States (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      North Carolina’s Governor Says a Fringe Claim Before the Supreme Court Would Upend Democracy

      by

      Over the past six months, the United States Supreme Court has handed down one misguided ruling after another, stripping Americans of the constitutional right to an abortion, curtailing the regulation of guns and industrial emissions, and muddying the divide between church and state. The people have protested. They’ve organized. And in 2022, they voted.In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the June decision on abortion, the majority wrote that “women are not without electoral or political power.” That’s one thing they got right, and Republicans found that out the hard way in the November midterm elections that they expected to win big. Now, however, the very ability to exercise electoral and political power at the ballot box is hanging in the balance in a case the court is scheduled to hear on Wednesday.Moore v. Harper is a case from North Carolina that state and national Republicans are using to push an extreme legal premise known as the “independent state legislature theory.” While the United States Constitution delegates the authority to administer federal elections to the states, with Congress able to supersede those state decisions, proponents of this theory argue that state legislatures are vested with the exclusive power to run those elections. This view would leave no room for oversight by state courts and put the ability of governors to veto election-related legislation in doubt.The court’s decision on this alarming argument could fundamentally reshape American democracy. Four justices have suggested that they are sympathetic to the theory. If the court endorses this doctrine, it would give state legislatures sole power over voting laws, congressional redistricting, and potentially even the selection of presidential electors and the proper certification of election winners.Indeed, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in a decision earlier this year, said the theory that state courts are barred from reviewing a congressional redistricting plan was “repugnant to the sovereignty of states, the authority of state constitutions and the independence of state courts, and would produce absurd and dangerous consequences.”You can look to North Carolina to see the potential for dire consequences. In 2010, Republicans took over the state legislature in a midterm election. Since then, North Carolina has been ground zero for Republican attempts to manipulate elections. As the state’s attorney general and now governor since 2017, I’ve dealt with Republican legislative leaders as they advanced one scheme after another to manipulate elections while making it harder for populations they have targeted to vote.These schemes robbed voters from the start to the end of an election: a voter ID requirement so strict that a college ID from the University of North Carolina isn’t good enough. No same-day registration during early voting. No provisional ballots for voters who show up at the wrong precinct. Shorter early voting periods eliminated voting the Sunday before Election Day, a day when African American churches hold popular “souls to the polls” events.Fortunately, these measures were stopped in 2016 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which described them as targeting African Americans “with almost surgical precision.”Republicans in the legislature have also gerrymandered districts in diabolical ways. In 2016, state Republicans drew a congressional redistricting map that favored Republicans 10-3. They did so, the Republican chairman of a legislative redistricting committee explained, “because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”North Carolinians have relied on courts and my veto power as governor to foil many of these schemes. In 2022 a successful lawsuit in state court challenging a 2021 gerrymandered congressional map resulted in fair districts, splitting the state’s 14 districts (the state gained a district after the 2020 census) so that Democrats and Republicans each won seven seats in November’s elections. It seemed only right, given the nearly even divide between Democratic and Republican votes statewide. Republican efforts to avoid this result led to the Moore v. Harper appeal now before the Supreme Court.As recently as 2019, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a majority opinion on partisan gerrymandering claims in Maryland and North Carolina that state courts were an appropriate venue to hear such cases but that those claims were political issues beyond the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Retreating from that position on the role of state courts would be a shocking leap backward that would undermine the checks and balances established in state constitutions across the country.Republican leaders in the North Carolina state legislature have shown us how the elections process can be manipulated for partisan gain. And that’s what you can expect to see from state legislatures across the country if the court reverses course in this case.Our democracy is a fragile ecosystem that requires checks and balances to survive. Giving state legislatures unfettered control over federal elections is not only a bad idea but also a blatant misreading of the Constitution. Don’t let the past decade of North Carolina voting law battles become a glimpse into the nation’s future.Roy Cooper, a Democrat, has been the governor of North Carolina since 2017. He was previously elected to four terms as attorney general.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

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Black Turnout in Midterms Was One of the Low Points for Democrats

      by

      But the effects of the decrease wound up being muted.The Democratic Wisconsin Senate candidate, Mandela Barnes, on Nov. 4. He lost by one percentage point. Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesThere was a lot of good news — or at least news that felt good — for Democrats this election cycle, from holding the Senate to remaining stubbornly competitive in the House.But as more data becomes final, it’s clear that Black turnout is not one of those feel-good stories for the party.We won’t get conclusive numbers on this for months, but the evidence so far raises the distinct possibility that the Black share of the electorate sank to its lowest level since 2006. It certainly did in states like Georgia and North Carolina, where authoritative data is already available.The relatively low turnout numbers aren’t necessarily a surprise. After all, this was not supposed to be a good year for Democrats. Perhaps this is one of the things that went about as expected, with no reason to think it portends catastrophe for Democrats in the years ahead.Still, relatively low Black turnout is becoming an unmistakable trend in the post-Obama era, raising important — if yet unanswered — questions about how Democrats can revitalize the enthusiasm of their strongest group of supporters.Is it simply a return to the pre-Obama norm? Is it yet another symptom of eroding Democratic strength among working-class voters of all races and ethnicities? Or is it a byproduct of something more specific to Black voters, like the rise of a more progressive, activist — and pessimistic — Black left that doubts whether the Democratic Party can combat white supremacy?Whatever the answer, it is clear that the relatively low Black turnout was not exactly disastrous electorally for Democrats in 2022. With the possible exception of the Wisconsin Senate race, it’s hard to identify a high-profile election where Democrats might have prevailed if the Black share of the electorate had stayed at 2014 or 2018 levels.The Aftermath of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6A moment of reflection. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Only U.S. Territory Without U.S. Birthright Citizenship

      by

      People born in American Samoa, which has been held by the United States for more than 120 years, are not automatically citizens of the United States.The Australia Letter is a weekly newsletter from our Australia bureau. Sign up to get it by email. This week’s issue is written by Natasha Frost, a reporter with the Australia bureau.It seems straightforward enough. As the American Constitution put it, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”And generally, that’s accurate. People born in any of the 50 states, one federal district and four major territories (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) are automatically American citizens.But in one American territory, which has been held by the United States for more than 120 years and which is some 2,600 miles (4,184 kilometers) southwest of Hawaii, they aren’t.Every April, people in American Samoa, which has a population of about 50,000, celebrate “Flag Day,” the most important holiday of the year, commemorating its five islands and two coastal atolls becoming part of the United States. Its residents serve in the U.S. military — indeed, more soldiers per capita come from the Pacific territory than from any other U.S. territory or state. If they choose to leave their island home, they can live anywhere else in the United States they like. They even hold American passports.But they aren’t United States citizens. Instead, American Samoans are U.S. “nationals,” a small but significant distinction that precludes them from voting, running for office, and holding jobs in a narrow selection of fields, including law enforcement. They can become citizens after moving to the mainland, but the process is long, requires passing a history test and costs at least $725, before legal fees, without any guarantee of success.Until quite recently, the difference between being a U.S. national and a U.S. citizen was not always closely observed. Many American Samoans living elsewhere in the United States voted in elections without knowing that they were ineligible to.But under the Trump administration, that distinction became more closely observed. In 2018, a woman born in American Samoa ran as a Republican state House candidate in Hawaii, before learning that she was ineligible to run or even to vote. American Samoans serving as officers in the U.S. Army suddenly found that unless they underwent naturalization, they would be demoted.A handful of American Samoans living in the United States have attempted to challenge the status quo. In a recent case, which the U.S. Supreme Court last month declined to hear, three American Samoans living in Utah sought to demonstrate the ways in which not having U.S. citizenship were harmful to them.One said he had been criticized by his peers for not voting in elections; another was precluded from pursuing a career as a police officer, he said; a third said that as a noncitizen, she could not sponsor her ailing parents for immigration visas to the United States, where they could receive better health care. (Her father subsequently died before he was able to relocate.)Perhaps surprisingly, the government of American Samoans, as well as a majority of its citizens, is opposed to its residents acquiring birthright citizenship, particularly by judicial fiat, said Michael F. Williams, a lawyer who represents the government.In 1900, chiefs in American Samoa agreed to become part of the United States by signing a deed, which included protections for fa’a Samoa, a phrase meaning “the Samoan way” that refers to the islands’ traditional culture.“The American Samoan people have concerns that incorporating citizenship wholesale to the territory of American Samoa could have a harmful impact on traditional Samoan culture,” Williams said. He added: “The American Samoans believe if they need to make this fundamental change, they should be the ones to bring it upon themselves, not have some judge in Salt Lake City, or in Denver, Colorado, or Washington, D.C., doing it.”Yet the reasons American Samoans do not have birthright citizenship were not originally related to any effort to protect Samoan culture. Instead, a set of court cases in the early 20th century, known as the “Insular Cases,” established that U.S. territories were at once part of the United States and outside of it. The reason, the Supreme Court ruled in 1901, was that these territories were “foreign in a domestic sense,” “inhabited by alien races,” and that therefore governing them “according to Anglo-Saxon principles may for a time be impossible.”Those calling for a legislative change include Charles Ala’ilima, a lawyer based in American Samoa.“There’s only one class of citizens in the United States — except here in American Samoa,” he said. “What we have now is basically the imposition of second-class status on a people that are under the sovereignty of the government. That is the definition of colonialism.”Some legal scholars contend that American Samoa is not entirely subject to the United States Constitution, allowing it to maintain certain features of life, including the sa, a prayer curfew in place in some villages, and traditional communal ownership of land. Imposing birthright citizenship, they argue, would put those traditions at legal risk.But in the 1970s, a court in Washington, D.C., found that residents of American Samoa had the right to a jury trials “as guaranteed by our Constitution” — even after a court in American Samoa said that introducing jury trials would be “an arbitrary, illogical, and inappropriate foreign imposition.”Introducing jury trials has made little difference to the Samoan way of life, Ala’ilima said, and there was no evidence to suggest that granting its people citizenship would either. In the Northern Mariana Islands, another U.S. territory, residents can restrict land ownership to people of native descent — while still receiving birthright citizenship.“My impression is that at some level, they know that if they get upgraded to citizen, nothing’s going to happen,” he said, of the American Samoan government. Already, he added, a significant minority of American Samoans were citizens of the United States through descent.But for others in the territory, Hawaii, a former U.S. territory that acquired statehood in 1959, stands as a warning. “The government of American Samoa looks at Hawaii and sees what has happened to the native Hawaiians. Hawaii has become a playground for rich Americans; Native Hawaiian people are looking at crumbs,” Williams said.“Programs that were established by the state government in Hawaii for the benefit of Native Hawaiians, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, have been struck down or limited by constitutional litigation, based on the argument that it would be unfair to help one category of citizens based solely on their race,” he added.It may be that, to the extent American Samoa is already exposed to this risk, as some contend, granting birthright citizenship to its people would make little difference, beyond giving its people something that they are constitutionally owed. But for its leaders, and its deeply conservative people, the unknown consequences for now feel far too great.And now for the week’s stories.Australia and New ZealandKarangahape Road, Auckland.Ruth McDowall for The New York TimesSelling Stories on Auckland’s Ponsonby and Karangahape Roads. Stores in New Zealand’s largest city honor local craftspeople, sustainability — and, sometimes, their owners’ grandparents.World Cup 2022: How Australia Can Advance to the Round of 16. Here’s how Australia can qualify for the next round.Wrangling Over Australian Dinner. A couple disagrees on what to call different meals of the day.Around The TimesDoctors operating on a 13-year-old patient during an electricity outage in Kherson, Ukraine, on Tuesday.Bernat Armangue/Associated PressUkraine Adjusts to Life in the Dark. After a barrage of Russian missiles hit Ukrainian infrastructure, engineers and emergency crews worked desperately to restore services through darkness, snow and freezing rain.Covid Frustration Grows in China. As China’s harsh Covid rules extend deep into their third year, there are growing signs of discontent across the country.An Echoless Chamber in an Old Minneapolis Recording Studio. Could Caity Weaver, a writer for The New York Times Magazine, survive the world’s quietest place — and perhaps even set a record for the longest time spent within its walls?Are you enjoying our Australia bureau dispatches?Tell us what you think at NYTAustralia@nytimes.com.Like this email?Forward it to your friends (they could use a little fresh perspective, right?) and let them know they can sign up here.Enjoying the Australia Letter? Sign up here or forward to a friend.For more Australia coverage and discussion, start your day with your local Morning Briefing and join us in our Facebook group. More

    • 25 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Marijuana Majority

      by

      Americans support marijuana legalization, but many of their political leaders do not.A decade ago, no American lived in a state where marijuana was legal to smoke, vape or eat recreationally. Today, nearly half of Americans do or will soon: Voters approved legalization ballot measures this month in Maryland and Missouri, bringing the number of states allowing any adult use to 21.Legalization may not make major news often anymore, but it’s a big deal. It amounts to America’s largest change to its drug policy in decades. By aligning marijuana with alcohol and tobacco, rather than harder drugs, the policy change is giving birth to a new industry. And, over time, it could reduce the hundreds of thousands of marijuana arrests made in the U.S. every year, freeing up police resources.The change came about largely because of the support of voters, not politicians or lawmakers. While the public backs legalization, some prominent political leaders do not: President Biden has said he’s opposed. Donald Trump has characterized legalization as an issue for states to decide, but his 2020 presidential campaign said marijuana should remain illegal.Voter supportA key reason for marijuana legalization’s success: It’s popular. About 68 percent of adults in the U.S. support legalization, a Gallup survey found last week. Even a majority of Republicans, who are typically more conservative on the issue, have told Gallup that they support legalization.Around two decades ago, public opinion was essentially the reverse: About 64 percent of U.S. adults said marijuana should not be legal.The shift toward support empowered legalization campaigns around the U.S. The 21 states that have legalized it have done so only since 2012, starting with Colorado and Washington. Three of those states reliably vote Republican: Alaska, Montana and Missouri.Why have voters come around to legalization? Advocates credit several issues. Much of the public now sees the broader war on drugs as a costly failure — and marijuana, widely viewed as less dangerous than alcohol, is an accessible target for policy changes. States’ experiments with medical marijuana, starting in the 1990s, helped make Americans more comfortable with loosening access. And the internet has made it easier for a grass-roots legalization movement to spread.Political oppositionSome leading lawmakers have not followed the shift in public opinion. Biden has said he opposes jailing marijuana users and pardoned thousands of people convicted of marijuana possession under federal law. But he also opposes legalization, putting him at odds with more than 80 percent of self-identified Democrats.Lawmakers’ opposition has led activists to rely largely on voter support to enact legalization. Of the 21 states where recreational marijuana is or will soon be legal, 14 approved the change through ballot measures.But there are limits to the ballot process. Not every state allows such initiatives. And the drug remains illegal at the federal level, stopping most big banks from working with marijuana businesses and raising the businesses’ tax bills.Even in states where voters approve legalization, marijuana may remain illegal. South Dakotans voted to legalize marijuana in 2020, but Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, took the measure to court and won. This month, South Dakotan voters rejected another legalization initiative.Some of the political resistance is easing. Congress passed its first stand-alone marijuana reform bill last week, which will allow for more research into medical uses if Biden signs it into law, as expected. Several state legislatures, including Vermont’s and Virginia’s, have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes. Some prominent Democrats, like Senator Bernie Sanders and the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, have voiced support for legalization.The shift is coming slowly, but perhaps typically: Whether they are considering action on prescription drugs or same-sex marriage, lawmakers often move well after voter support for an issue has solidified.For moreUnlicensed weed shops have exploded in popularity in New York City since the state legalized recreational marijuana last year.The state approved its first licenses for recreational marijuana retailers this week.THE LATEST NEWSMass ShootingsAn attacker opened fire at a Walmart in Chesapeake, Va., leaving at least six people dead. The shooter was also found dead at the store, the police said.Colorado Springs is questioning its progress on gay rights after the deadly shooting at an L.G.B.T.Q. nightclub there last weekend.PoliticsThe Supreme Court cleared the way for House Democrats to obtain Donald Trump’s tax returns.The Biden administration extended its pause on federal student loan payments.Senator Lindsey Graham testified in a Georgia investigation into 2020 election interference by Trump, after fighting to avoid answering questions.Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader campaigning to become House speaker, visited the southwestern border and demanded the Homeland Security secretary resign.The VirusDr. Anthony Fauci at what was likely his last White House briefing.Michael A. McCoy for The New York TimesU.S. officials say they see a reduced Covid threat this winter, but urged people to get updated booster shots.Chinese officials have ordered businesses and schools in Beijing to close and locked down much of a major northern city as cases rise.Other Big StoriesTwo blasts during rush hour in Jerusalem killed one person and wounded at least 18 others. They were believed to be the first bomb attacks on Israeli civilians in years.After retaking the city of Kherson, Ukraine’s forces are trying to push Russian troops out of a strategic strip of land in the Black Sea. Follow updates.“Bregret”: Facing a grave economic slump, some British people are rethinking Brexit.OpinionsElon Musk might long for a bygone era of bro-boss workplaces, but most workers have moved on, Jessica Bennett writes.From Al Gore’s 2000 concession speech to Liz Cheney at the first Jan. 6 hearing, Thomas Friedman offers Thanksgiving readings to celebrate American democracy.The “momfluencer” industry has heightened already unrealistic expectations for American mothers, Jessica Grose says.MORNING READSDijon at the decks at Moogfest 2018.Jeremy M. Lange for The New York TimesUp from underground: The dance D.J. Honey Dijon is now everywhere.Mind farm: Researchers are investigating the inner lives of cows, pigs and chickens.Family treasures: A colander. A wooden Snoopy. Times readers shared their heirlooms.Advice from Wirecutter: Save money on heat and hot water.Lives Lived: Hebe de Bonafini helped build the protest movement the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo after her sons disappeared under Argentina’s military dictatorship. She died at 93.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICRankings: L.S.U. moved up to No. 5 in this week’s College Football Playoff rankings, surprisingly one spot ahead of U.S.C. Preview: Here’s what to watch for in the N.F.L.’s Thanksgiving tripleheader.WORLD CUPPlayers for Saudi Arabia celebrate after a goal.Julian Finney/Getty ImagesShock victory: Saudi Arabia beat the heavily favored Argentina, 2-1, one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history. (These were some of the others.)A closer look: The loss invited scrutiny of a deal that the Argentine great Lionel Messi has signed to promote Saudi Arabia.“We got here six beers ago”: After Qatar banned the sale of beer in and around stadiums, British fans found a solution.Elsewhere in soccer: Cristiano Ronaldo will immediately leave his English Premier League team, Manchester United.Today’s matchups: Germany plays Japan this morning, and Canada faces Belgium this afternoon. Follow all of today’s matches.ARTS AND IDEAS Rozalina Burkova for The New York TimesThe year in booksLooking for a good holiday read? The Times Book Review has published its annual 100 Notable Books, a survey of the best books of the year in fiction, nonfiction and poetry.“I’m still pretty new to the Book Review,” Gilbert Cruz, who took over as editor this year, told us. “But I’ve been reading it forever, and this is possibly the most vibrant and wide-ranging Notables list that we’ve ever had — historical fiction, mysteries, thrillers, horror, translated literature, an exceptional crop of short-story collections, a fantastic graphic memoir. It really feels like there’s something for almost anyone.”Browse the full list.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChristopher Testani for The New York Times. Food Stylist:Simon Andrews. Prop Stylist: Christina Lane.This cheesecake can customize however you want.One Day to ThanksgivingForgetting the salad is a common Thanksgiving faux pas. Here are three recipes that will balance out the richer dishes.Where to GoThe remote Andaman Islands offers Indian culture and spectacular beaches.Late NightThe hosts joked about Trump’s tax returns.Now Time to PlayThe pangrams from yesterday’s Spelling Bee were blanked and kneadable. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Colorado ski resort (five 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. — GermanP.S. Diplomats from China accused “one or two superpowers” of “aggression” at a U.N. Security Council meeting 51 years ago today.Here’s today’s front page. “The Daily” is about cooking the perfect turkey.Matthew Cullen, 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

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Hold Onto Contested State Legislative Chambers

      by

      Democrats made gains in state legislatures, including at least one Midwestern battleground state, while thwarting Republican efforts to flip chambers in the Mountain West and elsewhere. As results of statehouse races were still being counted in several states late Wednesday, experts said that Republicans’ efforts to expand their control of state legislative chambers appeared to have fallen short.In Michigan, Democrats had flipped at least one chamber of the State Legislature, the State Senate, while votes were still being counted in races for control of the state’s House of Representatives, as well as Minnesota’s State Senate.“Last night was a surprisingly good showing for Democrats in statehouses, especially since their gains combat the notion that the president’s party always loses ground during midterms,” said Wendy Underhill, director of elections and redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures.In Colorado, a state heavily targeted by Republicans, Democrats maintained their legislative majorities. And in North Carolina and Wisconsin, states with Democratic governors and Republican-held legislatures, Democrats fended off efforts by Republicans to win supermajorities, which would have given them veto override powers. Democrats also won full control of state government leadership in Massachusetts and Maryland — states where Democrats newly won control of the governor’s office while holding onto majorities in both chambers of their statehouses.Republicans went into the midterms with a grip on a majority of chambers in statehouses around the country. Single-party control of state legislatures has become common, and before voting on Tuesday, Republicans dominated both legislative chambers in 30 states, while Democrats held both chambers in 17.Counts were still continuing on Wednesday in various states, including Arizona and Nevada, where control of state legislatures was in play. But in states big and small where results were clear, Republicans easily maintained control of legislatures, including in Texas, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming.“Republicans continue to absolutely dominate the 50-state landscape, as they have since 2010,” Ms. Underhill said.In a sign of how polarization has characterized thousands of races, including many in rural areas where Republicans were running uncontested, only a few hundred seats at the state legislative level were expected to shift across party lines out of the more than 6,200 up for election, according to the N.C.S.L., a bipartisan organization representing state legislatures.Nevertheless, the results indicate a turn from 2020 when Democrats spent heavily to diminish Republicans’ control of state legislatures only to fail at flipping a single chamber, even as Democrats won the presidency and control of Congress that year.The shifts in state legislative seats come as control of these legislatures may prove more significant than ever. State legislatures already hold sway over a wide range of issues from taxation to what teachers are allowed to discuss in public schools. After the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe this year, state lawmakers gained even more power, deciding in many cases whether to restrict or expand abortion rights for their residents.Their authority could now shift significantly as the Supreme Court, which has leaned to the right, hears a case next month related to the role of state legislatures and their role in setting election rules. More