Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Broken Redistricting Process Winds Down, With No Repairs in Sight

      by

      WASHINGTON — The brutal once-a-decade process of drawing new boundaries for the nation’s 435 congressional districts is limping toward a close with the nation’s two political parties roughly at parity. But the lessons drawn from how they got there offer little cheer for those worried about the direction of the weary American experiment.The two parties each claimed redistricting went its way. But some frustrated Democrats in states like Texas, Florida and Ohio sounded unconvinced as Republicans, who have controlled the House in 10 of the last 15 elections despite losing the popular vote in seven of them, seemed to fare better than Democrats at tilting political maps decisively in their direction in key states they controlled.At the least, political analysts said, Republicans proved more relentless at shielding such maps from court challenges, through artful legal maneuvers and blunt-force political moves that in some cases challenged the authority of the judicial system.And, to many involved in efforts to replace gerrymanders with competitive districts, the vanishing number of truly contested House races indicated that whoever won, the voters lost. A redistricting cycle that began with efforts to demand fair maps instead saw the two parties in an arms race for a competitive advantage.“Once the fuel has been added to the fire, it’s very hard to back away from it,” said Kathay Feng, the national redistricting director for the advocacy group Common Cause. “Now it’s not just the operatives in the back room, which is where it started. It’s not just technology. It’s not just legislators being shameless about drawing lines. It’s governors and state officials and sometimes even courts leaning in to affirm these egregious gerrymanders.”Democrats pulled nearly even — in terms of the partisan lean of districts, if not the party’s prospects for success in the November midterms — largely by undoing some Republican gerrymanders through court battles and ballot initiatives, and by drawing their own partisan maps. But the strategy at times succeeded too well, as courts struck down Democratic maps in some states, and ballot measures kept party leaders from drawing new ones in others.New York is a particularly glaring example. In April, the seven Democratic justices on New York’s highest court blew up an aggressive gerrymander of the state’s 26 congressional districts that had been expected to net Democrats three new House seats. The court’s replacement map, drawn by an independent expert, pits Democratic incumbents against each other and creates new swing districts that could cost Democrats seats.Weeks later in Florida, where voters approved a ban on partisan maps in 2010, the State Supreme Court, comprising seven Republican justices, declined to stop the implementation of a gerrymander of the state’s 28 congressional districts. The ruling preserves the new map ordered by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, that could net his party four new House seats. The ruling cited procedural issues in allowing the map to take effect, but many experts said there was never much doubt about the result.In New York, Democrats ignored a voter-approved constitutional mandate that districts “not be drawn to discourage competition” or favor political parties. And in Republicans’ view, Democrats sabotaged a bipartisan commission that voters set up to draw fair maps.“The Democrats seriously overreached,” said John J. Faso, a Republican and former New York state assemblyman and U.S. representative. The bipartisan commission, he added, “is what people voted for.”What to Know About RedistrictingRedistricting, Explained: Here are some answers to your most pressing questions about the process that is reshaping American politics.Understand Gerrymandering: Can you gerrymander your party to power? Try to draw your own districts in this imaginary state.Killing Competition: The number of competitive districts is dropping, as both parties use redistricting to draw themselves into safe seats.Deepening Divides: As political mapmakers create lopsided new district lines, the already polarized parties are being pulled even farther apart.But in Ohio, Republicans who gerrymandered congressional and state legislative districts this spring also ignored a voter-approved constitutional ban on partisan maps. They not only successfully defied repeated orders by the State Supreme Court to obey it, but suggested that the court’s chief justice, a Republican, be impeached for rejecting the maps drawn by the state’s Republican-dominated redistricting commission.State Representative Doug Richey of Missouri, a Republican, showed fellow lawmakers a proposed congressional redistricting map in May.David A. Lieb, Associated PressOf the approximately 35 states where politicians ultimately control congressional redistricting — the remainder either rely on independent commissions or have only one House seat — the first maps of House seats approved in some 14 states fit many statistical measures of gerrymandering used by political scientists.One of the most extreme congressional gerrymanders added as many as three new Democratic House seats in staunchly blue Illinois. Texas Republicans drew a new map that turned one new House seat and eight formerly competitive ones into G.O.P. bastions.Republicans carved up Kansas City, Kan.; Salt Lake City; Nashville; Tampa, Fla.; Little Rock, Ark.; Oklahoma City and more to weaken Democrats. Democrats moved boundaries in New Mexico and Oregon to dilute Republican votes.Most gerrymanders were drawn by Republicans, in part because Republicans control more state governments than Democrats do. But Democrats also began this redistricting cycle with a built-in handicap: The 2020 census markedly undercounted Democratic-leaning constituencies, like Blacks and Hispanics.Because those missed residents were concentrated in predominantly blue cities, any additional new urban districts probably would have elected Democrats to both congressional and state legislative seats, said Kimball W. Brace, a demographer who has helped Democratic leaders draw political maps for decades.Undoing those gerrymanders has proved a hit-or-miss proposition.Lawsuits in state courts dismantled Republican partisan maps in North Carolina and Democratic ones in New York and Maryland. But elsewhere, Republicans seized on the Supreme Court’s embrace of a once-obscure legal doctrine to keep even blatant gerrymanders from being blocked. The doctrine, named the Purcell principle after a 2006 federal lawsuit, says courts should not change election laws or rules too close to an election — how close is unclear — for fear of confusing voters.Alabama’s congressional map, drawn by Republicans, will be used in the November election, even though a panel of federal judges ruled it a racial gerrymander. The reason, the Supreme Court said in February, is that the decision came too close to primary elections.The delay game played out most glaringly during the extended process in Ohio, where ballot initiatives approved by voters in 2015 established a bipartisan redistricting commission that Republicans have dominated. Federal judges ordered the gerrymandered G.O.P. maps of Ohio House and Senate districts to be used for this year’s elections, even though the state’s high court had rejected them.When a State Supreme Court deadline for the commission to submit maps of legislative districts for legal review came due last week, Republicans simply ignored it.How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      In Races to Run Elections, Candidates Are Backed by Key 2020 Deniers

      by

      The origin story behind a slate of Republican candidates for secretary of state features a QAnon figure and several promoters of 2020 conspiracies.Key figures in the effort to subvert the 2020 presidential election have thrown their weight behind a slate of Republican candidates for secretary of state across the country, injecting specious theories about voting machines, foreign hacking and voter fraud into campaigns that will determine who controls elections in several battleground states.The America First slate comprises more than a dozen candidates who falsely claim the 2020 election was stolen from Donald J. Trump. It grew out of meetings held by a conspiracy-mongering QAnon leader and a Nevada politician, and has quietly gained support from influential people in the election denier movement — including Mike Lindell, the MyPillow founder, and Patrick Byrne, the former Overstock.com executive who has financed public forums that promote the candidates and theories about election vulnerabilities.Members of the slate have won party endorsements or are competitive candidates for the Republican nomination in several states, including three — Michigan, Arizona and Nevada — where a relatively small number of ballots have decided presidential victories. And in Pennsylvania, where the governor appoints the secretary of state, State Senator Doug Mastriano, who is aligned with the group, easily won his primary for governor last month.Mr. Finchem has sued to try to ban the use of voting machines in Arizona in the November elections.Nic Antaya for The New York TimesThe candidates cast their races as a fight for the future of democracy, the best chance to reform a broken voting system — and to win elections.“It doesn’t really matter who’s running for assembly or governor or anything else. It matters who is counting the vote for that election,” said Rachel Hamm, a long-shot contender in California’s primary on Tuesday, at a forum hosted by the group earlier this year.But even in losing races, the slate has left its mark. As they appeal for votes on the stump and on social media, the candidates are seeding falsehoods and fictions into the political discourse. Their status as candidates amplifies the claims.The information being tossed out under the guise of election reform, particularly the machine manipulation of votes, threatens to corrode Americans’ trust in democracy, said John Merrill, the Republican secretary of state in Alabama. “What you do is you encourage people not to have confidence in the elections process and people lose faith.”In private weekly calls that stretch on for hours on Friday mornings, the candidates discuss policies and campaign strategy, at times joined by fringe figures who have pushed ploys to keep Mr. Trump in power. In 11 states, the group has sponsored public forums where prominent activists unspool intricate conspiracies about vulnerabilities in voting machines.Secretary of state races were once sleepy affairs, dominated by politicians who sought to demonstrate their bureaucratic competence, rather than fierce partisan loyalty. But Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the results — including his failed attempt to pressure Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, to “find” votes to reverse his loss — has thrust the office’s power into the spotlight.Understand the 2022 Midterm Elections So FarAfter key races in Georgia, Pennsylvania and other states, here’s what we’ve learned.Trump’s Invincibility in Doubt: With many of Donald J. Trump’s endorsed candidates failing to win, some Republicans see an opening for a post-Trump candidate in 2024.G.O.P. Governors Emboldened: Many Republican governors are in strong political shape. And some are openly opposing Mr. Trump.Voter Fraud Claims Fade: Republicans have been accepting their primary victories with little concern about the voter fraud they once falsely claimed caused Mr. Trump’s 2020 loss.The Politics of Guns: Republicans have been far more likely than Democrats to use messaging about guns to galvanize their base in the midterms. Here’s why.Since its founding last year, the America First slate has ballooned from a handful of candidates to a high of around 15. Many have little chance of succeeding. On Tuesday, Ms. Hamm will compete to place among the top two candidates in California, and Audrey Trujillo, who is running unopposed in New Mexico, will cinch her G.O.P. nomination. Neither candidate is favored to beat Democratic opponents in their solidly blue states.But America First candidates could be competitive in at least four battleground states: Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Two of them have already scored primary victories in these states: In Michigan, Kristina Karamo, a novice Republican activist who gained prominence challenging the 2020 results there, won her party’s endorsement at an April convention, all but securing her nomination in August. The Republican primary winner for Pennsylvania governor, Mr. Mastriano, was involved in an effort to keep the state’s electoral votes from President Biden in 2020. He has said he wants to cancel all voter registrations and force voters to re-register.Jim Marchant, a Republican candidate for secretary of state in Nevada, is a founding member of the America First slate. John Locher/Associated PressA leading candidate in Nevada’s primary next week is Jim Marchant, one of the organizers of the America First slate. The former state assemblyman and another candidate won the endorsement of the central committee of the state Republican Party, giving them a boost before voters go to the polls on June 14. The group’s candidate in Arizona, Mark Finchem, is a leading contender and the top fund-raiser in the primary race.Mr. Marchant has said he was urged to start the coalition by unnamed people close to Mr. Trump. The project picked up steam in the spring of last year, after Mr. Marchant attended a meeting of activists hosted by a man known in QAnon circles by the alias Juan O’Savin, according to an account from one of the people involved in the group.Major figures in the election denier movement were drawn in. In May 2021, when Mr. Marchant organized an all-day meeting in a suite at the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas, Mr. Lindell appeared remotely briefly. Soon after, the group gathered again at a distillery in Austin, Texas, according to two people who attended the meeting.The host of that session was Phil Waldron, a retired Army colonel and a leading proponent of a machine-hacking theory involving Communists, shell companies and George Soros, the Democratic financier. Mr. Waldron is perhaps best known for circulating a PowerPoint presentation that recommended Mr. Trump declare a national emergency to delay the certification of the 2020 results. The document made its way to the inbox of the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and is now part of the congressional investigation into the deadly riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.Phil Waldron’s PowerPoint presentation urging Mr. Trump to declare a national emergency to delay the certification of the results is now a part of the congressional investigation into the Capitol riot.ReutersThe group posted a platform that calls for moving to paper ballots, eliminating mail voting and “aggressive voter roll cleanup.”In recent months, the core group has been recruiting new candidates. Around 25 people, including some of the candidates and people seeking to influence them, join the weekly conference calls, according to some of the candidates who were recruited. The group discusses campaigns and policy ideas, including how to transition to hand-counting all ballots — a notion election experts say is impractical and can lead to errors and cause chaos.“It’s startling to have statewide candidates, multiple candidates for a really important statewide office, running on a deeply incoherent policy plank,” said Mark Lindeman, an expert on elections with Verified Voting, an election security nonprofit.Mr. Byrne, who spent millions on the discredited “audit” of votes in Arizona, has taken particular interest in sponsoring public forums. He has pledged to spend up to $15,000 on each event, and has contributed around $83,000 to a political action committee controlled by Mr. Marchant.Understand the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6Why are these midterms so important? More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Fetterman’s Heart Issues Add Wild Card to Key Pennsylvania Senate Race

      by

      Part of John Fetterman’s appeal as the Democratic Senate nominee has stemmed from his brash sense of vitality. It’s not clear if his recent stroke and absence from the trail will affect that.Just three weeks ago, a varied cross-section of Pennsylvania Democrats put its hopes on the broad shoulders of John Fetterman, confident that the commonwealth’s burly lieutenant governor could vanquish anything or anyone that a fractured Republican Party could throw at him.But as the general election season begins, the 6-foot-8 Mr. Fetterman suddenly seems a good deal more vulnerable, equipped now with a pacemaker and a doctor’s note attesting that he can campaign and serve as Pennsylvania’s next senator, though the candidate himself admitted he “almost died.”And what seemed like a protracted, divisive fight in the G.O.P. over the party’s nominee to take on Mr. Fetterman ended suddenly on Friday when Dr. Mehmet Oz accepted the concession of David McCormick, his narrowly beaten opponent. A three-way slugfest between a celebrity, Dr. Oz, an out-of-state hedge fund manager, Mr. McCormick, and a far-right Fox News pundit, Kathy Barnette, slipped quickly away into memory.What was left for the fight over the Senate seat deemed most within reach for a Democratic takeover was a heart patient, Mr. Fetterman, battling a heart surgeon, Dr. Oz, and a distinct sense of unease, at least for now, among some Democrats.“It’s going to be a brutal campaign,” said G. Terry Madonna, a longtime pollster and political writer in Pennsylvania. “If I had to put it in a couple of words, it’s ‘no holds barred.’”Mr. Fetterman’s health struggles could be particularly resonant because so much of his appeal has stemmed from his image of vitality. Though he hails from his party’s left flank, he has garnered the affections of more moderate, working-class voters with his bald head, goateed face, Carhartt sweatshirts, baggy basketball shorts and tireless campaigning in every nook of the state.Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist who has conducted focus groups with Pennsylvania voters, quoted Democrats saying, “You know, he’s the physical embodiment of Pennsylvania.”Now that common-man appeal must include the contrition of an ailing patient who ignored his doctor’s advice for years and an overt appeal to the sympathies of the voters.“Like so many others, and so many men in particular, I avoided going to the doctor, even though I knew I didn’t feel well,” Mr. Fetterman said in a statement on Friday that broke weeks of silence since he had left the campaign trail. “As a result, I almost died. I want to encourage others to not make the same mistake.”The statement read like a confession. He suffered a stroke last month, just days before Pennsylvania’s primary, and seemed to let his campaign systematically downplay his condition. All that ended on Friday when he admitted that he suffered from a heart condition called cardiomyopathy and had left other heart issues untreated for years.His physician, Ramesh R. Chandra, released a scolding note saying that when Mr. Fetterman was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation and a decreased heart pump in 2017, he was prescribed medicine, lifestyle changes and follow-up appointments, but that he “did not go to any doctor for five years and did not continue taking his medications.”Dr. Mehmet Oz spoke during his election night watch party in Newtown, Pa., last month.Bryan Anselm for The New York TimesThe drama might enhance Mr. Fetterman’s appeal by further humanizing him, but that is not assured. Shawn W. Rosenberg, a professor of political and psychological science at the University of California, Irvine, who has been studying politics and political style since the late 1980s, said Mr. Fetterman’s imagery before the health scare had broken new ground. Where once clean-scrubbed youth sold well, Pennsylvanians have lapped up their lieutenant governor’s Everyman look.“Do we want a political leader who is a version of the guy next door or someone who stands above us in some respects?” Professor Rosenberg asked. “Most of the literature suggests we want the latter, and Fetterman is an interesting challenge to that.”He added: “That works to his advantage in Pennsylvania. Part of the Republican play since Trump is anti-elitism. Against Oz, he’s clearly not the elitist.”But his health struggles also might clash with his superman image as it bolsters his opponent, a heart surgeon who has spent his extensive television career touting medical interventions, many legitimate, some questionable.In a fight between a Paul Bunyan-like common man and a celebrity doctor, the doctor might emerge as the responsible candidate. And Dr. Oz will know how to sell it, said Samantha Majic, a political scientist at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who studies style and celebrity in politics.“Celebrity in the modern sense is somebody who is known, highly produced, managed and in the media, but they are also commercialized, they are using their celebrity to sell,” Professor Majic said. She added: “As campaigns become more expensive, you’ve got to have celebrity capital to parlay into financial capital. You have to stand out.”Among Democrats and many independents in Pennsylvania, Mr. Fetterman is popular. A poll from Franklin & Marshall College just before the primary — and before his stroke — found that 67 percent of Democratic voters viewed him favorably, well above the 46 percent who felt warmly toward his primary opponent, Representative Conor Lamb.Berwood A. Yost, the director of the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin & Marshall, said that given the Democratic nominee’s 52 years of age, his health problems “may make Fetterman even more relatable.”You get to your 50s as a working-class person, and you’ve got some scars to show for it, right?” he said. “It’s a further contrast between the two candidates. I mean, the contrast couldn’t be any more stark.”And a comeback from a health setback is not uncommon. Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent whose progressive politics are similar to Mr. Fetterman’s, suffered a heart attack in late 2019, with the presidential primary season looming, and hardly skipped a beat.But Mr. Fetterman will remain off the campaign trail for some time.“Doctors have told me I need to continue to rest, eat healthy, exercise and focus on my recovery, and that’s exactly what I’m doing,” he said in his statement. He added: “It’s frustrating — all the more so because this is my own fault — but bear with me, I need a little more time. I’m not quite back to 100 percent yet, but I’m getting closer every day.”Rebecca Katz, a strategist for Mr. Fetterman, strongly denied that the campaign had been keeping his condition hidden. Campaign officials announced he needed a pacemaker as soon as they learned it, and the campaign released Friday’s statement as soon as the doctor gave his permission, she said. Democratic officials had grown so worried that there was chatter about recruiting a new nominee, gossip that she pushed back on hard.“All we have is the truth, and that’s what we chose to share,” she said.If Mr. Fetterman is limping into the general election, so is Dr. Oz. Ms. Longwell said the Democrat’s overwhelming popularity with his base was the mirror opposite of the reaction to Dr. Oz, who elicits strong suspicion from some conservative Pennsylvania voters, despite the endorsement of former President Donald J. Trump. And the Fetterman campaign has already started attacking the Republican as a New Jersey interloper who is coming to Pennsylvania via Hollywood.Given the overall political environment, Mr. Yost said the race is a true tossup, but he too wondered how Dr. Oz’s lack of connection with his new state will work in the commonwealth.“There’s a sense of place here among long-term residents,” he said, “and Oz really isn’t from here. I wonder how that plays out.”In a video statement, Dr. Oz vowed to start afresh after a difficult primary fight.“I’m going to reach to every corner of this commonwealth,” he said. “I know we’ve got to heal. We’ve got to pull people together again. I want to make sure that happens again.” More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why Canada Races on Gun Policy When America Crawls

      by

      As Congress once more struggles through acrimonious and so far fruitless negotiations over gun reforms in the wake of a mass shooting, Americans may find themselves looking north in befuddlement.Canada’s government has begun moving to ban handgun sales and buy back military-style rifles — dramatic changes in a country with one of the world’s highest gun ownership rates outside of the United States, expected to pass easily and with little fuss.Ask Americans why Canada’s government seems to cut through issues that mire their own in bitterness and frustration, and you might hear them cite cultural differences, gentler politics, even easygoing Canadian temperaments.But ask a political scientist, and you’ll get a more straightforward answer.Differences in national culture and issues, while meaningful, do not on their own explain things. After all, Canada also has two parties that mostly dominate national politics, an urban-rural divide, deepening culture wars and a rising far-right. And guns have been a contentious issue there for decades, one long contested by activist groups.Rather, much of the gap in how these two countries handle contentious policy questions comes down to something that can feel invisible amid day-to-day politicking, but may be just as important as the issues themselves: the structures of their political systems.Canada’s is a parliamentary system. Its head of government, Justin Trudeau, is elevated to that job by the legislature, of which he is also a member, and which his party, in collaboration with another, controls.If Mr. Trudeau wants to pass a new law, he must merely ask his subordinates in his party and their allies to do it. There is no such thing as divided government and less cross-party horse-trading and legislative gridlock.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada with government officials and gun-control activists, during a news conference about firearm-control legislation in Ottawa, Ontario, on Monday.Blair Gable/ReutersCanada is similar to what the United States would be if it had only a House of Representatives, whose speaker also oversaw federal agencies and foreign policy.What America has instead is a system whose structure simultaneously requires cooperation across competing parties and discourages them from working together.The result is an American system that not only moves slower and passes fewer laws than those of parliamentary models like Canada’s, research has found, but stalls for years even on measures that enjoy widespread support among voters in both parties, such as universal background checks for gun purchases.Many political scientists argue that the United States’ long-worsening gridlock runs much deeper than any one issue or the interest groups engaged with it, to the basic setup of its political system.The Perils of PresidentsThe scholar Juan Linz warned in a much-discussed 1990 essay, as much of the developing and formerly Soviet worlds moved to democracy, that those countries not follow what he called one of the foundational flaws of the United States: its presidency.“The vast majority of the stable democracies in the world today are parliamentary regimes,” Dr. Linz wrote.Presidential systems, on the other hand, tended to collapse in coups or other violence, with only the United States having persisted since its origin.It’s telling that when American diplomats and technocrats help to set up new democracies abroad, they almost always model them on European-style parliaments.Subsequent research has found that parliamentary systems also perform better at managing the economy and advancing rule of law than presidencies, if only for the comparative ease with which they can implement policy — witnessed in Canada’s rapid response to gun violence or other crises.Gun control activists during a rally in Washington last week.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesAmerica’s legislative hurdles, requiring cooperation across the president, Senate and House to pass laws, are raised further by the fact that all three are elected under different rules.None represents a straight national majority. Presidential elections favor some states over others. The Senate tilts especially toward rural voters. All three are elected on different schedules. As a result, single-party control is rare. Because competing parties typically control at least one of those three veto points on legislation, legislation is frequently vetoed.Americans have come to accept, even embrace, divided government. But it is exceedingly uncommon. While Americans may see Canada’s legislative efficiency as unusual, to the rest of the world it is American-style gridlock that looks odd.Still, America’s presidential system does not, on its own, explain what makes it function so differently from a country like Canada.“As long as things are moderate, a presidential system is not so bad,” said Lee Drutman, a political scientist who studies political reform.Rather, he cited that America is nearly alone in combining a presidency with winner-take-all elections.Zero-Sum ContestsProportional votes, common in most of the world, award seats to each party based on its share of the vote.Under American-style elections, the party that wins 51 percent of a race controls 100 percent of the office it elects, while the party with 49 percent ends up with nothing.This all but ensured that politics would coalesce between two parties because third-ranked parties rarely win office. And as those two parties came to represent geographically distinct electorates struggling for national control, their contests took on, for voters, a sensation of us-versus-them.Canada, too, has winner-take-all elections, a practice inherited from Britain. Still, neither of those countries hold presidential contests, which pit one half of the nation against the other.And in neither country do the executive and legislative branches share power, which, in times of divided government, extends the zero-sum nature of American elections into lawmaking, too. And not only on issues where the parties’ supporters disagree.Mourners gathered at Newtown High School in Connecticut in 2012 for a service for those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.Luke Sharrett for The New York TimesIn 2013, shortly after a gunman killed 20 first graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., polls found that 81 percent of Republicans supported background checks for gun purchases. But when asked whether the Senate should pass such a bill — which would have required Republicans to side with the then-Democratic majority — support dropped to 57 percent. The measure never passed.The episode was one of many suggesting that Americans often privilege partisan victory, or at least denying victory to the other side, over their own policy preferences, the scholar Lilliana Mason wrote in a book on partisanship.“Even when policy debates crack open and an opportunity for compromise appears,” Dr. Mason wrote, “partisans are psychologically motivated to look away.”Unstable MajoritiesStill, there is something unusual to Canada’s model, too.Most parliamentary systems, as in Europe, elect lawmakers proportionally. Voters select a party, which takes seats in the legislature proportional to their overall vote share. As a result, many different parties end up in office, and must join in a coalition to secure a governing majority. Lawmaking is less prone to gridlock than in America but it’s not seamless, either: the prime minister must negotiate among the parties of their coalition.Canada, like Britain, combines American-style elections, which produce what is not quite a two-party system in those countries but is close, with European-style parliaments.As a result, Canada’s prime minister usually oversees a legislative majority, allowing him or her to breeze through legislation even more easily than in European-style parliaments.Handguns on display in Maple Ridge, British Columbia.Jennifer Gauthier/ReutersThis moment is an exception: Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal Party controls slightly less than half of the House of Commons. Still, his party dominates a legislative alliance in which he has only one partner. Canada also includes a Senate, though its members are appointed and rarely rock the boat.But the Canadian system produces what Dr. Drutman called “unstable majorities,” prone to whiplashing on policy.“If you have a 52 percent margin for one party, and then you throw the bums out because four percent of the vote went the other way, now you’ve moved completely in the other direction,” he said.Gun laws are a case in point. After a 1989 mass shooting, Canadian lawmakers passed registration rules, but phased them in over several years because they were unpopular among rural communities.Those rules were later abolished under a Conservative government. Though Mr. Trudeau has not reimposed the registry, he has tightened gun laws in other ways.In a European-style system, by contrast, a four-point shift to the right or left might change only one party in the country’s governing coalition, prompting a slighter policy change more proportional to the electorate’s mood.American liberals may thrill at the seeming ease with which Canada’s often-left-leaning government can implement policy, much as conservatives may envy Britain’s more right-wing, but similarly rapid, lawmaking under a similar system.But it is the slow-and-steady European model, with its frustratingly incremental advances, that, over the long run, research finds, tend to prove the most stable and effective. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Conservative Party Wins Big in South Korean Local Elections

      by

      The victory adds to the influence of President Yoon Suk-yeol, who took power by a razor-thin margin less than three months ago.SEOUL — President Yoon Suk-yeol’s governing party won​ 12 of the 17 races for big-city mayors and provincial governors ​in local elections held in South Korea ​on Wednesday, further expanding Mr. Yoon’s conservative influence less than three months after he won the presidential election.The results on Wednesday were a decisive victory for Mr. Yoon, who won the presidential race by a razor-thin margin in March and was inaugurated just three weeks ago. Although this week’s elections were only held at the local level, the results were seen as an early referendum on Mr. Yoon’s performance as leader.Oh Se-hoon, of Mr. Yoon’s People Power Party, or P.P.P., won the mayoral race in Seoul, the capital. The P.P.P. also won 11 other elections for mayors and governors, including mayor of Busan, the country’s second-largest city after Seoul. (Both the mayor of Busan and the mayor of Seoul were incumbents elected during last year’s by-elections.)The opposition Democratic Party won five races, three of them in Jeolla in the southwest, which is its perennial support base. Its candidates also won the governors’ races in the southern island of Jeju and in Gyeonggi​​-do, a populous province that surrounds Seoul.The election​ results were a stunning setback for the Democratic Party. During the last local elections four years ago, it won 14 of the same 17 races for leaders of big cities and provinces. It also won a landslide victory in parliamentary elections in 2020. But the political winds began turning against the Democratic Party last year, as voters grew angry with then-President Moon Jae-in and his party’s failure to curb skyrocketing housing prices, as well as for #MeToo and cor​ruption scandals​ involving Mr. Moon’s allies.The same voter discontent helped catapult Mr. Yoon into the presidency in the March election. But the Democratic Party still dominates the National Assembly, where Mr. Yoon’s party lacks a majority.During the campaign for this week’s elections, the P.P.P. urged voters to support Mr. Yoon’s government so that it could push its agenda at a time when North Korea’s recent weapons tests highlighted the growing nuclear threat on the Korean Peninsula. The Democratic Party appealed for support by billing itself as the only party able to “check and balance” Mr. Yoon’s conservative government.Pre-election surveys had predicted a big win for P.P.P. candidates in this week’s elections, which followed on the heels of the presidential race and were considered an extension of it. Many of the same issues highlighted during the presidential campaign loomed large during the campaign for the mayoral and gubernatorial races.Mr. Moon and his Democratic Party had focused heavily on seeking dialogue and peace with North Korea. Mr. Moon met with the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un, three times, and helped arrange summit meetings between Mr. Kim and President Donald J. Trump. But Mr. Moon and Mr. Trump both left office without having removed any of North Korea’s nuclear missiles.During his campaign, Mr. Yoon signaled a shift in South Korea’s policy on North Korea, emphasizing enforcing sanctions and strengthening military deterrence against the North. When he met with President Biden in Seoul last month, the two leaders agreed to discuss expanding joint military exercises. They also agreed to expand economic and technological ties, bringing South Korea-based global companies like Samsung deeper into Washington’s efforts to secure a fragile supply chain amid growing tensions with China.Mr. Yoon’s early policy moves include passing a new budget bill to support small-business owners hit hard by the pandemic and relocating the presidential office in Seoul. He turned the historical Blue House, which had been off-limits to ordinary citizens for seven decades, into a public park. But he has also stumbled: Two of his first Cabinet appointees have resigned amid allegations of misconduct.South Korea also held parliamentary by-elections on Wednesday to fill seven vacant National Assembly seats. Two presidential hopefuls ran, including Lee Jae-myung, a Democratic Party leader who lost the March election to Mr. Yoon, and Ahn Cheol-soo, an entrepreneur turned politician who withdrew from the presidential race this year to endorse Mr. Yoon. Both Mr. Lee and Mr. Ahn won parliamentary seats.The elections on Wednesday also filled hundreds of low-level local administrative seats. The P.P.P. won a majority of those races as well, according to the National Election Commission. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      El ascenso de Rodolfo Hernández cambia el juego en Colombia

      by

      Con un discurso populista, y su verbo incendiario, Hernández podría acaparar a los votantes de la derecha que no quieren arriesgarse con Gustavo Petro, el líder de la izquierda colombiana.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — El panorama político de Colombia ha cambiado notablemente en solo 24 horas.Durante meses, los encuestadores predijeron que Gustavo Petro, un exguerrillero convertido en senador que aspira a ser el primer presidente de izquierda del país, iría a una segunda vuelta presidencial en junio contra Federico Gutiérrez, el candidato conservador que había argumentado que votar por Petro equivalía a “un salto al vacío”.En cambio, el domingo, los votantes respaldaron a Petro y a Rodolfo Hernández, un exalcalde y un próspero hombre de negocios con una plataforma populista anticorrupción cuyo estatus antisistema, sus declaraciones incendiarias y su enfoque político limitado a un solo tema han hecho que lo comparen con Donald Trump.La votación, por un izquierdista que ha hecho su carrera atacando a la clase política conservadora y por un candidato relativamente desconocido sin respaldo formal de un partido, representó un repudio al establecimiento conservador que ha gobernado Colombia durante generaciones.Pero también cambió la situación política para Petro. Ahora es Petro quien se presenta como el cambio seguro, y Hernández es el peligroso salto al vacío.“Hay cambios que no son cambios”, dijo Petro en un evento de campaña el domingo por la noche, “son suicidios”.Hernández alguna vez se definió como un seguidor de Adolf Hitler, sugirió combinar los principales ministerios para ahorrar dinero y dice que como presidente planea declarar un estado de emergencia para enfrentar la corrupción, lo que genera temores de que podría cerrar el Congreso o suspender a los alcaldes.Sin embargo, la derecha tradicional de Colombia ha comenzado a respaldarlo, trayendo consigo muchos de sus votos y haciendo que la victoria de Petro se vea cuesta arriba.El domingo, Gutiérrez, exalcalde de Medellín, la segunda ciudad más grande del país, apoyó a Hernández y dijo que el propósito era “cuidar la democracia”.Pero Fernando Posada, un politólogo, dijo que la medida también era el último esfuerzo de la derecha para bloquear a Petro, cuyo plan para rehacer la economía colombiana “pone en riesgo muchos de los intereses de la clase política tradicional”.“La derecha colombiana llegó a un escenario tan extremadamente desastroso que incluso prefieren un gobierno que no les ofrece nada con tal de que no sea Petro”, dijo Posada.Gustavo Petro acompañado por su esposa, Verónica Alcocer, y su candidata a la vicepresidencia, Francia Márquez, al término de la primera vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales en Bogotá.Federico Rios para The New York TimesHernández, quien hasta hace unas pocas semanas no era muy conocido en la mayor parte del país, fue alcalde de la ciudad de Bucaramanga, ubicada en la parte norte del país. Hizo su fortuna en la construcción, edificando viviendas para personas de bajos ingresos en la década de 1990.A los 77 años, Hernández consolidó gran parte de su apoyo en TikTok, una vez abofeteó a un concejal de la ciudad frente a las cámaras y recientemente le dijo a The Washington Post que tenía un efecto “mesiánico” en sus seguidores, a quienes comparó con los secuestradores “con lavado de cerebro” que destruyeron las torres gemelas el 11 de septiembre.Cuando lo presionaron diciéndole que esa comparación era problemática, rechazó la idea. “Lo que estoy comparando es que después de entrar en ese estado, no cambias de posición. No la cambias”.Hasta hace apenas unos días, la narrativa política de Colombia parecía simple: durante generaciones, la política había estado dominada por unas pocas familias adineradas y, más recientemente, por un conservadurismo de línea dura conocido como uribismo, fundado por el poderoso líder político del país, el expresidente Álvaro Uribe.Pero la frustración de los votantes con la pobreza, la desigualdad y la inseguridad, que se vio exacerbada por la pandemia, junto con una creciente aceptación de la izquierda luego del proceso de paz firmado en 2016 con la guerrilla colombiana más grande, las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), pareció cambiar la dinámica.Para 2022, Petro, quien durante mucho tiempo ha sido el rostro combativo de la izquierda colombiana, pensó que era su momento. Y en los meses previos a las elecciones del 29 de mayo, los votantes acudieron en masa a sus propuestas: una amplia expansión de los programas sociales, detener todas las nuevas perforaciones petroleras en un país que depende de las exportaciones de petróleo y un enfoque en la justicia social.El argumento era: izquierda contra derecha, cambio contra continuidad, la élite contra el resto del país.Pero el improbable ascenso de Hernández refleja tanto un rechazo a la élite conservadora como a Petro.También revela que la narrativa nunca fue tan simple.Hernández, quien obtuvo el 28 por ciento de los votos, ha atraído a una amplia franja de votantes ansiosos por un cambio pero que nunca podría estar de acuerdo con Petro.Petro es un exguerrillero que fue miembro de un grupo rebelde llamado el Movimiento 19 de abril (M-19) en un país donde los rebeldes aterrorizaron a la población durante décadas. Y es de izquierda en una nación que comparte frontera con Venezuela, un país sumido en una crisis humanitaria por un gobierno autoritario que reivindica a la izquierda.Hernández, con su cabello anaranjado y desprolijo y su enfoque político de hombre de negocios, también ha atraído a votantes que dicen que quieren a alguien con la ambición de Trump y que no les preocupa si es propenso a la falta de tacto. (Años después de decir que era seguidor de Adolf Hitler, Hernández aclaró que quería decir que era seguidor de Albert Einstein).Federico Gutiérrez, candidato conservador de la derecha, en un mitin celebrado en Parques del Río, este mes.Nathalia Angarita para The New York TimesDos de los mayores problemas del país son la pobreza y la falta de oportunidades, y Hernández apela a las personas diciéndoles que puede ayudarlos a escapar de ambos.“Creo que él mira a Colombia como una posibilidad de crecimiento. Y en eso creo que se diferencia de los demás candidatos”, dijo Salvador Rizo, de 26 años, consultor tecnológico en Medellín. “Creo que los otros candidatos están viendo una casa que está en llamas y quieren apagar el fuego y preservar la casa. Creo que la opinión de Rodolfo es que hay una casa que puede ser un hotel enorme en el futuro”.También ha sido un crítico implacable de la corrupción, un problema crónico que algunos colombianos califican como un cáncer.Al principio, se comprometió a no aceptar dinero de campaña de entidades privadas y dice que él mismo está financiando su candidatura presidencial.“La gente política roba descaradamente”, dijo Álvaro Mejía, de 29 años, quien dirige una empresa de energía solar en Cali.Dice que prefiere a Hernández en vez de Petro, un senador desde hace muchos años, precisamente por su falta de experiencia política.La pregunta es si Hernández podrá mantener este impulso en las semanas previas a la segunda vuelta, mientras figuras políticas clave se alinean con su campaña.Minutos después de que obtuviera el segundo lugar el domingo, dos poderosas senadoras de la derecha, María Fernanda Cabal y Paloma Valencia, le prometieron su apoyo, y Posada predijo que era probable que otras lo respaldaran.Uribe, quien apoyó la candidatura de Hernández a la alcaldía en 2015, es una figura cada vez más polémica que aleja a muchos colombianos. Posada pronosticó que no apoyará a Hernández para no restarle votantes.El expresidente Álvaro Uribe en la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Bogotá, en febreroJuan Barreto/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSi Hernández logra mantener el delicado equilibrio de conseguir los votos de la derecha, sin afectar su imagen, podría ser difícil que Petro logre vencerlo.Muchos analistas políticos creen que los aproximadamente 8,5 millones de votos que obtuvo Petro el domingo son su techo, y que muchos de los cinco millones de votos de Gutiérrez se sumarán a los seis millones que logró Hernández.Cuando los resultados quedaron claros, los partidarios de Hernández corrieron a la sede de su campaña en una de las principales avenidas de Bogotá, la capital.Muchos vestían camisetas, sombreros y ponchos de campaña de color amarillo brillante, que dijeron que habían comprado ellos mismos en vez de que la campaña los repartiera gratis, de acuerdo con los principios de reducción de costos de Hernández.“Nunca había visto a una persona con las características como las del ingeniero Rodolfo”, dijo Liliana Vargas, una abogada de 39 años, usando un apodo común para Hernández, quien es ingeniero civil. “Es un ser político que no es político”, dijo. “Es la primera vez que estoy totalmente emocionada de participar en unas elecciones democráticas en mi país”.Cerca de allí, Juan Sebastián Rodríguez, de 39 años, líder de la campaña de Hernández en Bogotá, dijo que el candidato era “un rockstar”.“Es un fenómeno”, dijo. “Estamos seguros de que vamos a ganar”.Petro y Hernández en las portadas de los diarios locales, el lunesYuri Cortez/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesGenevieve Glatsky More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Rodolfo Hernández is Colombia’s Trump and He May Be Headed for the Presidential Palace

      by

      The Colombian establishment is lining up behind Rodolfo Hernández, a populist businessman with an incendiary streak, to defeat the leftist former rebel Gustavo Petro.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Colombia’s political landscape has shifted remarkably in a matter of 24 hours.For months, pollsters predicted that Gustavo Petro, a former rebel-turned-senator making a bid to be the nation’s first leftist president, would head to a June presidential runoff against Federico Gutiérrez, a conservative establishment candidate who had argued that a vote for Mr. Petro amounted to “a leap into the void.’’Instead, on Sunday, voters gave the top two spots to Mr. Petro and Rodolfo Hernández, a former mayor and wealthy businessman with a populist, anti-corruption platform whose outsider status, incendiary statements and single-issue approach to politics have earned him comparisons to Donald Trump.The vote — for a leftist who has made a career assailing the conservative political class and for a relatively unknown candidate with no formal party backing — represented a repudiation of the conservative establishment that has governed Colombia for generations.But it also remade the political calculus for Mr. Petro. Now, it is Mr. Petro who is billing himself as the safe change, and Mr. Hernández as the dangerous leap into the void.“There are changes that are not changes,” Mr. Petro said at a campaign event on Sunday night, “they are suicides.”Mr. Hernández once called himself a follower of Adolf Hitler, has suggested combining major ministries to save money, and says that as president he plans to declare a state of emergency to deal with corruption, leading to fears that he could shut down Congress or suspend mayors.Still, Colombia’s right-wing establishment has begun lining up behind him, bringing many of their votes with them, and making a win for Mr. Petro look like an uphill climb.On Sunday, Mr. Gutiérrez, a former mayor of Medellín, the country’s second-largest city, threw his support behind Mr. Hernández, saying his intention was to “safeguard democracy.”But Fernando Posada, a political scientist, said the move was also the establishment right’s last-ditch effort to block Mr. Petro, whose plan to remake the Colombian economy “puts at risk many of the interests of the traditional political class.”“The Colombian right has reached such an extremely disastrous stage,” said Mr. Posada, “that they prefer a government that offers them nothing as long as it is not Petro.”Gustavo Petro, flanked by his wife Verónica Alcocer and vice-presidential candidate Francia Márquez at the end of the first round of presidential elections in Bogotá.Federico Rios for The New York TimesMr. Hernández, who had gained limited attention in most of the country until just a few weeks ago, is a one-time mayor of the mid-sized city of Bucaramanga in the northern part of the country. He made his fortune in construction, building low-income housing in the 1990s.At 77, Mr. Hernández built much of his support on TikTok, once slapped a city councilman on camera and recently told The Washington Post that he had a “messianic” effect on his supporters, who he compared to the “brainwashed” hijackers who destroyed the twin towers on 9/11.Pressed on whether such a comparison was problematic, he rejected the idea. “What I’m comparing is that after you get into that state, you don’t change your position. You don’t change it.”Until just a few days ago, Colombia’s political narrative seemed simple: For generations, politics had been dominated by a few wealthy families, and more recently, by a hard-line conservatism known as Uribismo, founded by the country’s powerful political kingmaker, former president Álvaro Uribe.But voter frustration with poverty, inequality and insecurity, which was exacerbated by the pandemic, along with a growing acceptance of the left following the country’s 2016 peace process with its largest rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, seemed to shift the dynamic.By 2022, Mr. Petro, long the combative face of the Colombian left, thought it was his moment. And in the months leading to the May 29 election, voters flocked to his proposals — a broad expansion of social programs, a halt to all new oil drilling in a country dependent on oil exports, and a focus on social justice.The story line was: left versus right, change versus continuity, the elite versus the rest of the country.But Mr. Hernández’s improbable rise reflects both a rejection of the conservative elite and of Mr. Petro.It also reveals that the narrative was never so simple.Mr. Hernández, who won 28 percent of the vote, has attracted a broad swath of voters eager for change who could never get on board with Mr. Petro.Mr. Petro is a former member of a rebel group called the M-19 in a country where rebels terrorized the population for decades. And he is a leftist in a nation that shares a border with Venezuela, a country plunged into a humanitarian crisis by authoritarians who claim the leftist banner.Mr. Hernández, with his fuzzy orange hair and businessman’s approach to politics, has also attracted voters who say they want someone with Trumpian ambition, and are not troubled if he is prone to tactlessness. (Years after saying he was a follower of Adolf Hitler, Mr. Hernández clarified that he meant to say he was a follower of Albert Einstein.)Federico Gutiérrez, a conservative establishment candidate, at a rally in Parques del Rio, this month.Nathalia Angarita for The New York TimesTwo of the country’s biggest issues are poverty and lack of opportunity, and Mr. Hernández appeals to people who say he can help them escape both.“I think that he looks at Colombia as a possibility of growth. And that’s how I think that he differs from the other candidates,” said Salvador Rizo, 26, a tech consultant in Medellín. “I think that the other candidates are watching a house that is on fire and they want to extinguish that fire and reveal the house. What I think the view of Rodolfo is: That there’s a house that can be a massive hotel in the future.”He has also been a relentless critic of corruption, a chronic issue that some Colombians call a cancer.Early on, he made a pledge not to take campaign money from private entities, and says he is funding his presidential bid himself.“Political people steal shamelessly,” said Álvaro Mejía, 29, who runs a solar energy company in Cali.He says he prefers Mr. Hernández to Mr. Petro, a longtime senator, precisely because of his lack of political experience.The question is whether Mr. Hernández will be able to maintain that outsider status in the weeks leading up to the runoff, as key political figures align themselves to his campaign.Just minutes after he won second place on Sunday, two powerful right-wing senators, María Fernanda Cabal and Paloma Valencia, pledged their support for him, and Mr. Posada predicted that others were likely to follow.Mr. Uribe, who backed Mr. Hernández’s run for mayor in 2015, is an increasingly polemic figure who turns off many Colombians. Mr. Posada predicted that he would not throw his weight behind Mr. Hernández, so as not to cost him voters.Former President Álvaro Uribe at the Supreme Court in Bogotá, in February.Juan Barreto/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIf Mr. Hernández can walk that difficult line — courting the establishment’s votes without tarnishing his image — it could be difficult for Mr. Petro to beat him.Many political analysts believe that the roughly 8.5 million votes Mr. Petro got on Sunday is his ceiling, and that many of Mr. Gutiérrez’s five million votes will be added to the six million Mr. Hernández received.As the results became clear, Mr. Hernández’s supporters rushed to his campaign headquarters on one of the main avenues in Bogotá, the capital.Many wore bright yellow campaign T-shirts, hats and ponchos, which they said they’d bought themselves instead of being handed out free by the campaign, in keeping with Mr. Hernández’s cost-cutting principles.“I have never seen a person with characteristics like those of the engineer Rodolfo,” said Liliana Vargas, a 39-year old lawyer, using a common nickname for Mr. Hernández, who is a civil engineer. “He is a political being who is not a politician,” she said. “It is the first time that I am totally excited to participate in a democratic election in my country.”Nearby, Juan Sebastián Rodríguez, 39, a leader of Mr. Hernández’s Bogotá campaign, called the candidate “a rock star.”“He is a phenomenon,” he said. “We are sure that we are going to win.”Mr. Petro and Mr. Hernández on the front pages of local newspapers on Monday.Yuri Cortez/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesGenevieve Glatsky contributed reporting from Bogotá. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Gov. Hochul Stockpiles Donations, as Rivals Struggle to Keep Pace

      by

      Real estate, unions and crypto interests were among the donors to Ms. Hochul. Here are five takeaways from the money battle in New York’s race for governor.ALBANY, N.Y. — In the final stretch of the primary race for New York governor, the incumbent, Kathy Hochul, has widened her already formidable fund-raising lead over both Democratic and Republican rivals, scooping up millions from lobbyists, wealthy New Yorkers and special interest groups with a stake in policy outcomes in Albany.Ms. Hochul pulled in more than $10 million from mid-January to late May, outpacing her nearest Democratic competitor, Representative Thomas R. Suozzi, by about a 3-to-1 margin, according to new filings released on Friday. A third Democratic candidate, the New York City public advocate, Jumaane Williams, raised just $250,000 during the period and was left with only $130,000 in the bank at the end of the month.On the Republican side, Representative Lee Zeldin, a Long Island conservative, led his rivals with $3.2 million raised. Harry Wilson, a businessman who said he intended to mostly self-fund his campaign, reported just under $2 million in contributions; he also dipped into his personal fortune to blanket the airwaves with TV ads. Thanks to his considerable wealth, Mr. Wilson had more money to spend — $4.2 million — than any challenger to Ms. Hochul. But the governor’s $18.6 million war chest, eye-poppingly fat even after she spent $13 million (mostly on TV and online ads) in the last four months, puts her in the driver’s seat in a state that hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2002.Jumaane Williams, the New York City public advocate, badly trails his Democratic rivals in fund-raising efforts.Libby March for The New York TimesThe power of incumbencyAs Ms. Hochul was helping decide how to spend $220 billion of the state’s money, she raked in cash from every corner of the economy just as — or shortly after — the state budget negotiations were taking place.Eleven donors gave the maximum $69,700 in the latest report — from organized labor groups such as the American Dream Fund service workers union and the Transport Workers Union, to major corporate givers like John Hess, chief executive of the Hess Corporation, and Manhattan real estate developers like Jack and Michael Cayre.All told, 84 percent of the haul came in chunks of $5,000 or more, records show. The campaign noted that 70 percent of the donations came from contributors giving $250 or less, signaling Ms. Hochul’s “broad coalition of supporters.”Few were more generous than lobbyists registered with the state to influence lawmakers at the Capitol — on everything from cannabis regulation to education policy and funding.Many of the lobbyists who donated to Ms. Hochul soon after she was sworn in last summer re-upped with contributions once her first legislative session began. The firm Featherstonhaugh, Wiley & Clyne, whose clients include Saratoga Casino Holdings and the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, gave Ms. Hochul $25,000 about a month after she took office and then another $25,000 a few weeks into her first session.The Albany lobbying firm Ostroff Associates and its partners have showered $78,000 on Ms. Hochul since she became governor, and Shenker, Russo & Clark, which represents banking and auto dealer interests, among others, just chipped in another $5,000 after giving Ms. Hochul $20,000 in October.“Follow the money, and none of it leads to addressing the crime and affordability crisis in our state,” said Kim Devlin, a senior adviser to Mr. Suozzi.Representative Thomas R. Suozzi raised far more than one of his Democratic rivals, Jumaane Williams, but far less than Ms. Hochul.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesMining for Hochul’s approvalWith controversy swirling over the expansion of cryptocurrency mining in New York, where aging industrial facilities and cheap electricity have lured major players in the sector, a single five-figure donation to Ms. Hochul stands out: $40,000 from Ashton Soniat, the chief executive of Coinmint, according to the company’s website.The company has a crypto-mining operation on the grounds of a former aluminum plant in Massena, N.Y., a small town northeast of Niagara Falls. Environmentalists have raised alarms about the high electricity consumption of crypto mining and its potential contribution to climate change. Crypto speculators have been drawn to northern and western New York because of its abundant hydroelectric power.Coinmint did not respond to requests for comment sent through its website and to email addresses and phone numbers listed in business directories and state records.Ms. Hochul’s campaign reported that she received the donation from Mr. Soniat, via credit card, on May 23. A day later, Ms. Hochul, during a breakfast with legislators at the governor’s mansion in Albany, spoke optimistically about the potential job creation bonanza in the economically distressed area.“We have to balance the protection of the environment, but also protect the opportunity for jobs that go to areas that don’t see a lot of activity and make sure that the energy that’s consumed by these entities is managed properly,” Ms. Hochul told reporters after the breakfast meeting.Assemblywoman Anna R. Kelles, a Democrat who represents the Ithaca area, said Ms. Hochul told her the state can’t ignore the jobs crypto mining in Massena could bring. Ms. Kelles said Ms. Hochul told her, “I spoke to them and they said they employ about 140 people and they are looking to go up to 400 employees in an area where there are very few industries. So this is really important.”Ms. Kelles is the sponsor of a bill that would put a two-year moratorium on certain crypto-mining operations that rely on fossil fuels, legislation that Ms. Hochul said she would consider once a final version reaches her desk.“Political donations have no influence on government decisions,” said Hazel Crampton-Hays, a Hochul spokeswoman. “Governor Hochul approaches every decision through one lens: What is best for New Yorkers.”Gov. Hochul, right, with Vice President Kamala Harris, before a memorial service for a victim of the racist massacre in Buffalo.Patrick Semansky/Associated PressReal estate stands firm with HochulOn April 18, Governor Hochul joined the real estate developer Scott Rechler and Mayor Eric Adams to hail the opening of a publicly accessible rooftop in an office development on a pier in the city- and state-controlled Hudson River Park. In the ensuing month, Mr. Rechler, the chief executive of RXR, and his wife, Deborah Rechler, gave a combined $85,600 to the campaign this filing period. Both are Nassau County constituents of Mr. Suozzi, a Long Island congressman who is running to the right of Ms. Hochul.Big real estate donors have a habit of sticking with politically moderate incumbents they perceive to be doing a decent job. This year appears no different. Ms. Hochul, the incumbent in question, has continued to haul in donations from landlords and developers.Jerry Speyer, the chairman of Tishman Speyer, which owns Rockefeller Center, donated $50,000 to Ms. Hochul’s campaign in April. Donald Capoccia, the managing principal of Brooklyn-based developer BFC Partners, donated $25,000. James L. Dolan, who controls Madison Square Garden — which sits atop the Penn Station Ms. Hochul is renovating — donated $69,700.“In the real estate business, you’re only as strong as the communities where you’re doing business,” Mr. Rechler, who used to be one of former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s biggest donors, said in a statement. “Governor Hochul recognizes that to build stronger communities you need to invest in infrastructure, focus on quality of life and prioritize public safety.”Suozzi releases his tax returnOn the day that candidates for governor faced a deadline to release fund-raising information, Mr. Suozzi chose to also make his tax return available to reporters. On both counts, Mr. Suozzi trails the governor.Ms. Hochul and her husband, William J. Hochul Jr., reported a joint taxable income of $825,000 this year, more than twice the combined income of Mr. Suozzi and his wife.Mr. Hochul, a high-ranking executive at Delaware North, a hospitality company and state concessionaire, earned the bulk of the couple’s income: $547,434 from his job at Delaware North. The $363,494 in joint taxable income from Mr. Suozzi and his wife, Helene Suozzi, includes $152,645 in wages — a vast majority of it from Mr. Suozzi’s congressional salary — and $136,339 in capital gains.The Suozzis have a smattering of investments, including a rental office property in Glen Cove, N.Y., that garnered $18,360 in rental income in 2021, and an investment in a Southampton day camp, which earned them $12,677 in passive income.The Suozzis donated $38,097 to charity. The Hochuls donated $72,153, and paid $237,916 in federal taxes, or 29 percent of their income. The Suozzis paid $70,018, a federal tax rate of 19 percent.In the latest fund-raising disclosures, Mr. Suozzi reported raising $3.5 million and transferred a little less than $400,000 from his congressional account, leaving him with $2.7 million in the bank.Andrew Giuliani has raised the least money among the Republican candidates for governor.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesGiuliani has name recognition, but few donorsAndrew Giuliani may have his father’s name recognition going for him, but in the race for money, he is badly lagging the New York Republican Party’s anointed candidate for governor.Mr. Giuliani raised just a little over $220,000 from donors this filing period, with no individual donations greater than $25,000, according to state campaign finance records. He has a bit more than $300,000 on hand. Mr. Giuliani performed worse, financially, than all three of his Republican rivals, even if some polling suggests he may be leading among voters.Rob Astorino, the former Westchester County executive, raised about $600,000 this period, leaving him with more than $1.1 million on hand. Mr. Zeldin, the party-backed candidate, raised a little over $3 million, leaving him with roughly that same amount to spend in the final weeks of the primary race. Mr. Wilson, a wealthy Wall Street trader who nearly won the race for state comptroller in 2010, raised more than $10 million this period, most of it from himself.“The unparalleled outpouring of grass-roots support from every corner of our state has only grown stronger,” Mr. Zeldin said in a statement. “In November, New Yorkers are going to restore a balance of power to Albany.”Dana Rubinstein reported from New York, and Luis Ferré-Sadurní contributed reporting from New York. More