, the Republican candidate for governor of Pennsylvania, appear to have no communications apparatus at all, leaving phone calls, emails and text messages perpetually unanswered.Some candidates don’t campaign in traditional ways anymore, shunning public appearances for carefully controlled interviews on narrowly targeted podcasts and radio shows, and using messages sent via influential surrogates on Twitter, Facebook and, in particular, Telegram.The result, it appears, is that an expanding portion of the public never hears anything remotely close to a diversity of information, while misinformation served up in bad faith morphs into accepted and undeniable fact for untold numbers of people. As a journalist, confronting that is difficult: It feels as if even the most thorough fact-checking efforts are never so much as seen by half the country.Republican candidates who questioned the 2020 election.The New York TimesWhat to read about democracyMore than 370 Republicans on the November ballot have cast doubt on the 2020 election, a Times investigation led by Karen Yourish found. Most are still doing it. Many will win.A memo from Georgia’s elections director gave the false impression that third parties or partisan actors could challenge voters’ eligibility on the spot, much to the concern of the Black community. On Thursday, he clarified that is not the law.Colorado’s secretary of state owned up to a clerical error that led to postcards being sent to noncitizens with instructions on how to register to vote. But the manipulation of quotation marks around the word “accidentally” by election deniers has fueled conspiracy theories.A Republican congressional candidate in Maine is backtracking from claims he made that litter boxes were being placed in school bathrooms for students dressing up as cats, a widely debunked myth. The candidate, Ed Thelander, has also peddled election falsehoods. NBC News has more on the origins of the litter-box myth.viewfinderA supporter saluting Donald Trump last Sunday at a rally in Mesa, Ariz.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesA rally saluteAfter baking in the unrelenting Arizona sun for at least 10 hours, a rally official gestured to us weary and sunburned pool photographers. We peered over the red, white and blue banner separating us from the audience as the sun set behind Donald Trump’s at his rally last Sunday in Mesa, Ariz., to see a lone, elderly veteran saluting the former president.To me, the salute embodies the fierce dedication of Trump’s supporters. To attend a Trump rally, especially to arrive early enough to get a good seat, requires a serious amount of perseverance through hours of standing in line and waiting for his eventual arrival.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Pence Runs Toward Abortion Fight

      by

      TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Former Vice President Mike Pence shared his vision for a post-Roe America on Thursday evening, supporting efforts to further limit abortion rights, even as many in the Republican Party are running away from the issue in the final stretch of the midterm elections.“Our work must also go far beyond simply working to make abortion illegal,” Mr. Pence said to a banquet hall of about 1,200 people. “We must continue to work to make it unthinkable, changing hearts and minds.”Mr. Pence, who has made abortion a centerpiece of his political platform since his days as a congressman from Indiana, was speaking at a fund-raiser for a crisis pregnancy center. Such centers, supported by anti-abortion activists, do not refer clients for abortion but rather encourage adoption or parenting.Mr. Pence’s call to make abortion “unthinkable” is language often used by people who ultimately want the procedure to be banned from conception, with few exceptions. He has said that abortion ought to be outlawed in every state. Mr. Pence, who appears to be weighing a possible run for president in 2024, is leaning into the rightward edge of anti-abortion activism, hoping to become the standard-bearer for a movement now facing new obstacles from within its own ranks.His elevation of the anti-abortion cause comes as other leaders in the party view the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as politically toxic to Republicans. Privately they’ve highlighted the unpopularity of the decision to overturn federal abortion rights among crucial independent voters. Others have urged their candidates to focus on other issues, like inflation and crime, and to avoid detailed questions about their opposition to abortion rights.But Mr. Pence’s remarks reflect the views of the powerful, socially conservative wing of the party, which sees the June decision as politically expedient and just the beginning of its ambitions to change abortion law nationwide.It was the latest in a series of similar addresses he has given for conservative groups across the country that oppose abortion, including appearances at fund-raisers for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Concerned Women for America in Washington.In his comments, Mr. Pence used other language of the movement, suggesting that fetuses should have rights as people — a legal fight that many consider the next frontier in the clash over reproductive rights.“Under Roe, unborn children were segregated into a caste of second-class citizens, devoid of the most basic human rights,” Mr. Pence said. “Those days are over.”Mr. Pence called on every state to “ensure that the resources, benefits, programs and protections that are available to children and their families are also extended to the unborn.” He urged a ban that would prohibit abortions based on the race, gender or disability of the fetus, and called for the end of abortion pills and “mail-order abortion.”He also called for paring back “the tangle” of adoption regulations, and for employers who pay for employee travel for abortion to promote adoption instead. His proposals received much applause, and shouts of “Amen.”“Remember who you are fighting for,” he said. “I believe with all my heart that the day will come that the right to life is the law of the land in every state.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why Ben Sasse and Veteran Republicans Soured on Senate Runs

      by

      WASHINGTON — The Senate isn’t what it used to be.For evidence, consider the case of Senator Ben Sasse, the Nebraska Republican with four years to go in his second term who is seeking the presidency of the University of Florida. His looming departure makes him the latest lawmaker to prematurely bail out of the institution once considered the pinnacle of American political life outside the presidency.Joining him on the way out the door this year are some of the most savvy and experienced legislators on the Republican side — Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania — all pretty much in the prime of their careers by Senate age standards. Two more senior senators, Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, age 82, and Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, 88, are also retiring.On top of those losses, Senate Republicans could not entice several Republican governors to run for Senate this year, even though they would have been strong contenders for election next month, candidacies that would have boosted Republican chances of capturing a majority in the chamber that is now very much in play.Senators tick off a litany of frustrations: Their constituents are difficult, the travel is grueling, fund-raising is joyless and omnipresent, the threat of primaries is a pain and they are constantly pestered by the press. Republicans have the added burden of navigating treacherous waters where they risk blowback from the base if they don’t profess sufficient fealty to MAGA tenets and former President Donald J. Trump and draw scalding criticism from the opposing side if they don’t show sufficient disdain for Mr. Trump and his supporters.Most importantly, some say, the once-rewarding business of legislative bargaining and high-stakes lawmaking has lost its luster. The big deals are most often cut in the Capitol leadership suites these days, and presented as a fait accompli to the rank-and-file. Given the reluctance among many to take politically tough votes, members have few opportunities to push their own amendments, and their influence is often reduced to railing against the finished product on the Senate floor when few are listening.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.Arizona’s Governor’s Race: Democrats are openly expressing their alarm that Katie Hobbs, the party’s nominee for governor in the state, is fumbling a chance to defeat Kari Lake in one of the most closely watched races.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but members of his party have learned to tolerate his behavior.“I think the Senate has essentially, for most purposes, stopped legislating,” said Mr. Blunt, 72, who opted against seeking a third term in the Senate after serving in the leadership in both the House and Senate. “The opportunity to be a committee chairman is not what it was 12, 15 or even 10 years ago. The opportunity to take a bill through the committee process and go to the Senate floor and see it debated and voted on is almost nonexistent.”Then there is just the plain nastiness of the current social media-fueled political climate.“The lack of respect for our institutions and the vicious nature of politics today is getting tiresome to people,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who mourned this year’s retirees. “They have gotten seniority, and they would be able to make a real difference. Their influence and effectiveness would only grow if they stayed in the Senate. Too many are concluding it is no longer worth it.”On one hand, the likely departure of Mr. Sasse, 50, to Gainesville, is something of a surprise, considering he was just re-elected to a second term in 2020 and showed some independence in a willingness to challenge Mr. Trump. Democrats saw him as someone to court when trying to craft bipartisan legislation, and some Republicans regarded him as a potential presidential prospect.But Mr. Sasse also made it clear from the very beginning of his service that he was skeptical of the value of an institution that was losing ground with the public and its own members. In his maiden speech in 2015, he attacked the partisanship employed by both sides.“Few believe bare-knuckled politics are a substitute for principled governing,” he said about his constituents back home. “And does anyone doubt that many on both the right and the left now salivate for more of these radical tactics? The people despise us all,” he said, posing this question: “Would anything be lost if the Senate didn’t exist?”Senator Roy Blunt opted against seeking a third term in the Senate after serving in the leadership in both the House and Senate.Al Drago for The New York TimesA group of Republican governors seemed to consider that question in recent months and answer “not much” when it came to their own political ambitions. Despite fervent pleas from Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, and many other Republicans, four governors considered top Senate candidates — Phil Scott of Vermont, Doug Ducey of Arizona, Larry Hogan of Maryland and Chris Sununu of New Hampshire — all passed on running this year, even though the midterm environment started out favoring Republicans.The decision by Governor Sununu was particularly upsetting to Republicans since he was rated as by far the strongest challenger to Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, who had been considered vulnerable but is now in position to win a second term and help her party hang onto its majority.Governors have always chafed at running and serving in the Senate after their experience as state executives provided them more leeway and authority than working in a creaky gang of 100.But in the past, the Senate was still seen as a springboard to national prominence and a possible presidential run, and many governors chose to give it a try despite misgivings. Thirteen former governors currently sit in the Senate and another may join them if Pete Ricketts, the outgoing governor of Nebraska, ends up in Mr. Sasse’s seat under an appointment until the 2024 elections. Mr. McConnell, in an interview with CNN, made it clear that Mr. Ricketts is his preferred choice.The refusal of those governors does not mean no one wants in to serve in the chamber. Far from it. Across the nation, candidates are spending tens of millions of dollars clamoring for admission. But in place of those governors who refused to run, Republicans got lesser-known and more problematic candidates such as hard-right hopefuls Blake Masters in Arizona and Don Bolduc in New Hampshire, Republicans who are less likely to win and who are far less likely to be Senate deal-makers of the sort who are leaving.That prospect is vexing for those who remain.“Those are capable legislators who have done a lot of good in their time,” said Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, lamenting the departing lawmakers. “Although we have different ideologies, priorities and political values, we have gotten to yes on dozens of bills between us.”The race for the exits is the best evidence yet that the political and policy allures of the Senate are rapidly diminishing. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Jan. 6 Hearings Are Over. These 3 Things Must Happen Now.

      by

      On Thursday, in what was probably its final public hearing before the election, the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol revealed new details about former President Donald Trump. Those details included Secret Service records documenting his determination to join a mob he knew was armed and headed for violence.The hearings have provided an indispensable record of an attempted coup that failed but that, as Representative Liz Cheney pointed out, threatens to recur. As the committee waits for the (unlikely) testimony of Mr. Trump, the torch now passes to other actors who hold the power to achieve accountability for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — and to prevent another one from happening.This task fits into three key areas.Potential DisqualificationThe added proof of Mr. Trump’s involvement in the events of Jan. 6 renews the question of whether elections officials and courts can disqualify him from holding public office under the Constitution. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment provides for the disqualification from office of any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States or who has “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”The prospect of Mr. Trump being disqualified may sound unlikely, but it is not fanciful — a New Mexico county commissioner who participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection was recently removed on just this basis.On the question of whether Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection, the evidence presented throughout the hearings suggests that he knew the mob was armed when he riled them up on Jan. 6, wanted the magnetometers (metal detectors) to be taken down, expressed a wish to join the mob at the Capitol and then cheered the insurrectionists on while watching the violence on television. It also includes evidence referenced on Thursday that he singled out Vice President Mike Pence in a tweet after knowing of the violence underway.It is also fair to ask whether Mr. Trump’s actions provided “aid and comfort” to insurrectionists. That prospect is reinforced by his failure to act for 187 minutes, despite pleas from advisers, while the mob ran rampant. Indeed, he offered repeated words of support that day to the mob, tweeting, when the mob finally began dispersing, “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.”For disqualification, voters would start the process by filing petitions to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot; elected officials and courts would then act on them.Disqualification under Section 3 involves several legal and factual challenges. For example, some say it would be better (or even necessary) to have enabling legislation passed by Congress. We strongly disagree, both because that’s not what the Constitution says and because courts have acted without such legislation over a period of more than 150 years. The committee should brush aside any legal misconceptions in its final report.In its report, the committee also should highlight the proof supporting Mr. Trump’s disqualification, scouring its now vast archive of over 1,000 interviews and millions of pages of documents and data to lay out the evidence about Mr. Trump and anyone else who may face consequences under the 14th Amendment (including members of Congress).A Road MapThe report could be modeled after the Watergate Road Map. That document laid out in painstaking detail the evidence of wrongdoing that an investigative body (there, a grand jury) had collected. It consisted of an inventory listing the evidence and then attached pieces of proof — whether it was a document, witness transcript or something else.In that case a grand jury was sending evidence to the House. In this case, it is the House that would be making evidence available to others. But the principle is the same: The committee should compile all the relevant evidence upon which 14th Amendment decision makers can rely.A similar road map may also be helpful to federal and state prosecutors. A formal criminal referral is less essential than laying out the relevant evidence for federal prosecutors to draw upon in their various investigations and for local ones like Fani Willis, the district attorney for Fulton County, Ga.The committee’s evidence on Thursday suggesting potential obstruction of justice by members of the Secret Service and White House staff will also be in the hands of federal prosecutors to resolve. In one of the more notable moments of the hearing, Representative Adam Schiff stated that evidence strongly suggested “certain White House and Secret Service witnesses” had falsely testified that they were not aware of the risk of violence.The committee’s report should also inform another group of regulators: bar officials. This was an attempted coup that utilized not tanks and guns but statutes and regulations, with lawyers playing a central role. Some bar associations have a practice of not opening investigations based on public complaints based on media reports. To break through that barrier, the committee should make formal disciplinary referrals accompanied by presentations of evidence.The American PeopleOne final handoff is perhaps most important of all: to voters. Well over 300 midterm candidates have embraced “the Big Lie” about the 2020 election being stolen. The committee has repeatedly warned of the danger this election-denial movement poses. As Ms. Cheney said on Thursday, “another Jan. 6 could happen again if we do not take necessary action to prevent it.”But the test of the committee’s work and its political impact will not end with the midterms. Some “stop the steal” candidates will win their races, and the postelection season will quickly pivot to the 2024 election.The baton is passing from the committee to others who have the power to take action on its work. That handoff is not only to election officials, prosecutors and judges. It is to all of us. Our democracy may well depend on what we do with it.Norman Eisen served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment of Donald Trump. Danielle Brian is the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight. E. Danya Perry is a former federal prosecutor and a New York State corruption investigator.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      High-profile debates took place in Wisconsin and Michigan on Thursday.

      by

      Two debates were hosted in marquee political races in Wisconsin and Michigan, both battleground states. Catch up on what happened:Wisconsin’s Senate contestRead four takeaways from the debate.Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, a Democrat trailing in Wisconsin polls and getting hammered by an onslaught of negative television advertising in his race to unseat Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican, tried mightily on Thursday evening in their debate to shift his campaign’s momentum. But he failed to create a singular moment destined to go viral on social and broadcast media.It was a lively affair after last week’s relatively staid debate, but it is unlikely to change the course of the election.Michigan’s race for governorWe have five takeaways from the debate.Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, and Tudor Dixon, her Republican challenger, on Thursday gave debate viewers a clear contrast of the choice they will have on the Nov. 8 ballot: an outsider versus an experienced politician.It was the first governor’s race in the state in which both contenders are women. Their next debate will be Oct. 25. More