United States

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      There’s Been a Massive Change in Where American Policy Gets Made

      by

      Since 2021, Democrats have controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency, and they’ve used that power to pass consequential legislation, from the American Rescue Plan to the Inflation Reduction Act. That state of affairs was exceptional: In the 50 years between 1970 and 2020, the U.S. House, Senate and presidency were only under unified party control for 14 years. Divided government has become the norm in American politics. And since Republicans won back the House in November, it is about to become the reality once again.But that doesn’t mean policymaking is going to stop — far from it. As America’s national politics have become more and more gridlocked in recent decades, many consequential policy decisions have been increasingly pushed down to the state level. The ability to receive a legal abortion or use recreational marijuana; how easy it is to join a union, purchase a firearm or vote in elections; the tax rates we pay and the kind of health insurance we have access to: These decisions are being determined at the state level to an extent not seen since before the civil rights revolution of the mid-twentieth century.[You can listen to this episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]Jake Grumbach is a political scientist at the University of Washington and the author of the book “Laboratories Against Democracy: How National Parties Transformed State Politics.” In it, Grumbach tracks this shift in policymaking to the states and explores its implications for American politics. Our national mythologies present state government as less polarizing, more accountable to voters and a hedge against anti-democratic forces amassing too much power. But, as Grumbach shows, in an era of national political media, parties and identities, the truth is a lot more complicated.So this conversation is a guide to the level of government that we tend to pay the least attention to, even as it shapes our lives more than any other.You can listen to our whole conversation by following “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Google or wherever you get your podcasts. View a list of book recommendations from our guests here.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)Courtesy of Jacob Grumbach“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Emefa Agawu, Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld, Rogé Karma and Kristin Lin. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris and Kate Sinclair. Original music by Isaac Jones. Mixing by Jeff Geld. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. More

    • 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

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Your Friday Briefing: Covid Protests Grow in China

      by

      Plus Malaysia’s new prime minister and the week in culture.Videos showed workers protesting at Foxconn’s iPhone factory in central China.via AFP— Getty; via Reuters, via AFP— GettyCovid anger grows in ChinaAs China’s harsh Covid rules extend deep into their third year, there are growing signs of discontent across the country. The defiance is a test of Xi Jinping’s leadership.At the Foxconn iPhone factory in Zhengzhou, thousands of workers clashed with riot police. The workers were lashing out about a delay in the payment of bonuses as well as the company’s failure to properly isolate new workers from those who had tested positive. The new hires were recruited after thousands of workers fled the Foxconn plant last month because of a Covid outbreak.Unrest is spreading elsewhere. In Guangzhou, migrant workers broke out of locked-down buildings to confront health workers and ransack food provisions. Online, many raged after a 4-month-old died. Her father said restrictions had delayed access to treatment.Political fallout: Xi has used heavy censorship and severe punishment to silence critics, which makes the public airing of grievances particularly striking. Many Chinese have questioned the need for lockdowns at all. The unrest underscores the urgent question of how Xi can lead China out of the Covid era.Record cases: Covid outbreaks across the country have driven cases to a record high. On Wednesday, the country reported 31,444 cases, surpassing a record set in April, Reuters reported. Cases have increased by 314 percent from the average two weeks ago.Anwar Ibrahim’s appointment marks a stunning comeback.Fazry Ismail/EPA, via ShutterstockAnwar is now Malaysia’s prime ministerAnwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s longtime opposition leader, was sworn in yesterday as prime minister. He faces a divided country: One part of the electorate sees itself as modern and multicultural; another is driven by a conservative Muslim base.Anwar’s rise to the top post came after days of political chaos: Saturday’s elections led to the first-ever hung Parliament. (No group won a majority, though his group had the most seats.) Anwar said that he had a “convincing majority” to lead with his multiethnic coalition.A stunning comeback: Anwar, 75, has been the deputy prime minister and, twice, a political prisoner. Urbane and charismatic, he speaks often about the importance of democracy and quotes from Gandhi as well as the Quran.Challenges: Anwar will have to contend with a more religiously conservative bloc of the electorate, which sees him as too liberal. He pledged to continue to uphold constitutional guarantees regarding the Malay language, Islam and the special rights of the “sons of the soil,” referring to the Malays and Indigenous people.The rampage at a Walmart in Virginia was the 33rd mass shooting in November alone, according to the Gun Violence Archive.Kenny Holston for The New York Times3 mass shootings, 14 lost livesAs families across the U.S. gathered to celebrate Thanksgiving, a few among them suddenly faced an empty chair after the country’s latest spate of mass shootings. Fourteen people were killed in three rampages over two weeks.They include a janitor working his shift at a Walmart in Virginia, a 40-year-old woman returning home to Colorado for the holidays, a young man watching a drag show and three college football players.White and Black, gay and straight, old and young, the newly dead are the very picture of the ideals — inclusivity, setting aside differences — that the U.S. prides itself on at Thanksgiving, our reporter Michael Wilson writes.THE LATEST NEWSAsia Pacific“I heard voices calling ‘Mama, mama, mama,’ but I didn’t recognize any of them,” said Neng Didah, whose daughter died when her school collapsed.Ulet Ifansasti for The New York TimesAbout a third of the at least 272 people who died in Indonesia’s earthquake were children. Shoddy construction is partially to blame for the collapse of schools and homes.Lt. Gen. Syed Asim Munir, a former head of intelligence, has been named as Pakistan’s new army chief.The Taliban lashed 12 people in front of a stadium crowd this week, The Associated Press reports. The punishment was common during the group’s rule in the 1990s. The War in UkraineUkraine’s surgeons are struggling to operate as Russian strikes knock out power lines and plunge cities into darkness. A new era of confrontation between the U.S. and Iran has burst into the open as Tehran helps arm Russia and continues to enrich uranium.The World CupSouth Korea’s goalkeeper diving for a save.Pavel Golovkin/Associated PressSouth Korea tied with Uruguay, 0-0. Son Heung-min, Asia’s biggest star, played weeks after fracturing his eye socket.Portugal beat Ghana, 3-2. Cristiano Ronaldo got a goal and became the first man to score at five World Cups.Switzerland beat Cameroon, 1-0. Breel Embolo, a Swiss striker born in Yaoundé, Cameroon’s capital, scored the goal. He did not seem to celebrate.Brazil, one of the favorites, takes the field against Serbia. Here are updates.Around the WorldIn a direct response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the U.S., France’s National Assembly voted to enshrine abortion rights in the constitution. But the measure could still be rejected.A Paralympic sprinter, John McFall, was chosen to be the first disabled astronaut.Volker Türk, the new U.N. human rights chief, faces a major test: following up on a report that found that China may have committed crimes against humanity in repressing Uyghurs in Xinjiang.New York City has become a free-for-all for unlicensed weed.The Week in CultureNext year, you’ll probably be able to vote in the Eurovision Song Contest, even if you don’t live in a participating country.The dinosaur bone market is booming.Did a computer autograph copies of Bob Dylan’s new book?Museum directors across Europe fear for their masterpieces as climate protesters step up their attacks.Tumblr users are obsessing over “Goncharov,” a 1973 Scorsese film starring Robert DeNiro as a Russian hit man. The only catch: It’s not real.A Morning ReadAround 2,200 people are now able to speak, read or write in Manx.Mary Turner for The New York TimesIn 2009, UNESCO declared Manx, a Celtic language native to the Isle of Man, extinct. That rankled residents, who doubled down on efforts to preserve the ancient tongue. It’s now experiencing a revival thanks to a local school. “It sort of was on the brink, but we’ve brought it back to life again,” the head teacher said.ARTS AND IDEAS“We came to be and then ran amok,” Les Knight said, of humans.Mason Trinca for The New York Times“Thank you for not breeding”Les Knight has spent decades pushing one message: “May we live long and die out.”Knight is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement, which believes that the best thing humans can do to help the Earth is to stop having children. (Another one of his slogans: “Thank you for not breeding.”)“Look what we did to this planet,” Knight told The Times. “We’re not a good species.”His beliefs are rooted in deep ecology, a theory that sees other species as just as significant, and he sees humans as the most destructive invasive species. (In the past half-century, as the human population doubled, wildlife populations declined by 70 percent, and research has shown that having one fewer child may be the most significant way to reduce one’s carbon footprint.)But not all scientists agree that overpopulation is a main factor in the climate crisis. India, for instance, is heavily populated, but contributes relatively little per capita to greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, some experts say, that focus could distract from the need to ditch fossil fuels and preserve the planet for the living things already here.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChristopher Testani for The New York TimesThis tall and creamy cheesecake is a good weekend project.What to ReadBooks to take you through Tangier.What to Listen toCheck out these five classical albums.HealthHow to approach the holidays if you’re immunocompromised.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Starting squad (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.Enjoy your weekend! I’ll be back on Monday. — AmeliaP.S. Seventy years ago today, Agatha Christie’s play “The Mousetrap” opened in London. (It is the world’s longest-running play, though it paused during the pandemic.)Listen to Times articles read by the reporters who wrote them. (There is no new episode of “The Daily.”)You can reach Amelia and the team at briefing@nytimes.com. We value your feedback. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Is Donald Trump Ineligible to Be President?

      by

      How does a democracy protect itself against a political leader who is openly hostile to democratic self-rule? This is the dilemma the nation faces once again as it confronts a third presidential run by Donald Trump, even as he still refuses to admit he lost his second.Of course, we shouldn’t be in this situation to begin with. The facts are well known but necessary to repeat, if only because we must never become inured to them: Abetted by a posse of low-rent lawyers, craven lawmakers and associated crackpots, Mr. Trump schemed to overturn the 2020 election by illegal and unconstitutional means. When those efforts failed, he incited a violent insurrection at the United States Capitol, causing widespread destruction, leading to multiple deaths and — for the first time in American history — interfering with the peaceful transfer of power. Almost two years later, he continues to claim, without any evidence, that he was cheated out of victory, and millions of Americans continue to believe him.The best solution to behavior like this is the one that’s been available from the start: impeachment. The founders put it in the Constitution because they were well acquainted with the risks of corruption and abuse that come with vesting great power in a single person. Congress rightly used this tool, impeaching Mr. Trump in 2021 to hold him accountable for his central role in the Jan. 6 siege. Had the Senate convicted him as it should have, he could have been disqualified from holding public office again. But nearly all Senate Republicans came to his defense, leaving him free to run another day.There is another, less-known solution in our Constitution to protect the country from Mr. Trump: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from public office anyone who, “having previously taken an oath” to support the Constitution, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort” to America’s enemies.On its face, this seems like an eminently sensible rule to put in a nation’s governing document. That’s how Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island, who has drafted a resolution in Congress enabling the use of Section 3 against Mr. Trump, framed it. “This is America. We basically allow anyone to be president,” Mr. Cicilline told me. “We set limited disqualifications. One is, you can’t incite an insurrection against the United States. You shouldn’t get to lead a government that you tried to destroy.”This was also the reasoning of the 14th Amendment’s framers, who intended it to serve as an aggressive response to the existential threat to the Republic posed by the losing side of the Civil War. Section 3 was Congress’s way of ensuring that unrepentant former Confederate officials — “enemies to the Union” — were not allowed to hold federal or state office again. As Representative John Bingham, one of the amendment’s lead drafters, put it in 1866, rebel leaders “surely have no right to complain if this is all the punishment the American people shall see fit to impose upon them.”And yet despite its clarity and good sense, the provision has rarely been invoked. The first time, in the aftermath of the Civil War, it was used to disqualify thousands of Southern rebels, but within four years, Congress voted to extend amnesty to most of them. It was used again in 1919 when the House refused to seat a socialist member accused of giving aid and comfort to Germany in World War I.In September, for the first time in more than a century, a New Mexico judge invoked Section 3, to remove from office a county commissioner, Couy Griffin, who had been convicted of entering the Capitol grounds as part of the Jan. 6 mob. This raised hopes among those looking for a way to bulletproof the White House against Mr. Trump that Section 3 might be the answer.I count myself among this crowd. As Jan. 6 showed the world, Mr. Trump poses a unique and profound threat to the Republic: He is an authoritarian who disregards the Constitution and the rule of law and who delights in abusing his power to harm his perceived opponents and benefit himself, his family and his friends. For that reason, I am open to using any constitutional means of preventing him from even attempting to return to the White House.At the same time, I’m torn about using this specific tool. Section 3 is extraordinarily strong medicine. Like an impeachment followed by conviction, it denies the voters their free choice of those who seek to represent them. That’s not the way democracy is designed to work.And yet it is true, as certain conservatives never tire of reminding us, that democracy in the United States is not absolute. There are multiple checks built into our system that interfere with the expression of direct majority rule: the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Electoral College, for example. The 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause is another example — in this case, a peaceful and transparent mechanism to neutralize an existential threat to the Republic.Nor is it antidemocratic to impose conditions of eligibility for public office. For instance, Article II of the Constitution puts the presidency off limits to anyone younger than 35. If we have decided that a 34-year-old is, by definition, not mature or reliable enough to hold such immense power, then surely we can decide the same about a 76-year-old who incited an insurrection in an attempt to keep that power.So could Section 3 really be used to prevent Mr. Trump from running for or becoming president again? As a legal matter, it seems beyond doubt. The Capitol attack was an insurrection by any meaningful definition — a concerted, violent attempt to block Congress from performing its constitutionally mandated job of counting electoral votes. He engaged in that insurrection, even if he did not physically join the crowd as he promised he would. As top Democrats and Republicans in Congress said during and after his impeachment trial, the former president was practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of Jan. 6. The overwhelming evidence gathered and presented by the House’s Jan. 6 committee has only made clearer the extent of the plot by Mr. Trump and his associates to overturn the election — and how his actions and his failures to act led directly to the assault and allowed it to continue as long as it did. In the words of Representative Liz Cheney, the committee’s vice chair, Mr. Trump “summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack.”A few legal scholars have argued that Section 3 does not apply to the presidency because it does not explicitly list that position. It is hard to square that claim with the provision’s fundamental purpose, which is to prevent insurrectionists from participating in American government. It would be bizarre in the extreme if Mr. Griffin’s behavior can disqualify him from serving as a county commissioner but not from serving as president.It’s not the legal questions that give me pause, though; it’s the political ones.First is the matter of how Republicans would react to Mr. Trump’s disqualification. An alarmingly large faction of the party is unwilling to accept the legitimacy of an election that its candidate didn’t win. Imagine the reaction if their standard-bearer were kept off the ballot altogether. They would thunder about a “rigged election” — and unlike all the times Mr. Trump has baselessly invoked that phrase, it would carry a measure of truth. Combine this with the increasingly violent rhetoric coming from right-wing media figures and politicians, including top Republicans, and you have the recipe for something far worse than Jan. 6. On the other hand, if partisan outrage were a barrier to invoking the law, many laws would be dead letters.The more serious problem with Section 3 is that it is easy to see how it could morph into a caricature of what it is trying to prevent. Keeping specific candidates off the ballot is a classic move of autocrats, from Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela to Aleksandr Lukashenko in Belarus to Vladimir Putin. It sends the message that voters cannot be trusted to choose their leaders wisely — if at all. And didn’t we just witness Americans around the country using their voting power to repudiate Mr. Trump’s Big Lie and reject the most dangerous election deniers? Shouldn’t we let elections take their course and give the people the chance to (again) reject Mr. Trump at the ballot box?To help me resolve my ambivalence, I called Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who sits on the Jan. 6 committee and taught constitutional law before joining Congress. He acknowledged what he called an understandable “queasiness” about invoking Section 3 to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot. But Mr. Raskin argued that this queasiness is built into the provision. “What was the constitutional bargain struck in Section 3?” he asked. “There would be a very minor incursion into the right of the people to elect exactly who they want, in order to obtain much greater security for the constitutional order against those who have demonstrated a propensity to want to overthrow it when it is to their advantage.”The contours of the case for Mr. Trump’s disqualification might get stronger yet, as the Justice Department and state prosecutors continue to pursue multiple criminal investigations into him and his associates and as the Jan. 6 committee prepares to release its final report. While he would not be prohibited from running for office even if he was under criminal indictment, it would be more politically palatable to invoke Section 3 in that case and even more so if he was convicted.I still believe that the ideal way for Mr. Trump to be banished for good would be via the voters. This scenario is democracy’s happy ending. After all, self-government is not a place; it is a choice, and an ongoing one. If Americans are going to keep making that choice — in favor of fair and equal representation, in favor of institutions that venerate the rule of law and against the threats of authoritarian strongmen — they do it best by themselves. That is why electoral victory is the ultimate political solution to the ultimate political problem. It worked that way in 2020, when an outright majority of voters rejected Mr. Trump and replaced him with Joe Biden.But it’s essential to remember that not all democracies have happy endings. Which brings us to the most unsettling answer to the question I began with: Sometimes a democracy doesn’t protect itself. There is no rule that says democracies will perpetuate themselves indefinitely. Many countries, notably Hungary and Turkey, have democratically undone themselves by electing leaders who then dismantled most of the rights and privileges people tend to expect from democratic government. Section 3 is in the Constitution precisely to help ensure that America does not fall into that trap.Whether or not invoking Section 3 succeeds, the best argument for it is to take the Constitution at its word. “We undermine the importance of the Constitution if we pick and choose what rules apply,” Mr. Cicilline told me. “One of the ways we rebuild confidence in American democracy is to remind people we have a Constitution and that it has in it provisions that say who can run for public office. You don’t get to apply the Constitution sometimes or only if you feel like it. We take an oath. We swear to uphold it. We don’t swear to uphold most of it. If Donald Trump has taught us anything, it’s about protecting the Constitution of the United States.”Surely the remedy of Section 3 is worth pursuing only in the most extraordinary circumstances. Just as surely, the events surrounding Jan. 6 clear that bar. If inciting a violent insurrection to keep oneself in office against the will of the voters isn’t such a circumstance, what is?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