Voting and Voters

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia G.O.P. Passes Major Law to Limit Voting

      by

      The law, which has been denounced by Democrats and voting rights groups, comes as Republican-controlled legislatures across the country mount the most extensive contraction of ballot access in generations.Georgia Republicans on Thursday passed a sweeping law to restrict voting access in the state, introducing more rigid voter identification requirements for absentee balloting, limiting drop boxes and expanding the Legislature’s power over elections. The new measures make Georgia the first major battleground to overhaul its election system since the turmoil of last year’s presidential contest. The legislation, which followed Democratic victories that flipped the state at the presidential and Senate levels, comes amid a national movement among Republican-controlled state legislatures to mount the most extensive contraction of voting access in generations. Seeking to appease a conservative base that remains incensed about the results of the 2020 election, Republicans have already passed a similar law in Iowa, and are moving forward with efforts to restrict voting in states including Arizona, Florida and Texas.Democrats and voting rights groups have condemned such efforts, arguing that they unfairly target voters of color. They say the new law in Georgia particularly seeks to make voting harder for the state’s large Black population, which was crucial to President Biden’s triumph in Georgia in November and the success of Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in the January runoff elections.Mr. Biden joined Georgia Democrats on Thursday in denouncing efforts to limit voting, calling Republicans’ push around the country “the most pernicious thing.”“This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle,” he said at his first formal news conference since taking office.Though the law is less stringent than the initial iterations of the bill, it introduces a raft of new restrictions for voting and elections in the state, including limiting drop boxes, stripping the secretary of state of some of his authority, imposing new oversight of county election boards, restricting who can vote with provisional ballots, and making it a crime to offer food or water to voters waiting in lines. The law also requires runoff elections to be held four weeks after the original vote, instead of the current nine weeks.The law does not include some of the harshest restrictions that had been proposed, like a ban on Sunday voting that was seen as an attempt to curtail the role of Black churches in driving turnout. And the legislation now, in fact, expands early voting options in some areas. No-excuse absentee voting, in which voters do not have to provide a rationale for casting a ballot by mail, also remains in place, though it will now entail new restrictions such as providing a state-issued identification card.State Representative Alan Powell, a Republican, spoke in favor of the voting bill on Thursday.Alyssa Pointer/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, via Associated PressThe law passed the Georgia House on Thursday morning by a party-line vote of 100 to 75, and was approved by the Senate in the evening on a 34-to-20 vote before being signed by Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican.In brief remarks on Thursday evening, Mr. Kemp said the drafting of the bill had started after the 2020 election. “We quickly began working with the House and Senate on further reforms to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat,” he said. “The bill I signed into law does just that.” The governor, who is up for re-election in 2022 and was heavily criticized by Donald J. Trump after the election for not abetting the former president’s effort to subvert the outcome, detailed his own history as a secretary of state fighting for stronger voter identification laws, which Democrats have denounced as having an outsize impact on communities of color. Mr. Kemp said that protests against the bill were pure politics. “I fought these partisan activists tooth and nail for over 10 years to keep our elections secure, accessible and fair,” Mr. Kemp said. Georgia has quickly become fiercely contested political territory, and a focal point of the continuing clashes over voting rights. During the contentious months after the November election, the state became a particular obsession of Mr. Trump, who spun falsehoods, lies and conspiracy theories about electoral fraud and pressured election officials, including the Republican secretary of state, to “find” him votes.Yet after election officials rebuffed Mr. Trump, and multiple audits reaffirmed the results, Republican legislators held hearings on the election, inviting some of the president’s allies like Rudolph W. Giuliani to speak. After the hearings, G.O.P. lawmakers promised to introduce new legislation to help “restore confidence” in elections, even though the last one had been held safely and securely.Outside the Statehouse in Atlanta on Thursday, a coalition of Black faith leaders assembled a protest, voicing their opposition to the bill and calling for a boycott of major corporations in Georgia that they said had remained silent on the voting push, including Coca-Cola.The faith leaders also sought a meeting with Mr. Kemp and Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, also a Republican. Mr. Duncan met with the group for three minutes; Mr. Kemp did not.“I told him exactly how I felt: that these bills were not only voter suppression, but they were in fact racist, and they are an attempt to turn back time to Jim Crow,” said Bishop Reginald T. Jackson, who oversees all African Methodist Episcopal churches in the state.The voting legislation’s approval in the House on Thursday morning came after an impassioned debate on the floor of the chamber.Erica Thomas, a Democratic state representative from outside Atlanta, opened her remarks by recalling the memory of former Representative John Lewis of Georgia, the civil rights leader who died last year. She quoted an old speech of his before voicing her opposition to the bill.“Why do we rally, why do we protest voter suppression?” she said. “It is because our ancestors are looking down right now on this House floor, praying and believing that our fight, and that their fight, was not in vain. We call on the strength of Congressman John Lewis in this moment. Because right now, history is watching.”Demonstrators protesting Georgia’s bill of voting restrictions in Atlanta on Thursday.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesOther Democrats said the bill was rooted in the election falsehoods that have been spread by Mr. Trump and his allies.“Where is the need for this bill coming from?” said Debbie Buckner, a Democratic representative from near Columbus. “From the former president who wanted the election fixed and thrown out, even when Georgia leadership told him they couldn’t do it if they wanted to.”Representative Zulma Lopez, who represents a majority-minority district on the outskirts of Atlanta, said the bill would have an outsize impact on voters of color. In her district, she said, the number of drop boxes would be reduced to nine from 33. This was partly the result, she said, of Democrats’ being excluded from discussions.“Close to 2.5 million Democrats voted in the general election in 2020,” Ms. Lopez said. “Yet Democrats in this House were left out of any meaningful input into the drafting of this bill.”Democratic state senators sounded similar alarms during an afternoon debate.“It is like a Christmas tree of goodies for voter suppression,” said State Senator Jen Jordan, a Democrat from near Atlanta. “And let’s be clear, some of the most dangerous provisions have to do with the takeover of the local elections boards.”In a sign of the high tensions in Georgia, Mr. Kemp’s speech was abruptly cut off after about 10 minutes. A Democratic state representative, Park Cannon, had tried to attend the signing and remarks, but the doors to the governor’s office were closed. After officers would not let her enter, Ms. Cannon lightly knocked on the door. Two officers immediately detained her, placing in her handcuffs and escorting her through the State Capitol. Neither Ms. Cannon nor the governor’s office immediately responded to requests for comment. Alan Powell, a Republican representative from northeastern Georgia, defended the state’s bill, saying it would bring needed uniformity to an electoral system that was pushed to the brink last year.“The Georgia election system was never made to be able to handle the volume of votes that it handled,” he said. (Multiple audits affirmed the results of Georgia’s elections last year, and there were no credible reports of any fraud or irregularities that would have affected the results.) “What we’ve done in this bill in front of you is we have cleaned up the workings, the mechanics of our election system.”“Show me the suppression,” Mr. Powell said. “There is no suppression in this bill.”The law is likely to be met by legal challenges from Democratic groups, and voting rights organizations have vowed to continue to work against the provisions.Bishop Jackson said he would be working with his constituents to make sure that they had the proper identification, registered in time, and knew how to vote under the new rules.“This is a fight,” he said. “I think we’re probably at halftime. I think we got another half to go.”Thomas Kaplan More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race Is Up For Grabs, Poll Suggests

      by

      Fifty percent of likely Democratic voters still don’t know whom they want to be the next mayor of New York, a poll found.The primary for the New York City mayor’s race, poised to be the most consequential contest in a generation, is fewer than 100 days away.But for many voters, that reality has not yet sunk in.A slate of major debate matchups does not begin until May. Few of the candidates have the resources to advertise on television yet. Traditional campaign methods — greeting subway riders, for example — have limited reach as fewer New Yorkers use public transit. And while city residents were often preoccupied by the challenges of life in a pandemic, the crowded field of mayoral candidates spent the winter in one Zoom forum after another, often in front of sparse online audiences.These extraordinary circumstances have made an always-fluid citywide race even more unpredictable this year, compressing the contest into a three-month springtime sprint for candidates eager to sway undecided voters before the June 22 primary that is likely to decide who will be the next mayor.Their work will be cut out for them: Half of likely Democratic voters are still undecided about their choice to lead the city, according to a poll released on Wednesday.The poll, from Fontas Advisors and Core Decision Analytics, offered a vivid illustration of the uncertain nature of the race.“There is no front-runner,” said George Fontas, the founder of Fontas Advisors, who sponsored the poll and said that he is not affiliated with any campaign in the race. “It’s an open race. We have no idea what’s going to happen in the next three months, and if history shows us anything, it’s that three months is an eternity in a New York City election.”The poll did show some early leaders. Only two candidates registered double-digit support: Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate, at 16 percent, and Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, at 10 percent. Both have done more in-person campaigning than others in the field.Maya D. Wiley, a former MSNBC analyst and ex-counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, was at 6 percent; Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, got 5 percent; a former Citi executive, Raymond J. McGuire, received 4 percent; and Shaun Donovan, the former federal housing secretary; Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner; and Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, each got 2 percent.New York mayoral races have broken late in other years — three months ahead of the 2013 mayoral primary, Mayor Bill de Blasio was something of an afterthought — and many campaigns and strategists expect the contest to accelerate in earnest in late spring, when more candidates, and possibly independent expenditure committees, start spending on television ads.Certainly, candidates have ramped up their campaigning in recent weeks. And as voters increasingly tune in, they are discovering that in addition to deciding on their favorite candidate, they must also think through the new ranked-choice voting system, which enables them to express a preference for up to five candidates.“When you have that many candidates, it’s hard to know what to do, and then, of course, ranked-choice voting,” said Gale A. Brewer, the Manhattan borough president. “I think they’re very confused about trying to do the right thing. The people I talk to want to do the right thing, they feel the city needs a lot of good leadership.”Neighbors, she said, have asked her, “‘If I’m doing this person first, who should I do second? Who should I do third?’ In their head, they’re all trying to figure this out.”There are also many voters who have been consumed by national politics and the controversies surrounding Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in Albany, but have not yet turned their attention closer to home.“You have D.C. and all of its machinations that have kept people more than engaged, and then you have Albany, which is taking up a tremendous amount of voters’ brain space,” said Christine C. Quinn, the former City Council speaker who ran unsuccessfully for mayor in 2013.She also noted that some voters, accustomed to September primaries, are still adjusting to the June time frame.“It was hard to get people to vote in September, it’s going to be harder to get them to vote in June,” she said. “They’re not used to it. And you add in ranked-choice voting, and it’s a lot of confusion. So campaigns are really going to have to do outstanding get-out-the-vote if they really want to win.”There is limited credible public polling in the mayor’s race. But a number of both public and private surveys suggest that Mr. Yang is the early poll leader — by varying margins — typically followed by Mr. Adams. Mr. Yang on Wednesday released an internal poll that showed him at 25 percent of first-choice votes, followed by Mr. Adams at 15 percent.Reflecting a growing rivalry, Mr. Adams and Mr. Yang’s campaign managers traded notably sharp attacks on Wednesday, with Mr. Adams wrongly claiming that “people like Andrew Yang never held a job in his entire life.” Mr. Yang’s campaign managers charged that Mr. Adams “crossed a line with his false and reprehensible attacks. The timing of his hate-filled vitriol towards Andrew should not be lost on anyone.”Those two contenders, along with Mr. Stringer, had the highest name recognition in the Fontas survey as well. They all have significant fund-raising coffers.Ms. Wiley has also appeared to gain some traction in recent weeks with a spate of new endorsements. Mr. McGuire and Mr. Donovan have already started pressing their messages on television.The next mayor will confront a series of staggering challenges concerning the economy, education, inequality and a range of other problems exacerbated by the pandemic. “Who becomes the next mayor is probably one of the most important political decisions this city will ever make, ever,” said Keith L.T. Wright, the leader of the New York County Democrats.But Mr. Wright acknowledged that many voters have had more immediate concerns in mind than electoral politics. “People are concerned about eating, let’s be clear. They’re concerned about whether they’re going to get their stimulus check.”“The first one who’s able to break through and get the attention of those undecideds,” Mr. Wright said, “probably becomes the winner.”The poll was the result of 800 live telephone interviews of New York City Democratic primary likely voters. It was conducted March 15-18, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46 percentage points. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How the Pandemic Changed Your Politics

      by

      Worry, anxiety, hope: Readers shared how they experienced a wild year in American life and politics.Hi. Welcome to On Politics, your wrap-up of the week in national politics. I’m Lisa Lerer, your host. Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox every weekday.Last week, I asked how this extraordinary pandemic year changed your views on politics. And, boy, did you all deliver. I sat in my New York Times home office — otherwise known as my bedroom/yoga studio/Zoom meeting room — reading over the hundreds of thoughtful notes. So many of you shared experiences of lives transformed by the coronavirus: jobs upended, tearful periods of isolation and a fresh appreciation of family and close friends.Yet the collective challenges didn’t translate into much political consensus. About the only thing we agree on? We’re ready for the pandemic to be over, even if we’re not quite sure how the country will recover.Here’s some of what you had to say. (These emails have been lightly edited and condensed.)I have been a Republican and lifelong conservative. Voted for Trump twice. I grumbled about his tweets, but our country needed some bootstrap politics. Then the pandemic hit.His China blame was spot on. His daily briefings were encouraging; I was scared. All of us at the office kept on masks, agreed Trump was doing fine, and then the exposures started. Pretty soon, no agents came in to the office. Trying to get some satisfaction from Trump’s press briefings was harder and harder. He said things that made no sense; it was getting worse, not better.I started watching Andrew Cuomo’s briefings, and he made more sense — to my surprise. It was a comfort, and Trump started sounding like a moron. I stopped watching Trump. I even voiced, for the very first time, I might not vote for him to my sister. We both complained that his constant nonsensical tweets took away from his virtues. Nonetheless, we voted for him — but this time with a boatload of apprehension.Post-election, I was surprisingly not upset. Biden acted so gracious, and I appreciated the total lack of meanspiritedness. Within days, I wanted Trump gone from the White House, gone from the stage, gone from American politics. We need a low-key, decent person to lead us out of this polarized minefield of a nation. Biden was the better choice. I am glad he prevailed.— Andrea MacAulay, Jacksonville, Fla.I was a Democrat until Ronald Reagan. I supported Donald Trump from his earliest campaign events. If anything, the pandemic and the draconian, sometimes arbitrary response of the local, state and some smaller municipalities has been a bungled mess. No one really knew what to do. No one was prepared. People should be given guidelines and take personal responsibility. The closure of businesses, should be as brief and limited as possible. I am concerned about a “communist, totalitarian”-like methodology having been imposed. I believe states’ rights are important.The pandemic has altered my view to push me “further to the right.” Despite the horrific numbers of “reported” deaths (as a conservative I am skeptical of the actual numbers), I have not known anyone who died while my millennial-aged children got mild cases. Governor DeSantis is my hero for courage and common sense.— Gwen Baker, Wellesley, Mass.I am a 75-year-old woman who first watched our country’s unity shredded by the Vietnam War. Throughout the decades since then, I was naïve enough to believe that our nation’s people counted being an American above disparate views. That naïveté was squelched during the Trump years. But I held on to hope that the specter of a pandemic would draw Americans back together.The past year has once again proven me naïve. But the threat of Covid has only pulled us further apart. To mask or not to mask? To lock down or not to lock down? To take the vaccine or not to take it? These have become political weapons, separating us.So, how has Covid changed my views? Sad to say, it has eradicated the last of my hope for American unity. I am relieved to be as old as I am. — Tina Rosato, Black Mountain, N.C.Although I’m currently registered as a Republican, I’ve never been a fan of Trump. His handling of Covid-19 gets an “F” grade. His approach has led to many more deaths than would have happened had he taken a leadership role. I will forever blame Trump for my 98-year-old mother’s Covid-19 case.The Trump White House’s response to the pandemic, its claims regarding voter fraud that kept Trump from a second term, and its effect on the Republican Party in general have transformed me into a voter who will likely vote Democrat for the rest of my life.— Leslie Bates, Xenia, OhioBy most measures I considered myself a staunch progressive. Since the advent of the pandemic and subsequent crippling lockdowns, I now find myself more closely aligned with many Republican principles that I never would have thought possible a year ago.Democrats in my opinion have revealed themselves as having put politics in front of people. The lockdowns have caused far more harm than they prevented. I had always considered Democrats to be the party of equity, progressive ideals, and liberty.Yet, I’m seeing them stripping our rights with lockdowns which perpetuate inequality since the most vulnerable are hit hardest, closing schools which are meaningfully jeopardizing our children’s well-being and future, and finally censoring free speech under the guise of hiding misinformation.Parents (mothers in particular), children, and the impoverished have been disproportionately hurt by lockdowns. These are groups Democrats traditionally safeguarded. Where is that safeguarding now?I used to be a bleeding Democrat but now I’m not so sure.— Joanna Barron, San FranciscoI’m a lifelong Democrat, age 60, and a former county chairman of the Democratic Party in Bergen County, N.J.; an organization with a colorful history to say the least. For me, the pandemic has made the staggering demise of this nation’s collective faith in government abundantly clear to the point of absurdity.As a consequence, I’m a more ardent Democrat than I’ve ever been! The Biden administration has an incredible opportunity to re-energize the Democratic Party by demonstrating how the federal government can help people in real time.I think that’s the key to regaining the blue-collar tide and the Southern white, male vote the Democratic Party needs to be bring back under its tent if it truly wants to be the standard-bearer for women, minorities, the disabled, and the poor.— Michael Kasparian, Bergen County, N.J.Drop us a line!We want to hear from our readers. Have a question? We’ll try to answer it. Have a comment? We’re all ears. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.The California recall push: A quick explainerCalifornians appear headed toward their second statewide recall election in history.This week, organizers of the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that they had turned in more than 2.1 million signatures on petitions to county officials — a tally that should force a recall election.“The reality is it looks like it’s going on the ballot,” Mr. Newsom said at a news conference on Tuesday. “We will fight it. We will defeat it.”Mr. Newsom won with 62 percent of the vote in 2018 — the biggest victory in a California governor’s race in decades. How did he end up in this position?One word: coronavirus. The sixth recall attempt against Mr. Newsom made little progress until November, when he attended a lobbyist friend’s birthday dinner indoors at the Michelin-starred French Laundry — at a time when he was urging Californians to avoid social gatherings.Mr. Newsom has taken a more restrictive approach to the pandemic than many other governors, and the recall campaign became a way for voters to express their anger at his handling of the virus, particularly the lockdowns in the state.When will the recall election happen?Not for months. After local election officials finish verifying signatures by the end of April, there is a 30-day period for voters to decide whether they want to withdraw their names, and another period of several weeks for the state to validate the election.After that, the date of the election is set no less than 88 days and no more than 125 days later. If more than half of voters back removing Newsom, then whoever gets the most votes among the candidates vying against him would become governor.Who’s running?A whole lot of people. There are likely to be more than 100 people challenging Mr. Newsom. The most prominent Republicans are John H. Cox, Mr. Newsom’s former challenger, and former Mayor Kevin Faulconer of San Diego.A Democrat could jump into the race, but so far Mr. Newsom and his team have been fairly effective at keeping their own party out of the contest. There is a slight risk to this approach: Should Mr. Newsom lose the recall vote, he’d undoubtedly be replaced by a Republican.By the numbers: 97,000… That’s roughly the number of migrants arrested by Border Patrol agents last month, the highest number since 2019.… SeriouslySometimes a fuzzy microphone is just … a fuzzy microphone.Thanks for reading. On Politics is your guide to the political news cycle, delivering clarity from the chaos.On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      In Restricting Early Voting, the Right Sees a New ‘Center of Gravity’

      by

      Donald Trump is no longer center stage. But many conservative activists are finding that the best way to raise money and keep voters engaged is to make his biggest fabrication their top priority.For more than a decade, the Susan B. Anthony List and the American Principles Project have pursued cultural and policy priorities from the social conservative playbook, one backing laws to ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat could be detected and the other opposing civil rights protections for L.G.B.T.Q. people. From their shared offices in suburban Virginia, they and their affiliated committees spent more than $20 million on elections last year.But after Donald J. Trump lost his bid for a second term and convinced millions of Americans that nonexistent fraud was to blame, the two groups found that many of their donors were thinking of throwing in the towel. Why, donors argued, should they give any money if Democrats were going to game the system to their advantage, recalled Frank Cannon, the senior strategist for both groups.“‘Before I give you any money for anything at all, tell me how this is going to be solved,’” Mr. Cannon said, summarizing his conversations. He and other conservative activists — many with no background in election law — didn’t take long to come up with an answer, which was to make rolling back access to voting the “center of gravity in the party,” as he put it.Passing new restrictions on voting — in particular, tougher limits on early voting and vote-by-mail — is now at the heart of the right’s strategy to keep donors and voters engaged as Mr. Trump fades from public view and leaves a void in the Republican Party that no other figure or issue has filled. In recent weeks, many of the most prominent and well-organized groups that power the G.O.P.’s vast voter turnout efforts have directed their resources toward a campaign to restrict when and how people can vote, with a focus on the emergency policies that states enacted last year to make casting a ballot during a pandemic easier. The groups believe it could be their best shot at regaining a purchase on power in Washington.Their efforts are intensifying over the objections of some Republicans who say the strategy is cynical and shortsighted, arguing that it further commits their party to legitimizing a lie. It also sends a message, they say, that Republicans think they lost mostly because the other side cheated, which prevents them from grappling honestly with what went wrong and why they might lose again.Some also argue that setting new restrictions on voting could undercut the party just as it was making important gains with Black and Latino voters, who are more likely to be impeded by such laws.“Restricting voting is only a short-term rush. It’s not a strategy for future strength,” said Benjamin Ginsberg, one of the Republican Party’s most prominent election lawyers, who has criticized Mr. Trump and other members of the party for attacking the integrity of the voting process.Former President Donald J. Trump speaking in 2018 at a Susan B. Anthony List gala in Washington.  Many conservative groups have raised money off his baseless claims of election fraud, and supported the Republican push to roll back voting rights.Doug Mills/The New York Times“Look at what it really means,” Mr. Ginsberg added. “A party that’s increasingly old and white whose base is a diminishing share of the population is conjuring up charges of fraud to erect barriers to voting for people it fears won’t support its candidates.”Just as notable as the brand-name conservative groups that are raising money off Mr. Trump’s revisionism — Susan B. Anthony List, the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, Tea Party Patriots — are some of the heavy hitters that are sitting this fight out. Americans for Prosperity, the political organization funded by the Koch fortune, is not supporting the efforts to pass more ballot access laws, nor are other groups in the multimillion-dollar Koch political network.The debate over voting laws is also part of the bigger fight over the future of the Republican Party, and whether it should continue being so focused on making Mr. Trump and his hard-core voters happy.For now, many conservative groups are choosing to side with the former president, even at the risk of feeding corrosive falsehoods about the prevalence of voter fraud.It is certainly the more financially secure path and, some say, the one where they will encounter the least resistance. With polls showing that at least two-thirds of Republicans harbor doubts about President Biden’s legitimacy or believe that Mr. Trump somehow won more votes despite receiving seven million fewer than his opponent, Republican consultants said they were following their party.Some expressed a certain resignation about the situation: Mr. Trump created a perception that is now their party’s reality.“I’m not someone who thinks that China hacked the voting machines,” said Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project. But at the same time, he said, “if you’re a conservative organization and you have small-dollar donors, you’re hearing this from everywhere: ‘Well, what’s the point in voting?’”One major focus for conservatives is rolling back the Covid-related changes that states enacted to make absentee voting easier last year. Mr. Schilling said his group’s intention was to “restore lost faith” in the process with policies that don’t allow those emergency procedures to become permanent. The American Principles Project, like other groups on the right, supports making states verify signatures on absentee ballots with signatures they have in their voter databases, and wants ballots sent only to people who request them.Shortly after Election Day, Trump supporters protested the results at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta.Audra Melton for The New York TimesVoters in Georgia who were disillusioned after Mr. Trump’s defeat — many of whom believed his far-fetched and debunked claims of voting by pets, dead people and other irregularities — helped cost Republicans control of the Senate. Georgia Republicans are now pushing a raft of new voting restrictions that Democrats have called political payback under the guise of “election integrity.” Many of the conservative organizations jumping in have a large network of activists in churches and anti-abortion groups across the country.The Susan B. Anthony List and the American Principles Project recently announced a joint “election transparency” campaign and set a fund-raising goal of $5 million. They hired a top conservative activist who is a former Trump administration official to lead it. They have organized conference calls for activists with other social conservative groups across the country, and say they have found participants to be enthusiastic about getting involved even if election law is entirely new to them.The Family Research Council, which advised the Trump administration on policies like ending military eligibility for transgender people and expanding the definition of religious freedom, recently dedicated one of its regular online organizing sessions, the “Pray Vote Stand Townhall,” to encouraging people to lobby their state legislators.Tony Perkins, the group’s president, expressed optimism about the number of voting bills that were moving along and suggested that last year’s election results were tainted. “We’ve got 106 election-related bills that are in 28 states right now,” he said to the audience. “So here’s the good news: There is action taking place to go back and correct what was uncovered in this last election.”Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, suggested that the results of the 2020 election couldn’t be trusted.Mark J. Terrill/Associated PressJoining Mr. Perkins on the stage was Michael P. Farris, the president of the deep-pocketed and powerful Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. He chimed in approvingly: “Let me just say, ‘Amen,’” he said.Also throwing its weight behind the campaign is the influential Heritage Foundation and its political arm, Heritage Action for America, which recently announced that it planned to spend millions of dollars to support voting policies that are popular with conservatives. Those include laws that would require identification for voters and limit the availability of absentee ballots, as well as other policies that Heritage said would “secure and strengthen state election systems.”Several Republican strategists said that while the “stolen” election canard was accepted widely among rank-and-file Republican voters, they were surprised to find how deeply it had taken hold with major donors, who seem the most convinced of its truth and eager to act.Groups that are fighting these attempts to restrict ballot access said that the organizing on the right was so new that its impact had been hard to gauge. Michael Waldman, the president of the Brennan Center for Justice, said Republican legislatures seemed to understand the power of this issue on their own and didn’t need much persuasion to act.“Are we seeing a lot of new lawsuits, new lobbying, other things on the ground?” he said. “The answer is mostly no. We’re seeing a lot of fund-raising.” Still, the number of groups involved and the salience of the issue was striking, he said.“There’s massive organizational infrastructure behind it,” Mr. Waldman said. “It’s hard to identify too many unifying issues right now in the Republican Party. But this seems to be one of them.”As contentious as some of the past conservative-led campaigns to restrict voting were, this time is even more emotionally and politically charged given how closely associated it is with Mr. Trump and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol that he incited. Some conservatives said the association with that day complicated what could be relatively uncontroversial changes to regulate how absentee ballots are sent out, collected and counted now that so many more people are likely to request them in the future.“We also took a look at the election results, and we don’t believe that it was stolen. But that doesn’t mean we don’t think there aren’t things that can be improved,” said Jason Snead, the executive director of the Honest Elections Project. The group supports a range of changes: Some would regulate mail-in voting at the margins, like requiring that ballots are mailed out no earlier than three weeks before the election and received by the time polls close on the day of.Others would no doubt be more controversial, like banning the organized, third-party collection of ballots that conservative critics call ballot harvesting.Mr. Snead said it was problematic that the 2020 election and its aftermath had cast a shadow over the entire issue. “There’s definitely a recognition that we don’t want this to be something that is tied to the last election,” he said. But as someone who started his work on election law before Mr. Trump was elected and shares the broader goal of establishing more conditions on voting, he acknowledged that the environment had never been riper.“It has risen to a degree of prominence it probably has never enjoyed,” Mr. Snead said. More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en Israel: esto necesitas saber

      by

      Los israelíes votarán el 23 de marzo otra vez para poner fin a un impasse político que lleva dos años instalado en el país. Aquí tienes las claves de los comicios.JERUSALÉN — Los israelíes acudirán a las urnas el martes 23 de marzo por cuarta vez en dos años, con la esperanza de poner fin a un ciclo aparentemente interminable de votaciones y un estancamiento político que ha dejado al país sin presupuesto nacional durante la pandemia.El primer ministro, Benjamin Netanyahu, espera que el programa de vacunación, líder en el mundo y que ha ayudado a devolver al país recientemente a algo parecido a la normalidad, le dé a él y a sus aliados de derecha una ventaja y la mayoría estable que se le ha escapado en tres rondas anteriores de elecciones.Pero Netanyahu, primer ministro desde 2009, postula para la reelección mientras que se lleva a cabo un juicio por corrupción en su contra, una dinámica que los partidos de oposición esperan que incite a los votantes a sacarlo del poder.En realidad, sin embargo, los sondeos muestran que ninguno de los dos bloques tiene el camino despejado para ganar la mayoría, lo que hace pensar a muchos israelíes que habrá otro resultado no concluyente y, tal vez, una posible quinta elección más tarde en el año.Esto es lo que necesitas saber.¿Por qué hay tantas elecciones en Israel?La respuesta más simple es que desde 2019, ni Netanyahu ni sus opositores han logrado ganar suficientes curules en el Parlamento para formar un gobierno de colación con mayoría estable. Eso ha dejado a Netanyahu en el poder, ya como primer ministro interino o como líder de una coalición frágil con algunos de sus mayores acérrimos rivales, aunque no del todo en el poder. Y eso ha obligado al país a votar una y otra vez en un intento por superar el impasse.Detrás del drama, dicen los analistas, están las motivaciones de Netanyahu para buscar la reelección: su corazonada de que puede defenderse mejor del juicio desde la oficina de primer ministro. Dicen que está dispuesto a someter al país a una elección tras otra hasta que gane una mayoría parlamentaria más robusta que pueda concederle inmunidad.“No conozco a ningún analista serio que diga que Israel se encamina a otra ronda de elecciones por otro motivo que no sean los intereses personales de Netanyahu”, dijo Gayil Talshir, profesora de ciencia política en la Universidad Hebrea de Jerusalén.Sin embargo, los seguidores de Netanyahu rechazan la idea de que haya forzado a Israel a una elección tras otra debido a sus intereses personales. Argumentan que sus críticos simplemente están resentidos porque Netanyahu es un competidor feroz y astuto y culpan a Benny Gantz de haber logrado que la coalición resultara insostenible.Netanyahu a su salida del Parlamento de Israel en diciembreFoto de consorcio de Alex Kolomoisky¿Qué provocó esta cuarta elección?Una serie de desacuerdos entre Netanyahu y Benny Gantz, su rival y compañero de la coalición centrista, que culminaron en diciembre cuando no lograron acordar el presupuesto estatal. Eso suscitó la disolución del Parlamento, lo que ha forzado una nueva elección, aunque por ahora sigue vigente el gobierno.Los rivales habían unido fuerzas en abril pasado, luego de la tercera elección, cuando dijeron que lo hacían para asegurarse de que el país contara con un gobierno que le diera dirección a Israel durante la pandemia. Bajo este acuerdo de poder compartido, Gantz asumiría como primer ministro en noviembre de este año. Pero los socios de coalición nunca congeniaron y cada uno acusa al otro de no cooperar de buena fe.Los críticos de Netanyahu aseguran que, al disputar el presupuesto con Gantz y favorecer un plan de un año en lugar de los dos que pedía el acuerdo de la coalición, actuaba de forma interesada. La parálisis presupuestaria, al activar una nueva elección, le dio a Netanyahu otra oportunidad de formar un gobierno en lugar de quedarse en la coalición actual y cederle el poder a Gantz a finales de este año.Pero Netanyahu culpó a Gantz por el rompimiento, al decir que Gantz se había rehusado a llegar a un arreglo con Netanyahu en varios nombramientos estatales.¿Cómo se han visto afectados los israelíes por el estancamiento?La parálisis ha forzado a Israel a atravesar una de las crisis económicas y de salud más profundas de la historia sin un presupuesto público, afectando su planeación económica de largo plazo, que incluye el desarrollo de grandes proyectos de infraestructura.El estancamiento ha retrasado el nombramiento de funcionarios estatales clave, incluido el fiscal estatal y altos funcionarios de los ministerios de Justicia y Finanzas. Y los integrantes de la coalición, incluido Netanyahu, han sido acusados de politizar la toma de decisiones del gobierno incluso más de lo habitual, en busca de cualquier posible ventaja en la contienda electoral.La continua confusión, instigada por las largas dificultades legales de Netanyahu, ha moldeado la política israelí. Los votantes ahora están menos divididos por la ideología que por su rechazo o apoyo a Netanyahu.Y dado que la contienda es tan cerrada, los políticos judíos ahora están buscando cada vez más atraer a la minoría árabe de Israel para ayudar a inclinar la balanza. Los ciudadanos árabes de Israel constituyen alrededor del 20 por ciento de la población. Es un grupo que ha pasado de ser marginado a convertirse en una parte clave del electorado en esta campaña.Gideon Saar, exministro del Interior del Partido Likud de Netanyahu, es uno de sus principales competidores.Amir Cohen/Reuters¿Quiénes son los principales rivales de Netanyahu esta vez?En una demostración del modo en que el mapa político ha cambiado, dos de los principales contrincantes de Netanyahu en este ciclo electoral también son de derecha. Gideon Saar fue ministro del Interior por el partido de Netanyahu y Naftali Bennet es el exjefe de personal de Netanyahu.El tercer contendiente es Yair Lapid, un experiodista de televisión y centrista cuyo partido ha montado el desafío más fuerte contra Netanyahu.Gantz ya no es considerado como una amenaza viable al primer ministro. Las encuestas sugieren que su partido puede incluso no llegar a conseguir ningún puesto, en gran parte debido al enojo entre sus partidarios por haber formado un gobierno de unidad junto con Netanyahu, algo que había prometido no hacer.¿Cómo funcionan las elecciones en Israel?El parlamento, conocido en hebreo como la Knesset, tiene 120 curules que se reparten de manera proporcional entre los partidos que ganan más del 3,25 por ciento del voto.El sistema prácticamente garantiza que ningún partido gane una mayoría absoluta, a menudo dando a los pequeños partidos una gran influencia en las negociaciones para formar coaliciones. El sistema permite que una gran variedad de voces participe en el parlamento, pero hace que conseguir coaliciones estables sea difícil.Formar un nuevo gobierno —si se logra— puede demorar semanas o meses y en cualquier momento del proceso una mayoría de la Knesset puede votar para disolverla y forzar a una nueva elección.En los días posteriores a la elección, el presidente de Israel, Reuven Rivlin, le dará a un legislador cuatro semanas para formar la coalición. Ese mandato suele dársele al líder del partido que haya obtenido la mayor cantidad de asientos en el Parlamento, que posiblemente será Netanyahu. Pero el presidente podría dárselo a cualquier otro legislador, como Lapid, al que crea que tiene una mejor oportunidad de conseguir una coalición viable.Si los esfuerzos de dicho legislador fracasan, el presidente puede darle otras cuatro semanas a un segundo parlamentario para formar un gobierno. Si dicho proceso también naufraga, el parlamento puede nominar a un tercero para que lo intente. Si él o ella no lo logra, el Parlamento se disuelve y se celebra otra elección.Mientras tanto, Netanyahu seguirá siendo el primer ministro encargado. Si de alguna manera el impasse dura hasta noviembre, Gantz aún podría sucederlo. El acuerdo de reparto de poder al que llegaron en abril pasado quedó consagrado en la ley israelí y estipulaba que Gantz sería primer ministro en noviembre de 2021.¿Cómo ha afectado el coronavirus a la elección?En las últimas semanas, Israel ha vuelto a enviar a los niños a la escuela, reabierto los restaurantes para servicio presencial y permitido que las personas vacunadas acudan a conciertos y espectáculos teatrales.Netanyahu espera que el éxito del despliegue de vacunación en el país, que ha logrado darle a la mayoría de israelíes al menos una dosis, le dé un impulso para lograr la victoria.Pero su récord pandémico también podría costarle caro. Algunos votantes creen que ha politizado varias decisiones clave, por ejemplo al limitar algunas multas por incumplir las regulaciones para contener el virus a niveles mucho más bajos que los recomendados por los expertos en salud pública.Los críticos han percibido que esto es una forma de beneficiar a los israelíes ultraortodoxos, algunos de los cuales han incumplido las restricciones a las reuniones masivas. Netanyahu necesitará del apoyo de los israelíes ultraortodoxos para permanecer en el poder tras la elección.No se puede votar por correo en Israel. Para prevenir la propagación del virus, se han previsto lugares de votación para las personas que están en cuarentena y los pacientes con COVID-19.¿Podría haber una quinta elección este año?Nadie lo descarta. Se anticipa que el partido de Netanyahu, Likud, surja como el partido más numeroso, con alrededor de 30 curules. Pero puede que sus aliados no alcancen suficientes para darle la mayoría de 61 que necesita.Y aunque las encuestas actuales sugieren que los partidos de oposición ganarán colectivamente más de 61 curules, no está claro si sus profundas diferencias ideológicas les permitirán unirse.Podría resultar que la clave sea Bennet. Aunque desea reemplazar a Netanyahu, tampoco ha descartado unirse a su gobierno.Patrick Kingsley e Isabel Kershner colaboraron con la reportería. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Will Cuomo’s Scandals Pave the Way for New York’s First Female Mayor?

      by

      The women running for mayor have sharply criticized Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo as sexual harassment allegations pile up against him, and they say they offer a different style of leadership.In the race to become mayor of New York, there is a glass ceiling, unbroken but not unmentioned by the several women running for the position this year: The city has had 109 mayors, not one of them a woman.So at gatherings like a recent fund-raiser for Kathryn Garcia, a Democratic hopeful, that barrier has been top of mind.The online fund-raiser, which was attended by dozens of women, many of them veterans of city government, was held last week on International Women’s Day. But Ms. Garcia’s mission was particularly relevant for another reason, too: Earlier that day, two high-powered lawyers were named to lead an independent investigation of sexual harassment accusations made against Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.It was a moment that Ms. Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner, leaned into.“New York’s governor is reminding us it is time to see more women in positions of power,” Ms. Garcia told the group. “In 2021, there is no right man for the job of mayor.”The women running for mayor have all touched upon the historic nature of their political campaigns, highlighting it in fund-raising pitches and on social media.And more recently, they have underscored the need to end the male-dominated political culture that gave rise to the sexual harassment scandal surrounding Mr. Cuomo.Many of the governor’s strongest critics have been women. Two Democrats, Ms. Garcia and Maya Wiley, were among the first mayoral hopefuls to urge Mr. Cuomo to resign. A third, Dianne Morales, has called for his impeachment.With only three months left until the June 22 Democratic primary for mayor, the political world is abuzz over Mr. Cuomo’s scandals. Two of the race’s more prominent male candidates, Andrew Yang and Eric Adams, have taken a more cautious approach to addressing Mr. Cuomo’s political straits, only recently saying that he should step aside until the investigations are complete.The governor’s problems have given the female candidates more ammunition to make their case that it is time for a woman to lead New York City.They have rebuked Mr. Cuomo and shared their stories of sexual harassment and sexism in politics. And they have argued that they would offer a more inclusive style of leadership than Mr. Cuomo, one that empowers staffers and does not rely on bullying.Ms. Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio and the former head of the Civilian Complaint Review Board, who is the strongest female candidate in the polls and fund-raising, has called on the men in the race to join her in urging Mr. Cuomo to resign.“It is clear that this is a man who behaves this way,” Ms. Wiley said. “This isn’t a single mistake. This isn’t a misinterpretation. This is a set of behaviors, and this is who he is.”Maya Wiley, center, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, has also called on Mr. Cuomo to step down. Mary Altaffer/Associated PressPolitical experts have many theories about why New York is such a difficult environment for women running for office, from overt sexism to machine politics and the challenges of raising large amounts of money.Ruth W. Messinger, a former Manhattan borough president, said she experienced all three hurdles in 1997, when she ran as the Democratic nominee against the Republican incumbent, Rudolph W. Giuliani.Voters said she was unattractive, unions were “bastions of male domination,” and men were reluctant to donate to her, she said in an interview. During a focus group, Ms. Messinger recalled, a man commented, “I would never date her.”She would meet with major donors and thought it went well, and then husbands told their wives to write a check.“The women wrote smaller checks,” Ms. Messinger said.In the 2013 mayoral race, Christine Quinn, the former New York City Council speaker, had been a front-runner, but she lost to Mr. de Blasio in the Democratic primary after some voters said they found her unlikable — a word deeply influenced by gender bias and often a sexist trope, researchers on women and politics say. Ms. Quinn was also closely linked to the incumbent, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, whose popularity had fallen after three terms.Ms. Quinn said she wished she had been more authentic and embraced her brusque reputation.“That’s probably exactly what you want in the mayor of New York — a bitch with a big heart, and I’m both,” she said.Major cities like Chicago and Houston saw voters elect their first female mayors in the 1970s and ’80s. Women now run 27 of the nation’s 100 largest cities, including Lori Lightfoot in Chicago and Keisha Lance Bottoms in Atlanta.New York also has never had a female governor, with the state decades behind more conservative states like Texas and Alabama in electing a woman. But if Mr. Cuomo were to resign or be removed from office, a woman — Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul — would succeed him.“The larger point here is that Cuomo’s behavior unfortunately isn’t isolated — it’s a symptom of a culture that can be toxic for women, not just in Albany but at City Hall,” said Marti Speranza Wong, executive director of Amplify Her, a group that works to elect women. “We can’t really expect an environment that is supportive of women if we don’t have women in positions of power.”Female candidates in New York and beyond have been encouraged by the success of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose upset primary victory in 2018 over the Democratic incumbent, Joseph Crowley, demonstrated how women can go around party officials to reach voters directly.“Machine politics is a machine that was built by and for men,” Ms. Morales said. “In New York City, I’m not sure we’re as progressive as we like to think we are.”Of the leading female candidates this year, two are women of color: Ms. Wiley, who is Black, and Ms. Morales, a former nonprofit executive, who is Afro-Latina.The women in the Democratic primary are focusing on different issues: Ms. Morales is running to the left of the field and wants to cut $3 billion from the police budget; Ms. Wiley has emphasized her civil rights background and a plan to create 100,000 jobs; Ms. Garcia has highlighted her experience in government and wants to improve basic services and quality of life in the city. (Another female candidate, Loree Sutton, a retired Army brigadier general, dropped out of the Democratic race last week.)As the candidates continue to make appearances in an endless series of online forums, the women seem to be forming a bond. At one forum where candidates were asked to pick a second choice for mayor, Ms. Wiley and Ms. Morales named each other.Ms. Morales said she felt strongly that it was time for a woman of color to be elected.“There’s a level of solidarity that we all feel toward each other, and a recognition of the barriers and obstacles that we’re overcoming on a daily basis just to be in this space,” she said.Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, said she felt strongly that it was time for a woman of color to be elected.Laylah Amatullah Barrayn for The New York TimesThe women’s response to the allegations against the governor illustrate that common ground.Ms. Wiley, a former MSNBC analyst with a loyal following on social media, took to Instagram last month and called Mr. Cuomo’s behavior disgusting. She shared in a video that a boss had once asked her if she believed in monogamy.In an interview, Ms. Wiley provided further details: She was a young lawyer alone in his office where he told her that he was open to multiple partners.“I looked this man dead in the eye and said, ‘Yeah, I believe in monogamy,’” she said. “I said it with a particular attitude — let me say that — and my attitude was, ‘Really, dude? Did you just ask me that question?’”“This is why when you hear Charlotte Bennett’s story, you know exactly what they’re asking you,” she said in reference to a female staffer who accused Mr. Cuomo of trying to groom her for a sexual relationship. “You’re being asked if you’re willing.”Many of the comments on Ms. Wiley’s Instagram video were supportive. Others said she was jumping the gun and told her to “be quiet” and “shut up.”Ms. Morales said that news reports about Mr. Cuomo’s treatment of women reminded her of a job she had while she was in her 20s.“I’ve experienced a male boss closing the door in a small office and backing me into a corner and screaming at me at the top of his lungs and then storming out, and people surrounding me to see if I was OK,” she said.Sara Tirschwell, a former Wall Street executive who is running in the Republican mayoral primary, once filed a sexual harassment complaint against her boss, and has also called on Mr. Cuomo to resign. She quotes Maya Angelou on her campaign website: “Each time a woman stands up for herself, without knowing it, possibly, without claiming it, she stands up for all women.”While women have made strides in state legislatures and Congress, some voters still cannot picture a woman as president, governor or mayor, said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.“When you’re the place where the buck stops, there needs to be a sense of strength and authority,” Ms. Walsh said. “That has been one of the challenges that women have faced — the stereotype that women aren’t strong or tough enough.”That stereotype particularly rankles Ms. Garcia, who served as Mr. de Blasio’s go-to crisis manager, taking on the top job at the New York City Housing Authority and running the city’s pandemic meal program.She said that people constantly underestimate her as she runs for mayor, and some have suggested she would make a great deputy mayor.“It’s frustrating that you’re considered the most qualified for the job and are pigeonholed that you should be a less-qualified guy’s No. 2,” she said. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Many Iowans Are Uncomfortable With a New Voting Restriction, Poll Finds

      by

      A new survey by one of the country’s top pollsters hinted at discomfort among voters in the state about new balloting restrictions.Republican state lawmakers across the country have responded to President Biden’s victory in November by proposing a raft of new restrictions on voting, aiming to tamp down early voting and absentee balloting in moves that would make it harder to participate on Election Day.But in Iowa — a state that’s been trending red for years, and where Donald Trump won by over eight percentage points in November — a new survey by one of the country’s top pollsters suggests that voters are irked by the latest push to curtail voting access.Last week, the state’s Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, signed a bill passed by the G.O.P.-led state legislature that includes a number of restrictions on voting, including shortening the early-voting period by nine days and closing the polls an hour earlier on Election Day.The new poll, conducted by Selzer & Co. for The Des Moines Register and released today, found that 52 percent of Iowans were opposed to condensing the early-voting period, and 42 percent were in favor.There was a deep partisan divide, with 71 percent of Republicans favoring the move and 81 percent of Democrats opposed. Among independents, 51 percent were against the change, while 43 percent were in favor.The poll found that Iowans were evenly split on Reynolds’s job performance, with 46 percent approving and 47 percent disapproving. But 52 percent said they hoped she wouldn’t run for re-election next year, and just 41 percent said they wanted her to.Asked about Biden’s work so far as president, 47 percent gave him positive marks and 44 percent gave him a thumbs-down.The voting bill Reynolds just signed is one of hundreds that have been making their way through Republican-led state legislatures across the country. Proponents of these bills often cite the risk of voter fraud as a motivating factor, even though in reality fraud is vanishingly rare — and restrictions on access to the ballot tend to do more to disenfranchise legitimate voters than to cut down on illegitimate voting.The rash of state-level restrictions has drawn fire from advocates of voting rights, and Democratic lawmakers in Washington have recommitted themselves to passing two major voting-rights bills that would invalidate many of the state laws.But on a national level, it’s not yet clear that Democrats have won the battle over messaging. A poll published this month by CNN found that 53 percent of Americans said they were more worried that voting rules might not be “strict enough to prevent illegal votes from being cast,” while just 39 percent were more concerned that voting laws might “make it too difficult for eligible citizens” to cast a ballot.Fears of anti-Asian violence rise after a deadly rampage in Georgia.The killings of eight people, including six women of Asian descent, during a shooting spree in the Atlanta area yesterday have prompted a national outcry, and at a news conference today Biden noted a “very, very troubling” pattern of violence against Asian-Americans in recent months.“Whatever the motivation here,” Biden said, “I know Asian-Americans are very concerned.” But the president stopped short of saying that the killings had been racially motivated, citing an ongoing investigation.Investigators said they had not ruled out bias as a motivating factor in the shootings, which were carried out at three massage parlors, although the suspect denied racial animus once in custody.The suspect in the killings was charged today with murder. He told the police that he had a “sexual addiction” and had carried out the shootings to eliminate his “temptation,” the authorities said on Wednesday.Vice President Kamala Harris, the first woman and the first Asian-American person to hold the office, expressed condolences for the families of the victims today.“I do want to say to our Asian-American community that we stand with you and understand how this has frightened and shocked and outraged all people,” she said.Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders were targeted in nearly 3,800 hate incidents reported over the past year, according to Stop AAPI Hate. The incidents compiled by the group included mostly verbal harassment and name-calling, which accounted for about 68 percent of those reported. Shunning, or the deliberate avoidance of Asian-Americans, composed about 20 percent. About 11 percent of the reports involved physical assault, the report said.Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta said of the shootings, “Whatever the motivation was for this guy, we know that the majority of the victims were Asian.”She added: “We also know that this is an issue that is happening across the country. It is unacceptable, it is hateful and it has to stop.”— More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Israel Has Its 4th National Election in 2 Years. Here’s Why.

      by

      Israelis will vote again on Tuesday, seeking to end a political deadlock that has gripped the country for two years. This is what you need to know.JERUSALEM — Israelis head to the polls on Tuesday for the fourth time in two years, hoping to break a seemingly endless cycle of elections and a political deadlock that has left the country without a national budget during a pandemic.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hopes Israel’s world-leading vaccination program, which has helped the country emerge in recent days into something approaching normality, will give him and his right-wing allies an edge and the stable majority that proved elusive in three earlier rounds of elections.But Mr. Netanyahu, prime minister since 2009, is running for re-election while standing trial on corruption charges — a dynamic that opposition parties hope will prompt voters to finally push him out of office.In reality, though, polls show that neither bloc has a clear route to a majority, leaving many Israelis bracing for another inconclusive result, and a possible fifth election later in the year.Here’s what else you need to know.Why is Israel holding so many elections?The simplest explanation is that since 2019, neither Mr. Netanyahu nor his opponents have been able to win enough seats in Parliament to form a coalition government with a stable majority. That has left Mr. Netanyahu in office, either as a caretaker prime minister or at the helm of a fragile coalition with some of his fiercest rivals, though not wholly in power. And that has forced the country to vote again and again in an attempt to break the deadlock.Underlying this drama, analysts say, is one of Mr. Netanyahu’s motivations for seeking re-election — his hunch that he can best fight his prosecution from the prime minister’s office. They say he is ready to take the country to election after election — until he wins a stronger parliamentary majority that could grant him immunity from prosecution.“I don’t know any serious thinker who says Israel is going to another round of elections for reasons other than Netanyahu’s personal interests,” said Gayil Talshir, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Supporters of Mr. Netanyahu, however, reject the notion that his personal interests have pushed Israel from election to election. They contend that his critics simply resent that Mr. Netanyahu is a fierce and savvy competitor, and they blame Mr. Gantz for making the coalition untenable..Mr. Netanyahu leaving the Israeli Parliament in December.Pool photo by Alex KolomoiskyWhat prompted this fourth election?A series of disagreements between Mr. Netanyahu and Benny Gantz, his rival and centrist coalition partner, culminated in December in their failure to agree on a state budget. That led the Parliament to dissolve, forcing a new election, though for now the government remains in place.The rivals joined forces last April, after the third election, saying that it was to ensure Israel had a government to lead the country through the pandemic. Under their power-sharing agreement, Mr. Gantz would take over as prime minister in November of this year. But the coalition partners never got along, and each side accuses the other of failing to cooperate in good faith.Mr. Netanyahu’s critics contend that he acted out of personal interest when he fought Mr. Gantz over the budget, favoring a one-year plan, rather than the two years called for by the coalition agreement. The budget deadlock, by forcing a new election, gave Mr. Netanyahu another shot at forming a government, rather than staying in the current coalition and ceding power to Mr. Gantz later this year.But Mr. Netanyahu blamed Mr. Gantz for the break, saying that Mr. Gantz had refused to compromise with Mr. Netanyahu on several state appointments.How has the political gridlock affected Israelis?The gridlock has forced Israel to go without a state budget during one of the most profound health and economic crises in its history, undermining long-term economic planning, including the development of major infrastructure projects.The stasis has delayed the appointment of key state officials, including the state attorney and senior executive officers at the Justice and Finance ministries. And members of the coalition, including Mr. Netanyahu, have been accused of politicizing government decision-making even more than usual, seeking any possible edge in the electoral advantage.The continual turmoil, abetted by Mr. Netanyahu’s long-running legal troubles, has reshaped Israeli politics. Voters are now divided less by ideology than by whether they are for or against Mr. Netanyahu.And with the race so tight, Jewish politicians are now increasingly looking to members of Israel’s Arab minority to help break the deadlock. Arab citizens of Israel form about 20 percent of the population. Once marginalized, they have become a key constituency in this election campaign.Gideon Saar, a former interior minister for Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party, is one of his primary challengers.Amir Cohen/ReutersWho are Mr. Netanyahu’s main rivals this time?In a sign of how the political map has changed, two of Mr. Netanyahu’s principal challengers in this election cycle are also right-wingers. Gideon Saar is a former interior minister for Mr. Netanyahu’s party and Naftali Bennett is Mr. Netanyahu’s former chief of staff. The third leading challenger is Yair Lapid, a centrist former broadcast journalist whose party is mounting the strongest challenge to Mr. Netanyahu.Mr. Gantz is no longer considered a viable threat to the prime minister. Polls suggest his party may even fail to win a seat, largely because of anger among his former supporters over his decision to form a unity government with Mr. Netanyahu in the first place, an arrangement he had promised not to join.How do Israeli elections work?The Parliament, known in Hebrew as the Knesset, has 120 seats that are allocated on a proportional basis to parties that win more than 3.25 percent of the vote.The system almost guarantees that no single party will win an outright majority, often giving tiny parties big influence in the deal-making that forms coalitions. The system allows for a broad range of voices in Parliament but forming stable coalitions under it is difficult.It could take weeks or possibly months for a new government to be formed — if one can be formed — and at any point in the process, a majority of the Knesset could vote to dissolve again, forcing yet another election.In the days after the election, Reuven Rivlin, Israel’s president, will give one lawmaker four weeks to try to form a coalition. He usually gives that mandate to the leader of the party that won the highest number of seats, which is likely to be Mr. Netanyahu. But he could grant it to another lawmaker, like Mr. Lapid, who he believes has a better chance at pulling together a viable coalition.If that lawmaker’s efforts break down, the president can give a second candidate another four weeks to form a government. If that process also stutters, Parliament itself can nominate a third candidate to give it a go. And if he or she fails, Parliament dissolves and another election is called.In the meantime, Mr. Netanyahu will remain caretaker prime minister. If somehow the deadlock continues until November, Mr. Gantz might still succeed him. The power-sharing deal the pair agreed to last April was enshrined into Israeli law, and stipulated that Mr. Gantz would become prime minister in November 2021.How has the coronavirus affected the election?In recent weeks, Israel has sent children back to school, reopened restaurants for in-house dining and allowed vaccinated people to attend concerts and theater performances.Mr. Netanyahu hopes the success of Israel’s vaccine rollout, which has given a majority of Israelis at least one dose, will help propel him to victory.But his pandemic record may also cost him. Some voters believe he politicized certain key decisions — for instance, capping some fines for flouting antivirus regulations at levels much lower than public health experts recommended.Critics perceived this as a sop to ultra-Orthodox Israelis, some of whom flouted coronavirus restrictions on mass gatherings. Mr. Netanyahu will need the support of two ultra-Orthodox parties to remain in office after the election.Voting by mail is not available in Israel. To prevent the spread of the virus, special polling stations are being set up for quarantined people and for Covid-19 patients.Could there be a fifth election later in the year?No one is ruling it out. Mr. Netanyahu’s party, Likud, is predicted to emerge as the largest party, with around 30 seats. But his allies may not win enough seats to give him a majority of 61.And though current polling suggests the opposition parties will collectively win more than 61 seats, it’s unclear whether their profound ideological differences will allow them to come together.The key player could be Mr. Bennett. Though he wants to replace Mr. Netanyahu, he has also not ruled out joining his government.Patrick Kingsley and Isabel Kershner contributed reporting. More