More stories

  • in

    Interview: Kathy Hochul Talks to the New York Times Editorial Board

    Kathy Hochul is the governor of New York. She served as the state’s lieutenant governor.This interview with Ms. Hochul was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on Oct. 17.Read the board’s endorsement for the governor’s race in New York here.Brent Staples: Give us some insight into why this race is so close.Why it’s so close? Well, first of all, thanks for having me back again. There’s something going on nationally. If you track all the races, the Democratic races, the congressional races, the gubernatorial races, and we’re outperforming in a lot of those.But you’re basically — again, you’re referencing that on polls, and polls don’t make a difference to Election Day. And I will tell you, as someone who’s run in 14 elections, they go up and down like this, depending on all kinds of factors outside the control of the person running — the cost of gas and inflation rate. So I think that’s what’s happening.People are just looking at what’s happening all over the country, feeling some unease. And take a look at it, but all I need to do is get my message out, and to be able to point to the fact. And I think this is going to widen the race very substantially.Because of your excellent reporting, people will now find out that Lee Zeldin was not this innocent bystander that he’s trying to present himself as, but was actually giving direction to President Trump’s chief of staff on how to subvert the electoral process. And when that gets out there, that is a disqualifying fact that people will need to know about him.[In the days after the 2020 presidential election, Mr. Zeldin texted Mark Meadows “ideas” for how to use unsubstantiated allegations about voting irregularities.]So we just got to build our case, talk about what we’re going to do, but also expose Lee Zeldin for who he truly is. And he does not deserve to be the governor of New York.Kathleen Kingsbury: Obviously, crime is down from its historic highs, but it is still up about a third here in the city. Your opponent has made quite a big deal about the issue of public safety. How do you — how will you get voters to trust that you’re going to make the city safer?They know what I’m doing already. We have worked very hard to get guns off the streets, and I understand people know, from me, my words directly, that public safety is my top priority, always has been. And what we’ve done to focus on something — Lee Zeldin thinks that we need more guns on the streets, we need more guns in the subways.I was in a synagogue Saturday, and I was in churches on Sundays, and I’ll tell you, none of those individuals want to sit next to someone that might be carrying a weapon. And that is the Lee Zeldin world that he’s trying to present to us. So I’m focusing on guns.We had over 7,000 guns off the streets in the last year — actually, since January, when I convened a first-ever task force — nine states, plus N.Y.P.D. … and New York police are actually working together. Extraordinary. No one’s ever done that.I was called out by President Biden for doing that. He says no one’s ever done this. So we now have — we’re getting more guns off the streets. And the crime rate, overall, I dissect — I look at the numbers every day.Statewide, our shootings are down about 13 percent — statewide, about 12 percent; New York City, down 13 percent since I’ve been in office. Nationwide, it’s down 2 percent. And that’s all the states.So we’re making more progress on illegal guns, banning ghost guns, my assault weapon ban for teenagers — all the things we’ve had to do. And despite our best efforts — and since we last met, I had to deal with the Supreme Court that overturned the right of a governor to protect her citizens from people carrying guns anywhere they want. The concealed carry law worked for 108 years.And so I pulled back the Legislature, literally, by June 30, had a plan in place. I knew this was coming or could come. And we got them — this is how cooperation really leads to quick results.The Legislature was willing to come back, pass legislation, and we made those changes. And again, we’re in court — every time the governor does something on guns, there’s always litigation. We knew it. Bring it on.But I believe that we have a right to protect our citizens on the streets, get the guns off the streets. And that is my focus. With any crime plan that Lee Zeldin puts forward, that does not talk about guns, is a joke.Nick Fox: Do you think concerns about crime are real or exaggerated?They’re real, because people feel it. I understand the sense of insecurity that’s out there. I do spend a lot of time in the communities. I was at a diner yesterday. I talked to people just randomly, and people are concerned.Now, convincing people that this is still the safest big city in America, that our crime rates are down — our subways have had some recent problems, but we have more law enforcement down there, and putting cameras in the subways. We’re making progress, but it’s a difficult — that’s the challenge.I can talk about data all day long. But how people feel — and in this hyper-politicized environment, being told how they feel — it was fascinating to see a Bloomberg study that showed that incidences of crime over the last decade, and the news coverage of it — about parallel.They both go up absolutely across the nation. And since the pandemic, the media coverage of crimes is up four times in relation to the actual number of instances. And I’m not saying this paper — there’s another paper.So I just want to say that that feeds into people’s perceptions and anxieties, but I deal with people’s feelings. That’s what I have to deal with. I can’t just say the numbers are better. I need to let them know that I am focused on this 100 percent, because that is the reason that we’re being held back from our full recovery. And we have to overcome that.Eleanor Randolph: So Zeldin talks about — if he gets elected, he’s going to declare a state of emergency about crime. And he also says he’s going to — I don’t know — fail to enforce the bail law. What do you think about that? What do you think about whether he can actually do that?Right out of the Trump playbook. Sounds like a dictator to me. He’s going to just undermine laws and forget laws that were passed — duly passed by the Legislature? You can’t do that. You can’t do that.And it’s absurd to try to use that as a panacea to tell everybody, I’ll just magically wave a wand and ignore the will of the Legislature, which has a supermajority. You can’t do that. So he’s just feeding people a whole lot of lies, misperceptions, and trying to create this image of himself to be able to do more than I can on crime.I will put my record on fighting crime out there with anybody’s. We have made real progress. And we’ve made targeted changes to the bail laws. We spoke before at our previous meetings — the underlying premise behind them.We make some targeted changes to make sure that repeat offenders, cases where there’s guns involved, orders of protection and hate crimes are now covered. But we’re not turning our backs on criminal justice reform either. So we’ve found the right balance, but you know what’s not working? The system itself.I need all the components to work — starting with our backlog in the court system. This has been exposed as a real driver for two straight years — no jury trials. When I got elected, I said, “Why aren’t there jury trials?” Because the Office of Court Administration, court appeals judge, was firm that they not have jury trials, because people had to sit six feet apart.This is a time — kids are back in school. People are back at work. Closer than six feet, but the jury system, they said you couldn’t put anybody within six feet. So, you know the size of our courthouses. There’s not enough room.So we did not have the administration of justice for two years. People that had their day in court, who should have their day in court — either proven innocent, go back home, or you’re guilty of a crime — deal with the consequences. So that’s a problem. I’m working toward getting a new court appeals judge.My responsibility, after recommendations come, I’m going to be focused on someone where their No. 1 top assistant has the capacity to deal with what has become an administrative nightmare. We have to fix that.We also need the support for the policing. We also need to support the violence disrupter programs, which I’ve supported financially three times more than we have before, and also the district attorneys to properly charge and for judges to do the right thing. Then the system works. Because simply saying it’s bail when all across the country, our crime rate is lower — I mean, there’s just a disconnect between reality and the representation that he is making in his campaign. It’s absurd.Mara Gay: Governor, thank you. Inflation, and especially in New York, the cost of housing, is a serious constituent issue for many voters in the state. What specifically will you commit to doing about those issues, especially on housing?Thank you. I mean, I talked about what I’m leaning into. We spoke about how I’ve had to be a crisis manager since I took office — the shooting in Buffalo, Omicron, hurricanes, and even since we last met, the Supreme Court decisions, what I had to deal with on abortion and guns.But when I think about my vision for going forward, top priorities are creating a New York where people want to live and want to move here. And within that is how do we make it affordable so they can?No. 1 cost for a family or an individual is their housing. So we will not be able to be this place that meets all the needs of bringing people here if we don’t get more affordability. So I know that the governor sets the agenda. I’m fully aware of that. I plan on unleashing the power that I have, working together with the Legislature, advocacy groups, the industry, and pulling together a plan that’s going to be transformative.And I say that because, since the last day the Legislature left session, I directed my top-notch policy team to go out there and find the answers from other states, think tanks, convene meetings with industry. So my policy team has been working on ideas.Part of it’s going to have to be incentives for developers. Because as we saw, when you shut down 421a, permits dried up. I said this was going to happen. Now, I put together something that was better than 421a — 485w, which allowed for far more affordable housing in the context.And that was actually an agreement with the industry and labor to do that. The Legislature wasn’t supportive, and I had spent a lot of my political capital on public safety initiatives, where I said, “All right, we’ll visit again next year.” Then we’ll see the data, which shows, despite the fact that people said that so-called giveaways to billionaires, they’ll still build affordable housing because of the goodness of their heart. We know that didn’t work.And so now I have the data to show the stoppage of permits. So the crisis I have, the state has — over the next 10 years, we have to build over 500,000, possibly up to 1.2 million, new units.My plan last year was $25 billion toward affordable housing. It sounds like a big number, right? To do something? That gets me one-tenth of that goal. It’s 100,000 units. One hundred thousand units of affordable housing and supportive housing.So, it’s about looking at all the regulations. I said I want to see a list of every single city and state barrier to be able to have more density, grant-oriented development, and take another look at A.D.U.s [accessory dwelling units]. We talked — tried hotel conversions, but as it turned out, there wasn’t as much inventory as there had been when this was first proposed, so that wasn’t successful.So now we look at offices as well. Office conversions — classy office space — a lot of little buildings won’t lend themselves to it. But we have a plan to focus on that as well.So I will also look to other thought leaders to help me build the support behind this. Newspapers, like The New York Times — because you have that. But I need to change the mind-set of the elected officials, who have been — with one decision, be able to stop a project that could help literally hundreds of families in the Bronx, in Queens, elsewhere.These projects have to be unleashed with — we need market rate. We need affordable housing. We need supportive housing. This has been jammed up for too darn long. And I plan on unleashing this with an aggressive approach, because failure is not an option.That is the barrier we have to people being able to live here. Places on Long Island, where I was at the diner yesterday — families saying to me, “My kids can’t grow up in the same community they were raised in.” That’s a tragedy. That’s a tragedy. That’s nothing to do with them. It’s not education. Love the state. And if we drive them out because of affordability, then we fail.Same thing with the city — more young people want to come here than I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. And the energy behind the tech jobs — they’re just booming, especially on the West Side. It’s exciting. But if they can’t afford a house, an apartment, co-op, condo, it’s not going to work.So that is where I’m going to spend my political capital, because it fits into my larger framework. The vision of New York over the next five years is creating a place where people not just want to live but can live, and get a good job, and start a business if they want, and raise their families.When I focus on my policies — and I really do love policies, as much as I’ve had to deal with crises — I love getting my hands into policies and asking: Why? Why can’t we do it this way? Why can’t we do it this way?So I’ll be taking a very, very engaged approach. Already have been, and put forth our plan. So that’s — we have to have that.Alex Kingsbury: You answered Mara’s question on housing. I’m curious about inflation as the biggest political headwind the Democrats are facing nationwide, and probably here in New York. Your opponent’s running against it. Is there anything you can do?Well, we’ve focused on areas we can put more money back in the pockets of New Yorkers. Inflation’s about 8.2, 8.3 percent right now. It is this record high. I understand that. And this is one of those challenges that we have across this country, not just New York.But in our budget, we addressed the gas tax. We waited for the duration of the year. We want to take a look at that again. We got $2.1 billion in property tax rebates for people — middle-class tax cuts.The one area where we haven’t really spent as much time as I’d like is on the affordability of child care — one of the reasons so many moms are not back to work and couldn’t get back to work. So our plan was $7.7 billion. We’re starting to see the benefits now, as we’re able to tell New Yorkers that half of all children in the state of New York are eligible for subsidies, plus subsidies and increases for the workers.It’s important to organizations. You know, whether it’s in a church and it’s in a synagogue, or whether it’s the Y.W.C.A., all the places are getting more support from us than they ever have before. But I also tell you what — I’m using a different approach.When I talk to developers and people who want economic development support from the state of New York, I say bring it on. Come on, we’re all excited. Tell me about your child care plan. Tell me what you’re doing for your employees, whether it’s a consortium of other businesses in a small downtown, you’ve got to work together, whether it’s you’re rebuilding a new office — can you dedicate one floor to this?I said, “This will be the biggest driver for women to want to work at your facility.” They’ll get you at a competitive advantage. I’ve said this all over the state to tech companies as well. So I’m excited about blending the needs of families with our economic development dollars. And I think we’ll have a real key for success. We’re putting that in our next budget as well.Jyoti Thottam: So, Governor, just back to your power to set the agenda. As you know, the governor has more than $900 million in your budget that can be used without real oversight or transparency. You’ve accepted tens of millions of dollars in campaign funds from donors with business before the state.You’ve also decided that you’re accepting campaign donations from state board and commission appointees. I know they weren’t people that you originally appointed. But you’ve come under some criticism for that. What do you say about voters who are concerned about ethics and expecting you, again, to set the agenda on ethics?Brent Staples: I’ll piggyback on that question, too. I just want to emphasize, do you realize how bad the optics of that were, in accepting the contributions from the people on boards, from these people on the commission?We are very clear that we weren’t. I was not putting anyone on a board for making a contribution —Brent Staples: My question is, do you realize how bad the optics of that was? It looked really bad from there.Well, I appreciate the commentary on that, but here’s what I’m doing. I’m following all the rules, making sure that there is no connection between any contributions and any policies with state government. I’ve been in office for 30 years. I’m very careful about this — making sure that everyone around me follows the rules.But what you’re proposing, in a sense, is creating an environment where it’s very difficult for people who don’t have millions of their own dollars to run for office. I come out of public service. I follow the rules. Always have, always will. And raising money is part of being able to remain as governor when I took office a year ago.So what I don’t do is have billionaires, like Trump-supporting billionaires, like Ron Lauder, dumping nearly $10 million in dark money against me. That’s what someone in my position has to counter, you know? That’s the reality. No matter what I raise, and they’re still not done, more money can come in at the end and give them the firepower. That is the challenge we all face.I will support reforms. I helped write campaign finance reform when I was a young staffer for Senator Moynihan. I’ve worked on this my whole life. And I’ve stood up to the campaign finance office. I have 14 employees. I unlocked this. And it’s been talked about — these reforms. And those will come. That’s what we’re putting in motion now.But what I don’t do — and predecessors have done this — is, at a fund-raiser, where there’s people — all different individuals have interests, yes? I don’t bring government staff. It’s pretty shocking to realize that, before, you could go to a fund-raiser and talk to the chief of staff to the governor, the budget director, head of an agency. I said, “No, think about the perception of that, the access.”I only have a couple of young campaign staffers at events with me. We do it very differently. But I will always, because of the responsibility I have, to let people know that I’m going to make sure that we have the highest ethics.I changed JCOPE [the Joint Commission on Public Ethics] completely. I said I was going to blow it up because it wasn’t working. I don’t even know who my appointees are on that board. I said, “I want distance.” We had set up a system where independents — I have — law school professors, law school deans are the ones who are selecting who determines ethics investigations in our state. And I think that’s appropriate, instead of having my own appointees. You talked about the optics of appointees. How about appointing your former staffers and friends to the ethics board? So —Eleanor Randolph: Well, you changed a lot of things.I understand perception is important. But the reality is, we follow all the rules. Full disclosure. Everybody knows where our money comes from. And unlike the dark, sinister money that’s going to super PACs, there actually are limits.Eleanor Randolph: But to Jyoti’s point, the Citizens Budget Commission identified almost $1 billion that they called — that has been called a slush fund — and said there was very little transparency about where this money went and questions about whether it went to different areas for political purposes for this campaign. How can you promise that there’ll be more transparency upfront about this? And I know that slush fund has been there forever. It’s not new. But still, the transparency is the hard part, really.Right, and the transparency comes from — this has to be approved by the Legislature. I don’t just go find a billion dollars and put it in a fund. The Legislature is involved in this.Eleanor Randolph: Yes, but you and I know there are all these private meetings before you come up with a budget. And this particular fund is the one that Citizens Budget Commission is concerned about, because it’s just there like a slush fund that you can use to hand out to different areas.No, these all come through different agencies. If it’s economic development funds, it comes through our Regional Economic Development Councils. The decisions made, for example, for money dedicated for Long Island — I didn’t make the decisions that we do $10 million for Feinstein Institute. That went through a process.That went through a process where the Regional Economic Development Council makes recommendations. And they recommend it to us. And money that’s for any economic development project. There’s no situation where I sit there and say where it’s going to go. I take the recommendations of — these are fellow citizens. These are citizens and business people who make those determinations.So, I know there’s cynicism associated with all of this. I understand that. And my job is to restore equal space in government once again. And I’ll continue doing that every single day, following all the rules, making sure we have the highest ethics. And that’s what I committed to from the first day, when I knew I had to do a lot of cleanup and rehabilitation of the state’s reputation at the time. And I’m still committed to that.Nick Fox: You recently got a very good look at some of the worst of the M.T.A. and how East Side Access went billions of dollars over budget. Do you think enough has been done to change the way the M.T.A. operates? And given the decline of the revenue, how do you improve ridership, and how do you get the repairs that need to be done?Important question, something I deal with regularly. First of all, the history you talked about was long and sordid. And I’m glad that Janno Lieber, who I elevated, was part of the solution, not the problem. So we don’t have the same actors that were involved in what has happened in the past. So I’m looking forward. How do we continue to make these investments?First of all, operationally. I’ve already asked Janno for a report on internal savings that can be found that — we also know that increase in ridership — people have to feel secure, safe. And it’s interesting how it works. Look, the more riders there are, the safer the subway is. We’re still down about 61 to 63 percent of prepandemic ridership on weekdays, depending on which day. Seventy-three percent on weekends. But as long as there’s trains that are not full, then people don’t feel secure, and they’re not as secure.So driving more people back by giving them quality service, on-time trains — there’s no changing our trains, our system, our services. If we cut services, then people have a disincentive to come. So we have to maintain high-quality service, find areas we can cut, find new revenue sources. And I push them to find new revenue sources for us.Look, that’s on the operations side. On the capital side, we’re going to continue making the investments. And East Side Access will finish under my watch. When I first became governor — I still have regular meetings with the Port Authority, Rick Cotton, Janno Lieber, tell me all the products that are outstanding. What’s the timetable, and how can we shave off time? Shave off a year, six months, whatever you do, because now, rising cost inflation, time is money. I cannot afford another day.So I bring this sense of urgency of just getting the job done. Finished Long Island Rail Road Third Track. Critically important. Finishing East Side Access literally by the end of this year. We’re starting Penn Station before the costs get any higher, because I don’t want there to be any excuse why we can’t have a world-class, spectacular facility there. We’ve already made some progress in one of the terminals, or one of the wings there.So the operations side and capital side. Capital side is going to be assisted by congestion pricing. Right now we have the Traffic Mobility Review Board coming up with recommendations to give to the M.T.A. That process will probably go on for two more months. I think they’re doing all the public comments that came in. And a lot of issues arose. We’re listening to them. They’re listening to them. They’ll make recommendations.So that’s how we have the money dedicated for future capital investments to make up for years of neglect. And then we also have challenges on the operational side. Because of federal money, we’re good through 2024 with the budget. But I said, “Let’s start making the changes now.” I’m not waiting until then. Let’s start making the changes internally now so we don’t go off a cliff in 2024, 2025.Mara Gay: What’s the most significant change that you’ve made that you can point to with the M.T.A. versus the way former Governor Cuomo was involved?I’m letting them run it. I’m letting them run it because they are the transit experts, not us. My own agenda does not come into play when I have brilliant experts running the operations and have worked on finding public safety.We’ve put cameras in the trains now. That gives people a strong sense of security. We’ve been focusing on our M.T.A. transit police that watch the trains all along Metro-North. The City of New York is responsible for policing the subway itself. So I think it’s more of a collaborative approach — letting the experts drive the decisions as opposed to political interference.Jyoti Thottam: Congestion pricing, though — that’s a policy that transit experts really love. But how do you sell it to New Yorkers whose commutes will immediately get more expensive — the ones who are still driving — that this is good for you and good for the city?And this was a major change. What people will learn about me is, I’m not afraid of major challenges. Yes, the easier thing is to walk away and say, “Let someone else handle this a decade from now.” That’s not who I am. We need to get this done. And the operative word in congestion pricing is “congestion.” That’s why I had to walk here today, because there’s delivery trucks. Delivery trucks are jamming up 39th.Listen, all over, we’re becoming paralyzed. And there’s a huge economic cost to that. And it becomes a deterrent. Why would you even want to drive in the city? It’s like, they’re going to get stuck trying to find a parking lot. They’re not going to get within a block of where they want to go for 40 minutes.So then there’s the environment. We have only this time on Earth to make a huge difference and reverse what has happened to our planet under our watch. And I’m committed to this. And so the efforts to get more vehicles off the streets is going to have a better outcome with asthma rates.We’re transitioning to electric buses, electric public buses, but also vehicles, and also enhancing our public transit. We have — have you guys seen Long Island Rail Road? It is spectacular. If you’ve not been on it lately, you need to take a ride on this. The cars are clean. The stations are gorgeous. You can plug in and charge your phone.So what we’re offering people to help overcome the hesitation is more connectability, a better experience, more reliable, so we can encourage more people to take public transportation, which is the whole origin, the whole premise behind congestion pricing overall. We’re looking for the recommendations on communities that will be hit, industries that will be hit. So this is not set in stone yet. So obviously those conversations are still ongoing.Eleanor Randolph: You mentioned climate change and the environment. What do you think about fracking? I gather that Mr. Zeldin, Congressman Zeldin, is interested in opening that back up again. How do you feel about this?Donald Trump told him that’s what he should do. I’m sure that’s what he’s proposing. I don’t support that. No, we have a vision. And it has an executable plan behind it. It’s not just a pipe dream. We actually have a strategy on how to bring in more renewable power from Hydro-Québec coming down from Champlain Trail, bringing in more wind and solar from places like Sullivan County. I did this one year ago.And people suggested that one of these two energy sources — one might be better than the other. I said, “Do them both.” P.S.C. [the New York Public Service Commission] had to make a decision, but I recommended we do both. Then we can really, really stop our reliance on renewable — on fossil-fuel-generated power — and just start getting into this future and reducing the cost of electricity so no one thinks twice about their next vehicle being an electric vehicle, and as we electrify buildings.So if you don’t just take the leap and say, “Now is the time” — I’ve said this before, growing up in a very polluted community in Buffalo. I thought the skies were supposed to be orange, because that’s all I saw in Lackawanna with the steel plant, where my dad worked, grandpa worked. So I come out of [inaudible]. I am by nature an environmentalist, and know that we’ve lost too much time. So we are the —Eleanor Randolph: No fracking.Last generation that can really do anything about climate change. We’re the first to really feel the effects, the last [inaudible].Eleanor Randolph: No fracking.Kathleen Kingsbury: We only have a couple of minutes left, but I wanted to return to the M.T.A. for one second. One of the biggest drivers of the perception that taking the train is unsafe right now is the clear number of people with mental illness who are often on the trains now. Is there anything that you can do, as the governor, on that issue specifically, or any way that you can work with the mayor to improve that question?Working very close with the mayor on this. Our teams have been embedded since he was on the job two weeks. And we went down to the subway together and proposed a joining of his forces and state resources for people that are part of these S.O.S. teams, because just moving someone along is a guarantee they’re just going to be back the next day. Just dealing realities.Again, it ties into a question about this housing crisis. This is a driver because there’s not enough places to take people to give them a safe experience. But safety is important. And we worked on Kendra’s Law. We made some improvements to Kendra’s Law.And also, what I found is a lot of people really do need to be hospitalized for a time being to get on a path toward a real recovery program, as opposed to just cycling back into the community. And I said, “Why aren’t there more psychiatric beds out there?” And I was always pressing. I’m always asking questions. Why aren’t there more psychiatric beds?It turns out that there’s a differential in reimbursement for Medicaid for the hospitals and whether or not it’s a psychiatric bed, which is more costly than a nonpsychiatric bed. So there was a financial disincentive for hospitals to have psychiatric beds.So I said, “OK, compress that.” The state will pick up the cost of making it fairer for hospitals, because it’s a public-policy imperative that we have more places for them to get genuine treatment that’s going to help them get on a different path. And we’ll do that. Last I saw, there was another 1,000 beds that had come online as a result of just that decision.That’s how I operate. I see a problem. I know where I want to get. And I’ll press all the levers to make that happen. We did that with affordable housing. We’re going to do that with trying to help the cost-of-living challenges, because it’s energy costs as well. It’s almost $500, on average, for people’s monthly energy bill. These are real challenges.But dealing with the probably 700 to 1,000 people who have severe mental health problems that are either on the subways, in the subways, on the streets or in the stations is something that we’re focused on. More resources. I mean, a lot of people say we need more money. I put more money and I’ll continue to put more money to support the mayor’s efforts to deal with this crisis.Mara Gay: Governor, we have just two minutes more. Can we talk a little bit about your path to victory in this surprisingly competitive race?The more people know about Lee Zeldin and how extremely dangerous he is, and now his direct connection to the attempted overturn of our government and the democratic process, I think, is going to be jaw-droppingly shocking to people.Mara Gay: But who are your voters, and where are your voters? And how are you turning them out?We are. I was in the Bronx all day Saturday. People are excited. They’re excited. I think there’s an energy around the historic nature of the first woman elected. I’m proud of that. It’s not the reason I should be governor, but a lot of people are energized by that. Also, I’ve walked these streets. I’ve been in the communities, I spent last week in Brooklyn. That’s not my first time walking the streets of Brooklyn. It’s probably my 700th.And so the communities where I show up — the churches and the places of gathering in Black and brown communities — they have seen me before. Their leaders know me. Their elected officials know me. And they know that I have the heart and the passion to lead, and also the toughness. This is not a job for the faint of heart. And I’ve always believed, if it doesn’t kill you, it makes you stronger. There is no one stronger in the state of New York than I am. I am ready for this now.Eleanor Randolph: Do you think the women’s vote will be energized by abortion? Do you still see that? It seems to be fading in the polls.It’s still an issue. You only need to win by a small amount. You just have to win. You have to have the majority to win. So I do believe that there will be women in — suburban, Republican women. We’re seeing that there is more interest — independent women.Democratic women are with us. That’s great. And they’re excited about the historic nature, as well as knowing that they have someone who will protect abortion rights, as opposed to someone who actually literally cheered the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and now to try to back-walk this? That was just a couple months ago.Seriously, give the voters of New York a little more credit. They do not have amnesia. They’ve not forgotten your history in overturning the election and your resistance to any common sense gun —Brent Staples: Are you relying on ads for that? Are you relying on television ads for that? You keep saying about people learning how bad Lee Zeldin is. When are they going to learn that? How are they going to learn about it?We’ve been on the air since August on that message.Brent Staples: So you’ve — right now, you mean?Oh, yeah. We have been saying that to you. They’re all over the air. Our first one starts out with the insurrection, pictures of the overturning of the Capitol —Brent Staples: So you shot your shot on that already.Yeah, yeah.Brent Staples: So I’m asking what’s coming, because —Well, just stay tuned. I’m not going to tell you everything right now.Bent Staples: I will tell you, I think that the shot you shot is not working.Well —Brent Staples: Just a citizen’s observation.I’ll tell you another thing people don’t know is how aggressive I am on economic development. One thing that’s going to get people very energized … Micron. Micron — the rest of the nation, every governor wanted to attract Micron. They came to New York. We had a partnership with Chuck Schumer. We had to work at the federal level with President Biden.I got the deal done, overcoming a lot of hesitation. But because of relationships I have with the Legislature, they trusted me. I said, “If we can put together a green CHIPS bill, meaning there has to be intense sustainability standards in this, I can attract them.” And they were not coming here. In fact, after we won Micron, there was reporting in Texas, very disappointed community. They were sure they had landed it. So now what I had done is had a breakthrough. I could say that this is a state that welcomes business.And what that means, more importantly to me, is that 50,000 jobs, partially upstate. But [inaudible] walked in the Bronx. And he says, “Do you think we could use, possibly, the abandoned armory?” I’ve been sitting down with a lot of people saying, “What can we do with this armory?” It has to have new life. And it could be a work force training center. He says, “Can we think about getting semiconductor training, manufacturing,” which has now come to New York because I insisted that we have a policy —[A spokeswoman for Ms. Hochul told The Times that the governor has discussed with local officials the possibility of opening a work force training center in the Bronx for jobs expected to come to the state with Micron.]Brent Staples: It’s mainly robotic.Pardon me?Brent Staples: Semiconductor making is mainly robotic now.We need all kinds of skills. Fifty thousand jobs. And those aren’t the construction jobs. That’s not the construction. That’s 50,000 jobs for the supply chain, all the component parts. But he says, “Will we be teaching people in the Bronx about these jobs, getting that training done?”So that’s, to me, I see the connection of upstate and downstate. Continue creating jobs. And there’s a whole supply chain opportunity and training opportunity because we delivered — we promised we’d get people the jobs they needed. We came to New York. We will get you the people with the skills you need. This is a game changer. This is the most historic investment in our state’s history from the private sector. That happened because I wouldn’t let go of that deal.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

  • in

    A Democratic Group Pours $20 Million Into State Legislative Races

    With the battle for state legislatures taking on an elevated importance during this midterm cycle, a Democratic super PAC is investing more than $20 million in state legislative races, with about 70 percent of the funds going to support candidates in 25 districts across Michigan, Pennsylvania and Arizona.The investment is from Forward Majority, the super PAC, as Democrats across the country are pouring significant resources into state legislative races. Last month, the States Project, another Democratic super PAC, pledged to spend $60 million in legislative races in five states. And Tech + Campaigns, another Democratic group, has pledged to spend $8 million on such races.State legislatures have long been dominated by Republicans, who have excelled at motivating their voters to engage beyond federal races. The party made a concerted effort to win state legislatures ahead of the 2010 redistricting cycle and then proceeded to draw gerrymandered legislative maps to help shore up their control. As a result, Republicans have complete control of 29 state legislatures.But with the Supreme Court set to rule in a case that could give state legislatures nearly unchecked authority over federal elections, Democratic groups have been aggressively playing catch-up, reaching parity with Republicans in television ad spending this year.Forward Majority, however, is focusing more of its spending on the detailed aspects of campaigning, like voter registration and a tactic known as “boosted news,” or the practice of paying to promote news articles on social media newsfeeds.The group has been targeting suburban and exurban districts that are split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats with a push to register new Democrats, who may be voters who have moved or who haven’t been engaged in a while, and encourage them to vote on the whole ballot instead of just the top of the ticket.“Even as we see Joe Biden, Mark Kelly, Gretchen Whitmer win at the top of the ticket, we are still losing those races down-ballot,” said Vicky Hausman, a co-founder of Forward Majority. “So we have been obsessed with finding ways to add additional margin and add additional votes in these races.”Republicans have noticed the increased investments of Democrats in state legislative races and have sounded the alarm to donors.“We don’t have the luxury of relying on reinforcements to come save us,” Dee Duncan, the president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, wrote to donors last month. “We are the calvary.”The path for Democrats in Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania is narrow, but Ms. Hausman pointed to the thin margins in recent state legislative battles as an encouraging sign.“The Virginia House was decided by about 600 votes in 2021,” she said. “The Arizona House came down to about 3,000 votes in two districts in 2020. So it is going to be a dogfight.” More

  • in

    This Is What Happens When Election Deniers Let Their Freak Flag Fly

    Here’s a prediction: If Donald Trump is on the ballot in 2024, there is little reason to think that the United States will have a smooth and uncomplicated presidential election.Just the opposite, of course. Republican candidates for governor and secretary of state who are aligned with Trump have promised, repeatedly and in public, to subvert any election result that doesn’t favor the former president if he runs again.On Saturday, for example, the Republican nominee for secretary of state in Nevada, Jim Marchant, told a crowd at a rally for Trump and the statewide Republican ticket that his victory — Marchant’s victory, that is — would help put Trump back into the White House.“President Trump and I lost an election in 2020 because of a rigged election,” Marchant said, with Trump by his side. “I’ve been working since Nov. 4, 2020, to expose what happened. And what I found out is horrifying. And when I’m secretary of state of Nevada, we’re going to fix it. And when my coalition of secretary of state candidates around the country get elected, we’re going to fix the whole country and President Trump is going to be president again in 2024.”This is very different from a de rigueur promise to help a candidate win votes. Marchant, a former state assemblyman, believes (or at least says he believes) that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party stole the 2020 presidential election away from Trump, whom he regards as the rightful and legitimate president.He said as much last year, in an interview with Eddie Floyd, a Nevada radio host with a taste for electoral conspiracy theories: “The 2020 election was a totally rigged election. Whenever I speak, I ask everybody in the audience, I says, ‘Is there anybody here that really believes Joe Biden was legitimately elected?’ And everywhere I go, not one hand goes up. Nobody believes that he was legitimately elected.”Marchant, as he noted in his rally speech, leads a coalition of 2020 election-denying America First candidates for governor and secretary of state. It’s a who’s who of MAGA Republicans, including Kari Lake and Mark Finchem of Arizona, Doug Mastriano of Pennsylvania and Kristina Karamo of Michigan.If elected, any one of these candidates could, at a minimum, create chaos in vote casting and vote counting and the certification of election results. Marchant, for example, has said that he wants to eliminate same-day voting, mail-in voting and ballot drop boxes. He also wants to dump machine ballot tabulation and move to hand counts, which are time-consuming, expensive and much less accurate.That’s the point, of course. The problem for election-denying candidates is that ordinarily the process is too straightforward and the results are too clear. Confusion sows doubt, and doubt gives these Republicans the pretext they need to claim fraud and seize control of the allocation of electoral votes.Congress could circumvent much of this with its revised Electoral Count Act, which appears to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. But if the act passes, the danger does not end there. Even if Congress closes the loopholes in the certification of electoral votes, the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court could still give state legislatures free rein to run roughshod over the popular will.This is not theoretical. In Moore v. Harper, which will be heard later this term, the court will weigh in on the “independent state legislature” theory, a once-rejected claim that was reintroduced to conservative legal thinking in a concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. It was later embraced by the conservative legal movement in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, when lawyers for Donald Trump seized on the theory as a pretext for invalidating ballots in swing states where courts and election officials used their legal authority to expand ballot access without direct legislative approval. Under the independent state legislature theory, the Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive and plenary power to change state election law, unbound by state constitutions and state courts.This, as I’ve discussed in a previous column, is nonsense. It rests on a selective interpretation of a single word in a single clause, divorced from the structure of the Constitution as well as the context of its creation, namely the effort by national elites to strengthen federal authority and limit the influence of the states.Why, in other words, would the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution essentially reinscribe the fundamental assumption of the Articles of Confederation — the exclusive sovereignty of the states — in a document designed to supersede them? As J. Michael Luttig, a legal scholar and former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (appointed by George H.W. Bush), wrote in a recent essay for The Atlantic, “There is literally no support in the Constitution, the pre-ratification debates, or the history from the time of our nation’s founding or the Constitution’s framing for a theory of an independent state legislature that would foreclose state judicial review of state legislatures’ redistricting decisions.”But the total lack of support for the independent state legislature theory in American history or constitutional law may not stop the Supreme Court from affirming it in the Constitution, if the conservative majority believes it might give the Republican Party a decisive advantage in future election contests. And it would. Under the strongest forms of the independent state legislature theory, state lawmakers could allocate electoral votes against the will of the voters if they concluded that the election was somehow tainted or illegitimate.Which brings us back to the election deniers running in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Victory for the election deniers in any state would, in combination with any version of the independent state legislature theory, put the United States on the glide path to an acutely felt constitutional crisis. We may face a situation where the voters of Nevada or Wisconsin want Joe Biden (or another Democrat) for president, but state officials and lawmakers want Trump, and have the power to make it so.One of the more ominous developments of the past few years is the way that conservatives have rejected the language of American democracy, saying instead that the United States is a “republic and not a democracy,” in a direct lift from Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, who made the phrase a rallying cry against social and political equality. This rests on a distinction between the words “democracy” and “republic” that doesn’t really exist in practice. “During the eighteenth century,” the political scientist Robert Dahl once observed, “the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘republic’ were used interchangeably in both common and philosophical usage.”But there is a school of political thought called republicanism, which rests on principles of non-domination and popular sovereignty, and it was a major influence on the American revolutionaries, including the framers of the Constitution. “The fundamental maxim of republican government,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22, “requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.” Likewise, James Madison wrote at the end of his life that the “vital principle” of “republican government” is the “lex majoris partis — the will of the majority.”Election deniers, and much of the Republican Party at this point in time, reject democracy and the equality it implies. But what’s key is that they also reject republicanism and the fundamental principle of popular government. Put simply, they see Donald Trump as their sovereign as much as their president, and they hope to make him a kind of king.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

  • in

    How the Supreme Court’s State Legislature Case Could Change Elections

    EASTPOINTE, Mich. — The conversation started with potholes.Veronica Klinefelt, a Democratic candidate for State Senate in suburban Detroit, was out knocking on doors as she tries to win a seat her party sees as critical for taking back the chamber. “I am tired of seeing cuts in aging communities like ours,” she told one voter, gesturing to a cul-de-sac pocked with cracks and crevasses. “We need to reinvest here.”What went largely unspoken, however, was how this obscure local race has significant implications for the future of American democracy.The struggle for the Michigan Senate, as well as clashes for control of several other narrowly divided chambers in battleground states, have taken on outsize importance at a time when state legislatures are ever more powerful. With Congress often deadlocked and conservatives dominating the Supreme Court, state governments increasingly steer the direction of voting laws, abortion access, gun policy, public health, education and other issues dominating the lives of Americans.The Supreme Court could soon add federal elections to that list.The justices are expected to decide whether to grant nearly unfettered authority over such elections to state legislatures — a legal argument known as the independent state legislature theory. If the court does so, many Democrats believe, state legislatures could have a pathway to overrule the popular vote in presidential elections by refusing to certify the results and instead sending their own slates of electors.While that might seem like a doomsday scenario, 44 percent of Republicans in crucial swing-state legislatures used the power of their office to discredit or try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, according to a New York Times analysis. More like-minded G.O.P. candidates on the ballot could soon join them in office.Republicans have complete control over legislatures in states that have a total of 307 electoral votes — 37 more than needed to win a presidential election. They hold majorities in several battleground states, meaning that if the Supreme Court endorsed the legal theory, a close presidential election could be overturned if just a few states assigned alternate slates of electors.Democrats’ chances of bringing Republicans’ total below 270 are narrow: They would need to flip the Michigan Senate or the Arizona Senate, and then one chamber in both Pennsylvania and New Hampshire in 2024, in addition to defending the chambers the party currently controls.Democrats and Republicans have set their sights on half a dozen states where state legislatures — or at least a single chamber — could flip in November. Democrats hope to wrest back one of the chambers in Michigan and the Arizona Senate, and flip the Minnesota Senate. Republicans aim to win back the Minnesota House of Representatives and take control of one chamber, or both, in the Maine, Colorado and Nevada legislatures. They are also targeting Oregon and Washington.An avalanche of money has flowed into these races. The Republican State Leadership Committee, the party’s campaign arm for state legislative races, has regularly set new fund-raising records, raising $71 million this cycle. The group’s Democratic counterpart has also broken fund-raising records, raising $45 million. Outside groups have spent heavily, too: The States Project, a Democratic super PAC, has pledged to invest nearly $60 million in five states.At a candidate forum on Wednesday in Midland, Mich., Kristen McDonald Rivet, a Democrat, and Annette Glenn, a Republican, faced off in their highly competitive State Senate race.Emily Elconin for The New York TimesThe television airwaves, rarely a place where state legislative candidates go to war, have been flooded with advertising on the races. More than $100 million has been spent nationwide since July, an increase of $20 million over the same period in 2020, according to AdImpact, a media tracking firm.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With less than one month until Election Day, Republicans remain favored to take over the House, but momentum in the pitched battle for the Senate has seesawed back and forth.Herschel Walker: A woman who said that the G.O.P. Senate nominee in Georgia paid for her abortion in 2009 told The Times that he urged her to terminate a second pregnancy two years later. She chose to have their son instead.Will the Walker Allegations Matter?: The scandal could be decisive largely because of the circumstances in Georgia, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.Pennsylvania Senate Race: John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee, says he can win over working-class voters in deep-red counties. But as polls tighten in the contest, that theory is under strain.Democrats are finding, however, that motivating voters on an issue as esoteric as the independent state legislature theory is not an easy task.“Voters care a whole lot about a functioning democracy,” said Daniel Squadron, a Democratic former state senator from New York and a founder of the States Project. But, he said, the independent state legislature “threat still feels as though it’s on the horizon, even though it’s upon us.”For some Republicans, the issue of the independent state legislature theory is far from the campaign trail, and far from their concerns.“If it’s a decision by the Supreme Court, based on their legal opinion, I would defer to their legal expertise,” said Michael D. MacDonald, the Republican state senator running against Ms. Klinefelt. “I certainly respect the court’s opinion when they make it. I think it’s important that we do.”Instead, Republicans are focusing on economic topics like inflation.“The economy remains the issue that voters are most concerned about in their daily lives, and is the issue that will decide the battle for state legislatures in November,” said Andrew Romeo, the communications director for the Republican State Leadership Committee. The group’s internal polling shows that inflation and the cost of living are the No. 1 priority in every state surveyed.The issues defining each election vary widely by district. Some of them, like roads, school funding and water, are hyperlocal — subjects that rarely drive a congressional or statewide race.In the Detroit suburbs, Mr. MacDonald said he had heard the same concerns.“When they have something to say, it’s never ‘Joe Biden’ or ‘Donald Trump,’ it’s, ‘Hey, you know, actually my road, it’s a little bumpy, what can you do?’” Mr. MacDonald said. He added, “Sometimes it could be as small as, ‘Can they get a garbage can from our garbage contractor?’”His pitch to voters, in turn, focuses on money that Macomb County, which makes up a large part of the district, has received from the state budget since he was elected four years ago. More

  • in

    In Arizona Governor’s Race, a Democrat Runs on Abortion

    PHOENIX — Here was a debate that Katie Hobbs wanted to have.For weeks, critics heckled Ms. Hobbs as a “coward” and “chicken” for refusing to share a debate stage with her combative, election-denying Republican rival in the race to become Arizona’s next governor. Some fellow Democrats fretted it was a dodge that risked alienating undecided voters who could tip the razor-thin race.Then last Friday, a judge upended the campaign by resurrecting an 1864 law that bans nearly all abortions across Arizona, a ruling made possible by the overturning of Roe v. Wade. And Ms. Hobbs, Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state, seized what Democrats in this battleground state hoped would become a galvanizing moment.She scrapped a campaign event and scrambled to arrange a news conference outside the office of the Republican state attorney general who had argued to reimpose the Old West-era abortion law. She vowed to repeal the ban and taunted Republicans for their muted responses to the abrupt halt of all abortions across Arizona.She also spoke in starkly personal terms about how she had once had a miscarriage, and had needed a surgical procedure now being denied to women in states that have outlawed abortion. Ms. Hobbs says any abortion decisions should “rest solely between a woman and her doctor, not the government.”“It’s difficult,” Ms. Hobbs said later about sharing her own story. “But there’s too much at stake in this election not to talk about that.”The race for an open governor’s seat in Arizona has swelled into a bruising struggle over the evolving political identity of a traditionally conservative state that sends Democrats to Washington, while keeping Republicans in power at home.Abortion rights supporters protest in Phoenix, after the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn the constitutional right to abortion.Joel Angel Juarez/USA Today Network/Via ReutersThe question now is whether Arizona will move left with Ms. Hobbs, a soft-spoken social worker and state politician, or veer deeper into MAGA territory by electing Kari Lake, a former local news anchor running on militarizing the nation’s southwestern border and amplifying falsehoods about the 2020 election.“I really think this is a battle between two competing narratives,” said Kirk Adams, a Republican former speaker of the Arizona House and former chief of staff for the outgoing Republican governor, Doug Ducey. “Abortion rights and saving democracy on one hand and inflation and border security and a stolen election on the other.”As secretary of state during the 2020 presidential election, Ms. Hobbs became a hero to Democrats for defending Arizona’s voting system from an onslaught of false accusations of fraud. She vaulted to the front of the Democratic primary for governor while also becoming a target of death threats and protests.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.A Focus on Crime: In the final phase of the midterm campaign, Republicans are stepping up their attacks about crime rates, but Democrats are pushing back.Pennsylvania Governor’s Race: Doug Mastriano, the Trump-backed G.O.P. nominee, is being heavily outspent and trails badly in polling. National Republicans are showing little desire to help him.Megastate G.O.P. Rivalry: Against the backdrop of their re-election bids, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida are locked in an increasingly high-stakes contest of one-upmanship.Rushing to Raise Money: Senate Republican nominees are taking precious time from the campaign trail to gather cash from lobbyists in Washington — and close their fund-raising gap with Democratic rivals.Her supporters cast the race against Ms. Lake as “sanity versus chaos,” and said Ms. Hobbs would take a bipartisan approach to tackling Arizona’s water shortages, meager school funding and spiraling housing costs. But even some supporters doubt whether her mild manner can stand up to Lake’s bolder one.“I don’t think she has done as well as she should have,” said Claudia Underwood, a retired lawyer and Democrat in a corner of Phoenix with enviable views of Camelback Mountain, the city’s most famous peak. “She is not coming across as strong as I think she should.”Ms. Lake has spent the race lobbing verbal grenades at Ms. Hobbs with a delivery honed during years anchoring local Fox newscasts. She has called for Ms. Hobbs to be jailed and needles her as “Katie.” Ms. Hobbs uses Ms. Lake’s full name or formally calls her “my opponent.”While Ms. Lake has given speeches in front of roaring crowds at Trump rallies, Ms. Hobbs has run a campaign centered on smaller events with local and tribal leaders and student organizers, and house parties with supporters.Supporters say she is genuine and caring, but even on the most comfortable terrain, she sometimes sticks to the script. At a recent roundtable with abortion-rights supporters, she hewed largely to prepared statements.“She’s not going to get up at a rally like Ms. Lake does and get the crowd all stirred up,” said State Senator Lela Alston, a Democrat who once ran with Ms. Hobbs and U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema for their state legislative seats. “She’s much more thoughtful and available to people all over the state. I’m hoping the message gets out.”Arizona Republican candidate for governor Kari Lake greets supporters at a rally in Tucson.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesA handful of Democrats running for state legislative races said they had yet to get an invitation to campaign with her or appear together at an event. By contrast, Ms. Lake had two Republican state legislative candidates introduce themselves before she appeared at a friendly question-and-answer session with supporters.“We have a candidate who isn’t out campaigning, so it’s hard to break through and keep those issues relevant if there’s nobody out there talking about them,” said Marco Lopez, Ms. Hobbs’s Democratic primary opponent.Billy Grant, a consultant for Ms. Lake, has said that her campaign has focused on showing the clear contrasts between the two candidates and that she considered the border to be the top issue for voters in Arizona.“Katie Hobbs was convinced she could win with the Joe Biden strategy of just running TV ads and hiding out from the public,” he said. “That is just not going to happen.”Other Democrats argued Ms. Hobbs was right in running her own campaign and declining to debate an opponent who wrongly insists the 2020 election was stolen. The Republican nominees for Arizona’s most powerful statewide office this November have all made repeated false claims that the 2020 vote was fraudulent and rightfully won by Mr. Trump.Racism and discrimination have also come up in uncomfortable ways for Ms. Hobbs. In November, a jury awarded $2.75 million to a Black staff member who worked under Ms. Hobbs in the State Senate, and who was fired in 2015 after complaining about her unequal pay.The former staffer, Talonya Adams, has become a vocal critic of Ms. Hobbs, and Ms. Lake has used the lawsuit to call Ms. Hobbs a “convicted racist.” Ms. Hobbs released a statement apologizing to Ms. Adams.Now, about two weeks before ballots are mailed out, interviews with voters across Arizona suggest that people’s priorities are splintered. While many Democrats cite abortion and democracy as top concerns, others who are just now tuning into the race say they are most worried about soaring food and rent costs and an increase in migrants attempting to cross Arizona’s southern border.Jon Hernandez, 22, who says he is undecided but leaning toward voting for Ms. Lake, has spent the summer living at home with his parents and doing the “soul draining” work of a failed job hunt. He said he supported the Clinton-era pitch that abortion should be legal, safe and rare. But he said abortion was a lesser concern.“It’s nowhere near as important,” he said. “If we don’t get control of rampant inflation and gas prices, that spells disaster for much more of the population. It’s like tiers of priorities.”In an interview, Ms. Hobbs made a point of criticizing Ms. Lake’s anti-abortion stance as “extreme and out of touch.” Ms. Lake has called the 1864 ban “a great law” and has said she would support further anti-abortion measures as governor.Kari Lake supporters gather in Tucson.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesNew polls of the governor’s race — a virtual dead heat — suggest that those laws are out of step with an electorate that is getting younger, increasingly Latino and pulling a traditionally conservative state closer to the political center.On her website, Ms. Lake pledges to support all forms of birth control, as well as state government programs to help pregnant mothers seek alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and provide resources for parental support and guidance. She also says fathers must be “held accountable.”Some 90 percent of Arizona voters said abortion should always be legal, or should be legal in some circumstances, according to a survey conducted in early September by the Phoenix-based firm OH Predictive Insights. And 45 percent said that a candidate’s stance on abortion had a strong impact on their vote.“It’s just scary,” said Andrea Luna Cervantes, a reproductive-rights activist in Phoenix. “Because you’re a woman, because you’re a person who can give birth, your rights can be just stripped.”Ms. Cervantes said she got involved in abortion-rights activism after seeing people she knew face pregnancies with few resources or options other than carrying them to term. She said she planned to vote for Ms. Hobbs, but some family members back in Yuma were unconvinced.The ban struck a chord with some Indigenous voters, who make up 5 percent of the state’s population. Anjeanette Laban, a member of the Hopi Tribe, said reproductive health care was already dangerously scarce and distant. She saw the end of abortion access in Arizona as another colonial oppression. She said that she knew little about the candidates running, but that the abortion issue would determine her vote.“They’re still trying to dictate what we can do, how they can limit us,” she said.In recent weeks, Ms. Hobbs has been leaning into the issue of abortion in email blasts to supporters, and the Arizona Democratic Party has released a new television ad slamming Ms. Lake for saying she did not believe abortion should be legal.“Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Arizona has reverted back to a 100-year-old law that criminalizes abortion, and Kari Lake — she supports that,” Chris Nanos, the Pima County sheriff, says in the ad.After the abortion ban ruling, Ms. Lake called Ms. Hobbs “radical” on the issue during an interview on Fox News. On Monday, she emailed supporters keeping up her critique of Ms. Hobbs on immigration. The subject line was “Open Borders Katie.” More

  • in

    Activists Flood Election Offices With Challenges

    Activists driven by false theories about election fraud are working to toss out tens of thousands of voter registrations and ballots in battleground states, part of a loosely coordinated campaign that is sowing distrust and threatening further turmoil as election officials prepare for the November midterms.Groups in Georgia have challenged at least 65,000 voter registrations across eight counties, claiming to have evidence that voters’ addresses were incorrect. In Michigan, an activist group tried to challenge 22,000 ballots from voters who had requested absentee ballots for the state’s August primary. And in Texas, residents sent in 116 affidavits challenging the eligibility of more than 6,000 voters in Harris County, which is home to Houston and is the state’s largest county.The recent wave of challenges have been filed by right-wing activists who believe conspiracy theories about fraud in the 2020 presidential election. They claim to be using state laws that allow people to question whether a voter is eligible. But so far, the vast majority of the complaints have been rejected, in many cases because election officials found the challenges were filed incorrectly, rife with bad information or based on flawed data analysis.Republican-aligned groups have long pushed to aggressively cull the voter rolls, claiming that inaccurate registrations can lead to voter fraud — although examples of such fraud are exceptionally rare. Voting rights groups say the greater concern is inadvertently purging an eligible voter from the rolls.The new tactic of flooding offices with challenges escalates that debate — and weaponizes the process. Sorting through the piles of petitions is costly and time-consuming, increasing the chances that overburdened election officials could make mistakes that could disenfranchise voters. And while election officials say they’re confident in their procedures, they worry about the toll on trust in elections. The challenge process, as used by election deniers, has become another platform for spreading doubt about the security of elections.“It’s a tactic to distract and undermine the electoral process,” said Dele Lowman Smith, chairwoman of the DeKalb County Board of Elections in Georgia. Her county is among several in Georgia that have had to hold special meetings just to address the challenges. The state’s new Republican-backed election law requires that each challenge receive a hearing, and the process was taking up too much time in regular board meetings.The activists say they are exercising their right to ensure that voter rolls are accurate.“If a citizen is giving you information, wouldn’t you want to check it and make sure it’s right?” said Sandy Kiesel, the executive director of Election Integrity Fund and Force, a group involved in challenges in Michigan.But in private strategy and training calls, participants from some groups have talked openly about more political aims, saying they believe their work will help Republican candidates. Some groups largely target voters in Democratic, urban areas.It is not unusual for voter rolls to contain errors — often because voters have died or moved without updating their registrations. But states typically rely on systematic processes outlined in state and federal law — not on lists provided by outside groups — to clean up the information.Still, groups have submitted challenges before. True the Vote, a Texas group behind the misinformation-laden film “2,000 Mules,” challenged more than 360,000 voters in Georgia before Senate runoff elections in 2021.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.A Focus on Crime: In the final phase of the midterm campaign, Republicans are stepping up their attacks about crime rates, but Democrats are pushing back.Pennsylvania Governor’s Race: Doug Mastriano, the Trump-backed G.O.P. nominee, is being heavily outspent and trails badly in polling. National Republicans are showing little desire to help him.Megastate G.O.P. Rivalry: Against the backdrop of their re-election bids, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida are locked in an increasingly high-stakes contest of one-upmanship.Rushing to Raise Money: Senate Republican nominees are taking precious time from the campaign trail to gather cash from lobbyists in Washington — and close their fund-raising gap with Democratic rivals.The new tactics and types of challenges have spread wildly since, as a broad movement has mobilized around former President Donald J. Trump’s lies that the election was stolen. An influential think tank with close Trump ties, the Conservative Partnership Institute, has distributed a playbook that instructs local groups on how to vet voter rolls. Another national group, the America Project, backed by Michael Flynn and Patrick Byrne, influential members in the election denial movement, have helped fund a Georgia outfit that has challenged ballots across the state. America Project’s support was first reported by Bloomberg News.In mid-September, another Georgia group, Greater Georgia, co-sponsored a Zoom training session about how to file challenges with roughly a dozen activists. The group, which was founded by former Senator Kelly Loeffler, said the goal was protecting “election integrity.”The areas it focused on — counties in the metro Atlanta area — have the highest concentration of Democratic voters in the state. The leader of the training, Catherine McDonald, who works for the Voter Integrity Project, told participants she believed Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, both Democrats, won their Senate races in 2021 in part because judges refused to hear cases challenging what she considered illegal voting.“There were more than enough illegal votes,” Ms. McDonald said at the outset of the training, according to a transcript of the event obtained by The New York Times. “None of the judges in Fulton or DeKalb would take the case.”Greater Georgia declined to comment on the training.Thousands of voters have been challenged in Georgia’s Gwinnett County.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesOf the challenges brought in Gwinnett County in Georgia, 15,000 to 20,000 were rejected, while a further 16,000 or so remained undecided. In many cases, the methodology was found to be flawed or misguided. In Forsyth County, Ga., 6 percent of the 17,000 voters challenged were removed from the rolls, according to county records, after election officials determined that the submissions either did not meet necessary requirements or were factually incorrect.In Michigan, the secretary of state’s office said an attempt to challenge 22,027 ballots at once was invalid — state law says challenges must be submitted one at a time rather than in bulk, Jonathan Brater, director of the state’s Bureau of Elections, wrote in a letter to local officials..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Mr. Brater highlighted other issues with the group’s work. The activists used the U.S. Postal Service’s change of address system as evidence indicating a voter’s registration isn’t valid. But many people in that system, including students and members of the military, are still eligible to vote at their previous address, he wrote. Other challenges were based on a glitch that listed Jan. 1, 1900, as a place-holder registration date for people registered before new software was introduced.In interviews with The Times, leaders with the group behind the effort, Election Integrity Fund and Force, said they did not have clear evidence that the voters listed were ineligible. They were simply prompting elections officials to make a closer examination of some potential errors, they said.They weren’t aware of any voters removed from the rolls as a result, they said.Election Integrity Fund and Force has been working in Michigan since the 2020 election, promoting skepticism about the election’s legitimacy. This month, it sued the governor and secretary of state in an attempt to decertify President Biden’s win in the state. It has also sent volunteers knocking on doors to survey residents about the registered voters in their homes. They presented their results to election officials as evidence of problems with the voter rolls.But officials who reviewed the group’s findings said they were riddled with errors and leaps in logic. “They don’t have a grasp of how things actually work,” said Lisa Brown, the county clerk for Oakland County in the Detroit suburbs.Ms. Brown said a colleague found a friend on the group’s list of problematic registrations because the friend forwards her mail. “She’s a snowbird. So, yeah, she forwards her mail to Florida when she’s down there, but she still lives here,” Ms. Brown said.Ms. Kiesel, the group’s executive director, said her group planned to send lists of names to Michigan election officials before the November election. The lists will also go to poll workers, she said.If voters are challenged at polling places, their ballots would be immediately counted. But the ballots would also be marked and could be reviewed later if a candidate or group sued, officials said.Ms. Kiesel has shared her group’s plans with various coalitions of election activists in Michigan, including one with ties to the Conservative Partnership Institute, according to audio of conference calls obtained by The Times. A lawyer who aided Mr. Trump in his effort to overturn the 2020 results, Cleta Mitchell, is leading the institute’s effort to organize activists.“We learned a lot by the challenges,” Ms. Kiesel said on one call with the coalition in August. “We need people to help us to do the same thing in the November election.”Election workers checking voter registrations in Lansing, Mich., on Election Day in 2020.John Moore/Getty ImagesChris Thomas, a former elections director for Michigan now working as a consultant for Detroit, said he did not expect the challenges to succeed. But one concern is that activists will use rejections to sow doubt about the legitimacy of elections if they don’t like the results.“They can’t get over the fact they lost,” Mr. Thomas said. “They are just going to beat the system into the ground.”Another canvassing operation fanned out across Harris County, Texas, over the summer. Volunteers with the Texas Election Network, a group with ties to the state Republican Party, went door to door, clipboards in hand, to ask residents if they were the voters registered at those addresses. The canvassing effort was first reported by The Houston Chronicle.Soon after, 116 affidavits challenging the registration of thousands of voters were filed with the Harris County Election Office, according to data obtained through an open records request by The New York Times. Each affidavit, sent by individual citizens, was written exactly the same.“I have personal knowledge that the voters named in this affidavit do not reside at the addresses listed on their voter registration records,” the affidavits said. “I have personally visited the listed addresses. I have personally interviewed persons actually residing at these addresses.”Each affidavit failed to meet the state’s standards, and after a quick investigation, all were rejected by the election administrator of Harris County. More

  • in

    Does It Matter That Investigators Are Closing In on Trump?

    Gail Collins: Bret, which do you think is more of a threat to Trump’s political future, the classified document drama at Mar-a-Lago or the legal challenge to his businesses in New York?Bret Stephens: Gail, I suspect the most serious threats to Trump’s future, political or otherwise, are Big Macs and KFC buckets. Otherwise, I fear the various efforts to put the 45th president out of business or in prison make it considerably more likely that he’ll wind up in the White House as the 47th president. How about you?Gail: Sigh. You’re probably right but I’m still sorta hoping New York’s attorney general can hit him in the pocketbook. He’s super vulnerable when it comes to his shady finances — I’m even surprised he can find lawyers who have confidence they’ll keep being paid.Bret: No doubt the Trump Organization was run with the kind of fierce moral and financial rectitude you’d expect if Elizabeth Holmes had been put in charge of Enron. But the essential currency of Trumpism is drama, and what the New York and U.S. attorneys general have done is inject a whole lot more of it into Trump’s accounts.Gail: I don’t think the news that Letitia James accused him of fudging his financial statements will upset the base — they’ve always known this is a guy who responded to the World Trade Center terror attack by bragging that his tower was now the highest building in Lower Manhattan.Bret: A graceless building, by the way, far surpassed by the Chrysler Building, for those who care about architectural rivalries.Gail: Maybe I need to stop obsessing about this and take a look at the rest of the public world. Anything got your attention in particular?Bret: Am I allowed a rant?Gail: Bret, rants are … what we do.Bret: The investigation of Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, which looks like it’s about to fall apart, is an F.B.I. disgrace for the ages. It should force heads to roll. And Congress needs to appoint a Church-style committee or commission to reform the bureau. After the Ted Stevens fiasco, James Comey’s disastrous interventions with Hillary Clinton’s emails, and the bureau misrepresenting facts to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as part of its investigation of Trump and Russia, something dramatic has to change to save the F.B.I. from continuing to lose public trust.Gail: Are you upset by the investigation or the fact that the investigation is failing?Bret: I’m upset by a longstanding pattern of incompetence tinged by what feels like political bias. I don’t like Gaetz’s politics or persona any more than you do. But what we seem to have here is a high-profile politician being convicted in the court of public opinion of some of the most heinous behavior imaginable — trafficking a minor for sex — until the Justice Department realizes two years late that its case has fallen apart. We have a presumption of innocence in this country because we tend to err the most when we assume the worst about the people we like the least.Gail: Nothing nobler than ranting about a basic moral principle on behalf of a deeply unattractive victim.Bret: He’s the yang to Lauren Boebert’s yin. But no American deserves to be smeared this way.Gail: While we’re on the general subject of crime let’s talk bail reform. Specifically, New York’s new system, under which a judge basically lets out arrestees not accused of violent felonies. New info suggests this may be increasing crime. But I’m sticking with my support for the concept. Suspects who haven’t yet been tried shouldn’t get different treatment based on their ability to come up with bail.Your turn …Bret: New York’s bail reform laws are egregious because we’re now the only state that forbids judges from considering the potential danger of a given suspect. It leads to crazy outcomes, like the guy who tried to stab Representative Lee Zeldin at a campaign stop in July and was released hours later.Another problem is that too many cities effectively decriminalized misdemeanors like shoplifting and have given up prosecuting a lot of felonies, which tends to encourage an anything-goes mentality among the criminally minded. We really need a new approach to crime, of the kind that Joe Biden and Bill Clinton pushed back in the early 1990s, when the Democrats finally determined to be a law-and-order party again.Gail: Biden’s generally held to a middle course that doesn’t drive anybody totally crazy. That’s why he got elected, after all. How would you say he’s doing these days?Bret: I’m giving him full marks on supporting Ukraine. And I know Democrats have this whole “Dark Brandon” thing given Biden’s legislative victories, along with the chance that Democrats might hold the Senate thanks to bad Republican candidates. But I still don’t see things going well. Food prices keep going up-up-up and we’re heading for a bad-bad-bad recession.You?Gail: Going for Not At All Bad. Otherwise known as N.A.A.B.Bret: I’m approaching the point of T.O.T.W.I. T.: The Only Thing Worse Is Trump.Gail: You’re way off.Biden may not have mobilized Congress the way we hoped, but he’s gotten quite a bit done — from funding the ever-popular infrastructure programs to reducing health care costs for the working and middle classes to finally, finally giving the Internal Revenue Service some funds to do its work more efficiently.But he lost you after infrastructure, right?Bret: He’s governed so much further to the left than I would have liked. Change of subject: What governor’s races are you following?Gail: It’s always a lot harder to focus on other states’ governors than the senators but I gotta admit this year I’m hooked on …Well, let’s start with one we’re going to disagree about. I’m guessing there’s no way you could be rooting for Beto O’Rourke in Texas, right?Bret: Ah, no, except as a performance artist. When are Texas Democrats going to nominate a centrist who stands a modest chance of winning a statewide race?What about the New York race? I don’t suppose you could have warm feelings for Lee Zeldin, could you?Gail: Well, to get Zeldin as their gubernatorial nominee, New York Republicans passed up a bid by Rudy’s son Andrew Giuliani, so I’d definitely put Zeldin in the Could Be Worse category.Bret: Hochul’s main achievement to date has been to get taxpayers to put up $850 million for a new Bills stadium in Buffalo. That makes her perfect for Albany, which I don’t mean as a compliment.Gail: Yeah, her Buffalo obsession is pretty irritating. But about Texas — Abbott is one of those Make Everything Worse Republicans, who most recently made the headlines by shipping busloads of migrants to northern cities. A move that did nothing to solve anything, but did help expose what a jerk he is.Really, nothing Beto has ever done is that awful.Bret: That’s because Beto has never done anything.One Democrat I am excited about is Maryland’s Wes Moore, whom I know slightly and impresses me greatly. His book, “The Other Wes Moore,” will soon be required reading the way Barack Obama’s “Dreams From My Father” used to be. And, just to be clear, that’s me saying that Moore could one day be president.Who else?Gail: Your bipartisanship is making me feel guilty. But about the governors — one other guy who fills me with rancor is my ongoing obsession, Ron DeSantis of Florida, who’s terrible in all the ways Abbott is terrible but much worse since he’s already a serious presidential candidate.Bret: And an effective governor who knows how to drive liberals crazy and whose state is attracting thousands of exiles from New York, California and other poorly governed, highly taxed blue states.Gail: Sorry but having empty space to develop and few social services to support doesn’t make you effective, just well positioned.But go on ….Bret: Speaking of DeSantis, how do you think he’d fare in a theoretical matchup against California’s Gavin Newsom?Gail: Oh boy, that’s pretty theoretical. DeSantis worries me because his policies are terrible — cruel and terrible. But he’s an obsessive campaigner with a smart pitch.Have to admit I don’t have much of a feel for Newsom — in general it’s hard to be a national candidate if you’re running as a Democrat from a state that’s very liberal. Liberal for good and historic reasons, but hard to sell to folks in Kansas or North Carolina.Here’s another Republican governor I’ve been mulling — what about Brian Kemp in Georgia?Bret: I’m generally not a fan of Southern Republicans. But Kemp did stand his ground against three election deniers: David Perdue in 2022, Donald Trump in 2020 and Stacey Abrams in 2018.Gail: Kemp is one of those Republicans — like Mike Pence and Liz Cheney — who I admire for their principled stands while realizing I would never vote for them. His abortion position, for instance, is appalling. So he goes in my Honorable But Wrong list.We’re cruising toward the final stage of the Senate campaigns, too, Bret. Let me leave you with the thought that Arizona is looking great for my side and Ohio maybe conceivably possible.Bret: And who’da thunk I’d be rooting for Democrats in both races?Gail: Wow. To be continued.Bret: In the meantime, Gail, I recommend reading Richard Sandomir’s beautiful obituary for two Jewish sisters who survived the Holocaust and passed away a few weeks ago in Alabama, 11 days apart. It’s a nice reminder of how much we all have to live for — and to wish all of our readers, Jewish or otherwise, a good and sweet new year.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

  • in

    Iran’s Ferocious Dissent

    Times reporters make sense of what’s happening.Few independent journalists are working inside Iran today. But videos, emails and other information coming from inside the country suggest that Iran is experiencing its most significant protests in more than a decade.The demonstrations began after a 22-year-old, Mahsa Amini, died in police custody on Sept. 16, having been arrested for violating Iran’s law requiring women to wear head scarves fully hiding their hair. This weekend, the protests spread to at least 80 cities, and demonstrators briefly seized control of a city in northwestern Iran. In response, the country’s security forces have opened fire on crowds.In today’s newsletter, I’ll try to help you make sense of what’s going on.Five main points1. Iran’s government is again run by hard-liners.In last year’s presidential election, the clerics who hold behind-the-scenes power in Iran disqualified nearly every candidate except for a hard-liner named Ebrahim Raisi. Since becoming president, Raisi has set out to reverse the legacy of his reformist predecessor, Hassan Rouhani.“On multiple fronts, Raisi has ferociously swung the pendulum back to the kind of xenophobic policies and tone-deaf rhetoric witnessed during the Revolution’s early days,” Robin Wright wrote this weekend in The New Yorker. Among Raisi’s moves: calling for the police to strictly enforce the head scarf law, in a reversal of Rouhani’s policy.Raisi has also taken a tougher line toward the U.S. In meetings connected with the United Nations gathering last week, for instance, he scoffed at the notion that Iran’s police were overly violent. “How many times in the United States, men and women are killed every day at the hands of law enforcement personnel,” he told journalists on Thursday.As Wright described, “His voice rose so loudly and so often that it was frequently hard to hear the English translation through our headsets.”2. The rise of hard-liners has contributed to growing desperation among young Iranians.“The reason the younger generation is taking this kind of risk is because they feel they have nothing to lose, they have no hope for the future,” Ali Vaez, Iran director for the International Crisis Group, told The Times. (My colleagues Vivian Yee and Farnaz Fassihi went into more detail in this recent story.) Many Iranians understand they are taking existential risks by protesting, given the regime’s history of responding to past protests with mass arrests.“I’m struck by the bravery of these young Iranians,” my colleague David Sanger, who has been covering Iran for decades, said. “And by the ferocity of their desire to get out from under the rule of this government.”Protesters in the streets of Tehran on Wednesday.Associated Press3. The economy plays a big role in the dissatisfaction.In 2018, Donald Trump decided to pursue a high-risk, high-reward policy toward Iran. He exited a nuclear deal that Barack Obama had negotiated three years earlier, which had lifted many sanctions in exchange for Iran’s taking steps away from being able to build a nuclear weapon. Trump reimposed those sanctions and added new ones, betting that doing so would force Iran to accept a tougher deal and maybe even destabilize the government.Over time, the sanctions — combined with Iran’s pre-existing economic problems — plunged the country into an economic crisis. “Many Iranians are struggling to make ends meet, thanks to an economy decimated by mismanagement, corruption and sanctions,” Vivian, who is The Times’s Cairo bureau chief, told me. “Some are even offering to sell their organs.”She added:In the past — say, when Rouhani first got elected, in 2013 — lots of Iranians felt genuinely optimistic that things would turn around, because Rouhani promised that the nuclear deal with the U.S. would help open up the economy and boost trade, along with getting the sanctions lifted. But the mood darkened when those benefits failed to materialize before President Trump scuttled the deal.With the election of Raisi, a hard-liner who has spoken against returning to the deal and whose government hasn’t shown much flexibility in negotiations with Western powers over the last year, Iranians who had hoped for a recovery felt like there was no way things would improve.Does all this mean Trump’s policy is succeeding? Many experts say it’s too soon to make that judgment. The policy has sharply raised the risk that Iran will soon have a nuclear weapon. And a week or so of protests does not mean Iran’s regime will collapse. If the regime does collapse, however, it will be fair to revisit Trump’s Iran legacy.4. Biden is taking a tougher approach toward Iran than Obama did.In 2009, during the last major wave of protests, Obama did relatively little to support them, out of a concern that Iran’s government could then portray the demonstrations as the work of foreign agitators.This time, Biden is pursuing a more confrontational policy. “Part of the reason that there was a different kind of approach in 2009 was the belief that somehow if America spoke out, it would undermine the protesters, not aid them,” Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, who also served in the Obama administration, said on “Meet the Press” yesterday. “What we learned in the aftermath of that is that you can overthink these things, that the most important thing for the United States to do is to be firm and clear and principled in response to citizens of any country demanding their rights and dignity.”One example: To combat Iran’s government’s attempts to shut down large parts of the internet and prevent protesters from communicating with each other, the Biden administration has authorized some technology companies to offer services inside Iran without risk of violating U.S. sanctions. The administration also allowed SpaceX — one of Elon Musk’s companies, which offers the Starlink communication service — to send satellite equipment into Iran.“The technology available today makes it easier for Iranians to communicate in secret than ever before,” David Sanger said. “That’s why the Iranians are trying to bring down the whole internet inside Iran. That’s real desperation.”5. In the short term, Iran’s government seems likely to prevail. Then again, revolutions are rarely predictable.David put it this way: “History would suggest that since the state holds all the guns, this isn’t likely to last. But sometimes it’s a mistake to be a slave to past events. The successful Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 led many of us — me included — to suspect that Ukraine would shatter in a few days back in February.”Related: Amini, the Iranian woman who died in police custody, was a member of Iran’s Kurdish minority. Their rage reflects a history of discrimination.THE LATEST NEWSPoliticsTikTok has been under a legal cloud in the U.S. because of its Chinese ownership.Tony Luong for The New York TimesThe Biden administration and TikTok have drafted a preliminary deal to let the Chinese-owned app continue operating in the U.S.State chief justices want the Supreme Court to reject a legal theory that would give state legislatures extraordinary power over elections.InternationalGiorgia Meloni is set to become Italy’s first female leader.Gianni Cipriano for The New York TimesGiorgia Meloni, a hard-right politician who leads a party descended from the remnants of fascism, appears set to be Italy’s next prime minister.China is on track to sell about six million electric vehicles this year, more than every other country combined.Global markets tumbled this morning, and the pound fell to a record low against the dollar.Russia is forcing Ukrainians in occupied territory to fight against their own country.Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, fearing a war between Russia and NATO, refuses to send Ukraine tanks.Other Big StoriesA NASA spacecraft is set to collide with an asteroid today, testing a technique to protect Earth. Here’s how to watch.Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya beat his own world record to win the Berlin Marathon.Rihanna will perform at the Super Bowl halftime show.OpinionsGail Collins and Bret Stephens discuss crime and the investigations into Trump.“My faith is in the people of this state”: Beto O’Rourke, the Democratic nominee for Texas governor, spoke to Charles Blow.On both Taiwan and Russia, Biden’s rhetoric and actions are dangerously mismatched, Kori Schake argues.MORNING READSCalm: Can “brown noise” turn off your brain?“Jihad Rehab”: Sundance liked her documentary on terrorism, until Muslim critics didn’t.Quiz time: The average score on our latest news quiz was 9.1. See if you can do better.A Times classic: Do these A.I.-generated faces look real to you?Advice from Wirecutter: How to clean a coffee grinder and baking sheets.Lives Lived: Nancy Hiller was one of America’s most renowned woodworkers, breaking a barrier in a male-dominated trade. She died at 63.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICBroncos win ugly affair: Safeties and fumbles highlighted Denver’s 11-10 win over San Francisco last night, improbably sending the Broncos to 2-1 this season and ending a chaotic day of football.Judge’s chase stifled: Rain intervened Sunday in the Bronx to end the Yankees’ 2-0 win over the Red Sox after just six innings, cutting short another chance for Aaron Judge to tie the A.L. home run record. He has 10 games left to hit two home runs to pass Roger Maris.U.S. takes Presidents Cup: Jordan Spieth led the way for a convincing American victory in the Presidents Cup, as expected, but the weekend brought up questions about changing the event’s format.ARTS AND IDEAS Rookie dinnersRib-eye steaks, Norwegian water and cognac named after a French king: At “rookie dinners” in the N.F.L., the bill can reach $20,000.The meals are a longstanding tradition, in which new players pay for exorbitant nights out for their teammates. Footing these five-figure bills is “like putting your pads on before practice,” Channing Crowder, a former linebacker for the Miami Dolphins, said. “It is part of the game.”Torrey Smith, a two-time Super Bowl champion, disagrees. “Dudes come into the league with no financial literacy and real problems but folks think 50k dinners are cool! NAH!” he wrote on Twitter in June. His posts have prompted discussions of whether the tradition should end.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookMichael Graydon & Nikole Herriott for The New York Times. Matzo ball soup is a combination of three simple things: chicken broth, matzo balls and garnish.What to ReadSpecial powers, avian obsession and visions of the future fuel these historical novels.FashionErgonomic laptop bags — with style.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was tackled. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Colon, in an emoticon (four letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidP.S. Phil Pan, The Times’s top weekend editor, will become our next International editor.Here’s today’s front page. “The Daily” is about the decline in child poverty in the U.S. “Popcast” is about Blondshell, Ice Spice and other breakout stars of 2022.Matthew Cullen, Natasha Frost, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More