Presidential Election of 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Arizona Vote Review Being Financed by Trump Supporters

      by

      A review of 2020 election ballots cast in Arizona’s largest county, billed as strictly nonpartisan when Republicans in the Arizona State Senate ordered it late last year, has been financed almost entirely by supporters of former President Donald J. Trump, according to a statement released late Wednesday by the private firm overseeing the review.The firm, Cyber Ninjas, said that it had collected more than $5.7 million from five pro-Trump organizations for the widely disparaged review, in addition to $150,000 that the State Senate had allotted for the project. An Arizona county court had ordered the sources of the audit’s funding released after Republicans in the Senate resisted making them public.The review of 2.1 million ballots in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix and roughly 80 percent of the state’s population, has covered only votes last November for president and for the state’s two seats in the United States Senate, all of which were won by Democrats. The president of the State Senate, Karen Fann, said this week that results of the audit should be released next month.Ms. Fann and other senators said the recount, whose findings have no authority to change the winners of any race, was needed to reassure supporters of Mr. Trump that the vote was fairly conducted. But the effort has come under growing attack in the wake of disclosures that the chief executive of Cyber Ninjas and other purported experts involved in the review had ties to the “stop the steal” movement spawned by Mr. Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud.Election experts have called the recount amateurish and error-ridden, and ridiculed its efforts to verify allegations by conspiracy theorists that fake ballots could be identified by traces of bamboo fibers or invisible watermarks. One Republican senator withdrew his backing of the effort in May, calling it an embarrassment, and a second senator accused Ms. Fann last week of mismanaging the process, and said its results could not be trusted.It had been apparent since the review began in April that supporters of Mr. Trump were both donating money to the effort and recruiting volunteers to work on it. But the sources and size of the donations had not been disclosed until Wednesday.According to the Cyber Ninjas statement, the largest donation, $3.25 million, was made by a newly created group, America Project, led by Patrick M. Byrne, the former chief executive of the Overstock.com website and a prominent proponent of false claims that the November election was rigged.Mr. Byrne resigned his post at Overstock in 2019 after it was disclosed that he had an intimate relationship with Maria Butina, a gun-rights activist who was jailed in 2018 as an unregistered foreign agent for Russia and later deported. He later said he had contributed $500,000 to the Arizona review, and produced a film featuring the Cyber Ninjas chief executive, Doug Logan, that alleged that the November election was fraudulent.The statement said that another pro-Trump group, America’s Future, contributed $976,514 to the review. An additional $605,000 came from Voices and Votes, a group organized by Christina Bobb, an anchor for the pro-Trump television network One America News, who solicited donations for the review while covering it. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Department Warns States on Voting Laws and Election Audits

      by

      The department said that auditors could face criminal or civil penalties if they flouted elections laws.WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Wednesday sent another warning shot to Republican state legislatures that have initiated private audits of voting tabulations broadly viewed as efforts to cast doubt on the results of the presidential election.The department warned that auditors could face criminal and civil penalties if they destroy any records related to the election or intimidate voters in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and federal laws prohibiting voter intimidation.The admonishment came in election-related guidance documents issued as part of the department’s larger plan to protect access to the polls, announced by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in June. Another document released on Wednesday outlined federal laws on how ballots are cast and said that the department could scrutinize states that revert to prepandemic voting procedures, which may not have allowed as many people to vote early or by mail.The warning was the Justice Department’s latest effort to alert state lawmakers that their audits could run afoul of federal law. Department officials cautioned the Republican-led Arizona State Senate in May that its audit and recount of the November election in Maricopa County, widely seen as a partisan exercise to fuel grievances over Donald J. Trump’s election loss, may be in violation of the Civil Rights Act.Last month, the Justice Department also sued Georgia over its recently passed, sweeping voting law, accusing the state’s Republican-led legislature of intentionally trying to violate the rights of Black voters in crafting the legislation.The lawsuit, particularly its attempt to prove lawmakers’ intent, was the Biden administration’s most aggressive effort yet to expand or preserve voter protections. But it comes as Senate Republicans have stymied efforts to pass federal voter protection laws and the Justice Department has acknowledged that Supreme Court rulings have limited its own ability to prevent discriminatory voting laws from being enacted in states.While the department can sue over state voting laws it deems discriminatory or over audits that violate federal statutes, multiple election cycles will play out before those cases are resolved in the courts.The Arizona audit is led by a private contractor called Cyber Ninjas whose owner, Doug Logan, has shared conspiracy theories that voting machines were rigged and that the election was stolen from Mr. Trump.A county judge in Arizona recently ruled that the state’s Republican senators must make public information about Cyber Ninjas and other private companies hired to conduct the Maricopa County audit, rejecting their request to keep the documents secret.“It is difficult to conceive of a case with a more compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny,” Judge Michael W. Kemp of Maricopa County Superior Court wrote in the ruling.While the Justice Department did not name the Arizona audit in its guidance documents, it said that it was concerned that some jurisdictions conducting audits could imperil the existence of election records.“This risk is exacerbated if the election records are given to private actors who have neither experience nor expertise in handling such records and who are unfamiliar with the obligations imposed by federal law,” the department said in one document.A Justice Department official speaking to reporters declined to say whether any audits had been found to have violated the Civil Rights Act. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity and did not provide a justification for doing so.The department’s guidance also sought to dispel the false notion that the election was marked by rampant fraud, noting that state and federal officials have called it “the most secure in American history.”The guidance mirrored a statement by Mr. Garland last month that states have justified their postelection audits with voter fraud assertions “that have been refuted by the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of both this administration and the previous one, as well as by every court — federal and state — that has considered them.”Mr. Trump and his supporters have falsely claimed that the election was fraudulently stolen from him, ignoring assertions by his own appointed officials that there was no widespread voter fraud.Nevertheless, Arizona, Georgia and other states have used the specter of election fraud to pass legislation that restricts access to the polls and hire private auditing companies to perform recounts that have helped sow doubts about the veracity of the election results.Mr. Garland said in May that the Justice Department would double the enforcement staff that handles voting issues in part to scrutinize these new laws and audits. At the time, the staff numbered around a dozen people, according to people familiar with it.The department official confirmed on Wednesday that the staff size had doubled, but would not specify its total. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Gut-Wrenching’ Jan. 6 Testimony by Capitol Officers

      by

      “Finding the truth and holding leaders responsible for what happened on Jan. 6 should not be a partisan issue,” one reader writes.To the Editor:Re “Beaten, Tased and Crushed by Rioters at Capitol” (front page, July 28):For those who do not believe that there was a violent insurrection on Jan. 6 and that former President Donald Trump instigated it, please listen to and watch Tuesday’s testimony of the heroic officers attacked at the Capitol. Your ears and eyes provide the best evidence that this was an assault on our democracy.Finding the truth and holding leaders responsible for what happened on Jan. 6 should not be a partisan issue. Hats off to the two Republican committee members, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, for reminding us about that.As someone who has followed government investigations for nearly 60 years, I have never seen a more gripping and gut-wrenching congressional hearing — one that should be watched and rewatched by all Americans. When asked what the congressional committee should do, several of the officers said political leaders who played any role in causing the insurrection should be investigated and held accountable.Let us honor the request of these brave officers. Doing anything less is to disrespect the heroic service of these public servants and poses a threat to our fragile democracy.Richard CherwitzAustin, TexasTo the Editor:What the officers’ testimonies revealed was that many participants in the assault on the Capitol actually called and felt themselves to be “patriots.” They moved en masse as true believers trying to right an imagined wrong perpetrated on their country, the illegitimate steal of votes from the rightful leader.While we cannot condone the lawlessness of their action and must bring all the perpetrators to justice, we must also study, understand and address the sociological and psychological realities — the fears, disenfranchisement, loneliness and isolation — that motivated the assailants and fueled the horrendous event, if we are to prevent similar attacks from recurring.Carmine GiordanoLake Worth, Fla.The writer is a psychoanalyst.To the Editor:Let me remind everyone that Donald Trump called the folks at the Capitol “peaceful people” and “great people.” These folks, who participated in a riot intended to overturn the presidential election, were actually, if our former president can be believed, a “loving crowd.”On Jan. 6, that “loving crowd” injured about 140 police officers. That riotous lovefest cost four of the rioters their lives. Just imagine how badly things might have gone — for me, for you, for our country, for our democracy — if the mob had been less loving.John R. ScannellSammamish, Wash.To the Editor:As someone who wishes the Democrats well, I believe that this select committee will always be open to criticism that it is partisan. Had Kevin McCarthy’s choices been accepted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the result would have been a more balanced Republican delegation, with both anti-Trump and pro-Trump members. Having Jim Banks and Jim Jordan on the committee would have also forced them to confront the facts as they unfold.Ms. Pelosi’s arrogant rejection of the delegation now ensures that no matter what emerges from the investigation, the committee will be judged as deeply partisan. That will be good neither for the Democrats nor the country.David ParentWallingford, Conn.To the Editor:Re “Jan. 6 Questions I Want Answered,” by Adam Kinzinger (Opinion guest essay, July 28):That Representatives Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney are the only Republicans who have the courage to seek the truth about what happened on that terrible day says so much to me about the blind loyalty the rest of their party has to the former president.Every day, I wonder exactly why this party has made the gamble to support white supremacists, to engage in wild theories about the 2020 election and to obey the instructions of the person who lost the election. What does he hold over these people that they cannot stand up to him?In the end, the more hopeful side of me believes their actions will fail and the serious nature of Mr. Kinzinger’s and Ms. Cheney’s line of inquiry will succeed. It may take a while, but truth will win out over subversion of our government.Jane CarlinNantucket, Mass. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What if January 6 Wasn’t a Coup Attempt, General Milley?

      by

      This month, the first crop of books about the end of Donald Trump’s administration has prompted speculation: Was the president plotting to remain in power through some kind of coup?The question has arisen because the Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker report in their book “I Alone Can Fix It” that Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saw the president’s postelection maneuverings in that light.General Milley had no direct evidence of a coup plot. But in the days after Mr. Trump’s electoral defeat, as the president filled top military and intelligence posts with people the general considered loyal mediocrities, General Milley got nervous. “They may try,” but they would not succeed with any kind of plot, he told his aides, according to the book. “You can’t do this without the military,” he went on. “You can’t do this without the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. We’re the guys with the guns.”While some might greet such comments with relief, General Milley’s musings should give us pause. Americans have not usually looked to the military for help in regulating their civilian politics. And there is something grandiose about General Milley’s conception of his place in government. He told aides that a “retired military buddy” had called him on election night to say, “You represent the stability of this republic.” If there was not a coup underway, then General Milley’s comments may be cause more for worry than for relief.Were we really that close to a coup? The most dramatic and disruptive episode of Mr. Trump’s resistance to the election was Jan. 6, and that day’s events are ambiguous.On the one hand, it is hard to think of a more serious assault on democracy than a violent entry into a nation’s capitol to reverse the election of its chief executive. Five people died. Chanting protesters urged the hanging of Vice President Mike Pence, who had refused Mr. Trump’s call that he reject certain electoral votes cast for Joe Biden.On the other hand, Jan. 6 was something familiar: a political protest that got out of control. Contesting the fairness of an election, rightly or wrongly, is not absurd grounds for a public assembly. For a newly defeated president to call an election a “steal” is certainly irresponsible. But for a group of citizens to use the term was merely hyperbolic, perhaps no more so than calling suboptimal employment and health laws a “war on women.” Nor did the eventual violence necessarily discredit the demonstrators’ cause, any more than the July 2016 killing of five police officers at a rally in Dallas against police violence, for instance, invalidated the concerns of those marchers.The stability of the republic never truly seemed at risk. As Michael Wolff writes of Mr. Trump in his new book, “Landslide: The Final Days of the Trump Presidency,” “Beyond his immediate desires and pronouncements, there was no ability — or structure, or chain of command, or procedures, or expertise, or actual person to call — to make anything happen.” Mr. Trump ended his presidency as unfamiliar with its powers as with its responsibilities. That is, in a way, reassuring.The problem is that Mr. Trump’s unfocused theory of a stolen election had a distilling effect, concentrating radical tendencies — first in his staff members and later in his followers nationwide. Rational voices exited his inner circle. After Attorney General William Barr told reporters that he knew of no evidence of widespread voter fraud, he was out. Rudolph Giuliani was in, along with a shifting cast of less stable freelancers, including the lawyer Sidney Powell, with her theories of vote-switching ballot machines and Venezuelan stratagems. Now the president was not only thinking poorly; he was also doing so with poorer information. That was the first distillation.The effect of the president’s theory on disappointed voters was more complicated. Republicans had — and still have — legitimate grievances about how the last election was run. Pandemic conditions produced an electoral system more favorable to Democrats. Without the Covid-era advantage of expanded mail-in voting, Democrats might well have lost more elections at every level, including the presidential. Mr. Wolff writes that, as Republicans saw it, Democrats “were saved by this lucky emphasis; that was all they were saved by.”Nor was it just luck; it was an advantage that, in certain places, Democrats manipulated the system to obtain. The majority-Democratic Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of a Democratic Party lawsuit to extend the date for accepting mail-in ballots beyond Election Day.Whether the country ought now to return to pre-Covid voting rules is a legitimate matter for debate. But Mr. Trump’s conspiracy thinking produced another “distillation,” this time among supporters of the perfectly rational proposition that election laws had been improperly altered to favor Democrats. (To say that the proposition is rational is not to say that it is incontestably correct.) Those who held this idea in a temperate way appear to have steadily disaffiliated from Mr. Trump. By Jan. 6, the grounds for skepticism about the election were unchanged. But they were being advanced by an infuriated and highly unrepresentative hard core.The result was not a coup. It was, instead, mayhem on behalf of what had started as a legitimate political position. Such mixtures of the defensible and indefensible occur in democracies more often than we care to admit. The question is whom we trust to untangle such ambiguities when they arise.For all Mr. Trump’s admiration of military officers, they wound up especially disinclined to accommodate his disorderly governing style. General Milley was not alone. One thinks back to such retired generals as the national security adviser H.R. McMaster and the defense secretary James Mattis, both of whom broke with Mr. Trump earlier in his term.We might be grateful for that. But our gratitude should not extend to giving military leaders any kind of role in judging civilian ones.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

      How Republicans Still Rely on the Trump Brand to Fund-Raise

      by

      Trump pint glasses. Trump T-shirts. Trump memberships. Six months after the former president left office, his party’s fund-raising success depends heavily on his vaunted name.Even in defeat, nothing sells in the Republican Party quite like Donald J. Trump.The Republican National Committee has been dangling a “Trump Life Membership” to entice small contributors to give online. The party’s Senate campaign arm has been hawking an “Official Trump Majority Membership.” And the committee devoted to winning back the House has been touting Mr. Trump’s nearly every public utterance, talking up a nonexistent Trump social media network and urging donations to “retake Trump’s Majority.”Six months after Mr. Trump left office, the key to online fund-raising success for the Republican Party in 2021 can largely be summed up in the three words it used to identify the sender of a recent email solicitation: “Trump! Trump! Trump!”The fund-raising language of party committees is among the most finely tuned messaging in politics, with every word designed to motivate more people to give more money online. And all that testing has yielded Trump-themed gimmicks and giveaways including Trump pint glasses, Trump-signed pictures, Trump event tickets and Trump T-shirts — just from the National Republican Senatorial Committee in the month of July.“The Republican Party has never had small-dollar fund-raising at this scale before Donald Trump,” said Brad Parscale, who was Mr. Trump’s first campaign manager in 2020 and is still an adviser, “and they probably never will at this scale after Donald Trump.”The strategy is clearly paying financial dividends, as three main G.O.P. federal committees raised a combined $134.8 million from direct individual contributions in the first six months of 2021, nearly matching the $136.2 million raised by the equivalent Democratic committees, federal records show.But the endless invocations of the former president underscore not only his enduring appeal to online Republican activists and donors — the base of the party’s base and its financial engine — but also the unlikelihood that the G.O.P. apparatus wants to, or even can, meaningfully break from him for the foreseeable future.The stark reliance on Mr. Trump’s name to spur small donations amounts to a tangible expression of the party’s inescapable dependency on him — one that risks preventing a reckoning over the losses the G.O.P. suffered in the last four years, including Mr. Trump’s own, which he has denied by clinging to false theories of election fraud.In July, the Trump-themed gimmicks and giveaways included pint glasses, signed pictures, event tickets and T-shirts.National Republican Senatorial CommitteeRepublican strategists said the party’s messaging and the influx of money reflect Mr. Trump’s continued hold on the hearts and wallets of the grass-roots, despite the party losing the House, the Senate and the White House in his single term.“The governing class of the Republican Party would just as well see him move on,” said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist and former top political adviser for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “It’s been ‘enough is enough.’ But he still keeps a firm grip on the grass-roots.”With Democrats in full control of Washington, some Republicans are hoping their party can rally chiefly against President Biden and the Democrats in the 2022 midterms. Yet Mr. Biden’s name has been as absent from the G.O.P. pleas for cash as Mr. Trump has been pervasive, a warning sign that Republicans are struggling to stir the kind of impassioned opposition to him that they had once generated to former President Barack Obama, and that Democrats had uniting their party against Mr. Trump four years ago.Since May 1, the Republicans’ Senate campaign arm has invoked Mr. Biden’s name in the sender line on its emails just four times; Mr. Trump’s name has appeared there 185 times.The Republican National Committee treated Mr. Trump’s June 14 birthday almost like a national holiday, sending out no less than 19 emails about it, starting more than five weeks in advance. The House campaign arm joined in, too: “Why haven’t you signed Trump’s Bday Card?!” read one text message. “We’ve texted 6x & it’s only 5 days away!”The heavy use of Mr. Trump’s name has at times been a source of friction with the former president, who has begun ramping up fund-raising for his own political action committee, called Save America. As a businessman, Mr. Trump spent years leveraging and licensing his name for cash, slapping it on buildings and products, and he and some of his advisers have been irked by the exploitation of his image by party committees that do not always align with his political interests.In March, his lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter to the three main Republican committees demanding they stop using his name and likeness. But back-channel discussions defused the situation as party officials insisted they had every right to refer to him but promised not to use his signature without permission. Still, some party committees continue to push the limits by wording messages to appear as though they are coming from Mr. Trump.Current and past party operatives said Mr. Trump’s name simply raises the most money. Every click and contribution is carefully cataloged, and committees can compare how much is raised using different messages and messengers. Those with Mr. Trump’s name simply outperform, operatives said.“President Trump and his policies remain a major driver for small-dollar donors,” said Michael McAdams, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee.During one stretch in June, roughly 90 percent of that committee’s fund-raising texts mentioned Mr. Trump. Some solicitations have appealed to supporters’ love of Mr. Trump; others have tapped into their fear of disappointing him.At one point this spring, the committee warned donors against opting out of recurring monthly contributions through a prechecked box: “If you UNCHECK this box, we will have to tell Trump you’re a DEFECTOR.”Fund-raising text messages from the National Republican Congressional CommitteeIn a late 2020 memo, WinRed, the party’s main online donation-processing platform, said that donation pages that mentioned the word “Trump” reaped, on average, twice as many donors as pages that did not. WinRed still gives Mr. Trump top billing on its home page, featuring him above the actual party committees. Mr. Trump also continues to be featured prominently in many Democratic fund-raising pitches.While former presidents do typically maintain a following among the grass-roots — Mr. Obama is still featured on the donation pages of some Democratic Party groups — Mr. Trump is uniquely omnipresent in the Republican digital ecosystem.Tim Cameron, a Republican digital strategist, said one reason is that much of the Republican online donating infrastructure sprang up during the Trump era — after years of neglect and being outraised by the Democrats. “It’s how these lists were built,” he said.Hogan Gidley, who worked as an adviser to Mr. Trump at the White House, said the party — which still is populated by vestiges of a Trump-skeptical establishment that sees his incendiary approach to politics as a poor fit for swing districts and states — risks backlash and anger if it uses the Trump brand to bankroll causes and candidates not aligned with the pro-Trump movement.“This is where the party is,” Mr. Gidley said. “You can ride that wave or you can try to swim against it but the wave is going to win.”Mr. Trump and the party are sometimes directly at odds.The party’s Senate campaign arm, for instance, is supporting the re-election of Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who voted to convict Mr. Trump of impeachable offenses. Mr. Trump is supporting her challenger, Kelly Tshibaka. Mr. Trump has also regularly attacked Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, including in a speech to party donors this spring, calling him a “stone cold loser.”Mr. McConnell has ignored the slights. The online store of the party committee charged with returning Mr. McConnell to the majority currently has 21 of 23 items for sale featuring Mr. Trump’s name or face; zero feature Mr. McConnell. Mr. Trump has regularly attacked Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesThe party’s Senate committee has also hired Gary Coby, the architect of Mr. Trump’s 2020 digital operation who continues to work with Mr. Trump, as a fund-raising consultant, according to people familiar with the matter.Mr. Trump has begun ramping up his fund-raising operation, sending regular texts and emails that effectively compete with the party apparatus. Mr. Trump’s PAC is back advertising on Facebook, too, even as the platform has banned Mr. Trump from posting there himself.Of the all party organizations, the Republican National Committee has perhaps the trickiest line to toe because it is charged with neutrally overseeing the 2024 presidential nomination process, whether or not Mr. Trump runs.The R.N.C. worked in tandem with the Trump re-election campaign last year, raising hundreds of millions of dollars through shared accounts. A New York Times investigation in April showed how the Trump operation had used prechecked recurring donation boxes to lure unwitting donors into giving again and again — resulting in a wave of fraud complaints and demands for refunds.It turns out that some donations-on-autopilot continued all the way through June 2021, when party officials stopped processing donations to their shared account, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee. That account raised $2.6 million in June almost entirely through recurring donations, according to a person familiar with the matter, of which 75 percent was earmarked for Mr. Trump’s PAC and 25 percent to the R.N.C.But though those donations were stopped, the Trump messaging has continued, with the party hawking “Back to Back Trump Voter” shirts in recent days — yours “FREE” with a $50 donation.“He’s so good for small-dollar fund-raising,” said Liz Mair, a Republican strategist who has been critical of Mr. Trump in the past. “The party cannot financially afford to separate.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Ross Douthat Has Been ‘Radicalized a Little Bit, Too’

      by

      Am I too panicked about the future of American democracy?My colleague Ross Douthat thinks so. He points to research suggesting that voter ID laws and absentee voting have modest effects on elections and the reality that Republican state officials already have tremendous power to alter election outcomes — powers they did not use in the aftermath of 2020 and show few signs of preparing to use now.[You can listen to this episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]So I invited Ross on the show to hash it out: Am I too alarmed, or is he too chill? We also talk about his trio of recent columns trying to find a middle ground in the fight over how America understands, and teaches, its own history, as well as how his medical struggles with treatment-resistant Lyme disease have shaped how he’s understood and covered the coronavirus.You can listen to our whole conversation by following “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.(A full transcript of the episode is available here.)The New York Times“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris; original music by Isaac Jones; mixing by Jeff Geld; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Rep. Adam Kinzinger: Why I Joined the January 6th Committee

      by

      On Jan. 6, hundreds of our fellow citizens stormed the U.S. Capitol, armed and ready for battle. For hours, broadcast live on television and streamed on social media, rioters attacked law enforcement and eventually breached the halls of Congress in an effort to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election.Their goal was to subvert America’s democratic process — and their means to this end was brute force and violent assaults on the men and women of the Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department.How did this happen? Why? Who spurred this effort? Was it organized? When did our government leaders know of the impending attacks and what were their responses? What level of preparation or warnings did our law enforcement have? Was there coordination between the rioters and any members of Congress, or with staff?We need answers and we need accountability, and the only way to get that is a full investigation and understanding of what happened to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. Such an investigation should include a serious look at the misinformation campaigns and their origins, the lies being perpetuated by leaders — including by former President Donald Trump — and what impact such false narratives had on the events leading up to and following Jan. 6. We need to be fearless about understanding the motivations of our fellow Americans, even if it makes us uncomfortable about the truth of who they are and the truth of who played what role in inspiring them.I’ve never been pessimistic about the future of this country, but if we fail to do this — and do this right — I will have serious doubts about what the future looks like for America and for our democracy. Self-governance requires accountability and responsibility, and it’s why I accepted Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s appointment to serve on the House select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, which is holding its first hearing on Tuesday.I’m a Republican dedicated to conservative values, but I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution — and while this is not the position I expected to be in or sought out, when duty calls, I will always answer.This moment is bigger than me — it’s bigger than all of us because the future of our country is on the line. This is not about politics: For my part, my wife Sofia and I are expecting a baby boy early next year, and I have to make sure the future is a better one for him — that the America he’ll be born into is better than what we are facing right now. That facts will be the facts, and truth will prevail over the lies and conspiracies.The oath many of us take to uphold our Constitution and defend democracy means something. I’ve taken this oath in my capacity as a member of Congress and in my service in the U.S. Air Force, and Air National Guard. And I’m committed to upholding my oath by serving on this committee to ensure we have accountability and transparency about the Jan. 6 insurrection.In that spirit, I believe that all of us who have taken oaths to defend our Constitution must play a role in this inquiry if called upon. This includes members of Congress, military leaders, White House officials and key players in our intelligence field, among others.Without question, the work of this committee needs to be a nonpartisan effort. It cannot continue to be a partisan fight, where we’re taking every opportunity to discredit each other for perceived political points or fund-raising efforts. The childish mudslinging is not helpful and damages the already fragile integrity of our institutions. I urge all of my colleagues — as well as the American people — to unplug the rage machine and see this situation through clear eyes: America was attacked, and we deserve to know why and how it happened.We need to restore some trust in this country, and that requires a full investigation of what happened and how the insurrection was able to take place. That’s the goal. We need the facts — and we need to lay them out for the country to see for themselves and face them head on. In order to heal from the damage caused that day, we must acknowledge and understand what happened, hold the responsible people accountable, learn from our past mistakes and move on — stronger and secured in knowing that we as a nation will never let this happen again.Adam Kinzinger is a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Illinois and a member of the House select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.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

      Democrats Try to Win Back Latino Voters After 2020 Election

      by

      Did Democrats take the Hispanic vote for granted in 2020? Some in the party think they did, and can’t afford the same mistakes going forward.Alejandra Gomez was surprised, but pleased, by a flurry of phone calls from the White House in the spring, offering updates on its efforts toward an immigration overhaul. Officials also asked what her Arizona-based advocacy group thought of its work on voting rights and how the pandemic relief package was affecting the state.“It’s absolutely different than what we’ve seen before,” Ms. Gomez said, comparing the efforts to those of previous Democratic administrations, which typically waited to reach out only during re-election campaigns.She wasn’t alone. Leaders of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials were taken aback when both the president and vice president committed to speaking at their conference in June, the first time in the event’s decades-long history that the top two White House officials had agreed to speak in a non-election year.And in Wisconsin, Voces de la Frontera, a group that represents low-wage immigrant workers, was thrilled when the White House reached out to arrange a conversation between their members and Marty Walsh, the secretary of labor, during a swing he made through Milwaukee.“We had an opportunity for all our members to come listen to him and for him to listen to us,” said Christine Neumann-Ortiz, the executive director of the organization. “That’s a good cue that they haven’t forgotten us after the elections.”For years, Latino activists and organizers complained that Democratic efforts to woo their community often seemed like an afterthought, a motley collection of Spanish-language advertisements, haphazardly translated campaign literature and a handful of outreach staff members tacked on to campaigns.But after last year’s election, when Republicans peeled away significant amounts of Latino support across the country, Democratic leaders are trying a more aggressive approach.Led by a White House that recruited top Latino organizers to high-level staff positions, and with the first lady, Jill Biden, taking a particular interest in reaching out to Latino voters, the new effort bridges the party, encompassing policy, communications and political organizing. The outreach encompasses a broad number of community leaders and social media stars, such as Eugenio Derbez, a Mexican comedian, and meetings with Hispanic faith leaders.The efforts reflect how vital Latino voters are to the party’s success, but also the extent of the work needed to win back a group that makes up nearly 20 percent of the population. Democrats have long viewed these voters — a diverse group that includes dozens of countries of origin and a wide range of socioeconomic status — as a mostly monolithic bloc that could be taken for granted, operating as though the most important factor was simply turnout; if Latino voters cast ballots, the reasoning went, they will vote Democratic.But 2020, with a record 18.7 millions ballots cast by Latino voters, proved just how wrong that theory was. Though roughly 60 percent chose President Biden, the movement toward Donald J. Trump plunged Democrats into a period of soul-searching.While there has not been a conclusive detailed analysis, exit polling and focus groups from both parties show that Mr. Trump won over Hispanic voters without a college degree who were critical of shutdown orders amid the pandemic and believed the former president would be a better steward of the economy. Republicans also did well with Cubans, Venezuelans and Colombians in South Florida who viewed Democrats as sympathetic to socialism, as well as Mexican Americans in South Texas and other regions who backed his border policies. Evangelicals made up a sizable portion of Latino Trump supporters based on their opposition to abortion.The Democratic Party is now trying to use data to better understand Latino voters, and to try to develop a more granular understanding of how different national backgrounds, economic status and other factors change voting behavior.As a candidate and president-elect, Mr. Biden has had uneven success with Hispanic outreach. In early 2020 primaries, he trailed his rival Bernie Sanders among Latino voters. Top Latino officials were frustrated during his campaign last year by the absence of Hispanic officials in his inner circle.Some activists are quietly criticizing the new efforts as lackluster, and point out that while outreach has increased, there has not been a major policy victory on a critical issue like an immigration overhaul. But they acknowledge that there is a growing recognition that winning over Latino voters will take more than stops at taco shops and inserting mangled Spanish slogans into stump speeches.“In terms of their engagement, they are doing a much better job at this point than during the first Obama administration,” said Arturo Vargas, the chief executive officer of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, who recently briefed White House staff members on the organization’s policy priorities. “We didn’t get this kind of outreach under Obama.”“I would hope the lesson has been learned that you cannot take the Latino vote for granted,” Mr. Vargas added. “We’ve been saying that for decades, and I think that has now fallen on ears that are open.”Democrats’ efforts are also geared toward persuading voters to see benefits of the party’s policies, particularly in key places like South Florida and the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where more defections could cost them congressional seats.Arturo Vargas, chief executive officer of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, said the Biden administration’s outreach so far was an improvement over President Barack Obama’s first term. Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesSince Mr. Biden entered office, the White House has held dozens of meetings, many of them virtually, with leaders across the country. It is also finding ways to reach out directly to Latino voters and not rely solely on advocacy groups.The administration has blanketed Spanish-language television and reached out to Spanish and English language publications read by Latino voters — even in often overlooked pockets in Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Minnesota. A senior administration official appears on “Al Punto,” the Sunday morning show hosted by Jorge Ramos, twice a month.Encouraged by her Latino chief of staff to step up her involvement, Dr. Biden made her first morning television appearance on Hoy Día, a Telemundo news show, and a series of stops in Latino neighborhoods from Salt Lake City to Osceola, Fla.There are biweekly calls with Latino organizations on vaccination efforts and economic policies, as well as one-on-one meetings and briefings on more specific issues. Officials responsible for hiring held months of weekly calls with outside organizations to help develop a pipeline of Latino candidates for administration posts. The effort has been successful: A number of Latino organizers and strategists now hold high-level posts in the White House and the cabinet.White House aides say that many of the top policy priorities will benefit Latino voters significantly; the child tax credit, for instance, could have an outsize impact on a Latino population that is disproportionately young. In private polling of Latino voters shared with The New York Times, Building Back Together, a group run by Biden allies, found that economic concerns and public health were the top-ranking issues, with immigration ranking third.Top aides said they were particularly pleased that their efforts on vaccination had appeared to pay off, as the gap between Latino and white Americans receiving vaccinations has narrowed. Latinos have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic, in part because they make up a disproportional number of essential workers, and have seen life expectancy decrease significantly.“It’s definitely by design,” said Emmy Ruiz, the White House director of political strategy, “In everything that we do, there’s a Latino frame to it.”It’s an approach that differs from the past. During the Obama administration, much of the outreach came after the midterms and was focused largely on health care legislation and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which allowed young undocumented immigrants to legally live and work in the United States.Still, the effort falls short of what many Latino leaders hope to see, particularly in the wake of last year’s election, when the Hispanic vote caught many Democratic officials by surprise.“This moment requires a full-court press,” said Carlos Odio, a co-founder of Equis Labs, a research group that has spent the last several months examining the shifts among Latino voters during the last election cycle. “My concern is that there is a belief that last year was an anomaly, and that it is just going to go back to normal. That’s especially troubling if Republicans go back to campaigning for those votes.”Some of the push is pre-emptive, designed to ensure that Latino voters recognize that Democrats are at least trying to pass an immigration overhaul.There is widespread support for legislation to grant Dreamers a path to citizenship, including among Latino Republicans. Even among Latino voters who do not view immigration as their top issue, the majority say they would not vote for a candidate who opposes such legislation, according to polling from Building Back Together.Supporters of President Donald J. Trump cheered in the Little Havana neighborhood of Miami in November. Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesAmong Latino Democrats, there is a widespread belief that the country is improving, including for Latinos themselves. But Hispanic Republicans say the situation in the United States has worsened in the last year, according to recent polling from the Pew Research Center.“Democrats are at code red — they see it, they get it and they are scrambling to get all hands on deck,” said Daniel Garza, the executive director of Libre, a conservative Latino group. Still grappling with the 2020 results, Democratic strategists have blamed several factors for the losses: concern about crime, fears of socialism stoked by the Trump campaign, and even the “machismo” of Latino men.To try to avoid another drop in support during the midterms, Democratic campaign committees are already investing millions to install organizers in heavily Latino districts in Florida, Texas, Arizona and Georgia.“When you have a group that is so new, so big and is growing at such high rates, it requires constant conversation,” said Matt Barreto, a Democratic pollster who has focused on Latino voters for decades and is involved in the Building Back Together efforts. “We want to have years of conversation so that when a campaign comes, we’re not trying to scream at people.” More