Supreme Court (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Allows Undated Ballots in Pennsylvania Election

      by

      A state law required mailed ballots to be accompanied by a signed and dated declaration, but a federal appeals court ruled that undated declarations sufficed.WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said on Thursday that election officials in Pennsylvania may count mailed ballots accompanied by voters’ declarations that were signed but not dated. The court’s order came in a tight race for a seat on a state court, but it is likely to affect other contests in the state as well.The court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications.The court’s three most conservative members — Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — dissented, saying that the court should address the issue presented in the case in time for the November elections.The case concerned a state law enacted in 2019 that permitted all registered voters to vote by mail. The law required voters using mailed ballots to “fill out, date and sign” a declaration printed on the outside of the return envelope that said they were qualified to vote.The Supreme Court’s order let stand a ruling from a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, which said the part of the state law requiring the declarations to be dated ran afoul of a provision of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. The provision prohibits government officials from denying the right to vote “because of an error or omission” if it “is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under state law to vote.”The case arose from an election in November 2021 for a seat on the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas in which David Ritter, a Republican, leads Zachary Cohen, a Democrat, by 71 votes. The local elections board determined that it would also count 257 undated ballots, and challenges in state and federal court followed.It was undisputed that the undated ballots were received by Election Day and that the elections board had accepted ballots with incorrect dates, including birth dates, rejecting only missing ones.The suit, brought by five voters who had submitted undated ballots, argued that the federal law required that all 257 undated ballots be counted. The voters, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Supreme Court that requiring a date served no purpose.“The handwritten date is so inconsequential that the Board of Elections accepted ballots where voters wrote any date whatsoever on the return envelope, even dates from decades ago,” the voters’ brief said. “The county clerk affirmed he would have accepted envelope dates from the future. Yet voters who mistakenly omitted the envelope date were disenfranchised.”In March, Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. of the Federal District Court in Allentown, Pa., rejected the suit, saying that only the attorney general was authorized to sue under the federal law.The Third Circuit disagreed, saying that the voters were entitled to sue and that the requirement of a dated declaration did not help determine whether the voter was qualified. “The requirement is material if it goes to determining age, citizenship, residency or current imprisonment for a felony,” Judge Theodore A. McKee wrote, concluding that adding a date to a signature did not aid in those determinations.Justice Alito, writing for the three dissenters, said the federal law did not appear to address the requirement that voters date their declarations.“When a mail-in ballot is not counted because it was not filled out correctly, the voter is not denied ‘the right to vote,’” he wrote. “Rather, that individual’s vote is not counted because he or she did not follow the rules for casting a ballot.”Understand the Battle Over U.S. Voting RightsCard 1 of 6Why are voting rights an issue now? More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      ‘The G.O.P. Has Gone Even Farther to the Right Than I Expected’: Three Writers Talk About the Midterms

      by

      Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted an online conversation with Lis Smith, a Democratic communications strategist, and Matthew Continetti of the American Enterprise Institute about a month of primaries, how they have shaped the midterms and what Democrats and Republicans can hope for and expect.FRANK BRUNI: On Tuesday, at least 19 children and two teachers were killed in the latest mass school shooting in a country that has witnessed too many of them. In my heartfelt (and heartsick) opinion, that should change the political landscape. But, realistically, will it?LIS SMITH: It should, but I unfortunately don’t think it will move the needle a ton.MATTHEW CONTINETTI: I agree. Unfortunately, history suggests that the political landscape won’t change after the horror in Texas.There’s a long and terrible list of school shootings. Each incident has been met with public horror and with calls for gun controls. But little has happened to either reduce the number of guns in America or to shift power to advocates for firearm regulation.SMITH: After Sandy Hook, we did see a number of states — Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New York — take strong action on gun control, and I still believe that we will most likely see gun-control legislation on the state versus the federal level.And this does raise the stakes of the midterms. It will allow Democrats in marginal, suburban seats to use the issue against their Republican opponents, given that nearly every Republican in the House voted against H.R. 8, which would implement background checks and common-sense restrictions of the sort that have had broad public support.BRUNI: After that cheery start, let’s pull back and zoom out to a bigger picture. Have the primaries so far conformed to your expectations — or are there particular results or general patterns that surprise you and that challenge, or throw into doubt, your assumptions about what will happen in November?CONTINETTI: I’d say they are shaping up as one might expect. The president’s party rarely does well in midterms. The Biden Democrats appear to be no exception. What has surprised me is the depth of public disillusionment with President Biden, his party and the direction of the country. My guess is Democrats are surprised as well.SMITH: We have seen common-sense Democrats like Shontel Brown in Ohio, Valerie Foushee in North Carolina and Morgan McGarvey in Kentucky win against far-left Democrats, and that’s a good thing for the party and our chances in November.The G.O.P. has gone even farther right than I expected. Just look at Doug Mastriano, who won the Republican governor’s primary in Pennsylvania. He funded buses to shuttle people to the Capitol on Jan. 6 and helped efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the state. He opposes abortion without exceptions. He makes Ron DeSantis look like Charlie Baker.BRUNI: Matt, do ultra-MAGA Republican candidates like him or for that matter Ted Budd in the North Carolina Senate race potentially undermine what might otherwise be a red-wave year? I’m thinking about a guest essay you wrote for The Times not long ago in which you raised the concern that Donald Trump and his minions would spoil things. Does that concern persist?CONTINETTI: Indeed, it does. Where Republicans got the idea that Trump is a political winner is a mystery to me. By the end of his presidency, Democrats were in full control of government. And he has been unpopular with the independents and suburban moderates necessary for any party to win a majority.I draw a distinction, though, between Mastriano and Budd. Mastriano is, as you say, ultra-MAGA. Even Trump was wary of him until the very end of the primary. Budd is a more typical fusion of conservative movement traits with Trump MAGA traits. If I had to guess, Budd is more likely to win than Mastriano.BRUNI: Lis, is Matt splitting hairs? I mean, in the House, Budd voted to overturn the 2020 election results. I worry that we’re cutting certain Republican conspiracists a break because they’re not as flagrant conspiracists as, say, Marjorie Taylor Greene or Madison Cawthorn.SMITH: It’s splitting hairs a bit. But he’s right — Mastriano proved so polarizing and so toxic that you had a former Trump adviser in Pennsylvania, David Urban, say that he was too extreme. He was too MAGA for the MAGA crowd. The G.O.P. has been more welcoming of Budd, but he also wanted to overturn 2020 and he also opposes abortion in every instance. North Carolina voters have a history of turning back candidates with extreme social views. That’s one of the reasons Roy Cooper won his first race for governor — the G.O.P. overreached on the bathrooms issue, the law that restricted restroom access for transgender people.BRUNI: What shall we call “too MAGA for MAGA”? Mega-MAGA? Meta-MAGA? Maxi-MAGA? Regardless, we keep asking, after every primary: What does this say about Trump’s level of sway? Is that question distracting us from bigger, more relevant ones?SMITH: Trump is a factor here, but Democrats really need to keep the focus on these candidates and their beliefs and make this an election between the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate. As we saw in Virginia, Democrats can’t rely on painting their opponents as Trump 2.0 — they need to explicitly define and disqualify the opposition, and these mega-MAGA extremists give us plenty of material. The people who aren’t as out there as Mastriano give us plenty of material, too.BRUNI: Matt, I know you’re not here to help Democrats, but if you were advising them, what would you tell them to do to head off a possible or probable midterms drubbing?CONTINETTI: If I were a Democratic consultant, the first thing I would tell my clients would be to take shelter from the storm. There is no escaping Biden’s unpopularity. The best hope for Democratic incumbents is to somehow denationalize their campaigns. Even that probably won’t be enough to escape the gravitational pull of Biden’s declining job approval.BRUNI: Lis, the “plenty of material” you refer to must include abortion. Along those lines, do you see anything potentially happening in the months ahead that could change the trajectory of the midterms? For example, what if the Supreme Court in June in fact overturns Roe or further weakens gun regulations? What about hearings on the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol?SMITH: Roe is an example of something that could change the trajectory of the election. I usually think of the presidential election as when the broad electorate turns out and midterms as when pissed-off voters come out to vote. The Supreme Court taking away something that has been a fundamental right for 50 years will definitely piss people off and bring some of the Biden voters who might have otherwise voted Republican this year back into our corner. But voters have more reasons to be angry than just Roe.BRUNI: What are you thinking of? I’d like to hear it and then what Matt has to say about it.SMITH: We need to be screaming from the rooftops about what the Republicans in Congress are doing. They voted against the American Rescue Plan (then took credit for the checks that went to American households), mostly voted against infrastructure (then took credit for projects in their districts), mostly voted against capping the price of insulin, voted against stopping oil companies from price gouging, mostly voted against a bill that would include importing baby formula.Why? Because they want to impose as much misery as possible on the American people so that voters blame Biden and vote Republican in November. It’s really cynical, dark stuff. And then when they win, they want to criminalize abortions and ensure that we never have free and fair elections again. That’s my rant.CONTINETTI: Voters will hear a lot of what Lis is saying before November, but the Democrats’ problem is that they are in power as inflation comes roaring back after a 40-year absence. I am open to the idea that the end of Roe v. Wade may induce pro-choice voters off the sidelines in some swing districts, but in the weeks since the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion, the evidence of a pro-abortion-rights surge among voters is scattered at best. As the great Mark Shields likes to say, “When the economy is bad, the economy is the only issue.” Right now the economy is the issue, and it’s hurting the Democratic Party.BRUNI: As we were all typing, Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat who’s running for governor in Texas, where this latest horrible massacre occurred, interrupted a news conference being held by the incumbent Republican governor, Greg Abbott, to shout at Abbott that he was doing nothing to stop such bloodshed. In its urgency and passion, is that smart politics that could make a difference, Lis?SMITH: That’s a great example of going on the offensive, generating the emotion and pissed-off-ness that Democrats need to turn out our voters in the midterms. We often lose the gun debate because it’s about policy particulars. If Democrats can channel the outrage that a lot of Americans feel — particularly parents — toward the politicians who are just sitting behind tables and choosing inaction and make this about political courage, we can potentially flip the script. Sometimes these sorts of confrontations can come across as a little stunt-y, but in this case, it was executed well and made Governor Abbott and his lackeys look cowardly.CONTINETTI: O’Rourke is running 10 points behind Abbott, and I don’t think his outburst will help him close that gap. Many Democrats believe that pissed-off-ness is the key to winning elections, but I don’t know what evidence there is for that case. The key to winning elections is to appeal to independent voters and moderates in the suburbs.SMITH: Trump’s whole pitch is to play on grievances! And midterm elections are traditionally where voters air their grievances: They’re mad about inflation, mad about gas prices — in 2018, they were mad about Republicans’ trying to repeal Obamacare. This is a strategy that appeals to independent and moderate voters in the suburbs — they are often with Democrats on abortion, with us on guns.CONTINETTI: As you know, Trump did not win the popular vote in either 2016 or 2020. Pissed-off-ness gets you only so far. I agree that it helps when you are the out party in a national election and can blame the incumbent for poor economic and social conditions. Whether getting angry will work in Texas this year and for this candidate is another matter.BRUNI: Matt, why aren’t the Republicans who are losing to other Republicans in these primaries, as Lis put it earlier, “screaming from the rooftops” about election irregularities and rigged results the way they do when they lose to Democrats? Either a state holds trustworthy elections or it doesn’t, no?CONTINETTI: We’ve been reminded in recent weeks of what you might call Trumpian Exceptionalism. Whenever Trump loses, he says the result is fraudulent. He’s been urging his choice in the Pennsylvania Senate primary, Mehmet Oz, to declare victory in a race too close to call. Yet Oz has refrained, as have other Trump picks like the former senator David Perdue, who lost in a landslide in Georgia to the incumbent governor, Brian Kemp. Is there a Republican future in which candidates regularly ignore Trump? Some of us hope so. Though we’ve learned not to hope too much.BRUNI: Let’s end with a lighting round of short questions. At this point, just over five months out, what percentage chance would you say the Democrats have of holding the House? The Senate?CONTINETTI: Math, much less statistics, has never been my strong suit. Let’s just say that the Democrats have a very slim chance of holding the House and a slightly less-than-even chance of holding the Senate.SMITH: Emphasis on “at this point”: 51 percent chance Democrats hold the Senate, 15 percent House.BRUNI: In 2028 or 2032, will we be talking about Sarah Huckabee Sanders, possible Republican presidential nominee?!?!SMITH: Wow, I’ve never thought of that, but I can see it. At some point the Republicans will nominate a woman for president — let’s hope that you didn’t just conjure this one.CONTINETTI: I can see that, too — maybe that’s when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will make her presidential debut as well.BRUNI: Thoughts on Herschel Walker (potentially) in the Senate, in five words or less.SMITH: Death of an institution.CONTINETTI: Fun to watch.BRUNI: Lastly, in one sentence without too many conjunctions and clauses, give me a reason not to feel too despondent-verging-on-hopeless about our political present and immediate future?SMITH: We’ve gotten through worse.CONTINETTI: When you study history, you are reminded that America has been through a lot like this before — and worse — and has not only endured but prospered. We’ll get through this moment. It will just take time.Sorry, that’s three sentences — but important ones!Frank Bruni (@FrankBruni) is a professor of public policy at Duke, the author of the book “The Beauty of Dusk,” and a contributing Opinion writer. He writes a weekly email newsletter and can be found on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Matthew Continetti (@continetti) is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism.” Lis Smith (@Lis_Smith), a Democratic communications strategist, was a senior adviser to Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign and is the author of the forthcoming memoir “Any Given Tuesday: A Political Love Story.”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

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Ginni Thomas Urged Arizona Lawmakers to Overturn Election

      by

      The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote to legislators in a crucial swing state after the Trump campaign’s loss in 2020.In the weeks after the 2020 presidential election, Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, twice lobbied the speaker of the Arizona House and another lawmaker to effectively reverse Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s popular-vote victory and deliver the crucial swing state to Donald J. Trump.Ms. Thomas, known as Ginni, a right-wing political activist who became a close ally of Mr. Trump during his presidency, made the entreaties in emails to Russell Bowers, the Republican speaker, and Shawnna Bolick, a Republican state representative. Ms. Bolick’s husband, Clint, once worked with Justice Thomas and now sits on the Arizona Supreme Court.The emails came as Mr. Trump and his allies were engaged in a legal effort to overturn his defeats in several battleground states. While the Arizona emails did not mention either presidential candidate by name, they echoed the former president’s false claims of voter fraud and his legal team’s dubious contention that the power to choose electors therefore rested not with the voters but with state legislatures.“Do your constitutional duty,” Ms. Thomas wrote the lawmakers on Nov. 9. On Dec. 13, with Mr. Trump still refusing to concede on the eve of the Electoral College vote, she contacted the lawmakers again.“The nation’s eyes are on you now,” she warned, adding, “Please consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you do not stand up and lead.”After she sent her first round of emails, but before the second round, Mr. Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, more directly pressured Mr. Bowers. They called him and urged him to have the state legislature step in and choose Arizona’s electors.Mr. Bowers could not be reached for comment on Friday. In a statement to The Arizona Republic, a spokesman said that Mr. Bowers never saw Ms. Thomas’s email. He ended up rebuffing all the requests to intervene, even in the face of protests outside his house.Ms. Bolick, who did not return requests for comment and is now running to become Arizona’s next secretary of state on a platform to “restore election integrity,” proved more of an ally. She thanked Ms. Thomas for reaching out, writing that she hoped “you and Clarence are doing great!” Among other things, she would go on to urge Congress to throw out Arizona’s presidential election results and award the state’s Electoral College votes to Mr. Trump.The emails, reported earlier by The Washington Post and obtained by The New York Times, were part of a letter-writing campaign hosted on FreeRoots, a political advocacy platform. On Friday, Mark Paoletta, a lawyer and close friend of the Thomases, said on Twitter that Ms. Thomas “did not write the letter and had no input in the content,” but rather merely “signed her name to a pre-written form letter that was signed by thousands of citizens.”“How disturbing, what a threat!” he wrote, dismissing the revelations as a “lame story.” He added: “A private citizen joining a letter writing campaign, hosted by a platform that served both conservative and liberal causes. Welcome to America.”In fact, the emails are a reflection of the far broader and more integral role that Justice Thomas’s wife played in efforts to delegitimize the election and install Mr. Trump for a second term — efforts that culminated on Jan. 6, 2021, with a protest called the “March to Save America” that turned into a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol.As a string of revelations by The Times and other outlets in recent months has demonstrated, Ms. Thomas actively supported and participated at the highest levels in schemes to overturn the election. Those efforts have, in turn, cast a spotlight on her husband, who from his lifetime perch on the Supreme Court has issued opinions favoring Mr. Trump’s efforts to both reverse his loss and stymie a congressional investigation into the events of Jan. 6.This February, The New York Times Magazine reported on Ms. Thomas’s role on the board of C.N.P. Action, a conservative group that had instructed members to adopt letter-writing tactics — of the kind she personally used in Arizona — to pressure Republican lawmakers in swing states to circumvent voters by appointing alternate electors.C.N.P. Action had also circulated a newsletter in December 2020 that included a report targeting five swing states, including Arizona, where Mr. Trump and his allies were pressing litigation. It warned that time was running out for the courts to “declare the elections null and void.” The report was co-written by one of Mr. Trump’s leading election lawyers, Cleta Mitchell, a friend of Ms. Thomas.And in the lead-up to the rally on Jan. 6, Ms. Thomas played a mediating role, uniting feuding factions of planners so that there “wouldn’t be any division,” one of the organizers, Dustin Stockton, later told The Times.Ms. Thomas declined to speak to The Times for that article, but a few weeks later, in an interview with a friendly conservative outlet, she denied playing any role in the organization of the rally, even as she acknowledged attending it. (She said she left before Mr. Trump addressed the crowd.)But she has adamantly opposed a fuller inquiry into the insurrection. Last December, she co-signed a letter calling for House Republicans to expel Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger from their conference for joining the committee investigating the Capitol riot, saying it brought “disrespect to our country’s rule of law” and “legal harassment to private citizens who have done nothing wrong.”And in late March, The Post and CBS reported that she had sent a series of text messages to Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, imploring him to take steps to reverse the election. Ms. Thomas urged him to “release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down,” invoking a slogan popular on the right that refers to a set of conspiratorial claims that Trump supporters believed would overturn the vote. In the text messages, she also indicated that she had been in contact with the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, about a post-election legal strategy.Democrats expressed outrage. In a letter after the text messages were reported, two dozen Democrats, including Senators Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, wrote: “Given the recent disclosures about Ms. Thomas’s efforts to overturn the election and her specific communications with White House officials about doing so, Justice Thomas’s participation in cases involving the 2020 election and the January 6th attack is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with federal ethics requirements.”Still, it remains an open question whether the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack will seek an interview with Ms. Thomas. In March, people familiar with the committee’s work signaled a desire to ask Ms. Thomas to voluntarily sit for an interview. But the committee has yet to do so, and its chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, told reporters that Ms. Thomas had not come up recently in the panel’s discussions.Justice Thomas has remained defiant amid questions about his own impartiality, resisting calls that he recuse himself from matters that overlap with his wife’s activism. Earlier this year, when the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 to allow the release of records from the Trump White House related to Jan. 6, Justice Thomas was the sole dissenter. In February last year, he sharply dissented when the court declined to hear a case brought by Pennsylvania Republicans seeking to disqualify certain mail-in ballots.The latest revelations about his wife follow a speech last week in which he lambasted protests in front of the houses of justices after a draft opinion was leaked that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case. “I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them,” he told a conference of fellow conservatives. “And then I wonder when they’re gone or destabilized, what we’re going to have as a country.”And he flashed at his own partisanship in claiming that the left’s protests lacked the decorum of the right — while failing to mention last year’s attack on the Capitol, or protests like those in front of Mr. Bowers’s house.“You would never visit Supreme Court justices’ houses when things didn’t go our way,” he said. “We didn’t throw temper tantrums. It is incumbent on us to always act appropriately and not to repay tit for tat.”Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife have frequently appeared at political events despite longstanding customs of the Supreme Court.Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesThe Thomases have long defied norms of the high court, where justices often avoid political events and entanglements and their spouses often keep low profiles. No spouse of a sitting Supreme Court justice has ever been as overt a political activist as Ms. Thomas. C.N.P. Action, where she sits on the board, is a branch of the Council for National Policy, a secretive conservative organization that includes leaders from the National Rifle Association and the Family Research Council, a Christian advocacy group. Ms. Thomas also founded an organization called Groundswell that holds a weekly meeting of influential conservatives, many of whom work directly on issues that have come before the Supreme Court.Justice Thomas, for his part, has frequently appeared at political events hosted by advocates hoping to sway the court. He and his wife sometimes appear together at such events, and often portray themselves as standing in the breach amid a crumbling society.“It’s very exciting,” Ms. Thomas said during a 2018 Council for National Policy meeting, “the fact that there’s a resistance on our side to their side.”Luke Broadwater More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats, the Midterm Jinx Is Not Inevitable

      by

      In November, the Democrats are widely expected to lose the House and probably also the Senate. Large defeats are the norm for a new president’s first midterm. A harbinger is a president’s approval rating, and President Biden’s stands at a lackluster 41.1 percent.But standard political history may not be a good guide to 2022. The Democrats are facing long odds, but there are several reasons this could be an unusual political year.For starters, Donald Trump is just as likely to hobble Republicans as he is to energize them. Mr. Trump will not be on the ballot, but many of his surrogates will. He has endorsed over 175 candidates in federal and state elections, and in his clumsy efforts to play kingmaker, Mr. Trump has promoted some badly compromised candidates and challenged party unity.In the Georgia primary for governor, a Trump surrogate, Sonny Purdue, is polling well behind Mr. Trump’s nemesis, the incumbent Brian Kemp. In the Georgia Senate race, Mr. Trump’s endorsed candidate, Herschel Walker, is running away from his past and locked in a tight race against the incumbent Raphael Warnock. It may not happen again, but in 2020, Mr. Trump’s meddling backfired and helped Democrats take two Senate seats.To hold the Senate, Democrats need to defend incumbents in New Hampshire, Arizona, Nevada and Georgia. But they have pickup opportunities in several states.In Pennsylvania, the popular lieutenant governor John Fetterman, an economic populist, will run against the winner of a close Republican primary, either the celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz or the financier David McCormick. Mr. Oz, who was endorsed by Mr. Trump, has a very slight edge, as well as a very slight connection to Pennsylvania, having lived in New Jersey for many years. Either nominee would most likely alienate part of the Trump base, and neither is remotely populist.In Ohio, Mr. Trump’s endorsement helped the author and venture capitalist executive J.D. Vance prevail. In the general election, we will get a test of the divisive culture-war populism of Mr. Vance versus the genuine pocketbook populism of Representative Tim Ryan — the kind that keeps re-electing Ohio’s Democratic senator, Sherrod Brown.For Democrats to succeed in many of these races, their base will have to be energized — but at the moment, it is not. Still, there’s hope: Even if the ubiquitous lunacy of Mr. Trump doesn’t wake Democrats up, the likelihood of abortion being banned in half the country probably will.If the leaked opinion in the Supreme Court abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, becomes law in an official June decision, it will not just allow states to criminalize abortion, but will turn doctors into agents of the state when they treat women for miscarriages. This extremism on women’s health does not have the support of most voters.The Democratic revival of 2017-20 began with the epic women’s marches of January 2017. If Democrats are more competitive than expected this year, it will be in part because women are galvanized, especially women in the Democratic base but also independent or “soft Republican” college-educated suburban women.Something like this happened in 2017, when large numbers of liberals and moderates, appalled by Mr. Trump’s presidency, saw the 2018 election as a firebreak. That year, Democrats made a net gain of 40 seats in the House, and historic turnout gains in 2018, relative to the previous midterm, were a great benefit for Democrats.All will depend on how closely 2022 resembles 2018. With the electorate so divided, there are relatively few swing voters — but potentially dozens of swing districts. How they swing depends entirely on turnout.A Democratic effort reminiscent of grass roots groups in 2017 is beginning to gear up. For example, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland sponsors a Democracy Summer for college students who want to get out and organize. This idea has been picked up in dozens of other congressional districts.Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia, in the January 2021 runoff election that won him a Senate seat, helped pioneer a technique called paid relational organizing. He hired some 2,800 Georgians to reach out to their own peer networks to win support for Mr. Ossoff. Now several people who worked with Senator Ossoff are taking this strategy national.Other events this summer may have bearing on the fall. The House panel investigating the attack of Jan. 6, 2021, will hold public hearings in June. Closer to the midterms, it will release its final report, which will put Republicans on the spot to answer for their defense of an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Mr. Trump will surely continue to insist the 2020 election was stolen, but most Republicans will be whipsawed between the demands of Mr. Trump and his base and their wish to focus on more winning issues.Mr. Trump’s own behavior is exposing all the latent fissures in the contradictory coalition that narrowly elected him. Democratic candidates will be reminding Americans of the potential menace of a second Trump term. If Mr. Trump rejoins Twitter, he will remind them himself.Even so, Republican extremism is at risk of being overshadowed by economic conditions, none more than inflation. Federal Reserve economists project that inflation could begin to subside by fall. As with so much in politics, sheer luck and timing will play a role in the Democrats’ prospects and the future of our Republic.Stranger things have happened than a Democrat midterm resurgence. A wipeout is still likely, but far from inevitable — if Democrats can get organized.Robert Kuttner is a co-editor of The American Prospect and the author of “Going Big: FDR’s Legacy, Biden’s New Deal, and the Struggle to Save Democracy.”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

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Bloody Crossroads Where Conspiracy Theories and Guns Meet

      by

      Gail Collins: Bret, you and I live in a state that has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. But that didn’t stop a teenager with a history of making threats from getting his hands on a semiautomatic rifle and mowing down 10 people at a supermarket in a Black neighborhood in Buffalo on Saturday.Bret Stephens: It’s sickening. And part of a grotesque pattern: the racist massacre in Charleston in 2015, the antisemitic massacre in Pittsburgh in 2018, the anti-Hispanic massacre in El Paso in 2019 and so many others. There’s a bloody crossroads where easy access to weapons and increasingly commonplace conspiracy theories meet.I have diminishing faith that the usual calls for more gun control can do much good in a country with way more than 300 million guns in private hands. Please tell me I’m wrong.Gail: Sane gun control won’t solve the problem, but it’ll help turn things around — criminals and mentally ill people will have a harder time getting their hands on weapons. And the very fact that we could enact restrictions on firearm purchases would be a sign that the nation’s whole attitude was getting healthier.Bret: Wish I could share your optimism, but I’ve come to think of meaningful gun control in the United States as the ultimate Sisyphean task. Gun control at the state level doesn’t work because guns can move easily across state lines. Gun control at the federal level doesn’t work because the votes in Congress will never be there. I personally favor repealing the Second Amendment, but politically that’s another nonstarter. And the same Republican Party that opposes gun control is also winking at, if not endorsing, the sinister Great Replacement conspiracy theory — the idea that liberals/Jews/the deep state are conspiring to replace whites with nonwhite immigrants — that appears to have motivated the accused shooter in Buffalo.Bottom line: I’m heartbroken for the victims of this massacre. And I’m heartbroken for a country that seems increasingly powerless to do anything about it. And that’s just one item on our accumulating inventory of crippling problems.Gail: You know, we thought the country was going to be obsessed with nothing but inflation this election year. But instead, it’s hot-button social issues like guns, and of course we’ve spent the last few weeks reacting to the Supreme Court’s upcoming abortion decision, which probably won’t actually be out for weeks.Bret: And may not end up being what we were led to expect by the leaked draft of Justice Alito’s opinion. I’m still holding out hope — faint hope, because I fear that the leaking of the decision will make the conservative justices, including Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts, less open to finding a compromise ruling that doesn’t overturn Roe.Gail: Is it possible things will get even more intense when it’s announced? And what’s your take on what we’ve seen so far?Bret: Much more intense and largely for the reasons you laid out in your terrific column last week: Abortion rights are about much more than abortion rights. They’re also about sex and all that goes with it: pleasure, autonomy, repression, male responsibility for the children they father and the great “who decides” questions of modern democracy. The justices will have to gird for more protests outside their homes.What do you think? And is there any chance of crafting an abortion rights bill that could get more than 50 votes in the Senate?Gail: Well, maybe if everybody hunkered down and tried to come up with something that would lure a few Republicans who say they support abortion rights like Susan Collins. Many Democrats don’t want to water down their bill and really there’s not much point in making the effort since they’d instantly run into the dreaded filibuster rule.Bret: Wouldn’t it have helped if Democrats had devised a bill that a majority could get behind, rather than one that had no chance of winning because it went well beyond Roe v. Wade by banning nearly all restrictions on abortions?Gail: Given the dispiriting reality of Senate life — 60 votes, Joe Manchin, etc., etc. — I can see why Chuck Schumer has pretty much given up the fight to change anything on that front and is just focused on drawing attention to the whole abortion issue in this year’s elections.Bret: Shortsighted. Democrats need to secure their moderate flank, including lots of voters who want to preserve abortion rights but have strong moral reservations about late-term abortions. It just makes the party seem beholden to its most progressive, least pragmatic flank, which is at the heart of the Democrats’ political problem.Gail: Now whatever happens isn’t going to directly affect folks who live in states like New York. But when I look at states that have already passed abortion bans in anticipation of a court decision, I do worry this won’t be the end of the story — that the legislatures might move further to ban at least some kinds of contraceptives, too.Am I being overly paranoid?Bret: It’s hard for me to imagine that happening, unless Republicans also intend to repeal the 19th Amendment to keep women from throwing them out of political office. Even most conservative women in America today probably don’t want to return to the fingers-crossed method of birth control.Can I go back to something we said earlier? How do you feel about the protests outside of the justices’ homes?Gail: Pretty much all in the details. The Supreme Court members have lifetime appointments and they’re immune from the normal constraints on public officials who have to run for re-election or who work for a chief executive who has to run for re-election.So I support people’s right to make their feelings known in the very few ways they have available. As long, of course, as the demonstrators are restrained and the justices and their families are provided with very good security.You?Bret: It seems like a really bad idea for a whole bunch of reasons. If the hope of the protesters is to get the justices to change their vote by making their home life unpleasant, it probably accomplishes the opposite: People generally don’t respond well to what they perceive as harassment. Those homes are also occupied by spouses and children who should have the right to remain private people. It’s also a pretty glaring temptation to some fanatic who might think that he can “save Roe” through an act of violence. And, of course, two can play the game: What happens when creepy far-right groups decide to stage protests outside the homes of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor and soon-to-be Justice Jackson?Gail: Well, I guess we’ll get to have this fight again. Meanwhile, let me switch to something even more, um, divisive. Baby formula!Bret: I wish I could joke about it, but it’s a seriously unfunny story.Gail: A plant that manufactures brands like Similac was shut down after concerns were raised about possible contamination. Things will eventually go back to normal, at least I hope they do, but in the meantime the supply dropped by about half.Lots to look into on how this happened. But it’s a reminder that parents have to rely on four companies for almost all the nation’s formula supply. Which then should remind us of the virtue of antitrust actions that break up mega-corporations.Bret: One lesson here is that when the F.D.A. decides to urge a “voluntary recall” of something as critical as baby formula, as it effectively did in February, it had better be sure of its reasons and think through the entire chain of potential consequences to public health. Another lesson is that when our regulations are so extreme that we won’t allow the formula made in Europe to be sold here commercially, something is seriously wrong with those regulations.Gail: I’ll go along with you about the imports from Europe, after noting that importation from Canada was restricted by the Trump administration.Bret: We will mark that down on the ever-expanding list of things we hate about Trump.Gail: However, recalling formula that’s given bacterial infections — some fatal — to babies doesn’t seem all that radical to me.Bret: I agree, of course, but it isn’t clear the bacteria came from the plant in question and surely there must have been a way to deal with the problem that didn’t create an even bigger problem.The broader point, I think, is that our zero-tolerance approach to many kinds of risk — whether it’s the possible contamination of formula or shutting down schools in reaction to Covid — is sometimes the riskiest approach of all. How did the most advanced capitalist country in the world become so incapable of weighing risks? Is it the ever-present fear of lawsuits or something else?Gail: Part of the problem is a general — and bipartisan — eagerness to restrict imports on stuff American companies produce.Bret: Am I hearing openness on your part to a U.S.-E.U. free trade agreement? That would solve a lot of our supply-chain problems and annoy protectionists in both parties.Gail: Yeah, but the last thing we ought to do is respond to an event like the formula shortage by saying, “Oh gosh, no more federal oversight of imports!” Really, there’s dangerous stuff out there and we need to be protected from it.Bret: Well, of course.Gail: Let’s move on to the upcoming elections. Really fascinated by that Pennsylvania Senate primary. Particularly on the Republican side, where we’re seeing a super surge from Kathy Barnette, a Black, very-very-conservative-to-reactionary activist. The other leaders are still Trump’s favorite, Mehmet Oz, and David McCormick, former head of the world’s largest hedge fund.Bret: Nice to see a genuinely competitive race.Gail: Barnette is doing very well despite — or maybe because of — her record of anti-Muslim rhetoric.A pretty appalling trio by my lights, but do you have a favorite?Bret: I’m in favor of the least crazy candidate on the ballot.Gail: Excellent standard.Bret: The problem the G.O.P. has had for some time now is that in many states and districts, not to mention the presidential contest, the candidate most likely to win a primary is least likely to win a general election. Republican primaries are like holding a heavy metal air guitar contest in order to compete for a place in a jazz ensemble, if that makes any sense.Gail: Yeah, although that particular music contest does sound sorta fascinating.Bret: Question for you, Gail: Do you really think President Biden is going to run for re-election? Truly, honestly? And can you see Kamala Harris as his successor?Gail: Well, I’m of the school that says Biden shouldn’t announce he’s not running and embrace lame duckism too early. But lately I have been wondering if he’s actually going to try to march on through another term.Which would be bad. The age thing aside, the country’s gotten past the moment when all people wanted in a chief executive was a not-crazy person to calm things down.Bret: If Biden decides to run, he’ll lose in a landslide to anyone not named Trump. Then again, if he decides to run, then he’ll also be tempting Trump to seek the Republican nomination.Gail: If Kamala Harris runs we will have to … see what the options are.Bret: I’ve always thought Harris would be a great secretary general of the United Nations. When does that job come open again?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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What a Reversal of Roe v. Wade Might Mean for the Midterms

      by

      Abortion, it almost goes without saying, is a singularly fraught issue. Pew Research describes the complexity in a May 6 report, “America’s Abortion Quandary”: “A majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but many are open to restrictions; many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances.”Pew continues: “Relatively few Americans on either side of the debate take an absolutist view on the legality of abortion — either supporting or opposing it at all times, regardless of circumstances.”A majority of the Supreme Court, however, appears to be prepared to take on this unwieldy, intensely personal subject by overturning the 1973 landmark decision Roe v Wade. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito wrote in a draft opinion supported by four other justices. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” The decision as written would in fact transfer jurisdiction over the laws governing abortion to the states, 26 of which “are certain or likely” to adopt laws banning “abortion, and those abortion bans would apply to both procedural and medication abortion,” according to the Guttmacher Institute.In a May 3 interview with The Harvard Gazette, Laurence Tribe, a law professor at the school, argued that the public image of the Supreme Court has been badly “damaged by the obviously partisan divisions within the court” and exacerbated “by the court’s ham-handed attempts to persuade people that the political and ideological orientation of justices on the right or on the left somehow has nothing to do with the way they view legal issues.”Tribe described the Alito draft as “a savage attack” on the Roe decision, and while it may yet be moderated, Tribe said:I think it’s important for people to recognize that the thrust of the decision and the dramatic and radical approach it takes to interpreting the Constitution’s unenumerated rights, narrowly and stingily, will not depend on the tone. That is, the opinion, whether it’s delivered in a velvet glove or not, is going to be an iron fist. The court is really announcing that it’s laying down the gauntlet with respect to rights like those recognized in Lawrence v. Texas, in terms of sexual intimacy, and Obergefell v. Hodges, in terms of the right to marry.As long ago as February 2006, Ronald Dworkin, a law professor at N.Y.U. who died in 2013, anticipated in The New York Review of Books the probability that Alito would become an absolutist member of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing:His dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Pennsylvania case in which the Supreme Court later reaffirmed its earlier Roe v. Wade protection of abortion rights, was of course of particular concern. Alone on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he voted to uphold a provision of the Pennsylvania law that required married women to inform their husbands before seeking an abortion, except women who could prove that their husbands were not the father of the child or that they would be subject to physical abuse if they told their husbands.At one level, the likelihood that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade would seem to be an ideal vehicle to invigorate the left. Such a decision, in political terms, would amount to the imposition of a major change in social policy, by a bare 5-to-4 majority of an unelected court, against the will of a majority of the electorate.In other words, at a time of growing anxiety over authoritarian trends in the Republican Party, the autocratic nature of a court decision jettisoning Roe has the potential to inflame an already divided nation.“Research generally shows that anger is an emotion that mobilizes people to act, and many will certainly be angered by this decision,” Brian Schaffner, a political scientist at Tufts and at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard, wrote by email in response to my inquiry. “We saw Republicans use the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools as a way of mobilizing their supporters with anger in 2021, but overturning Roe seems quite likely to enrage a much larger share of the population and could lead to a much different calculus for what we might expect in November.”Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, similarly argued that upending Roe would have the “strong potential to mobilize the liberals, mobilize women voters, and mobilize low-propensity Democrats. 91 percent of Democrats and liberals support access to abortion and 71 percent of young voters support the same.”Lake added two other points. First, “Americans always think of us going forward, not reversals, not taking away rights, not losing things, not losing freedoms,” and second:There is an interesting overlap with the Jan. 6 hearings. The Trump Republicans are showing the lengths they will go to to overrule the will of the people and fundamentally change our system in ways voters never thought possible. These are fundamental attacks on our country. And voters believe this is the start not the end.Surveys show that a decisive majority opposes overturning Roe v. Wade. In a CBS News survey conducted May 4 to 6, for example, 64 percent said Roe should be “kept as it is” and 36 percent said it should be “overturned.”There are a number of countervailing factors, however, not least of which is public ambivalence.Perhaps most important, before the Alito draft opinion became public, abortion did not rank high on the list when voters were asked to identify issues of importance to them. In an April 30 to May 3 YouGov/ Economist survey, abortion ranked at the bottom of 14 issues when respondents were asked if they were “very important” to them, behind jobs and the economy, crime, national security, education and health care. The YouGov/Economist poll was conducted over four days, and only on the last day and a half did the Alito opinion become public.Since Politico revealed the contents of the draft opinion on May 2, however, there are some indications that the salience of abortion is increasing.YouGov conducted a separate survey for Yahoo News from May 3 to May 6, covering the first four days during which the Alito draft received widespread publicity. Among key Democratic constituencies, abortion shot up the list of most important issues: From November to May the share of Democrats describing abortion at their most important issue rose to 20 percent from 4 percent.There are at least three other hurdles facing Democrats seeking to mobilize voters in the 2022 midterm elections using the overturning of Roe to motivate turnout.First, the number of women undergoing abortions has been declining steadily. The Guttmacher Institute found that the abortion rate for every 1,000 women between ages 15 and 44 reached a high of 29.3 in 1980 and 1981. Since then, the rate has declined to 13.5 per 1,000 in 2017.Second, a majority of abortions now rely upon abortifacient drugs instead of surgery. The Guttmacher Institute found that in 2020, 54 percent of abortions were performed using mifepristone and misoprostol, the two-drug combination that is known as medication abortion or the abortion pill.Third, the share of women getting abortions who are either high income or white has declined rapidly. FiveThirtyEight reported last January that in 1975, 65 percent of women getting abortions were white and 31 percent were Black or members of other minorities; by 2017, 47 percent were white and 49 percent minority members.Caitlin Myers, a professor of economics at Middlebury who has written extensively on reproductive issues, was pessimistic about the likelihood of abortion functioning as a liberal mobilizing issue. She wrote by email:The brunt of the impacts of a Roe reversal will be felt by young, poor, and Black women living in the Deep South and Midwest. Will their plight mobilize the left? I don’t know. But I will observe that when I drive around liberal Vermont I see plenty of lawn signs supporting Ukraine and Black Lives Matter, but have yet to see one supporting abortion rights.Eitan Hersh, a professor of political science at Tufts, noted that a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe “would reinvigorate mass organizing on the left,” but, he added, “there’s a caveat” in the vitality of the grass-roots infrastructure the right has built over decades:Even with all the news about the leaked court opinion, I’m not sure it sinks in for most Democrats what a long-term, deeply organized mass movement was behind the change. In addition to the development of the conservative legal movement and their nomination strategies, we have seen activists organizing in state legislatures preparing for this moment for decades. It took a very long time, a lot of patience and a lot of hard work from ordinary activists.Hersh’s point is well taken, but there is a counter argument. Over those same decades, while conservatives made their case that abortion was immoral and tantamount to homicide, social scientists have quietly but steadily produced detailed research reports describing the social benefits that have been spurred by the Roe decision. Such studies have had limited visibility as far as the general public is concerned, but are surfacing or resurfacing now that Roe is facing an imminent upheaval.In “Abortion and Selection,” for example, Elizabeth Ananat, Jonathan Gruber, Phillip Levine and Douglas Staiger, economists at Barnard, M.I.T., Wellesley and Dartmouth, argue that their research provides “evidence that lower costs of abortion led to improved outcomes in the form of an increased likelihood of college graduation, lower rates of welfare use, and lower odds of being a single parent.”In conclusion, the authors write:Our findings suggest that the improved living circumstances experienced by the average child born after the legalization of abortion had a lasting impact on the lifelong prospects of these children. Children who were “born unwanted” prior to the legalization of abortion not only grew up in more disadvantaged households, but they also grew up to be more disadvantaged as adults.Gruber wrote by email that he, like many others, is “pro-choice on the grounds of women’s reproductive freedom,” but too few people recognize “that ending abortion rights imposes enormous additional costs to society.”Gruber continued:The very states that oppose abortion rights are the ones that engage in poorly designed tax cuts that leave them without the resources to support their neediest citizens. So ending abortion rights is basically imposing a large new tax on all citizens to support millions of unwanted, and disadvantaged, children — a tax that these governments are then unwilling to finance.Ananat elaborated on a related point in an email:We also know from recent research that has followed women who were unable to get an abortion under new laws — because they came to a clinic just after instead of just before a gestational cutoff in their state — that it is the case today that those who were unable to get a wanted abortion are much more likely to be poor in the years afterward, much more likely to get evicted, are in much worse mental and physical health, are much more likely to be in an abusive relationship. Their existing children — 60 percent of women seeking an abortion are already mothers — end up with poorer developmental outcomes. All of these results portend badly for their futures and their children’s.Ananat argued that the role of abortion in coming elections depends on whether “the enormity of this news” sinks into the public,particularly given the signals coming from the court and from state legislatures of an interest in complete bans on anything affecting a fertilized egg, including lifesaving surgeries such as for ectopic pregnancies and bans on some kinds of contraception and fertility treatments. Saliently for coalition-building, these medically necessary abortions, as well as contraception like IUDs and Plan B and interventions like IVF, are used by a much broader and more privileged cross-section of women than the low-income, politically marginalized women who are most impacted by laws that represent restrictions rather than abolition. And then some politicians are talking about taking on other rights guaranteed under Griswold, Obergefell, Loving, etc., which may help an even broader group of people see the linked fate of these civil rights.Many Republican elected officials are legitimizing liberal fears.Republicans in the Louisiana House have approved legislation in committee that would apply criminal homicide charges to both the woman and the abortion provider. In Idaho, Brent Crane, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee, announced on May 6 that he will hold hearings on legislation banning emergency contraception and abortion pills. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, told USA Today that if Republicans win control of Congress and the White House in 2024, a national abortion ban is “possible,” noting that “with regard to the abortion issue, I think it’s pretty clear where Senate Republicans stand.” The governor of Mississippi, Tate Reeves, was equivocal when asked if the state might make contraceptives like the Plan B pill or IUDs illegal: “That’s not what we are focused on at this time.”Perhaps most ominously for those on the left, Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, told The Times, “If a dog catches a car, it doesn’t know what to do. We do.”I asked two Republican pollsters — Ed Goeas and Whit Ayres — about the possible consequences of a court ruling overturning Roe. Their replies could best be described as restrained.Goeas emailed me back: “I increasingly have come to believe that neither Republicans nor Democrats represent the majority of the American public that is truly centrist. Not moderate but centrist.”In the case of the abortion debate, Goeas continued,the overwhelming majority do not fall into the category of abortion on demand or no abortion in any case. Most fall into a category of abortions with limits. That’s where the real discussion has been for decades, even though many of those people may call themselves pro-life or pro-choice.Many people “dread the thought of a loud, ugly fight over Roe v. Wade,” Goeas argued. “The fight may still rage on because of our increasingly electing members from the two extremes. If it does, I believe centrist America will just turn down the volume.”Ayres argued that “most Americans are torn about the issue” and have remained so over time:Opinions on abortion have been remarkably stable, unlike opinions on gay marriage, which have moved with lightning speed. I am convinced that our children and grandchildren will still be arguing about the morality of abortion.Ayres downplayed the prospect of a Supreme Court decision having a major influence on the outcome of the 2022 elections:Abortion has never been considered as important as issues that affect almost everyone like inflation, unemployment, Covid, and crime. But the people who do care about it care incredibly intensely, so this Supreme Court decision, if it follows the Alito draft, will energize those people on both sides of the issue.Ryan Enos, a political scientist at Harvard, was less equivocal:At first blush, the overturning of Roe certainly seems like it could be a mobilizing event: it involves a medical procedure that is extremely common and has been experienced by a large portion of women in the United States and could materially affect the lives of millions of people. In some states, it will be the rare instance of the state taking away a right that people have previously enjoyed. To my knowledge, this has not happened since Southern states moved to strip voting rights after the end of Reconstruction.At the same time, Enos continued:Your typical voter has only a vague notion of the ideological composition of the court, let alone how it got that way. While the Republican hijacking of the court to push an ideological agenda seems like a grave injustice to many of us, understanding why this is an injustice takes a level of engagement with politics that most voters simply don’t have.Instead, Enos argued:A more likely way for Roe to matter is that the most active Democrats, those who donate money and volunteer, will be animated for the midterm. Democrats were so animated by Donald Trump that they brought an energy to the election in 2020 that was impossible for them to sustain. While this might return in 2024 if Trump is on the ballot, it was not going to be there in 2022 without a catalyzing force — overturning Roe might be that force.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      If Roe Is Struck Down, Where Does the Anti-Abortion Movement Go Next?

      by

      The Supreme Court draft opinion signals a new era for the 50-year effort to end the constitutional right to abortion. Next goals include a national ban and, in some cases, classifying abortion as homicide.For nearly half a century, the anti-abortion movement has propelled itself toward a goal that at times seemed impossible, even to true believers: overturning Roe v. Wade.That single-minded mission meant coming to Washington every January for the March for Life to mark Roe’s anniversary. It required electing anti-abortion lawmakers and keeping the pressure on to pass state restrictions. It involved funding anti-abortion lobbying groups, praying and protesting outside clinics, and opening facilities to persuade women to keep their pregnancies. Then this week, the leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion that would overturn the constitutional right to abortion revealed that anti-abortion activists’ dream of a post-Roe America appeared poised to come to pass.The court’s opinion is not final, but the draft immediately shifted the horizon by raising a new question: If Roe is struck down, where does the anti-abortion movement go next?Many leaders are redoubling state efforts, where they’ve already had success, with an eye toward more restrictive measures. Several prominent groups now say they would support a national abortion ban after as many as 15 weeks or as few as six, all lower than Roe’s standard of around 23 or 24. A vocal faction is talking about “abortion abolition,” proposing legislation to outlaw abortion after conception, with few if any exceptions in cases of rape or incest.The sprawling anti-abortion grass-roots campaign is rapidly approaching an entirely new era, one in which abortion would no longer be a nationally protected right to overcome, but a decision to be legislated by individual states. For many activists, overturning Roe would mark what they see as not the end, but a new beginning to limit abortion access even further. It also would present a test, as those who have long backed incremental change could clash with those who increasingly push to end legal abortion altogether.This week, many anti-abortion leaders were wary of celebrating before the court’s final ruling, expected this summer. They remembered Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, when they hoped the court would overturn Roe and it ultimately did not. But they said they have been preparing for this moment and its possibilities for decades.“If a dog catches a car, it doesn’t know what to do,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “We do.”The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion political group, is planning a strategy involving state legislatures where it sees room to advance their cause or protect it. The National Right to Life is trying to support its affiliates in every state as it looks to lobby lawmakers. Both groups have been hoping to build support in Congress for a national abortion ban, even if it could take years, just as it did to gain momentum to undo Roe. Many Republicans have repeatedly tried to enact a ban at about 20 weeks, without success. Next week Democrats in the Senate are bringing a bill to codify abortion rights to a vote, but it is all but certain to be blocked by Republicans.Abortion rights advocates are using the moment to re-energize their own supporters, organize protests and mobilize for midterm elections in November. Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List announced Monday, hours before the leaked draft appeared, that they would spend a collective $150 million on the midterm election cycle. Other groups are planning a nationwide “day of action” May 14, with marches in cities including New York, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles.The reality of the leaked draft shocked casual supporters of abortion rights who weren’t paying particularly close attention to the issue, or who had grown numb after decades of warnings about the end of Roe.An abortion opponent at the March for Life in Washington. Many leaders are doubling down on state fights, with an eye toward pushing for more restrictive measures in other parts of the country.Kenny Holston for The New York Times“People just couldn’t fathom losing a constitutional right that has been enshrined for nearly half a century,” said Kristin Ford, vice president of communications and research for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “To see it in such stark terms has really galvanized people.”Across the anti-abortion spectrum, everything is on the table, from instituting bans when fetal cardiac activity is detected, to pressing their case in Democratic strongholds. Some activists are prioritizing limiting medication abortion, which accounts for more than half of all abortions.From Opinion: A Challenge to Roe v. WadeCommentary by Times Opinion writers and columnists on the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Alison Block: Offering compassionate care is a core aspect of reproductive health. It might mean overcoming one’s own hesitation to provide procedures like second-trimester abortions. Patrick T. Brown: If Roe is overturned, those who worked toward that outcome will rightly celebrate. But a broader pro-family agenda should be their next goal. Jamelle Bouie: The leak proves that the Supreme Court is a political body, where horse-trading and influence campaigns are as much a part of the process as legal reasoning.Bret Stephens: Roe v. Wade was an ill-judged decision when it was handed down. But overturning it would do more to replicate its damage than to reverse it.Jay Kaspian Kang: There is no clear path toward a legislative solution to protect abortion rights. That’s precisely why people need to take to the streets.This week in Georgia, former Senator David Perdue, who is challenging Gov. Brian Kemp in the Republican primary for governor, called for a special session to “eliminate all of abortion” in the state, which already has an abortion ban at about six weeks on the books that would likely take effect if Roe is overturned.While many fighting for restrictions believe abortion to be murder, only a small fringe openly call for punishing a woman for procuring one.Lawmakers in Louisiana, however, advanced a bill on Wednesday that would classify abortion as homicide and make it possible for prosecutors to bring criminal cases against women who end a pregnancy.“If the fetus is a person, then we should protect them with the same homicide laws that protect born persons,” said Bradley Pierce, who helped draft the Louisiana legislation and leads the Foundation to Abolish Abortion. “That’s what equal protection means.”A more prominent anti-abortion group, Louisiana Right to Life, however, opposes the bill for going too far.For the more mainstream campaigners, a post-Roe landscape would mean the anti-abortion fight will become even broader, clearing the path to expand further into state politics. “It will be different work,” said Mallory Carroll, spokeswoman for the Susan B. Anthony List. If Roe is overturned, anti-abortion activists will be free to pass legislation without having to work around Roe’s limits. “Instead of just fighting for the right to pass pro-life laws, we will actually be able to pass and protect pro-life laws,” she said.On Monday, before the leak, a coalition led by Students for Life Action told Republican members of Congress in a letter that abortion restrictions even at 12 weeks of pregnancy were not sufficient but that what ultimately mattered was “whether the infant is a human being.”After the leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion, activists on both sides of the abortion debate gathered in front of a federal courthouse in Indianapolis. Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesUltimately, abortion opponents’ biggest goal extends beyond legislation. It is an effort to change broader American culture and get more people to see a fetus as a human person with an inherent right to life. Many activists talk about making abortion not merely illegal but “unthinkable.”Public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in at least some cases. But anti-abortion activists say they see plenty of room for persuasion in the details. Polling also suggests most Americans are open to some restrictions. Thirty-four percent of Americans say abortion should be legal at 14 weeks of pregnancy — roughly the end of the first trimester — compared with 27 percent who say it should be illegal, according to a survey released Friday by the Pew Research Center. Another 22 percent say “it depends.”“We are prepared to not only create a legal landscape to protect life at the federal and state levels, but also to support a culture of life,” said Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which supports Mississippi’s ban at 15 weeks that led to the Supreme Court case that could overturn Roe.Advocates on the left see the leaked draft laying out a playbook for a sweeping attempt to roll back other established rights. “There are some folks on the right saying they’re just turning back to the states, when in fact it’s very clear their agenda is much broader than that,” Ms. Ford of NARAL said. “It’s not just about abortion.”The State of Roe v. WadeCard 1 of 4What is Roe v. Wade? More

    • 50 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Your Thursday Evening Briefing

      by

      Here’s what you need to know at the end of the day.(Want to get this newsletter in your inbox? Here’s the sign-up.)Good evening. Here’s the latest at the end of Thursday.Mifepristone, the first of two drugs typically taken for a medication abortion, is authorized for patients up to 10 weeks pregnant.Michelle Mishina-Kunz for The New York Times1. Senate Democrats planned a surely doomed vote on Roe. The Senate’s majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said he will introduce a bill next week that codifies abortion rights into federal law, following the leaked Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The bill will almost certainly fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster or even obtain a simple majority.Still, Schumer called the vote one of “the most important we ever take,” framing it as a reminder to voters of the party’s stance. A majority of Americans support some form of abortion. If the Court overturns Roe, medication abortions, which account for more than half of recent abortions, will be the next battleground. A senior official said that the Biden administration is looking for further steps to increase access to all types of abortion, including the pill method.In other fallout, a stark divide has grown between Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito Jr., author of the leaked decision. A Russian tank stuck in mud outside the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.Daniel Berehulak for The New York Times2. The U.S. shared intelligence that helped Ukraine kill Russian generals. About 12 have died, according to Ukrainian officials, an astonishingly high number.The Biden administration’s help is part of a classified effort to give Ukraine real-time battlefield intelligence. Officials wouldn’t specify how many of the generals were killed with U.S. assistance and denied that the intelligence is provided with the intent to kill Russian generals.“Heavy, bloody battles” were fought at the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol, the city’s last pocket of resistance, after Russian forces breached the perimeter. Seizing Mariupol would let President Vladimir Putin claim a major victory before Moscow’s Victory Day celebration on May 9.Fighting raged across the eastern front, from Mariupol to the northern Donetsk area. “The front is swinging this way and that,” a Ukrainian medic told The Times.The W.H.O. estimated roughly 930,000 more people than normal died in the U.S. by the end of 2021.Kirsten Luce for The New York Times3. Nearly 15 million more people died during the first two years of the pandemic than would have been expected during normal times.That estimate, which came from a panel of experts the World Health Organization assembled, offered a startling glimpse of how drastically the death counts reported by many governments have understated the pandemic’s toll.Most of the deaths were from Covid, the experts said, but some people died because the pandemic made it more difficult to get medical care for ailments such as heart attacks. The previous toll, based solely on death counts reported by countries, was six million.In other virus news, BA.2.12.1, a subvariant of the BA.2 Omicron subvariant, is likely to soon become the dominant form of the virus in the U.S. There’s no indication yet that it causes more severe disease.A Modoc National Forest firefighter used a drip torch to ignite a prescribed burn in Alturas, Calif., last year.Max Whittaker for The New York Times4. Fire season has arrived earlier than ever.Enormous wildfires have already consumed landscapes in Arizona and Nebraska. More than a dozen wildfires are raging this month across the Southwest. Summer is still more than a month and a half away.A time-lapse image from space shows the scope of the Western catastrophe: Smoke from fires in New Mexico can be seen on a collision course with a huge dust storm in Colorado. Both are examples of natural disasters made more severe and frequent by climate change, which has also made a vital tool for controlling wildfires — intentional burns — much riskier.The country’s largest active blaze, a megafire of more than 160,000 acres in northern New Mexico, has grown with such ferocity that it has threatened a multigenerational culture that has endured for centuries.A polling station in Shipley, England, where local elections could decide Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s fate.Mary Turner for The New York Times5. Britain is holding local elections in a big test for Prime Minister Boris Johnson.His scandal-prone leadership is again on the line, with Conservatives trailing the Labour Party in polls and his own lawmakers mulling a no-confidence motion that could evict him from Downing Street. A poor election result could tip them over the edge.One thing that has saved Johnson so far is his reputation as an election winner and his strength in the so-called red wall regions of the north and middle of England, which have traditionally voted Labour. Many voters are skeptical that the opposition can solve issues such as soaring prices.Elon Musk’s recent purchase of Twitter has left users and investors unsure of how the site will change. Joshua Lott/Getty Images6. Elon Musk has brought in 18 new investors and $7 billion for his Twitter deal.Among them are Larry Ellison, who put in $1 billion; Fidelity; and the venture capital firm Sequoia Capital. Musk is paying $21 billion from his own very deep pocket, and an investment firm analyst called Musk’s move a smart deal. In 2019, Musk tweeted “I hate advertising,” — but ads account for about 90 percent of Twitter revenue. Some agencies already say Twitter ads aren’t targeted well. Now, numerous advertising executives say they’re willing to move their money elsewhere, especially if he removes the safeguards that allowed Twitter to remove racist rants and conspiracy theories. Musk has mentioned potentially charging some users.Two of our colleagues, John Eligon and Lynsey Chutel, interviewed friends and relatives — including Musk’s estranged father — in South Africa, where he grew up, to better understand the mysterious entrepreneur.Russia-Ukraine War: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 4In Mariupol. More