More stories

  • in

    Fox News Intensifies Its Pro-Trump Politics as Dissenters Depart

    Donna Brazile, a Democratic analyst, has left the Murdoch-owned network as some hosts and journalists who questioned Donald Trump have exited or been sidelined.Fox News once devoted its 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. time slots to relatively straightforward newscasts. Now those hours are filled by opinion shows led by hosts who denounce Democrats and defend the worldview of former President Donald J. Trump. More

  • in

    'Special Master' to Decide if FBI Can Use Giuliani's Data

    A federal judge in Manhattan on Friday ordered the appointment of a so-called special master to review whether materials seized from Rudolph W. Giuliani’s apartment and office during an F.B.I. search in April are protected by attorney-client privilege.The searches were part of a criminal investigation into whether Mr. Giuliani broke lobbying laws in his dealings in Ukraine before the 2020 presidential election. Mr. Giuliani was President Donald J. Trump’s personal lawyer at the time.Mr. Giuliani was seeking to uncover damaging information on President Biden, then a leading presidential candidate. The authorities are examining whether Mr. Giuliani was also lobbying the Trump administration on behalf of Ukrainian officials who were assisting him in his dirt-digging mission, The New York Times has reported.Mr. Giuliani has not been accused of any wrongdoing. He has said he never lobbied on behalf of the Ukrainians.The judge, J. Paul Oetken of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said the appointment of the special master — usually a retired judge or magistrate — was “warranted here to ensure the perception of fairness.”The special master would conduct a review to determine whether any of the material seized from Mr. Giuliani’s cellphones and computers was potentially covered by attorney-client privilege and should be made off-limits to prosecutors.In response to the ruling, one of Mr. Giuliani’s lawyers, Robert J. Costello, said, “We knew that a special master was inevitable, which is why we did not oppose it, so this ruling comes as no surprise to us.”The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, which had sought the appointment of the special master, declined to comment.Judge Oetken also denied Mr. Giuliani’s request for copies of the confidential government documents detailing the basis for the warrants issued in support of the searches in April, and an earlier search of Mr. Giuliani’s iCloud account. Typically, such records are only made available to defendants after they are indicted and before a trial.Mr. Giuliani was “not entitled to a preview of the government’s evidence in an ongoing investigation before he has been charged with a crime,” the judge said.Judge Oetken asked that the parties submit to the court proposed candidates for special master by next Friday.Ben Protess More

  • in

    Prosecutors Investigating Whether Ukrainians Meddled in 2020 Election

    The Brooklyn federal inquiry has examined whether former and current Ukrainian officials tried to interfere in the election, including funneling misleading information through Rudolph W. Giuliani.Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have been investigating whether several Ukrainian officials helped orchestrate a wide-ranging plan to meddle in the 2020 presidential campaign, including using Rudolph W. Giuliani to spread their misleading claims about President Biden and tilt the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor, according to people with knowledge of the matter. More

  • in

    The State of California’s ‘State of Jefferson’

    Wednesday: In California’s rural far northern counties, furor for the recall has taken hold alongside the region’s fascination with secession.Mark Baird displayed a “State of Jefferson” flag at his ranch in Siskiyou County. Flags promoting secession can be seen around far Northern California.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesGood morning.Roughly 1.7 million of California’s 22.1 million registered voters signed the petition to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom. Many of those who signed it technically live in California but symbolically live in another state entirely.California’s rural far north, sometimes styling itself as the “State of Jefferson,” has long viewed itself as a land apart. Its dozen or so counties, mostly north and east of Sacramento, voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020.In Shasta, Lassen, Modoc, Siskiyou and other State of Jefferson-friendly counties, more than one in six voters signed the petition to recall Newsom, according to the Secretary of State’s data. And, as The Sacramento Bee and The Los Angeles Times have reported, members of a Shasta County militia have for months been threatening violence over the governor’s pandemic health restrictions. (Those rules, Newsom has said, will end on June 15.)Last week, in a nonbinding but revealing election, five counties in eastern Oregon endorsed a plan to secede from the liberal-leaning parts of their state and take a chunk of the State of Jefferson with them. The master plan: to become part of Idaho and then add all or parts of Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, Del Norte, Modoc and Lassen Counties on the California side of Oregon’s southern border.“Those of us in rural Oregon are written off,” Mike McCarter, the 74-year-old retiree leading the secession drive, told our colleague Kirk Johnson.McCarter, who bought a gun club in retirement and now helps people get their concealed-carry permits, said eastern Oregon and California’s northern border counties had more in common with conservative Idaho than with the more liberal majorities of their states. “We just want to come alongside them and bolster the conservative support,” he said.Last week’s vote brought to seven the number of Oregon’s 36 counties that would, if they could, join the grass-roots movement to “Move Oregon’s Border For a Greater Idaho.” The group’s website describes the California annexation as a kind of Phase Two.Mount Shasta, a 14,162-foot dormant volcano, towers over Weed, Calif.Max Whittaker for The New York TimesCould it happen?Unlikely, although Northern California has periodically threatened to secede since the state was founded in 1850. Mountainous and woodsy (as opposed to beachy, aggie, foggy, desert-y or glitzy), the region makes up more than a fifth of the state’s land mass but only 3 percent of its population. It is also generally whiter, older and poorer than the rest of the state.This is the California that the rest of the country doesn’t talk about — a California where hunting and fishing, not surfing, are the signature pastimes and the jobs are more likely to be in timber than in tech. The region has felt chronically neglected and dismissed by California’s lawmakers and coastal population centers.In fact, the modern State of Jefferson concept arose in 1941 from an effort to get more state funding. One of Oregon’s rural mayors talked the California border counties into declaring that they would all form a separate state unless Salem and Sacramento stopped taking their tax money and leaving their roads in disrepair.A tongue-in-cheek naming contest was held by a newspaper in Siskiyou County, and “Jefferson” got the most votes (after the founding father), beating out “Discontent” and “Bonanza.” A group of young men, toting rifles, proclaimed a “patriotic rebellion” in which they would “secede every Thursday until further notice.”The movement was cut short when the attack on Pearl Harbor prompted the rebels to rethink their allegiance. But the State of Jefferson still has its own flag — a gold pan with two X’s that stand apart, conveying the region’s sense of having been “double-crossed” by far-flung state capitals.The Jefferson state of mind has lived on, particularly lately.Oregon’s Legislature, which is dominated by Democrats, would have to go along with the proposed defection to Idaho, as would Idaho’s Republican-dominated Legislature — not to mention California’s Legislature and the U.S. Congress. But as polarization persists in and beyond California, it’s not completely unthinkable.Here’s what else to know todayThe Block Island wind farm, the first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States, off the coast of Rhode Island in 2016.Kayana Szymczak for The New York TimesCompiled by Jonathan WolfeThe federal government said it cleared a key hurdle to open the central California coast to offshore wind farms, part of President Biden’s aggressive plan to expand renewable energy and shift the nation away from fossil fuels.The state has already had 900 more wildfires than at this point in 2020, which was a record-breaking year for fires, The Associated Press reports.State lawmakers are considering cutting the share of out-of-state students at University of California campuses to make room for more local residents, The Los Angeles Times reports.President Biden is coming under increasing pressure to abandon a Trump-era immigration rule known as Title 42, which allows border agents to turn away migrants without giving them a chance to apply for protections.OptumServe, a company that was paid $221 million to operate dozens of vaccination sites around the state, has helped administer only about 1 percent of shots given in California, CalMatters reports.The president of California’s largest state employee union was ousted after 13 years in the role, The Associated Press reports.The Los Angeles Times reports that Joe Hedges, the chief operating officer of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, has left his job after an investigation by the agency.An audit found that Caltrans overpaid thousands of workers $1.5 million, and failed to recoup the money, The Sacramento Bee reports.A subway train at Union Station in Los Angeles in January.Philip Cheung for The New York TimesLos Angeles transit officials have pushed subway and rail projects forward during the pandemic, but The Los Angeles Times asks, “Will the riders return?”The central California town of Corcoran is sinking, a situation caused primarily not by nature, but agriculture.A proposed affordable housing project next to a luxury housing complex in Livermore, in the Bay Area, is dividing residents who are accusing one another of racism and elitism, The San Francisco Chronicle reports.A student-led resolution calling on the University of California, Santa Barbara, to divest from companies that supply Israel with military equipment has heightened tensions on the campus, where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been a source of discord, Reuters reports.Paleontologists are excavating a recently discovered trove of fossils from the Miocene era — including mastodons, camels and fossilized trees — in the Sierra Nevada foothills, Gizmodo reports.In response to a wave of pandemic pet adoptions, veterinary offices are offering upscale care to meet demand.A photographer for Yale Climate Connections captured life in California’s underwater kelp forests, which are under siege from a population of voracious purple sea urchins.Subscriber event: Join the comedian Sarah Silverman and The Times’s Kevin Roose, Sheera Frenkel and Davey Alba as they discuss how disinformation spreads, and how we can fight back. [Today at 4 p.m. Pacific.]California Today goes live at 6:30 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: CAtoday@nytimes.com. Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for California Today here and read every edition online here. More

  • in

    He Fought Trump’s 2020 Lies. He Also Backs New Scrutiny of Ballots.

    Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, told The Times that a new, disinformation-driven attempt to inspect 2020 ballots wouldn’t unearth wrongdoing, and would help restore voter confidence.Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, earned widespread praise for his staunch defense of the election results in his state last year in the face of growing threats and pressure from former President Donald J. Trump.As Mr. Trump spread falsehoods about the election, Mr. Raffensperger vocally debunked them, culminating in a 10-page letter addressed to Congress on Jan. 6, the day of the Capitol riot, in which he refuted, point by point, Mr. Trump’s false claims about election fraud in Georgia.But after a Georgia judge ruled late last week that a group of voters must be allowed to view copies of all 147,000 absentee ballots cast in the state’s largest county, in yet another disinformation-driven campaign, Mr. Raffensperger voiced his support for the effort, saying that inspecting the ballots would provide “another layer of transparency and citizen engagement.”As Mr. Trump’s election falsehoods continue to hold sway over many lawmakers and voters, with efforts to review ballots still underway in states across the country, we spoke with Mr. Raffensperger about why he supported the new review ordered by the judge and how he thinks about public trust, or mistrust, in the electoral process. The interview has been lightly edited and condensed.At the risk of asking you to repeat yourself: Was there any widespread fraud in Georgia in the 2020 election?No, there was no widespread fraud. We had, and we still do have, several hundred investigations that we’ve opened up. Many of those are procedural, but none would be significant enough to overturn the election results.So why support this most recent order to inspect ballots?So from Day 1, I’ve encouraged Georgians who have concerns about the elections in their counties to pursue those claims through legal avenues. Frankly, Fulton County has a longstanding history of election mismanagement that has weakened voter faith in the system.And I’m very grateful that S.B. 202 [the state’s new voting law] strengthens the ability of the secretary of state’s office to hold counties accountable. I think that’s a good thing.But in a letter you wrote to Congress in January, you refuted the false allegations regarding absentee ballots in Fulton County, nearly the very same claims that are a part of this lawsuit that led to the judge’s order. So what has changed?Unfortunately, the No. 1 issue that we’re facing right now in elections nationwide is voter confidence. Now, in Georgia, it goes back to the 2018 governor’s race, when Stacey Abrams did not concede, and then in 2016, days after President Trump won, the other camp talks about Russian collusion. And so we had those aspersions cast on Trump’s victory.But what happens each time is that voter confidence takes a hit. So whenever we can restore, or have a process that will help restore, voter confidence, I think that’s a good thing — if you have an open and transparent process in which everyone can objectively agree that this is due process that they’re doing, that they’re making sure they’re following the law.At the end of the day, they’re going to get the same results we got after November. And then we can hopefully put this to bed.So even though you know that the allegations in this most recent lawsuit aren’t going to come to fruition, going through another public process will help build confidence?It’s really the process of civic engagement. Let the citizens have an open, transparent process in which other sets of eyeballs can verify what’s already been verified.We’ve already done a 100 percent hand recount of every single absentee ballot, every single early-vote ballot and every date-of-election ballot. So all three forms of voting have been counted in Georgia. Every single one of those paper ballots has been hand-counted.So I know the results aren’t going to change, but it just helps increase voter confidence and it helps our entire nation to move off this issue and really get back to a more stable society.Democrats and voting rights groups have said that these repeated recounts and relitigations of the 2020 presidential contest actually undermine confidence in the election. So I’m wondering how you weigh that.Well, at the end of the day, a Superior Court judge makes a ruling, and we follow the law in Georgia. Many Republican voters, and especially former President Donald Trump, have continued to reject the multiple audits and recounts already carried out in Georgia and demand new investigations. What makes you think this Fulton County inspection will satisfy those who claim that there was widespread fraud?Well, let’s follow this rabbit trail, and get the answers, and then we’ll get answers that will be very similar to what we had back when this election was carried out and we did the audit process. And we can put this to rest and we can move forward.Georgia’s new voting law gives more power over elections to state lawmakers. Do you have any worries that this new inspection of ballots could prompt the Legislature to exert even more control over election administration?All Georgians should take great comfort at the end of the day that we have a fair election process. We have 159 counties that are running these elections, we have 159 county election directors who have personal integrity. People need to understand that the people who are running these elections at the precinct level — those are your friends, those are your neighbors, those are your friends at church, those are your friends from Pilates, Rotary. Your kids could be on the same youth league baseball or soccer team.The glue that holds the process together is the individual personal integrity of local Georgians, plus our office, and what I will stand for is fair and honest elections.I wanted to ask you a little bit about your re-election bid next year. You’re running against Representative Jody Hice, a Republican congressman whom Mr. Trump has endorsed. Are you worried about Donald Trump attacking you and actively working to ensure your defeat?No. We’re going to run our campaign on issues. At the end of the day, we believe that integrity counts. And we’ve done an awful lot to improve the election process in Georgia.The first thing we did was pass House Bill 316, which allowed us to procure new voting machines that use verifiable paper ballots. For 18 years, people were talking about needing a system with paper ballots; I accomplished that.Also, we made progress toward joining the Electronic Registration Information Center [a nonpartisan, nonprofit multistate voter roll database]. So as we updated our voter rolls, we could do it objectively. We also outlawed ballot harvesting. So we’ve been working on election integrity for a long time.Congressman Hice, though, he’s been up in D.C. for over six years, and he has never introduced a single piece of electoral reform legislation. He’s never done anything on election integrity, ever. And now he thinks it’s somehow an interesting issue for him to run on? That’s the challenge sometimes with congressmen. Some of them don’t do much when they get up there.One of the things Mr. Hice did do was vote in Congress to overturn the election results. Do you have any concern that someone who had previously taken steps to overturn a free and fair election could one day run elections in Georgia?Well, if you’re honest with yourself, he’s a double-minded person. In Georgia, he accepted the results for his race, but he didn’t accept the results for President Trump’s race. How can you hold two opposing views at one time? So he’s going to have to live with his vote on Jan. 6.Echoing Mr. Trump’s election lies has almost become a litmus test in Republican primaries. How do you run in this environment?I’m going to run on integrity, and I’m going to run on the truth.When was the last time you spoke with Mr. Trump? Was it the call in January in which he urged you to “find” him votes that became public soon afterward?Yes.Have any of his allies contacted you or other Republicans in Georgia in the last few months to urge you to conduct a recount or review along the lines of Arizona’s?Not that I’m aware of.OK. Last question. We spent a lot of time earlier talking about how faith in elections is damaged. How do you think we restore bipartisan, national faith in elections?I think perhaps we need to have a national dialogue, or a bipartisan meeting of the minds. Because S. 1 and H.R. 1 [two versions of congressional Democrats’ major voting rights bill] are a top-down, federal takeover of elections, and of course you’re going to see pushback from the Republicans, and rightly so. And I’ve spoken out against those.We really need to look at what can we accomplish that makes sure that we restore the trust of all voters from both sides of the aisle, make sure that we have honest and fair elections, that results are accurate.Candidates need to understand their job is to turn out voters, and if they don’t turn out enough voters, they will lose the election, and they have to accept the will of the people. More

  • in

    Andrew Yang Believes in New York and Himself. Is That Enough?

    Andrew Yang Believes in New York and Himself. Is That Enough?Mr. Yang has brought political star power and a dose of optimism to the New York City mayor’s race. But his gaps in knowledge about how the city functions have led to the perception among critics that he is out of his depth.Andrew Yang has been endorsed by several notable Asian American leaders, including Representative Grace Meng, left.Sara Naomi Lewkowicz for The New York TimesThe New York City mayoral race is one of the most consequential political contests in a generation, with immense challenges awaiting the winner. This is the fifth in a series of profiles of the major candidates.Dana Rubinstein and May 26, 2021As Andrew Yang approached the corner store in Manhattan, a cameraperson in tow, the setting seemed familiar. It couldn’t be that bodega — the place he visited in the infancy of his mayoral campaign, the place that brought him ridicule because it wasn’t really a bodega in the New York sense, with its bright lights, wide aisles and well-stocked shelves.Oh, but it was. Mr. Yang had returned to the scene of an early campaign crisis, a place that was to be a simple backdrop for a seemingly innocuous tweet in January in support of bodegas. Instead, New Yorkers questioned his knowledge and authenticity — a hint of the criticism that would follow many of his quick takes on matters both substantive and light.Mr. Yang was unfazed, then and now. He entered the 7 Brothers Famous Deli in Hell’s Kitchen, greeted the workers like they were old friends, and repeated his order from his first visit: green tea and a handful of bananas.“Just like the old days,” he said, before affixing a campaign poster to the storefront window.With less than one month to go before a Democratic primary that will almost certainly determine the next mayor of New York City, Mr. Yang’s off-the-cuff, can-do persona has fueled his candidacy in a city just emerging from the pandemic.Mr. Yang said it had been an adjustment to be viewed as a leading candidate in the mayoral race, suggesting that he was more comfortable in the role of “scrappy underdog.”Sara Naomi Lewkowicz for The New York TimesHis failed bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination brought national focus to universal basic income, and gave him instant name recognition, good will and political star power in the New York City contest.But Mr. Yang’s apparent eagerness to please, his willingness to make unorthodox, sometimes spontaneous policy pronouncements, his lack of experience with New York City politics and gaps in knowledge about how the city works have all contributed to the perception among critics that he is out of his depth — underscoring his potential weakness as a mayoral candidate.For Mr. Yang, his front-runner status in the New York City mayoral race has taken some getting used to. In private conversations this year, he has come across as supremely confident about his chances. But he can also seem taken aback by the increasingly sharp criticism he attracts.“I’m frankly a bit more accustomed to being the, like, the scrappy underdog —that was sort of a more natural posture for me,” he said in an interview this spring.He seemed, at the outset of the race, to satisfy some New Yorkers’ psychic needs. But in the final weeks before the June 22 primary, as the city reawakens, the race’s dynamics have changed. Polls have tightened, voters are paying more attention, and well-funded competitors are spending millions on television, threatening a victory that once seemed well within Mr. Yang’s grasp.An affinity for the underdogMr. Yang founded Venture for America, which aimed to create 100,000 jobs by deploying recent graduates to work at start-ups. Far fewer jobs were actually created.Gretchen Ertl for The New York TimesMr. Yang was born 46 years ago to Taiwanese immigrants living in Schenectady, N.Y., then known as Electric City, presumably for the central role that his father’s employer, General Electric, played in its economy. When he was four, his family moved from a home there with a green shag carpet to Westchester County.His parents were both technologically oriented: His father worked at I.B.M.; his mother, who had a master’s degree in statistics, worked for the State University of New York at Purchase as the director of computer services, before becoming an artist.Mr. Yang recalled a relatively homogeneous upbringing: In his middle school class in Somers, N.Y., he remembered one other East Asian student, a girl.“Everyone said we should date, which made neither of us very happy,” said Mr. Yang, who would be New York’s first Asian American mayor.Some of his classmates were cruel, calling him racist slurs and making jokes about his eyes. Having skipped kindergarten, he trailed his classmates in size. His voice changed later than theirs did.The experience, he said, gave him an affinity for the underdog, and left lasting wounds.“I’ve never forgotten what it felt like to be young,” he wrote in his 2018 book, “The War on Normal People.” “To be gnawed at by doubts and fears so deep that they inflict physical pain, a sense of nausea deep in your stomach. To feel like an alien, to be ignored or ridiculed.”Today, Mr. Yang often comes across to voters as exuberant. But he describes himself as “naturally introverted,” and in person, that energy comes across as a switch that can flip on and off. Out of the spotlight he can seem low-key, even occasionally withdrawn.Mr. Yang thrived academically, and halfway through high school he transferred to Phillips Exeter Academy, a selective boarding school in New Hampshire, the first in a succession of elite institutions that would lead him down the path to corporate law: Brown University, Columbia Law School and a junior position at Davis Polk & Wardwell, the elite New York law firm that he quit after five months.The work was grueling — and when his officemate, Jonathan Philips, broached the idea of a start-up, Mr. Yang was intrigued, Mr. Philips recalled.“It’s like he all of a sudden woke up,” Mr. Philips, now a North Carolina-based investor, said, recalling long conversations about “the intersection of economic and social betterment.”They co-founded Stargiving, a company designed to help celebrities fund-raise for charities. There, Mr. Yang pitched and hobnobbed with powerful people and practiced dealing with the news media.Still, Mr. Yang has acknowledged, the initiative “failed spectacularly.”He moved on to other endeavors, including a party-hosting business and a position at a health care company, before landing at a test-prep company, later called Manhattan Prep, that was run by a friend. He eventually became its C.E.O. and acquired an ownership stake.When Kaplan, the test-prep giant, bought the company, Mr. Yang walked away with a seven-figure prize.But he has said he was disenchanted by the career track enabled by the test prep company, which funneled promising students to business school and then Wall Street.Still eager to make his mark on the world, he founded Venture for America, a nonprofit that aimed to deploy recent graduates to work at start-ups and start companies in struggling cities across the country. Venture for America was a seminal chapter in Mr. Yang’s life, introducing him to the national stage and shaping his image as an entrepreneur.The results were mixed. Mr. Yang set out to create 100,000 jobs, but only about 150 people now work at companies founded by alumni in the cities the nonprofit targeted, a New York Times investigation found. The program also faced accusations of bias under his leadership. Mr. Yang has defended his tenure there.Mr. Yang ultimately left the organization to run for president and write the book that became the foundation for his campaign, in which he warned of the dangers posed by automation and laid out his universal basic income proposal.Mr. Yang’s presidential bid stunned many people who had worked with him and knew him as a smart and relatable nonprofit leader, but certainly not as a practiced politician. In a field studded with governors, senators and the former vice president of the United States, Mr. Yang was a political outsider who had never run, let alone won a campaign of his own, and the bid was quixotic from the start.Mr. Yang’s campaign was never especially polished — juvenile hijinks were occasionally caught on camera — and he dropped out on the night of the New Hampshire primary. Yet he proved to be a strong fund-raiser, and his campaign lasted longer than those of several far more seasoned contenders, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, former Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana and now-Vice President Kamala Harris.He campaigned on the notion that the federal government should give every American citizen $1,000 a month in no-strings-attached cash. To some voters, it was a compelling vision delivered by a steadfastly upbeat campaigner, and it earned Mr. Yang a loyal following.Now, instead of a guaranteed monthly income for all New Yorkers, he is calling for a $2,000-a-year payment to 500,000 of the city’s poorest residents, a sum one of his opponents has said amounts to “U.B. Lie.” He has yet to clearly delineate how he will pay for it.Mr. Yang’s presidential bid in 2020 was largely based on the idea that the federal government should give every American citizen $1,000 a month in no-strings-attached cash. Christopher Lee for The New York TimesIf Mr. Yang’s campaigns have been premised on the promise of restoring humanity to government — his first television ad in the mayor’s race was called “Hope” — his call for a basic income reflects a darker understanding of history and human nature.The central argument behind his initial proposal was that technology was rendering much human labor obsolete — the “Great Displacement,” he calls it — and that the United States will descend into Hobbesian lawlessness without some form of guaranteed cash.In his book, he ruminates about how the violence might begin, and how the ruling class might react in ways that further cement the divide between the haves and have-nots.“One can imagine a single well-publicized kidnapping or random heinous act against a child of the privileged class leading to bodyguards, bulletproof cars, embedded safety chips in children, and other measures,” he wrote in 2018.Mr. Yang’s visions of an imminent descent into anarchy do not play much of a role in his mayoral campaign, and the language in his book is a sharp departure in substance and tone from his often-buoyant New York appearances.More than anything, he is running as the big-thinking optimistic candidate from outside the sclerotic political ecosystem, arguing that he alone has the magnetic personality and coalition-building skills to galvanize New York City’s economy, bring back tourists and remake government.As mayor, he says he would turn an old rail line in Queens into a park; build and preserve 250,000 units of affordable housing; and create a 10,000-person corps of recent college graduates to tutor students whose learning has been impacted by the pandemic.As he bounces from one event to the next, celebrating the return of sporting events and reopening of movie theaters, he has cast himself as New York’s cheerleader.“I reject the notion that you have to be a creature of the political establishment to be a real New Yorker or an effective mayor,” said Representative Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat and an early Yang backer, whose district — the poorest in the country — would stand to benefit from Mr. Yang’s guaranteed income proposal. “He’s enlivened the mayor’s race with the sheer force of his personality.”‘Can you imagine?’Mr. Yang has proposed trying to seize New York City’s subway from state control, but has not elaborated on how he would convince Gov. Andrew Cuomo to acquiesce.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesMr. Yang’s entry into the New York political scene was turbulent.He sparked controversy for spending parts of the pandemic with his wife, Evelyn, and their two young sons at their home in New Paltz (“Can you imagine trying to have two kids on virtual school in a two-bedroom apartment?” he asked, in a remark that was widely seen as tone-deaf.). He acknowledged he had never voted for mayor before..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}And he incensed some New Yorkers with a range of atypical views, from suggesting a casino on Governors Island, which is not legal, to his signaling that he would take a hands-off approach toward Hasidic yeshivas, which have faced intense criticism over the failure of some to provide a basic secular education.Yet for months, Mr. Yang has maintained a lead in most of the sparse public polling that is available, and he is among the strongest fund-raisers in the Democratic field, raising $1.4 million in the last two months alone. There is a palpable sense of enthusiasm — or at least a measure of being star-struck — among many voters who meet him.And he has a ready answer when asked about his dearth of government experience. He says he will surround himself with experts in city operations, like Kathryn Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner and one of his competitors, whom he has said he would like to make a deputy mayor. (Ms. Garcia has dismissed those remarks as sexist and said that she has no interest in serving as his No. 2.)Were New Yorkers to elect Mr. Yang, they would be taking a bet on a leader whose personal magnetism is known, but whose ability to manage a 300,000-person bureaucracy with a nearly $100 billion budget is not.He has never overseen a unionized work force, though he noted that he regularly interacted with members of a health care union when he worked at a health care company years ago.Before running for mayor, he acknowledged, he had “almost certainly” never visited one of the city’s public housing developments, which together are home to half a million people.Mr. Yang has said he would like to make one of his competitors, Kathryn Garcia, center right, a deputy mayor. She has rejected the idea.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesHis own campaign adviser, Bradley Tusk, a prominent lobbyist and venture capitalist with interests in regulated businesses, has referred to him as an “empty vessel.” And his knowledge of New York City can seem spotty.He has lived in the city for 25 years, mostly in Hell’s Kitchen. But in a January interview, he seemed awe-struck by the conditions in some New York neighborhoods.“You saw things that were very, very dark and bleak,” Mr. Yang said, following a tour of Brownsville, a largely Black neighborhood where more than half of households earn less than $25,000 a year. “And people who had given up.”One ally likened Mr. Yang to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who started with a scant résumé and nevertheless achieved.But to many in New York City’s governing class, who prize themselves on their hard-won understanding of New York’s political ecosystem and are aware of just how difficult its bureaucracy is to navigate, Mr. Yang’s campaign smacks of hubris.“Yang has never done a damn thing in New York City,” said Richard Ravitch, the former lieutenant governor and a respected figure in New York politics, who has said he supports Raymond J. McGuire for mayor. “He knows nothing about the government, has no set of relationships with the institutions or the people. I don’t think he’s qualified.”A grab bag of supportersMr. Yang has attracted a significant following from influential ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders, largely because he has signaled he would take a hands-off approach to yeshivas if elected.James Estrin/The New York TimesMr. Yang presents himself as a nonideological champion of good ideas, an approach that has helped him build a sprawling coalition that includes some Asian American voters and lawmakers, Orthodox Jews, the occasional left-wing endorser and, Mr. Yang hopes, young people.But in the context of New York City Democrats, he is in many ways a political centrist who has alienated a number of activists and won the support of Wall Street billionaires who often back Republicans.He supports making some changes to the police force, like appointing a civilian commissioner, but he was an early backer of adding more officers to patrol the subway and he is a critic of the “defund the police” movement.After a far-reaching Albany budget agreement passed, he said that he supported the measure, which imposed higher taxes on wealthy New Yorkers. But he has been reluctant to express support for tax hikes on other occasions and is perceived as one of the most business-friendly candidates in the field.He is running as an anti-poverty candidate, promoting a public bank to assist struggling New Yorkers. But he has also told Kathryn Wylde, leader of the Wall Street-backed Partnership for New York City, that he wants to end what he sees as the “demonization” of business leaders and that he feels the sector’s concerns in his “bones.”His appeal to centrists and conservative voters is not a new phenomenon, though it was sometimes obscured by the seeming liberalism of his universal income platform.During his presidential run, Mr. Yang’s appearances on podcasts hosted by Sam Harris, Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro — who have large followings that include many who lean to the right — broadened his appeal among young, male conservatives.In an interview, he said he could not be held accountable for his interlocutors’ opinions. But aspects of his personal behavior have bothered some New York Democrats, too.He recently courted controversy by laughing when a comedian asked him if he choked women. Mr. Yang called the remark inappropriate and said he tried to leave quickly.And his presidential candidacy was trailed by allegations that Mr. Yang fostered a “bro” culture. He also faced two accusations, which he has denied, that he discriminated against women at Manhattan Prep because of their gender.Mr. Yang has won endorsements from several City Council members, including Vanessa L. Gibson, center right.Sara Naomi Lewkowicz for The New York TimesBut Mr. Yang’s allies and rivals do not doubt his capacity to win.So far, his opponents have struggled to build an effective case against him — though there is little doubt that their efforts to do so will only intensify in the final weeks of the race, as will media scrutiny of his policy positions.At a recent campaign event in Lower Manhattan, Mr. Yang tried to elaborate on his plan to wrest New York City’s subway from state control. It is a long-sought goal of a few transportation experts and also of Mr. Tusk. But it is widely acknowledged to be an uncommonly heavy political and logistical lift, and one to which Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is unlikely to agree.New York City’s transit press corps was having none of it.Mr. Yang was quizzed on the size of the transit system’s bruising debt load. (He failed that test.) He was asked to say precisely what was new in a proposal he had been touting for months. (Not much.)After the barrage of questions, Mr. Yang put on his mask and descended into the dimness of the Bowling Green subway station to wait for the uptown 4/5 train. For a moment, he was able to trade the din of the media for the squeals and groans of the subway system. More

  • in

    Long After Trump’s Loss, a Push to Inspect Ballots Persists

    Efforts to review 2020 ballots in Georgia and Arizona reflect the staying power of Donald Trump’s falsehoods, and Democrats fear that the findings could be twisted by Republicans.Georgia has already counted its 2020 presidential vote three times, with the same result: President Biden defeated Donald J. Trump narrowly yet decisively. But now portions of the vote will be inspected for a fourth time, after a judge ruled late last week that a group of voters must be allowed to view copies of all 147,000 absentee ballots cast in the state’s largest county.The move carries limited weight. The plaintiffs, led by a known conspiracy theorist, will have no access to the actual ballots, Georgia’s election results have already been certified after recounts and audits showed Mr. Biden as the winner with no evidence of fraud, and the review will have no bearing on the outcome.But the order from Judge Brian Amero of Henry County Superior Court was a victory for a watchdog group of plaintiffs that has said it is in search of instances of ballot fraud, parroting Mr. Trump’s election lies. Election officials in Fulton County, which contains most of Atlanta, worry that if such a review does occur there, it could cast further doubt on the state’s results and give Republican lawmakers ammunition to seek greater power over the administration of elections.“Where does it end? It’s like a never-ending circus, this big lie,” Robb Pitts, the Democratic chairman of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, said in an interview on Monday. “When they were accusing Fulton County and me in particular, I listened and I said — I said to the president, his representatives and I said to the secretary of state: ‘If you have evidence of any wrongdoing, bring it to me. If you do not, put up or shut up.’ And I repeat that again today.”The ruling in Georgia, a state that for months has weathered attacks from Mr. Trump and his allies as they falsely claimed the election had been stolen, coincided with a widely criticized Republican-led recount of over two million ballots cast in Maricopa County, Ariz., the largest county in another state that stunned Republicans by tipping to Mr. Biden last year after decades of G.O.P. dominance in presidential elections.That recount, which was approved by the Arizona state government and funded privately, resumed on Monday despite wide and bipartisan denunciations of the effort as a political sham and growing evidence that it is powered by “Stop the Steal” allies of Mr. Trump’s.The Arizona Republic reported on Saturday that volunteers being recruited to help recount the Maricopa ballots were being vetted by an organization set up by Patrick M. Byrne, the former chief executive of the online retailer Overstock.com and a prominent purveyor of conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was stolen from Mr. Trump.On Monday, an independent nonprofit news outlet, azmirror.com, reported that the organization conducting the hand recount, Wake Technology Services, had been hired in December for an election audit in Pennsylvania by a nonprofit group run by Sidney Powell, a onetime member of Mr. Trump’s legal team and prominent purveyor of conspiracy theories about the election.Late Monday, Mr. Trump continued to rail against the election results, citing the Arizona recount and the Georgia court ruling. “More to follow,” he said in a statement issued by his office. The efforts to continue questioning the legitimacy of the election in two critical battleground states, nearly seven months after voting concluded, illustrate Mr. Trump’s hold over the Republican Party and the staying power of his false election claims. Even though Mr. Trump is not directly involved in the continued examinations of votes in Arizona and Georgia, his supporters’ widespread refusal to accept the reality of Mr. Biden’s victory has led fellow Republicans to find new and inventive ways to question and delegitimize the 2020 results.A recount of over two million ballots cast in Maricopa County, Ariz., the state’s largest, was paused this month and resumed on Monday.Courtney Pedroza for The New York TimesLeading the Georgia ballot review effort is Garland Favorito, a political gadfly in Georgia who has lingered on the conspiracy fringe of American politics for decades. In 2002, he published a book questioning the origin of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He has also trafficked in unproven theories about the Kennedy assassination and, in 2014, he appeared in a video promoting the idea that the 14th Amendment was itself unconstitutional and argued that the federal government was therefore illegitimate and should be overthrown.In an interview, Mr. Favorito cited his “15 years” of experience as a self-styled elections investigator, saying he had been first motivated by Georgia’s purchase of new election machines that did not maintain paper-ballot records. He said that his concerns about the 2020 election stemmed in large part from affidavits filed by former election officials who claimed that they had handled ballots that appeared to be counterfeit because they were either not folded, appeared to be marked by a machine, or were printed on different stock. (There is no evidence of widespread use of counterfeit ballots.)Though Mr. Favorito refused to accept the findings of the recounts and audits already done in Georgia, he said he would be satisfied if, after inspecting the ballot copies, he and his team found no problems.“Once we find out the truth, if the results were correct, we can all go home and sleep at night knowing that it was right all along,” Mr. Favorito said.But he does not view leading Republicans in Georgia — some of whom, like former Senator Kelly Loeffler, have been vocally supportive of his efforts — as allies.“The Republican establishment hasn’t reached out, whatsoever,” he said, adding that he had not voted for Mr. Trump but for a third-party candidate. And the funding for the inspection, he said, would come from “patriots” making small-dollar donations. “We don’t have any big money.”The spread and repetition of false claims about the election follows familiar patterns for disinformation, which often occupies segmented corners of the internet and social media. Forces both algorithmic and organic will surface content — such as theories of election fraud based on grainy social media videos or anonymous allegations — for people who are inclined to agree with it.But what have further fueled Mr. Trump’s election claims, aside from his continued public pronouncements, are the many lawsuits filed by the former president and his allies after the 2020 election.“Even though all of the lawsuits got thrown out, the Trump campaign did file a whole bunch of baseless lawsuits, which adds a layer of legitimacy when you’re reading about a lawsuit that’s been filed versus some rumor, allegation or piece of content online,” said Lisa Kaplan, the founder of Alethea Group, a company that helps fight misinformation. “It ratchets it up a notch.”The Georgia effort could also yet extend beyond the Republican echo chamber in which the 2020 election is still being litigated. The state’s new election law ensures that the General Assembly, which is currently controlled by Republicans, has broad authority over counties through a restructured state election board. The board can, among other things, suspend county election officials.As Mr. Favorito did a victory lap on pro-Trump news outlets, he won praise from top Georgia Republicans. David J. Shafer, the pro-Trump chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, emailed fellow Republicans on Friday calling Judge Amero’s ruling “a very significant and encouraging development.”Ms. Loeffler also praised Mr. Favorito’s effort.“While there is a dire need to investigate a number of other well-documented issues, we must also inspect Fulton County’s absentee ballots to reassure Georgians that their voices are heard and their votes are counted,” she said.Even Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, signaled support for the inspection led by Mr. Favorito’s group.“Allowing this audit provides another layer of transparency and citizen engagement,” Mr. Raffensperger said in a statement on Friday.The support from Mr. Raffensperger, who is now running for re-election, surprised some political observers in Georgia. It was the secretary of state who stood up to the false claims of election fraud in Georgia espoused by Mr. Trump and who has highlighted the audits conducted by state government officials last year as definitive reaffirmations of the election results. His office also filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit, arguing that Mr. Favorito’s group should not be given physical ballots for security reasons, though Mr. Raffensperger took no stance on the case in his brief.“From day one, I have encouraged Georgians with concerns about the election in their counties to pursue those claims through legal avenues,” Mr. Raffensperger said in his statement.Michael Wines More

  • in

    Florida Republican Byron Donalds on Election Integrity and Trump’s Fraud Claims

    Byron Donalds, a newly elected congressman, says Republicans are trying to secure elections, not suppress votes. And he disputes Donald Trump’s influence on trust.In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, Republicans have pushed sweeping changes to voting laws across the country, using false claims of voter fraud as their justification. Even in Florida, a state Donald J. Trump won easily, Republicans enacted a more targeted overhaul of elections law in lock step with Mr. Trump’s allegations. Several voting rights groups have sued the state, claiming that the new measures disenfranchise voters in the name of appeasing the former president.Representative Byron Donalds, a newly elected Florida Republican, believes the reaction to the new law is misguided and overblown. In an interview with The New York Times, he sought to explain Republican actions as distinct from Mr. Trump’s false claims, and in line with voter concerns. He argued that his state’s new law, and similar ones across the country, would inspire renewed confidence in the election process.Mr. Donalds won his House seat after serving in the Florida Legislature. He grew up in Brooklyn and worked in finance and banking before entering politics.The interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.What did you think of how the 2020 election went in Florida? Did you think it was administered properly, with no evidence of fraud?It was administered very properly. We had the best election laws in the country. Our secretary of state or local officials follow the law, as you know, as it’s written, to a T, and we were pretty much done by 10 o’clock that night.Do you believe the false claims by former President Trump that the 2020 election was rigged?I think what happened is that in several key counties and key states, election law was not followed. That’s clear. It’s crystal clear. You have a federal judge in Michigan that said as much. You have two counties in Wisconsin where the local election officials chose not to follow election laws and cited Covid-19 as the reason. You have a State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that did not follow election law written by the state legislature there. You had the issues in Arizona, you had the consent decree in Georgia — that’s clear violations of the Constitution.Do you think, as former President Trump states, this amounts to widespread fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election?When you violate election law, and you have other bodies or other positions in our governmental apparatus that do not follow the written law, that leads to problems.So I just want to make sure I have this straight. You think that those problems happened elsewhere in the country, but not in Florida?Because in Florida, we followed our law.The Florida Legislature, where you once served, just passed an election reform measure. Why was that necessary if there was no fraud?The right to vote is sacrosanct. We all believe that. And the security of that ballot is also sacrosanct.And there should not be some other party that comes in between the voter casting their ballot and the election officer receiving that ballot and counting it. So I think getting rid of ballot harvesting is a great thing that we did. The other thing was that we tightened up the process of our people getting mail-in ballots.You know, I think the process we have now going forward in our state is actually a good one. Everybody’s free to request their ballot. They prove who they are, that’s a good thing. They receive their ballot, they vote. It’s all about security.Ballot harvesting was already outlawed in parts of the state. And new lawsuits claim that the real impact of the identification measures will be another barrier suppressing Black and Latino voters. What’s your response to that?I don’t pay any attention to those claims. I think the state will win in court. Voter ID claims — about how it disenfranchises minority communities — have been widely debunked. It is actually quite simple to get an ID. You’re talking to somebody who’s had a photo ID since he was 13 years old, when I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. It’s not the issue that it’s always made up to be, you know, by my friends on the other side of the aisle.In Florida, Republicans have taken advantage of things like ballot harvesting. They’ve made inroads with Black and Latino voters to win elections. Is there any risk this new law hurts your own party?No, I haven’t heard that.It was Republicans who brought back ballot harvesting in Florida under former Governor Bush and embraced widespread mail-in voting. What changed from then to now?I mean, OK, but that doesn’t mean I have to support it.I understand. I’m interested in what you think changed in the party from then to now, for a whole community of Republicans to say that’s something that they don’t support?I think the premise of your question is wrong. It’s not about what changed in the party. Political parties are made up of people, individuals who vote and politicians and candidates who run for office. That’s the basis of a political party. There’s no monolithic line of thinking that shifts every two to four years. That’s not the case. I can’t speak to what happened when former people were elected. I can speak to myself and what I’ve done..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Do you think that those laws would have happened without the false claims from former President Trump about a rigged election? It does seem to stretch belief to say none of these new laws are related to politics and Trump. Is that what we’re saying?Looking at our election process is something, specifically in Florida, we continuously do. We passed an election law before 2020. We passed it in 2018 and 2019. We have reforms, I believe, in 2014 or 2015. So Florida, we’ve always been looking at our election laws, doing everything we can to make sure it’s a better law going forward.So as the supposition of your question, that we anticipated what Donald Trump might say, in the winter of 2020. And that’s why we made election law changes in 2019 and 2018. Come on, seriously?Have you followed any of the new election laws in other states?Yes, I think Georgia actually has a very good law. And frankly, it’s sad and, in my view, disgusting that the president referred to it as Jim Crow. It cheapens the history in our country with respect to actual Jim Crow, a disgusting relic of our past. And to try to equate that to what Georgia did, to me, is just completely illogical. It reeks of just the nastiest politics that you could ever want to bring up, to try to divide Americans and divide Georgians.How can you be so sure that these laws are strong enough to stop voter fraud but weak enough to not create new barriers for communities who have had it hard to vote?Those are not on the same playing field, they simply are not.When it comes to these extended lines that have happened in the past in Georgia — I’ve watched the news, too — you have to go look at the local official, what did they do and what did they not do to prepare for people wanting to cast ballots. The one thing we have to acknowledge, and you have to be honest about this, you have seen a rise in Black voting in our country in the last 15 years. And that is a great thing — as a Black man, I’m 100 percent behind that. But it is the responsibility of local officials to make sure that they have the additional polling places they need or that their equipment is sound. And I will tell you, Georgia’s law, or Florida’s law, provides so much access to the ballots, far more than in the state of New York, far more than the state of Delaware.You’re framing these new measures as a way to restore confidence in the democratic process and system. But what I don’t hear you saying — or any Republican, really — is that they think the former president impacted trust in that system. Do you think that his words have negatively impacted trust in the democratic system?No. No, I don’t. I think if you look at what the president has talked about, the president has talked about wanting to make sure that the elections are secure. That’s what he’s talked about more than anything else.I think we both know the former president has said a lot more than that.Four years ago, this time, what were we talking about? About how the Russians tamper with our elections, and that went on for two and a half years. I don’t have a problem with these political debates. Let’s have them. That’s great. But all I’m saying is, let’s — let’s understand the entire history.I was asking about Trump’s impact on trust.All that matters: Is it easier for white people or Black people, whether they are rich, middle income or poor, to cast ballots in the state of Georgia? And Florida? Yes or no? Is it easier? The answer is yes. Is it less easy for them to cast the same ballot in Delaware or New York? The answer is yes.Last question: Do you see the former president’s rhetoric as at least connected to the events that happened on January 6, even if you don’t see them affecting trust in the democratic system overall?No, I don’t. More