More stories

  • in

    Justice Dept. to Review Election Tampering Conviction of Pro-Trump Clerk

    The decision, revealed in a filing in a Colorado clerk’s bid to overturn her conviction, marks another example of President Trump’s Justice Department intervening to aid supporters or go after foes.The Justice Department said on Monday that it would review the conviction of the former clerk of Mesa County, Colo., who was found guilty of state charges last summer of tampering with voting machines under her control in a failed attempt to prove that they had been used to rig the 2020 election against President Trump.The decision was the latest example of the Justice Department under Mr. Trump’s control seeking to use its powers to support those who have acted on his behalf and to go after those who have criticized or opposed him. It also played into the president’s effort to rewrite the history of his efforts to overturn the results of the election.Three weeks ago, the former clerk, Tina Peters, who was sentenced to nine years in prison on the state election tampering charges, filed a long-shot motion in Federal District Court in Denver effectively challenging the guilty verdict she received in August at the end of a trial in Grand Junction.But, in a surprise move, Yaakov M. Roth, the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil division, filed a court brief known as a statement of interest on Monday, declaring that “reasonable concerns have been raised about various aspects of Ms. Peters’s case.” In the filing, Mr. Roth said the federal judge who received Ms. Peters’s petition this month should give it “prompt and careful consideration.”Mr. Roth said that the Justice Department was concerned, among other things, about “the exceptionally lengthy sentence” imposed on Ms. Peters by the judge in Grand Junction. He also questioned a decision by state prosecutors to deny her bail as she appeals her conviction as “arbitrary or unreasonable.”The review of Ms. Peters’s case was part of a larger examination of cases “across the nation for abuses of the criminal justice process,” Mr. Roth wrote. The scrutiny of Peters case, he added, was being conducted under the aegis of an executive order that Mr. Trump issued seeking to end the “weaponization of the federal government.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    5 of America’s Strangest Polling Places

    Grab a snack, do your laundry and cast a ballot.This article is part of A Kid’s Guide to the Election, a collection of stories about the 2024 presidential election for readers ages 8 to 14, written and produced by The New York Times for Kids. This section is published in The Times’s print edition on the last Sunday of every month.Every Election Day, millions of adults line up to vote at schools, community centers, libraries and other public buildings. But sometimes election officials don’t have enough places. To make sure everyone is able to get to a polling location that’s convenient, officials have to get creative, asking local business owners to lend space. Here are five unusual spots where Americans will pick the next president.Wash, Dry, Fold, VoteThe City of Chicago doesn’t own a building in the neighborhood of Chicago Lawn, so Wash Smart Laundry is helping out by tucking polling booths among the washers and dryers. It’s making it easier for people in the area to cast their ballots. And it has been good for business, too, says Andrea Castillo, the manager. New customers have been coming in after hearing that they can do their laundry and their civic duty at the same time. But occasionally they get a little confused: When they’re asked to show their ID to vote, some people accidentally show their laundry card instead.Presidents and PastriesDuring the 2020 election, early in the pandemic, San Francisco officials wanted to spread out polling stations to reduce crowds. So they asked La Boulangerie, a cafe and bakery, to donate space, and things worked out so well that the place decided to keep doing it. This will be the third time half the cafe is emptied out to squeeze in six voting booths. Jennifer Cusguen, a manager, says the staff likes helping the community by making it easier to vote. And they’ve learned an important lesson: Voters love almond croissants. This year, they’ll stock extras so they don’t sell out again.Tomi UmWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    No, poll workers aren’t handing out Sharpies to invalidate ballots.

    The false claimSome people have falsely claimed that election workers have provided Sharpies, markers or other writing utensils to certain voters in an attempt to somehow invalidate their ballots.Why it is falsePoll workers provide writing utensils that have been tested with ballots and ballot-reading machines long before Election Day. These can include pens, pencils and markers like Sharpies — which are often appropriate to use.Election administrators sometimes rely on recommendations from voting machine companies and then supply those writing tools to election workers.Some companies behind ballot-tabulating machines, including Dominion Voting Systems, recommend felt-tip markers like Sharpies because their fast-drying ink prevents smears. Other election offices, like Maricopa County’s in Arizona, redesigned ballots so that any bleed-through from markers would not impair the ballot.If any writing utensil causes a problem with reading a paper ballot — for instance, if a mark smeared or bled through to the other side — voters are offered an opportunity to vote again, according to the Council of State Governments. If there are additional problems, ballots can be adjudicated by hand using a team of reviewers that includes a Democratic and a Republican representative.How the falsehoods are being usedThe claims often circulate in the form of anecdotes and personal stories that spread rapidly online.These false claims have been featured prominently in election misinformation since at least 2020, when “Sharpiegate” became a viral story that bolstered false claims of widespread voter fraud.That year, the claims were catapulted to larger audiences by right-wing influencers and Trump supporters, including Charlie Kirk, the founder of a pro-Trump youth organization, and Eric Trump, the former president’s son. More

  • in

    This Election Will Need More Heroes

    True political courage — the principled stand, the elevation of country over party pressure, the willingness to sacrifice a career to protect the common good — has become painfully rare in a polarized world. It deserves to be celebrated and nurtured whenever it appears, especially in defense of fundamental American institutions like our election system. The sad truth, too, is the country will probably need a lot more of it in the coming months.In state after state, Republicans have systematically made it harder for citizens to vote, and harder for the election workers who count those votes to do so. They are challenging thousands of voter registrations in Democratic areas, forcing administrators to manually restore perfectly legitimate voters to the rolls. They are aggressively threatening election officials who defended the 2020 election against manipulation. They are trying to invalidate mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they meet the legal requirements of a postmark before the deadline. They are making it more difficult to certify election results, and even trying to change how states apportion their electors, in hopes of making it easier for Donald Trump to win or even help him overturn an election loss.Though many of these moves happened behind closed doors, this campaign is hardly secret. And last month, Mr. Trump directly threatened to prosecute and imprison election officials around the country who disagree with his lies.Against this kind of systematic assault on the institutions and processes that undergird American democracy, the single most important backstop are the public servants, elected and volunteer, who continue to do their jobs.Consider Mike McDonnell, a Republican state senator from Nebraska, who showed how it’s done when he announced last month that he would not bow to an intense, last-minute pressure campaign by his party’s national leaders, including former President Trump, to help slip an additional electoral vote into Mr. Trump’s column.Currently, Nebraska awards most of its electors by congressional district, and while most of the state is safely conservative, polling shows Vice President Kamala Harris poised to win the elector from the Second Congressional District, which includes the state’s biggest city, Omaha. In the razor-thin margins of the 2024 election, this could be the vote that determines the outcome. That was the intent of Republican lawmakers in Nebraska, who waited until it was too late for Democrats in Maine, which has a similar system, to change the state’s rules to prevent one congressional district from choosing a Republican elector.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Early Voting Begins in Minnesota, South Dakota and Virginia

    Early voting began in Minnesota, South Dakota and Virginia on Friday, letting voters in those states cast ballots while Election Day remains a month and a half away, on Nov. 5.All three states began sending out mail ballots on Friday, and residents now have the option of voting in person. Minnesota and South Dakota are letting voters fill out ballots and turn them in at various locations, while Virginia has opened some polling locations.Historically, voters who were unable to make it to the polls on Election Day had to request absentee ballots. But mail and absentee ballots now function effectively the same in many states. The terminology used varies; Minnesota, South Dakota and Virginia mostly refer to early voting ballots as absentee.None of the three states are must-win battlegrounds, most of which start in-person early voting in October. Read more about important dates and deadlines, and ways to access information about the voting process in your state.MinnesotaVoters can complete paper ballots in person or request mail ballots through an online form or by mail. The ballots can be submitted in person at designated voting locations, which include municipal buildings, public libraries and community centers. Ballots that are mailed in must be received by Election Day.South DakotaSouth Dakotans can complete paper ballots in person at their local county auditor’s office during business hours or request to have them mailed. All mail ballots must be received by the end of business on Nov. 4, the day before Election Day.VirginiaMany counties opened at least one polling location on Friday, including local general registrar’s offices. Not all polling locations are open yet. More will open through late October. Early voting ends on Nov. 2.Virginia voters can request mail ballots in person at the local registrar’s office, by mail or online through Oct. 15. Voters who request ballots after the deadline may still be eligible in cases of emergency or unexpected obligation. Mail ballots must be submitted in person by 7 p.m. on Election Day or, if submitted by mail, postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the registrar’s office by noon on Nov. 8.Taylor Robinson More

  • in

    Harris Campaign’s Legal Team Takes Shape as Election Battles Heat Up

    The campaign is adding Marc Elias, one of the party’s top election lawyers, to help Democrats counter what they expect to be a contentious postelection period.Amid threats of certification battles and mass voter challenges, Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign has assembled an expansive senior legal team that will oversee hundreds of lawyers and thousands of volunteers in a sprawling operation designed to be a bulwark against what Democrats expect to be an aggressive Republican effort to challenge voters, rules and, possibly, the results of the 2024 election.The legal apparatus within the Harris campaign will oversee multiple aspects of the election program, including voter protection, recounts and general election litigation, and it is adding Marc Elias, one of the party’s top election lawyers, to focus on potential recounts.The legal group is headed by Bob Bauer, who served as personal counsel to President Biden for years, and Dana Remus, the general counsel to the 2020 Biden campaign, and also includes Maury Riggan, the general counsel for the Harris campaign. Josh Hsu, formerly from the vice president’s office, will join the team, and Vanita Gupta, a former director of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a top Biden Justice Department official, is an informal adviser.The campaign will also lean on the top lawyers at three prominent law firms — Seth Waxman, Donald Verrilli and John Devaney — to handle litigation, and deploy local counsel to eight battleground states and four other states of interest.Mr. Elias, who has had tensions with Mr. Bauer and other Democratic lawyers in the past, will also bring lawyers from his growing firm, Elias Law Group. He has also previously worked for Ms. Harris, serving as general counsel for her primary campaign in 2020.Ms. Remus said in a statement that the legal team had been working “uninterrupted over the last four years, building strategic plans in key states, adding more talent and capacity, and preparing for all possible scenarios.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Investigadores de oposición hablan de una contundente derrota de Maduro en Venezuela

    El organismo electoral anunció que Nicolás Maduro había obtenido una clara victoria. Sin embargo, las cifras facilitadas al Times por un grupo de investigadores de oposición ponen en entredicho ese resultado.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]El organismo electoral de Venezuela anunció el lunes que el presidente del país, Nicolás Maduro, había obtenido una cómoda victoria en las elecciones, ganando otros seis años en el cargo al superar a su principal oponente por siete puntos porcentuales en una votación que se vio empañada por irregularidades generalizadas.Sin embargo, los resultados parciales de las elecciones, facilitados a The New York Times por un grupo de investigadores asociados a la principal alianza opositora de Venezuela, aportan nuevas pruebas que ponen en entredicho el resultado oficial.Sus cifras sugieren que el candidato de la oposición, un diplomático jubilado llamado Edmundo González, en realidad venció a Maduro por más de 30 puntos porcentuales. La estimación de los investigadores del resultado —66 por ciento contra 31 por ciento— es similar al resultado obtenido por una encuesta de salida independiente realizada el día de las elecciones en todo el país.El Times no pudo verificar de manera independiente los conteos, que según los investigadores fueron tomados de los recuentos en papel impresos por unas 1000 máquinas de votación, alrededor del tres por ciento del total del país. El miércoles, la autoridad electoral venezolana, controlada por el gobierno, aún no había publicado los resultados detallados, a pesar de la creciente presión internacional.Pero varios analistas independientes de encuestas y elecciones revisaron el enfoque de los investigadores y dijeron que, basándose en los conteos compartidos en esa investigación, las estimaciones parecían creíbles. Partiendo de los recuentos parciales, el Times pudo replicar ampliamente las estimaciones de los investigadores sobre los resultados con una diferencia de dos puntos porcentuales. More

  • in

    Venezuela’s Election Was Deeply Flawed. Here’s How.

    From voter intimidation to refusing to provide paper tallies to verify the result claimed by the government, the election was riddled with problems.It had already been clear for months that Venezuela’s presidential election on Sunday, would not be free or fair, as the government jailed opposition leaders or disqualified them from running for office.But as the day progressed it became all the more evident just how flawed the country’s democratic process had become and why the victory claim by the country’s autocratic leader, President Nicolás Maduro, has provoked such fury.A skirmish between pro-government supporters and opposition election observers in Caracas on Sunday.Alejandro Cegarra for The New York TimesVoter intimidationAcross the country citizens, local reporters and journalists for The New York Times observed instances of voter intimidation.In the early morning about 15 men in unmarked black jackets temporarily blocked access to one voting center in the capital, Caracas, a Times journalist observed. One volunteer vote monitor was punched.The crowd eventually started demanding the right to vote and the long line started moving inside, more than an hour and a half after voting was officially supposed to start.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More