States (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      What to Watch in Thursday’s Primary Elections in Tennessee

      by

      Tennessee is the only state hosting a primary contest on Thursday.All polling places in the state close simultaneously: 8 p.m. in the Eastern time zone and 7 p.m. in the Central time zone. Look up polling locations and sample ballots here.Two of the notable races on the ballot:GovernorGov. Bill Lee, a Republican, is seeking re-election and more than half of all voters approve of the job he’s doing, according to recent polling. Democrats, however, are trying to make the case that he can be toppled in a general election. The Democratic primary features three candidates: Jason Martin, a Nashville physician; J.B. Smiley, a Memphis lawyer and city councilman; and Carnita Atwater, a Memphis community activist.Fifth Congressional DistrictRedistricting diluted Democrats’ power in this Nashville-area district, making it more favorable for Republicans and prompting Jim Cooper, the 16-term Democratic congressman representing it, to retire. The Republican primary is crowded with 10 candidates, including Kurt Winstead, a businessman who has raised hefty sums for his campaign, and the former Tennessee House Speaker Beth Harwell. State Senator Heidi Campbell is unopposed on the Democratic side.Looking ahead to NovemberWhile not competitive on Thursday, the fall matchup is already set in the newly drawn Seventh District, which includes blue downtown Nashville in addition to redder rural areas of Tennessee — keeping it favorable to Republicans. Representative Mark Green is running unopposed for the Republican nomination and hopes to secure a second term. Odessa Kelly, a community organizer, is the Democratic candidate and is running with the backing of the Justice Democrats, a progressive political action committee. More

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Defying the Supreme Court

      by

      The Kansas abortion vote and the congressional push on same-sex marriage show how progressives can confront the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court has lately looked like the most powerful part of the federal government, with the final word on abortion, gun laws, climate policy, voting rights and more.But the founders did not intend for the court to have such a dominant role. They viewed the judiciary as merely one branch of government. They gave Congress and the president, as well as state governments, various ways to check the court’s power and even undo the effects of rulings.Two big examples have emerged this summer, following the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In Kansas, residents voted overwhelmingly this week to keep abortion rights as part of the state’s constitution. And in Congress, advocates for same-sex marriage are trying to pass a bill to protect it, worried that the court may soon restrict marriage rights as well.These developments offer a reminder about the limits of the Supreme Court’s power: Political progressives and moderates who are alarmed about the current court — the combination of its aggressiveness and the relative youth of its conservative members — have many options for confronting it.Some options are fairly radical, like changing the size of the court or passing a law declaring any subject to be off limits from Supreme Court review (both of which, to be fair, have happened in previous centuries). Other options are more straightforward. They involve the basic tools of democratic politics: winning over public opinion and winning elections.Larry Kramer, a former dean of Stanford Law School, argues that many progressives have made the mistake of paying relatively little attention to this strategy in recent decades. They have instead relied on courts to deliver victories for civil rights and other policies. That tactic worked under the liberal Supreme Court of the 1950s and 1960s and even sometimes under the more conservative court of recent decades. But under the current court, it will no longer work.The founders did not design the court to be the final arbiter of American politics, anyway. At the state level, progressives still have the ability to protect abortion rights, so long as they can persuade enough voters — as happened in Kansas this week. At the federal level, Congress has more authority to defy court decisions than many people realize.“If you want a better government, you have to actively get yourself engaged in creating it. And that you do through democratic politics if you want it to be a democracy,” Kramer recently said on Ezra Klein’s podcast. “You try and persuade, and if you do, the country follows you.”267 to 157The same-sex marriage bill is so intriguing because it is a rare recent instance of Congress acting as a check and balance on the Supreme Court, just as the founders envisioned and the Constitution allows.When the court overturns a specific law, Congress can often pass a new law, written differently, that accomplishes many of the same goals. Congress took this approach with civil rights starting in the 1980s, including with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which made it easier for workers to sue for pay discrimination. The law was an explicit response to a Supreme Court ruling against Ledbetter.More recently, however, Congress has been too polarized and gridlocked to respond to court decisions. As a result, the courts have tended to dominate federal policy, by default.But after the court’s abortion decision in June contained language that seemed as if it might threaten same-sex marriage rights, House Democrats quickly proposed a marriage bill that would defang any future court decision. The court could still issue a ruling allowing states to stop performing same-sex marriages. But the House bill would require one state to recognize another state’s marriage. Two women or men who married in, say, California would still be legally married in South Carolina even if it stopped performing same-sex weddings.Celebrations in New York after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in 2015.Sam Hodgson for The New York TimesInitially, the House bill seemed as if it might be a political exercise, intended to force Republicans in swing districts to take a tough vote. Instead, the bill passed easily, 267 to 157, with all 220 Democrats and 47 Republicans voting yes.In the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster, the bill’s prospects remain unclear. For now, the bill has the support of all 50 senators aligned with the Democratic Party and four or five Republicans. My colleague Annie Karni says that Democratic leaders plan to hold a vote on the bill in the coming weeks.No wonder: According to a recent Gallup poll, 71 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage.Even if it fails to pass the Senate, the bill may prove consequential. It has set a precedent, and a similar bill seems likely to be on the legislative agenda any time Democrats control Congress. The House vote, by itself, also has the potential to influence the Supreme Court by demonstrating that a decision overturning same-sex marriage rights would be out of step with the views of many Republicans.Beyond marriageI recognize that progressives still face obstacles to achieving their goals through Congress. The Senate has a built-in bias toward rural, conservative states. The House suffers from gerrymandering (although this year’s districts don’t actually give Republicans a big advantage). And the Supreme Court has made it easier for states to pass voting restrictions.Yet political change is rarely easy. Religious conservatives spent decades building a movement to change the country’s abortion laws and endured many disappointments and defeats along the way.If progressives want to slow climate change, reduce economic and racial inequality, protect L.G.B.T. rights and more, the current Supreme Court has not rendered them powerless. If they can win more elections, the Constitution offers many ways to accomplish their goals.For moreThe contours of the Kansas vote suggest that about 65 percent of voters nationwide — and a majority of voters in more than 40 states — would support abortion rights in a similar ballot initiative, according to an analysis by The Times’s Nate Cohn.Suburban Democrats and rural Republicans in Kansas joined to produce the landslide result.The vote has galvanized Democrats to campaign on abortion rights.President Biden signed an executive order directing the federal government to protect abortion access across state lines.In Times Opinion, Michelle Goldberg writes that even in red states, abortion restrictions cannot necessarily survive contact with democracy.THE LATEST NEWSPoliticsThe Senate ratified adding Finland and Sweden to NATO, 95 to 1.Representative Jackie Walorski, 58, an Indiana Republican, and two of her aides were killed in a car crash.Republicans have nominated 2020 election deniers to oversee voting in four swing states: Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania.The fate of the Democrats’ spending bill hinges on Senator Kyrsten Sinema. She wants changes to its climate and tax provisions.Even after Biden was sworn in, John Eastman, an architect of the Jan. 6 strategy, wanted to hunt for election fraud — and to get paid.InternationalChina started military drills near Taiwan. They appear to be a trial run for sealing off the island.When home is on a ferry: Some countries are paying shipping firms to offer Ukrainian refugees safe but tight quarters.Other Big StoriesThe U.S. stock of monkeypox vaccines is millions of doses short, partly because officials failed to ask the manufacturer to bottle existing supplies.Scientists revived cells in pigs that had been dead for an hour. The process could some day make dead organs viable for transplants.Text messages from the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones revealed that he withheld evidence in defamation lawsuits brought by Sandy Hook parents.Coal mining and neglect left southeastern Kentucky at the mercy of flooding.A heat wave is forecast to peak today in the Northeast.The N.F.L. appealed Deshaun Watson’s six-game suspension, seeking a longer punishment.OpinionsArizona Republicans have nominated a Senate candidate more extreme than Donald Trump, Sam Adler-Bell writes.Refusing to state plainly that gay men are at higher risk for monkeypox is homophobia by neglect, Kai Kupferschmidt argues.MORNING READSA composite image of the Cartwheel galaxy.Space Telescope Science Institute NASA, ESA, CSA, James Webb Space Telescope: Have a look at the Cartwheel galaxy.A Times classic: The slave who taught Jack Daniel about whiskey.Advice from Wirecutter: Beach day picks.Lives Lived: With Mo Ostin at the helm, Warner Bros. Records and its affiliates signed pivotal artists including Frank Sinatra, Joni Mitchell and Madonna. Ostin died at 95.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICA superstar debuts: Juan Soto debuted for San Diego last night after being the centerpiece of one of the biggest trades in M.L.B. history. He got on base three times in a blowout win.More than just an injury: Losing UConn’s Paige Bueckers — the biggest star in college basketball — to an ACL tear impacts the sport at large. She moves the needle unlike any other player in the game.A backup plan in Cleveland? If the N.F.L. appeal of Watson’s recommended suspension ends up in a full-season ban, could the Browns consider a move for Jimmy Garoppolo? It’s a possibility.ARTS AND IDEAS Plunge pools tend to be no larger than 10 feet by 20 feet.Katherine Squier for The New York TimesTake a plungeBring a bathing suit to your next backyard party. “Plunge pools” — deep enough to stand in, not much larger than a hot tub — are growing in popularity, Lia Picard writes in The Times.Plunge pools tend to be sleek and minimal, making yards “look and feel like a staycation spot,” one landscape designer said. And they are more affordable than in-ground pools, though not cheap: A high-end model costs about $100,000.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookDavid Malosh for The New York Times.This version of pasta alla Norma includes prosciutto.FilmSpecializing in work by Black, brown and Indigenous directors, the BlackStar Film Festival showcases experimental work.What to ReadIn “Mothercare,” the novelist Lynne Tillman unsentimentally writes about attending to her mother’s failing health.Late NightThe hosts discussed the abortion rights victory in Kansas.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was bronzing. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Jet black (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. What’s a culture critic doing in a war zone? Jason Farago explains his reporting trip to Ukraine.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about the Kansas abortion referendum. On the Modern Love podcast, the power of forgiveness.Matthew Cullen, 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

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Kansas Votes to Preserve Abortion Rights Protections in Its Constitution

      by

      OVERLAND PARK, Kan. — Kansas voters resoundingly decided against removing the right to abortion from the State Constitution, according to The Associated Press, a major victory for the abortion rights movement in one of America’s reliably conservative states.The defeat of the ballot referendum was the most tangible demonstration yet of a political backlash against the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that had protected abortion rights throughout the country. The decisive margin came as a surprise, and after frenzied campaigns with both sides pouring millions into advertising and knocking on doors throughout a sweltering final campaign stretch.“The voters in Kansas have spoken loud and clear: We will not tolerate extreme bans on abortion,” said Rachel Sweet, the campaign manager for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, which led the effort to defeat the amendment.told supporters that a willingness to work across partisan lines and ideological differences helped their side win.“The voters in Kansas have spoken loud and clear: We will not tolerate extreme bans on abortion,” Ms. Sweet said.At a campaign watch party in suburban Overland Park, abortion rights supporters yelled with joy when MSNBC showed their side with a commanding lead.“We’re watching the votes come in, we’re seeing the changes of some of the counties where Donald Trump had a huge percentage of the vote, and we’re seeing that just decimated,” said Jo Dee Adelung, 63, a Democrat from Merriam, Kan., who knocked on doors and called voters in recent weeks.She said she hoped the result sent a message that voters are “really taking a look at all of the issues and doing what’s right for Kansas and not just going down party lines.”The vote in Kansas, three months before the midterm elections, was the first time American voters weighed in directly on the issue of abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade this summer. The referendum, watched closely by national figures on both sides of the abortion debate, took on added importance because of Kansas’ location, abutting states where abortion is already banned in nearly all cases. More than $12 million has been spent on advertising, split about evenly between the two camps. The amendment, had it passed, would have removed abortion protections from the State Constitution and paved the way for legislators to ban or restrict abortions.“We’ve been saying that after a decision is made in Washington, that the spotlight would shift to Kansas,” said David Langford, a retired engineer from Leawood, Kan., who wants the amendment to pass, and who reached out to Protestant pastors to rally support.The push for an amendment was rooted in a 2019 ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court that struck down some abortion restrictions and found that the right to an abortion was guaranteed by the State Constitution. That decision infuriated Republicans, who had spent years passing abortion restrictions and campaigning on the issue. They used their supermajorities in the Legislature last year to place the issue on the 2022 ballot.That state-level fight over abortion limits took on far greater meaning after the nation’s top court overturned Roe, opening the door in June for states to go beyond restrictions and outlaw abortions entirely. The Roman Catholic Church and other religious and conservative groups spent heavily to back the amendment, while national supporters of abortion rights poured millions of dollars into the race to oppose it.Canvassers supporting Amendment 2 left literature at a resident’s door last week in Olathe, Kan.Chase Castor for The New York TimesSupporters of the amendment have said repeatedly that the amendment itself would not ban abortion, and Republican lawmakers have been careful to avoid telegraphing what their legislative plans would be if it passed.“Voting yes doesn’t mean that abortion won’t be allowed, it means we’re going to allow our legislators to determine the scope of abortion,” said Mary Jane Muchow of Overland Park, Kan., who supported the amendment. “I think abortion should be legal, but I think there should be limitations on it.”If the amendment had passed, though, the question was not whether Republicans would try to wield their commanding legislative majorities to pass new restrictions, but how far they would go in doing so. Many Kansans who support abortion rights said they feared that a total or near-total abortion ban would be passed within monthsAbortion is now legal in Kansas up to 22 weeks of pregnancy.“I don’t want to become another state that bans all abortion for any reason,” said Barbara Grigar of Overland Park, Kan., who identified herself as a moderate and said she was voting against the amendment. “Choice is every woman’s choice, and not the government’s.”A Pew Research Center survey published last month found that a majority of Americans said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and that more than half of adults disapproved of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe.Kansas has been a focal point of the national abortion debate at least since 1991, when protesters from across the country gathered in Wichita and blocked access to clinics during weeks of heated demonstrations that they called the Summer of Mercy.At times, the state has seen violence over the issue. In 1986, a Wichita abortion clinic was attacked with a pipe bomb. In 1993, a woman who opposed abortion shot and injured Dr. George Tiller, one of only a few American physicians who performed late-term abortions. In 2009, another anti-abortion activist shot and killed Dr. Tiller at his Wichita church.In recent years, and especially in the weeks since Roe fell, Kansas has become a haven of abortion access in a region where that is increasingly rare.Even before the Supreme Court’s action, nearly half of the abortions performed in Kansas involved out-of-state residents. Now Oklahoma and Missouri have banned the procedure in almost all cases, Nebraska may further restrict abortion in the next few months, and women from Arkansas and Texas, where new bans are in place, are traveling well beyond their states’ borders.Kansas is reliably Republican in presidential elections, and its voters are generally conservative on many issues, but polling before the referendum suggested a close race and nuanced public opinions on abortion. The state is not a political monolith: Besides its Democratic governor, a majority of Kansas Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democrats, and Representative Sharice Davids, a Democrat, represents the Kansas City suburbs in Congress.Representative Sharice Davids speaks at an election watch party hosted by Kansans for Constitutional Freedom in Overland Park, Kansas.Arin Yoon for The New York TimesMs. Davids’s district was once a moderate Republican stronghold, but it has been trending toward Democrats in recent years. Her re-election contest in November in a redrawn district may be one of the most competitive House races in the country, and party strategists expect the abortion debate to play an important role in districts like hers that include swaths of upscale suburbs.Political strategists have been particularly attuned to turnout in the Kansas City suburbs, and are seeking to gauge how galvanizing abortion is, especially for swing voters and Democrats in a post-Roe environment.“They’re going to see how to advise their candidates to talk about the issue, they’re going to be looking at every political handicap,” said James Carville, the veteran Democratic strategist. “Every campaign consultant, everybody is watching this thing like it’s the Super Bowl.”As the election approached, and especially since the Supreme Court decision, rhetoric on the issue became more heated. Campaign signs on both sides have been vandalized, police officials and activists have said. In the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park, vandals targeted a Catholic church, defacing a building and a statue of Mary with red paint.Before the vote on Tuesday, which coincided with primary elections, Scott Schwab, the Republican secretary of state, predicted that around 36 percent of Kansas voters would participate, up slightly from the primary in 2020, a presidential election year. His office said that the constitutional amendment “has increased voter interest in the election,” a sentiment that was palpable on the ground.“I like the women’s rights,” said Norma Hamilton, a 90-year-old Republican from Lenexa, Kan. Despite her party registration, she said, she voted no. More

    • 38 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Targeting ‘Woke Capital’

      by

      West Virginia’s banning of five big Wall Street banks for doing business with the state is yet another step toward a politicized world of red brands and blue brands. Florida’s DeSantis: Make profits great again.Phelan M. Ebenhack/Associated PressStates take action against ‘woke C.E.O.s’ Five big Wall Street firms woke up to a headache yesterday, and the ailment seems to be spreading fast. Riley Moore, the outspoken treasurer of West Virginia, announced that Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo were banned from doing business with the state because they had stopped supporting the coal industry, reports The Times’s David Gelles.The banks have sharply reduced financing for new coal projects, while BlackRock has been reducing its actively managed holdings in coal companies since 2020. Coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, has become less profitable in recent years.Some of the firms do business with West Virginia in various ways. JPMorgan, for example, handles some banking services for West Virginia’s public university. But the dollar figures are relatively small, and the law does not affect the holdings of the state’s pension fund.The development is yet another step toward a politicized world of red brands and blue brands. In these hyperpartisan times, companies are increasingly being caught between conservatives and progressives, and some brands are being typecast as Republican or Democratic. The timing of the announcement was striking, coming just hours after Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who had been the chief Democratic holdout on climate legislation, relented and agreed to sign on.Meanwhile in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis unloaded on the supposedly “woke” ideology of some financial services firms, criticizing E.S.G. investing and announcing plans for legislation that would “prohibit big banks, credit card companies and money transmitters from discriminating against customers for their religious, political or social beliefs.” At a news conference this week, he also said he wanted to prohibit the state’s pension fund managers from considering environmental factors when making investment decisions. Instead, he said, they need to be focusing only on “maximizing the return on investment.”Businesses now “marginalize” people because of political disagreements, DeSantis said. “That is not the way you can run an economy effectively.” He singled out PayPal, which has cut off accounts associated with far-right groups that participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, and GoFundMe, which blocked donations to a group supporting truckers who occupied Ottawa this year.HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING Amazon’s shares soar as the company says consumer demand remains strong. The positive comments from C.E.O. Andrew Jassy and other top executives caused investors to shrug off the fact that the giant internet retailer reported its slowest quarterly sales growth in two decades, and has cut nearly 100,000 workers. Apple’s quarterly results were also better than expected, as Big Tech’s profits have been resilient even as the economy has slowed.The eurozone economy grew faster than expected, but so did inflation. Positive G.D.P. growth for the region, a day after the U.S. reported that economic growth slumped for the second quarter in a row, relieved some worries about growing stagflation. Still, inflation in the eurozone hit 8.9 percent in July compared with a year ago, a fresh record.The Biden administration plans to offer updated booster shots in September. With reformulated shots from Pfizer and Moderna on the horizon, the F.D.A. has decided that Americans under 50 should wait to receive second boosters.Read More About Oil and Gas PricesPrices Drop: U.S. gas prices have been on the decline, offering some relief to drivers. But weather, war and demand will influence how long it lasts.Stock Market: As financial markets around the world fell this spring amid worries about inflation and rising interest rates, energy was the only sector gaining ground. Summer Driving Season: The spike in gas prices is being driven in part by vacationers hitting the road. Here’s what our reporter saw on a recent trip.Gas Tax Holiday: President Biden called on Congress to temporarily suspend the federal gas tax, but experts remain skeptical the move would benefit consumers much, because tax is such a small percentage of the price you pay at the pump..A new book reignites a debate about how L.A. Times editors handled a 2017 exposé. Paul Pringle, a veteran reporter at the L.A. Times, writes in his book “Bad City” that top editors tried to slow-walk the paper’s initial groundbreaking article, which detailed how the dean of the University of Southern California’s medical school used drugs with young people.Trader Joe’s workers at a Massachusetts store form a union. It is the only one of the supermarket chain’s more than 500 stores with a formal union, but similar moves are afoot elsewhere, just as the union campaign has spread at Starbucks. Trader Joe’s will face at least one more union vote soon, at a Minneapolis store next month, and workers at a store in Colorado filed an election petition this week.Big oil’s big profitsOil companies are reporting surging profits, even as consumers and world leaders are dealing with the hardships caused by higher energy prices.Buoyed by high oil and gas prices, the energy sector is expected to have swelled earnings by more than 250 percent in the second quarter. Exxon Mobil and Chevron, the U.S.’s two largest oil companies, reported record profits this morning, with Exxon’s profit more than tripling from a year ago. Europe’s biggest oil companies, Shell and TotalEnergies, yesterday reported a combined $21 billion in profits.The fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to significant financial benefits for energy companies and their investors. The pain of rising energy prices and shortages, though, has been felt particularly strongly by consumers and businesses in Europe, which received roughly half of Russia’s oil exports before the invasion. In Asia and Africa, higher energy prices could push millions of people back into energy poverty, the International Energy Agency warned last month.It’s also led to claims of profiteering. President Biden said last month that oil companies were benefiting from their own underinvestment in refining capacity. In Britain, Boris Johnson, the outgoing prime minister, imposed a windfall tax on major oil and gas companies. But a top contender to replace him, Liz Truss, said that she opposed the tax because it would send “the wrong signal to the world,” and that Shell should be encouraged to invest in Britain.Oil companies have pointed the finger back at politicians. Ben van Beurden, Shell’s chief executive, said yesterday that energy prices were high in part because of government policies that discouraged investment in oil and natural gas in recent years.Gas prices in the U.S. have fallen over the last month, and there are some indications that more relief could be ahead. Citigroup said in a research note today that it expected growth in the supply of oil to outpace weaker demand. Still, geopolitical factors and the weather could change the trajectory of prices, particularly if the U.S. has an active hurricane season that disrupts refining capacity. “Just a few of these risks materializing could work up a continued perfect storm of high volatility,” Citigroup said.“There is a principle at stake. What can you buy if you have unlimited cash? Can you bend every rule? Can you take apart monuments?”— Stefan Lewis, a former member of Rotterdam’s City Council, explaining the outrage over the city’s decision, which has since been reversed, to temporarily dismantle a bridge to accommodate Jeff Bezos and his superyacht.The dark secrets of corporate subsidy deals Every year, state and local officials negotiate about $95 billion in economic development deals, competing with one another to recruit companies to their communities with lucrative subsidies in exchange for their business.But some corporations are becoming increasingly aggressive about forcing officials to sign nondisclosure agreements that could end up hurting the communities that the businesses were supposed to help, according to a new report by the American Economic Liberties Project, a progressive antitrust advocacy group. The N.D.A.s sometimes prohibit officials from disclosing basic information about a corporation, like its name and the type of business it’s building, Pat Garofalo, an author of the report, told DealBook.These N.D.A.s prevent community members, like workers and local businesses, from sharing their input on the deal until after it is completed. One recent example is the $4 billion battery factory that Panasonic will build in Kansas, which will get nearly $1 billion in subsidies. Before the deal was completed, Panasonic was also negotiating with Oklahoma, and the states were in a bidding war over the electronics giant’s business. But lawmakers could not talk about the corporation on the other side of the bargaining table in public — and sometimes didn’t even know its name. In April, Oklahoma officials complained that they had two hours to contemplate a complex incentive package worth $700 million, or about 8 percent of the state budget. “How am I supposed to go back to my constituents and say, ‘I gave away three-quarters of a billion dollars to a company that I don’t even know their name?’ Is that responsible?” State Representative Collin Walke said during an appropriations meeting.Some states have introduced bills to ban these N.D.A.s, which the report calls “an extremely common tactic” in development deals. This year, such legislation was introduced in New York, Michigan, Illinois, and Florida. New York’s State Senate voted unanimously to approve a ban. Garofalo thinks the New York lawmakers were galvanized by the Amazon HQ2 bid that fell apart in 2019. But he notes that communities don’t have to wait for politicians to fix the problem. Engaged citizens have used public meeting and records laws to solve subsidy mysteries, and sometimes a little transparency is all it takes, Garofalo said. “When the public does get a say,” he told DealBook, “the deals are better, or bad deals are knocked off right away.”THE SPEED READ Deals“Private equity giant Carlyle’s latest big play: Small Brooklyn buildings” (The Real Deal)Ernst & Young’s plan to split is reportedly being held up by debt issues. (WSJ)Newsmax renewed a deal to be carried by Verizon’s Fios, days before its rival One America News is to be dropped. Both are known for their loyalty to former President Trump. (NYT)PolicyThe private equity industry is objecting to a proposed U.S. tax increase on carried-interest income. (NYT)“Dry Fountains, Cold Pools, Less Beer? Germans Tip-Toe Up the Path to Energy Savings” (NYT)The big question is not whether the U.S. is in a recession. It’s whether the economy’s problems will worsen. (NYT’s The Morning)Best of the restArchitects have a reimagined vision for the former Deutsche Bank atrium at 60 Wall Street, with plans to make it look less like a Mediterranean spa and more like a Singapore airport. (NYT)Instagram is rolling back some product changes after celebrities like Kylie Jenner and Kim Kardashian criticized them. (NYT)TV showrunners are demanding that studios create protocols to protect employees in states where abortion has been outlawed. (Variety)Richard Rosenthal, the top defense lawyer for dangerous dogs, has even frustrated animal rights groups. (NYT)We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why Andrew Yang’s New Third Party Is Bound to Fail

      by

      Let’s not mince words. The new Forward Party announced by the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman and former Representative David Jolly is doomed to failure. The odds that it will attract any more than a token amount of support from the public, not to mention political elites, are slim to none. It will wither on the vine as the latest in a long history of vanity political parties.Why am I so confident that the Forward Party will amount to nothing? Because there is a recipe for third-party success in the United States, but neither Yang nor his allies have the right ingredients.First, let’s talk about the program of the Forward Party. Writing for The Washington Post, Yang, Whitman and Jolly say that their party is a response to “divisiveness” and “extremism.”“In a system torn apart by two increasingly divided extremes,” they write, “you must reintroduce choice and competition.”The Forward Party, they say, will “reflect the moderate, common-sense majority.” If, they argue, most third parties in U.S. history failed to take off because they were “ideologically too narrow,” then theirs is primed to reach deep into the disgruntled masses, especially since, they say, “voters are calling for a new party now more than ever.”It is not clear that we can make a conclusion about the public’s appetite for a specific third party on the basis of its general appetite for a third party. But that’s a minor issue. The bigger problem for Yang, Whitman and Jolly is their assessment of the history of American third parties. It’s wrong.The most successful third parties in American history have been precisely those that galvanized a narrow slice of the public over a specific set of issues. They further polarized the electorate, changed the political landscape and forced the established parties to reckon with their influence.This also gets to the meaning of success in the American system. The two-party system in the United States is a natural result of the rules of the game. The combination of single-member districts and single-ballot, “first past the post” elections means that in any election with more than two candidates, there’s a chance the winner won’t have a majority. There might be four or five or six (or even nine) distinct factions in an electorate, but the drive to prevent a plurality winner will very likely lead to the creation of two parties that take the shape of loose coalitions, each capable of winning that majority outright.To this dynamic add the fact of the presidency, which cannot be won without a majority of electoral votes. It’s this requirement of the Electoral College that puts additional pressure on political actors to form coalitions with each other in pursuit of the highest prize of American politics. In fact, for most of American history after the Civil War, the two parties were less coherent national organizations than clearinghouses for information and influence trading among state parties and urban machines.This is all to say that in the United States, a successful third party isn’t necessarily one that wins national office. Instead, a successful third party is one that integrates itself or its program into one of the two major parties, either by forcing key issues onto the agenda or revealing the existence of a potent new electorate.Take the Free Soil Party.During the presidential election of 1848, following the annexation of Texas, the Mexican-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, a coalition of antislavery politicians from the Democratic, Liberty and Whig Parties formed the Free Soil Party to oppose the expansion of slavery into the new Western territories. At their national convention in Buffalo, the Free Soilers summed up their platform with the slogan “Free soil, free speech, free labor, free men!”The Free Soil Party, notes the historian Frederick J. Blue in “The Free Soilers: Third Party Politics, 1848-1854,” “endorsed the Wilmot Proviso by declaring that Congress had no power to extend slavery and must in fact prohibit its extension, thus returning to the principle of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.” It is the duty of the federal government, declared its platform, “to relieve itself from all responsibility for the existence of slavery wherever that government possesses constitutional power to legislate on that subject and is thus responsible for its existence.”This was controversial, to put it mildly. The entire “second” party system (the first being the roughly 30-year competition between the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans) had been built to sidestep the conflict over the expansion of slavery. The Free Soil Party — which in an ironic twist nominated Martin Van Buren, the architect of that system, for president in the 1848 election — fought to put that conflict at the center of American politics.It succeeded. In many respects, the emergence of the Free Soil Party marks the beginning of mass antislavery politics in the United States. They elected several members to Congress, helped fracture the Whig Party along sectional lines and pushed antislavery “Free” Democrats to abandon their party. The Free Soilers never elected a president, but in just a few short years they transformed American party politics. And when the Whig Party finally collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, after General Winfield Scott’s defeat in the 1852 presidential election, the Free Soil Party would become, in 1854, the nucleus of the new Republican Party, which brought an even larger coalition of former Whigs and ex-Democrats together with Free Soil radicals under the umbrella of a sectional, antislavery party.There are a few other examples of third-party success. The Populist Party failed to win high office after endorsing the Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan, for president in 1896, but went on to shape the next two decades of American political life. “In the wake of the defeat of the People’s party, a wave of reform soon swept the country,” the historian Charles Postel writes in “The Populist Vision”: “Populism provided an impetus for this modernizing process, with many of their demands co-opted and refashioned by progressive Democrats and Republicans.”“By turn of fate,” Postel continues, “Populism proved far more successful dead than alive.”On a more sinister note, the segregationist George Wallace won five states and nearly 10 million ballots in his 1968 campaign for president under the banner of the American Independent Party. His run was proof of concept for Richard Nixon’s effort to fracture the Democratic Party coalition along racial and regional lines. Wallace pioneered a style of politics that Republicans would deploy to their own ends for decades, eventually culminating in the election of Donald Trump in 2016.This is all to say that there’s nothing about the Forward Party that, as announced, would have this kind of impact on American politics. It doesn’t speak to anything that matters other than a vague sense that the system should have more choices and that there’s a center out there that rejects the extremes, a problem the Democratic Party addressed by nominating Joe Biden for president and shaping most of its agenda to satisfy its most conservative members in Congress.The Forward Party doesn’t even appear to advocate the kinds of changes that would enable more choices across the political system: approval voting where voters can choose multiple candidates for office, multimember districts for Congress and fundamental reform to the Electoral College. Even something as simple as fusion voting — where two or more parties on the ballot share the same candidate — doesn’t appear to be on the radar of the Forward Party.The biggest problem with the Forward Party, however, is that its leaders — like so many failed reformers — seem to think that you can take the conflict out of politics. “On every issue facing this nation,” they write, “we can find a reasonable approach most Americans agree on.”No, we can’t. When an issue becomes live — when it becomes salient, as political scientists put it — people disagree. The question is how to handle and structure that disagreement within the political system. Will it fuel the process of government or will it paralyze it? Something tells me that neither Yang nor his allies have the answer.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

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      These Republican Governors Are Delivering Results, and Many Voters Like Them for It

      by

      Republican flamethrowers and culture warriors like Donald Trump and Representatives Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene typically draw an outsize amount of media attention.Americans may conclude from this that there is a striking, and perhaps unfortunate, relationship between extremism and political success.But Republicans aren’t hoping for a red wave in the midterms only because norm-thrashing or scandal sells. The truth is much more banal — yet also important for parties to internalize and better for politics generally: In states across the country, Republican governors are delivering real results for people they are physically more proximate to than federal officials.Now, it’s true that the party that controls the presidency nearly always gets whipped in midterm elections, and inflation would be a huge drag on any party in power. And it’s also true that among those governors are culture warriors like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas.But people too often overlook the idea that actual results, especially ones related to pocketbook issues, can often be as important as rhetoric. Looked at that way, lots of Republicans — some with high public profiles, and some who fly below the radar — are excelling.Start with the simplest measure: popularity. Across the country, 13 of the 15 most popular governors are Republicans. That list does not just include red states. In fact, blue-state Republican governors like Phil Scott of Vermont, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts and Larry Hogan of Maryland are among the most popular.There are many reasons that G.O.P. governors seem to be succeeding. It’s true that governors can’t take credit for everything. Sometimes they just get lucky. But they do make policy choices, and particularly those made by governors since the start of Covid have made a difference.For example, take a look at the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data on unemployment. In the 10 states with the lowest rates as of June, eight were led by Republican governors. Several governors who don’t make frequent appearances in national news stand out, like Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, Spencer Cox of Utah and Phil Scott of Vermont. Their states have unemployment rates under 2.5 percent, and of the 20 states with the lowest unemployment rates, just four are led by Democrats.States with Republican governors have also excelled in economic recovery since the start of the pandemic. Standouts in this measure include Mr. Abbott and Doug Ducey of Arizona.These results reflect many things — some states have grown and others have shrunk, for example — but are at least in part a result of policy choices made by their elected leaders since the start of the pandemic. For example, governors like Kristi Noem in South Dakota often rejected lockdowns and economic closures.Republican governors were also far more likely to get children back to in-person school, despite intense criticism.Covid policy doesn’t explain everything. Fiscal governance has also made a difference. The Cato Institute’s Fiscal Report Card on America’s governors for 2020 (the most recent edition available), which grades them on tax and spending records, gives high marks to many Republicans. Nearly all of the top-ranked states in this report have Republican governors, like Kim Reynolds of Iowa or Mr. Ricketts. (Some Democratic governors also ranked highly, including Steve Sisolak of Nevada and Roy Cooper of North Carolina.) Some have made their mark with employer-attracting tax cuts; others with spending controls; others with a mixture.Most states mandate a balanced budget, so taxing and spending policies are important for fiscal stability. Low taxes tend to attract and keep employers and employees. Restrained budgets help ensure that taxes can be kept low, without sacrificing bond ratings, which may matter if debt-financed spending is needed in a crisis or to try to stimulate businesses to hire more.Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas has cut taxes for individuals, reduced the number of tax brackets and cut the corporate income tax rate. Mr. Sununu has restrained spending, vetoed a payroll tax proposal and cut business taxes. Brian Kemp of Georgia, by contrast, actually paused some tax cuts that had been scheduled — and focused almost exclusively on spending restraint, issuing a directive for state agencies to generate budget cuts and keeping 2020 general fund growth to a tiny 1 percent.Even in blue Vermont, Mr. Scott has constrained general fund spending — despite being an odd duck out among governors in that he is not constrained by a balanced-budget amendment — to rise by an annual average of just 2.4 percent between 2017 and 2020, and he has also cut taxes. He signed a bill to ensure that the federal tax reform instituted under Mr. Trump and limiting state and local tax deductions wouldn’t result in Vermonters getting hammered. He has also cut individual income tax rates, reduced the number of tax brackets and resisted new payroll taxes in favor of voluntary paid leave plans for private-sector employers.Republicans who have a big impact on the day-to-day lives of many Americans — unlike, say, Representative Kevin McCarthy or certainly Mr. Trump, and in terms of the quality of state economies, the local job market and education — are delivering. In our federalist system, a lot of power still sits with states and not the federal government and determines much about citizens’ lives.This is a big reason that Republicans are well-positioned heading into the midterms. It should be a warning to Joe Biden and Democrats — and to some of the culture warriors. Cable-news combat over whatever the outrage of the day is may deliver politicians the spotlight. But sound economic policy and focusing on the job, not theatrics, is delivering basic day-to-day results Americans want, need and will reward.Liz Mair (@LizMair), a strategist for campaigns by Scott Walker, Roy Blunt, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and Rick Perry, is the founder and president of Mair Strategies.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

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      On the Docket: Atlanta v. Trumpworld

      by

      ATLANTA — The criminal investigation into efforts by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies to overturn his election loss in Georgia has begun to entangle, in one way or another, an expanding assemblage of characters:A United States senator. A congressman. A local Cadillac dealer. A high school economics teacher. The chairman of the state Republican Party. The Republican candidate for lieutenant governor. Six lawyers aiding Mr. Trump, including a former New York City mayor. The former president himself. And a woman who has identified herself as a publicist for the rapper Kanye West.Fani T. Willis, the Atlanta area district attorney, has been leading the investigation since early last year. But it is only this month, with a flurry of subpoenas and target letters, as well as court documents that illuminate some of the closed proceedings of a special grand jury, that the inquiry’s sprawling contours have emerged.For legal experts, that sprawl is a sign that Ms. Willis is doing what she has indicated all along: building the framework for a broad case that could target multiple defendants with charges of conspiracy to commit election fraud, or racketeering-related charges for engaging in a coordinated scheme to undermine the election.“All of these people are from very disparate places in life,” Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University, said of the known witnesses and targets. “The fact that they’re all being brought together really suggests she’s building this broader case for conspiracy.”What happened in Georgia was not altogether singular. The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol has put on display how Mr. Trump and his allies sought to subvert the election results in several crucial states, including by creating slates of fake pro-Trump electors. Yet even as many Democrats lament that the Justice Department is moving too slowly in its inquiry, the local Georgia prosecutor has been pursuing a quickening case that could pose the most immediate legal peril for the former president and his associates.Whether Mr. Trump will ultimately be targeted for indictment remains unclear. But the David-before-Goliath dynamic may in part reflect that Ms. Willis’s legal decision-making is less encumbered than that of federal officials in Washington by the vast political and societal weight of prosecuting a former president, especially in a bitterly fissured country.But some key differences in Georgia law may also make the path to prosecution easier than in federal courts. And there was the signal event that drew attention to Mr. Trump’s conduct in Georgia: his call to the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, whose office, in Ms. Willis’s Fulton County, recorded the president imploring him to “find” the 11,780 votes needed to reverse his defeat.A House hearing this past week discussed a phone call in which President Donald J. Trump asked Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” an additional 11,780 votes.Shawn Thew/EPA, via ShutterstockMr. Trump’s staff did not comment, nor did his local counsel. When Ms. Willis opened the inquiry in February 2021, a Trump spokesman described it as “simply the Democrats’ latest attempt to score political points by continuing their witch hunt against President Trump.” Lawyers for 11 of the 16 Trump electors, Kimberly Bourroughs Debrow and Holly A. Pierson, accused Ms. Willis of “misusing the grand jury process to harass, embarrass and attempt to intimidate the nominee electors, not to investigate their conduct.”Last year, Ms. Willis told The New York Times that racketeering charges could be in play. Whenever people “hear the word ‘racketeering,’ they think of ‘The Godfather,’” she said, before explaining that charges under Georgia’s version of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act could apply in any number of realms where corrupt enterprises are operating. “If you have various overt acts for an illegal purpose, I think you can — you may — get there,” she said.The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 8Numerous inquiries. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Survey Looks at Acceptance of Political Violence in U.S.

      by

      One in five adults in the United States would be willing to condone acts of political violence, a new national survey commissioned by public health experts found, revelations that they say capture the escalation in extremism that was on display during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.The online survey of more than 8,600 adults in the United States was conducted from mid-May to early June by the research firm Ipsos on behalf of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, which released the results on Tuesday.The group that said they would be willing to condone such violence amounted to 20.5 percent of those surveyed, with the majority of that group answering that “in general” the use of force was at least “sometimes justified” — the remaining 3 percent answered that such violence was “usually” or “always” justified.About 12 percent of survey respondents answered that they would be at least “somewhat willing” to resort to violence themselves to threaten or intimidate a person.And nearly 12 percent of respondents also thought it was at least “sometimes justified” to use violence if it meant returning Donald J. Trump to the presidency.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 8Making a case against Trump. More