election

The vote is taking place in a highly polarised climate, with the US backing the right-wing candidate Nasry Asfura.

Hondurans are heading to the polls to elect a new president in a tightly contested race that is taking place amid concerns over voter fraud in the impoverished Central American country.

Polls opened on Sunday at 7am local time (13:00 GMT) for 10 hours of voting, with the first results expected late Sunday night.

Most polls show a virtual tie between three of the five contenders: former Defence Minister Rixi Moncada of the governing leftist Liberty and Refoundation (LIBRE) party; former Tegucigalpa Mayor Nasry Asfura of the right-wing National Party; and television host Salvador Nasralla of the centrist Liberal Party.

The elections, in which the 128 members of Congress, hundreds of mayors, and thousands of other public officials will also be chosen, are taking place in a highly polarised climate, with the three top candidates accusing each other of plotting fraud. Moncada has suggested that she will not recognise the official results.

Incumbent President Xiomara Castro of the LIBRE party is limited by law to one term in office.

Honduras’s Attorney General’s Office, aligned with the ruling party, has accused the opposition parties of planning to commit voter fraud, a claim they deny.

Prosecutors have opened an investigation into audio recordings that allegedly show a high-ranking National Party politician discussing plans with an unidentified military officer to influence the election.

The alleged recordings, which the National Party says were created using artificial intelligence, have become central to Moncada’s campaign.

Public distrust

Political tensions have contributed to a growing public distrust of the electoral authorities and the electoral process in general. There have also been delays in the provision of voting materials.

“We are hoping that there will be no fraud and that the elections will be peaceful,” said Jennifer Lopez, a 22-year-old law student in Tegucigalpa. “This would be a huge step forward for democracy in our country.”

Amid the heated atmosphere, 6.5 million Hondurans will decide between continuing with Castro’s left-wing social and economic agenda or shifting towards a conservative agenda by supporting the Liberal or National parties.

Castro, the first woman to govern Honduras, has increased public investment and social spending. The economy has grown moderately, and poverty and inequality have decreased, although both remain high. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has praised her government’s prudent fiscal management.

The country’s homicide rate has also fallen to its lowest level in recent history, but violence persists.

US stance

The Organization of American States has expressed concerns about the electoral process, and the majority of its members in an extraordinary session this week called for the government to conduct elections free of intimidation, fraud and political interference.

US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau also warned on X that the United States will respond “swiftly and decisively to anyone who undermines the integrity of the democratic process in Honduras”.

US President Donald Trump has backed Asfura, posting on social media that “if he doesn’t win, the United States will not be throwing good money after bad”.

Honduras, where six out of every 10 citizens live in poverty, experienced a coup in 2009 when an alliance of right-wing military figures, politicians and businessmen overthrew Manuel Zelaya, the husband of the current president.

In 2021, Honduran voters gave Castro a landslide victory, ending decades of rule by the National and Liberal parties.

Donald Trump has called himself a “wartime president” for leading the fight against COVID-19. He has called Americans “warriors” for showing up at their jobs, shopping in stores and generally getting the economy back on track despite knowing that these activities increase the risk of a coronavirus infection.

The metaphor is apt, in that our war on COVID-19 has resulted in substantial casualties — more than 229,000 dead and counting. That’s more double the 90,220 deaths Americans suffered throughout the Vietnam War.

During the Vietnam years, there was a clear correlation between the number of combat deaths suffered by a county and the degree to which residents backed the conflict — when deaths went up, support for the president’s war policies fell, researchers have found.

Likewise, voters in areas that suffered more casualties during the Iraq War were less likely to vote for Republican congressional candidates in the 2006 midterm elections, while voters in areas that took more casualties in Afghanistan were more likely to support Trump for president in 2016 instead of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Now political scientists are seeing the pattern again — except this time the war is happening on U.S. soil and the foe is COVID-19.

“Increasing fatalities from the disease leads to losses for Republicans,” a team from George Washington University and UCLA reported Friday in the journal Science Advances.

The researchers used data collected by the New York Times to tally COVID-19 deaths in every state up through May 31. They also looked at responses gathered by the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape Project, a public opinion survey that reaches about 6,400 people each week.

They found that people in the states with high COVID-19 fatalities were 3% less likely to support Trump’s reelection than were people in states where the coronavirus had made little impact. They were also nearly 13% less likely to favor GOP candidates for Senate seats and 5% less likely to back GOP candidates for the House of Representatives.

That was just their starting point. To look more carefully at the relationship between deaths and political preferences, the political scientists compared COVID-19 deaths in the previous 30 days with changes in support for Republican candidates in a state or even county. This allowed them to account for the influence of factors like voters’ race, ethnicity, gender, education and who they voted for in the 2016 presidential election. It also helped them see whether COVID-19 deaths were actually causing voters to turn away from the party controlling America’s response to the pandemic.

The results were clear.

“Overall, areas with higher COVID-19 fatalities are significantly less likely to support President Trump and other Republican candidates,” they reported. This pattern was seen “at every level of geography and for every office.”

The degree of lost support was small, but it may be enough to swing an election in a close race, the researchers wrote.

For instance, if COVID-19 deaths in a county had doubled over the previous 30 days, voters in that county became 0.14% less likely to support Trump’s reelection, 0.28% less likely to support Republican Senate candidates and 0.22% less likely to support Republicans running for seats in the House.

Additionally, if COVID-19 deaths in a state doubled over the previous 30 days, people in that state became 0.37% less likely to say they’d vote for Trump, 0.79% less likely to say they’d vote for a GOP Senate candidate and 0.58% less likely to say they’d vote for a Republican House candidate.

The political scientists noted that in 2016, Trump carried Michigan by a margin of just 0.2%, and he lost New Hampshire by a mere 0.4%. In Florida, Republican Rick Scott unseated Democrat Bill Nelson in a 2018 Senate race with an advantage of less than 0.2%.

Indeed, COVID-19 casualties could be even more influential than the health of the economy, the study authors wrote.

“Just as the public penalizes the president for casualties during wars, the public is penalizing the president and other members of his party for local fatalities during the pandemic,” they concluded. “This could swing the presidential election and the U.S. Senate toward Democrats, with particularly high effects in swing states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Arizona, and Florida.”

For tens of millions of Americans on Saturday, a great tension broke.

A tension that had tightened in the chest and temples through four years of watching their nation, in their view, become meaner and more hateful, unable to see plain truths and human decency. A nation spinning down rabbit holes of conspiracy theories, praising white supremacists as “fine people,” putting children in cages.

President-elect Joe Biden’s victory brought tears of not just joy, but relief — a hissing purge of all that anxiety that had not relented, through so many tweets and outrages and, ultimately, to the possibility that for the first time in American history, a president might refuse to step down.

That prospect still hung in the air Saturday but felt vastly deflated — like many saw President Trump himself — as his attorneys made their unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud, inexplicably, in front of a landscaping shop on the industrial edge of Philadelphia.

People raise bottles of champagne as they celebrate near the White House in Washington, DC on Saturday.

(Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)

Spontaneous celebration erupted around the nation, even amid its worst pandemic in a century. Revelers, for the most part wearing masks, danced and chanted “You’re fired!” Horns honked, flags flew, pots banged, champagne flowed with abandon, from the Bronx to Puerto Rico, Atlanta to Minneapolis, Seattle to South Pasadena.

In Manhattan, thousands poured into the streets, the noise of jubilation thundering through skyscraper canyons.

“We finally have a country back where it’s safe for the children again!” Greg Shlotthauer shouted in Times Square. “A country where we are not ashamed of the man in the White House!”

In Brooklyn, a rabbi’s son blew a shofar ram’s horn from his window. On Los Feliz Boulevard in Los Angeles, a bagpiper played on a street corner as someone else rang a cowbell, and a cardboard sign that read “It’s Over” was pinned to a tree.

In Washington, where protestors were tear-gassed just months ago so Trump could pose with a Bible in front of a church, the mood was festive. Crowds danced. A man sang “Sweet Caroline” in front of the boarded-up Department of Veterans Affairs.

People gathered on the grass at McPherson Square, a few blocks from the White House, to wait for Biden’s acceptance speech. They brought signs that read “Stop tweeting and start packing” and “Grab him by the BALLOTS.”

In Philadelphia, outside the convention center where election workers were finishing the ballot count, celebrants danced to Led Zeppelin’s “Black Dog” and the Village People’s “YMCA,” — which had been a favorite Trump campaign song.

People react to the election news near Independence Hall in Philadelphia on Saturday morning.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

“Philadelphia saved the world,” said Andrew Phillips, a 49-year-old property manager carrying an “Elections Have Consequences” sign. “We haven’t been this relevant since the 1780s.”

But in a country no less divided than it was before the election, the counterweight to all that exhilaration was anger, resignation and, in the streets, defiance — fueled by the president’s refusal to concede even as his favorite Fox News called the election for Biden and did not run with his baseless fraud claims.

In Philadelphia, dozens of police officers on bike patrol kept revelers apart from Trump supporters, who were demanding to stop the vote counting.

Jim Eberhardt, a 63-year-old school bus driver, drove to Philadelphia from his home in Rockland County, N.Y., to show his opposition to what he says is vote fraud taking place inside the convention center, based on the false claims by Trump.

The president, who has complained that mail ballots were being tallied after election day, on Saturday pledged to continue his fight to overturn the election.

“I felt it was the least I could do to come down,” said Eberhardt, his Trump flag hoisted on his shoulder. “I think the election’s been stolen, obviously.”

Similar scenes played out across the country.

“This isn’t over,” said Lisa Kathryn, at the Michigan state Capitol, still holding her red Trump 2020 sign.

A Trump supporter shouts down counter-protesters during a demonstration Saturday over ballot counting outside the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing.

(John Moore / Getty Images)

“Democrats think they’re going to steal an election? This country will not head into socialism,” Kathryn said, mirroring Republicans’ false claims that the moderate Biden is a radical.

Kathryn, who voted for Trump in 2016 and again this election, said she came to show her support for the president and spend an afternoon with like-minded voters. Dozens of Trump supporters packed in front of the Capitol building, some outfitted in camouflage and openly carrying firearms.

“This is our country,” yelled a man with a megaphone and a Glock 9mm holstered on his right hip. “Freedom!” shouted a woman walking past and offering him a high-five.

Kathryn grinned. “We all love this country just like any other American,” she said. “We are here to speak our minds and stand by President Trump.”

For much of the country, this fervid support made for a bittersweet catharsis, the exhilaration dampened by knowing at least 70 million Americans have doubled down on the Trumpist view of the world, and still mourning all that occurred on his watch.

The author and commentator Van Jones put that emotion in searing terms when he learned of the victory on CNN.

“It’s easier to be a parent this morning. It’s easier to be a dad. It’s easier to tell your kids character matters. It matters. Telling the truth matters. Being a good person matters.”

He choked up, trying to hold back sobs, talking of Muslims who no longer “have a president that doesn’t want you here,” of undocumented immigrants who don’t have to worry about being separated from their children.

“This is a vindication for a lot of people who have really suffered. You know, ‘I can’t breathe.’ You know that wasn’t just George Floyd. That was a lot of people that felt they couldn’t breathe,” Jones said. “Every day you’re waking up and you’re getting these tweets and … you’re going to the store and people who have been afraid to show their racism are getting nastier and nastier to you. And you’re worried about your kids and you’re worried about your sister, and can she just go to Walmart and get back into her car without someone saying something to her?

“And you spent so much of your life energy just trying to hold it together.”

Many Biden supporters felt the racism Trump unleashed in America could never be put back in a bottle.

“There’s a Black woman at the second highest position in the country,” Adriana Holt of Decatur, Ga., said of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. “That’s wild. And to know that I had a part in this.”

(Jenny Jarvie/Los Angeles Times)

In Decatur, Ga., Adriana Holt’s elation was weighed down by that reality. But it wasn’t going to stop the party. The 28-year-old Black social media manager and her sister, Alexandria, a sports service representative, piled into a Nissan Juke, switched on “My President” by Young Jeezy and headed into Atlanta.

All over the Old Fourth Ward neighborhood, which had been home to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., cars honked horns and blasted the anthem “F— Donald Trump” out of their windows.

Some walked the streets with raised fists. Others smoked cigars or popped open champagne bottles.

“Now there’s light at the end of the tunnel,” Alexandria Holt said as the sisters snapped photos in front of a mural of George Floyd. Adriana nodded.

“Today, I almost feel the first sigh of relief since the day Trump got elected,” she said.

When she woke up four years ago to learn that Trump had been elected president, she felt that America had told her that, as a Black person, a woman, a survivor of sexual assault, she didn’t matter.

“There’s no going back to how it was,” Adriana Holt said. “You know, Trump just made it OK to be racist. So, it’s like the people I knew beforehand, now I know: I can’t be your friend anymore. This is permanent.”

Still, she could feel change. She was born just a month before Georgia voted for its last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and now her home state was tilting blue for the first time she could remember.

“There’s a Black woman at the second highest position in the country,” she said. “That’s wild. And to know that I had a part in this.”

Flashbacks to four years ago still tormented some of the most vulnerable.

Hernan Hernandez-Vela, 31, began to weep as he talked about the racism that many people have endured since Trump took office.

The Las Vegas resident recalled the time someone ran him off the road while he was in the car with his young son. He talked about parents whose children were told to “go back to Mexico.”

“The last four years, our community has been criminalized,” said Hernandez-Vela, who works for La Pulga de Las Vegas, a community organization that helps Latinos. “We just want our kids to feel safe on the playground, to feel safe at school.”

His organization heard from Latinos who weren’t paid for work and were threatened with ICE when they spoke up.

When he was a child, Hernandez-Vela would read about Martin Luther King and the racial issues that divided the country. He felt like King brought it to light and laws were changed.

“But Trump came and brought all that back. He single-handedly targeted the Hispanic community,” he said. For Hernandez-Vela, whose parents were immigrants from Mexico, Biden’s win meant everything.

“We feel like we’re human again,” he said. “With Biden winning, we feel like we finally have a voice. We have somebody in office who cares about our community, who cares about our families.

“He shows that racism isn’t right, that hatred isn’t right,” he said.

Janet Pulido, 19, in small-town Siler City, N.C., remembered watching classmates come to school wearing Trump gear to celebrate.

“Everybody’s racism came out,” she said. For Pulido, it hit hard. Her family immigrated from Veracruz, Mexico, in 1999, and some still lacked legal status.

On Saturday, when she went to Walmart, a sense of joy washed over her as she noted that the Trump hats and shirts she normally saw on customers were conspicuously absent.

“As the day goes on, it’s starting to hit me more,” she said. “Come Jan. 20, he’s gone. That’s it. The nightmare’s over.”

The stakes of this election were the starkest for those on the margins.

In Austin, Texas, Marco Jaramillo said Biden’s election meant the end of living under the cloud of deportation. His legal status in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was under threat as Trump fought to end the Obama-era program.

“It means a lot of hope, because Biden has already said he’s going to make it permanent,” he said.

Jaramillo, 32, was brought from Mexico to the U.S. as a child by his parents and runs a local cleaning business.

He said he spent the past four years “living in fear of deportation.”

He joined Saturday’s crowd in celebrating with handmade signs that said, “Love over hate” and “We are all Dreamers” in Spanish.

Friend and fellow DACA recipient Raul Armenta said he was tired of spending years listening to the president demonize Mexican immigrants

“We’re not criminals,” Armenta said. “I feel content now that they can’t make us leave.”

In a spontaneous crowd outside the Palacio del Sol in Las Vegas, Mayra Aguirre, 38, felt “mega feliz,” she said — super happy — because it felt like democracy was rescued.

The last four years had felt like a weight, she said. “I felt like the country was broken, like I was drowning,” Mayra said. She felt the racism in the community. Over the past three days, she hasn’t slept. And when she did, it was only for two hours.

“Today, when I heard the news, I felt like I could breathe,” she said. “I feel like the country is coming together again … we’re going back to the country we were before Trump got into the White House.”

Her family grouped together and sang a spin on a song by the Miami group Los 3 de la Habana. The original version went “voy a votar por Donald Trump.” (“I’m going to vote for Donald Trump.”)

They sang a new version: “Que alegre soy, voy a botar a Donald Trump — fuera de La Casa Blanca.” (“I’m so happy, I’m going to kick out Donald Trump out of the White House.”)

In other cities, the tug-of-war between celebrants and Trump supporters was more fraught.

In Austin, several hundred Trump supporters waving flags and signs reading “Stop the Steal” and “Fraud” chanted and shouted at a smaller crowd of Biden supporters across the street. More than a dozen bicycle police pedaled between the two sides, intervening when Trump supporters crossed the street.

At least one Trump supporter was carrying an AR-15 rifle slung across his chest. A pickup truck slowed as it passed the Trump crowd and the driver shouted, “The nonsense is over!”

A bicycle food delivery worker pedaled in his wake, calmly adding, “It’s over, guys.”

Trump supporter Elizabeth Brumbaugh, 62, disagreed. “It’s not over!” she shouted, holding her Trump 2020 sign aloft “Count the legal votes, not the illegal!”

“You lost — take it like a man!” Natalie Roberts, 43, shouted at the occupants of a pickup truck with a Trump sign in the back, who grew livid. Roberts, a single mother who runs an Austin social media marketing company, voted for Biden but hadn’t joined a protest until she saw the pro-Trump crowd Saturday.

Christian Rico, 20, a student at Concordia University, took turns with a friend chanting through a bullhorn at Trump supporters: “You guys lost!”

A Biden supporter began blasting Queen’s “We Are the Champions.” And on it went.

People celebrate in Orlando, Saturday, after Democrat Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump to become 46th president of the United States.

(Melissa Gomez/Los Angeles Times)

As an event in downtown Orlando came to a close, 61-year-old retiree Don Luellen happily held a homemade “Biden Harris 2020” sign but worried about the future.

“Trump has done nothing but divide our country for the last four years,” he said. He fears the president won’t stop.

“My greatest fear is that even though Biden is president, that Trump will not be quiet and will keep on drumming up hatred and division,” he said. “I’m scared to death of them and militias.”

“But I’m hoping that when Biden starts to get into the presidency, that a lot of people that feel that way will start to calm down.”

Voters in the Central American nation of Honduras are set to go to the polls for Sunday’s general election, as they weigh concerns ranging from corruption to national and economic security.

The current president, Xiomara Castro of the left-wing Liberty and Refoundation (LIBRE) party, is limited by law to one term in office.

But the race to succeed Castro is slated to be a nail-biter. Three candidates have surged to the front of the race, but none has taken a definitive lead in the polls.

They include Rixi Moncada from the LIBRE party; Nasry Asfura from the right-wing National Party; and Salvador Nasralla from the centrist Liberal Party.

The race, however, has been marred by accusations of fraud and election-tampering.

Those allegations have raised tensions in Honduras, whose political system is still recovering from the legacy of a United States-backed 2009 military coup that was followed by a period of repression and contested elections.

“Honduras is heading into these elections amid mounting political pressure on electoral authorities, public accusations of fraud from across the political spectrum, and paralysis within key electoral bodies,” said Juanita Goebertus, director of the Americas division at the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.

“These dynamics have created real uncertainty about the integrity of the process.”

Who are the candidates, what will voting look like, and what are the stakes of the election? We answer these questions and more in this brief explainer.

When is the election?

The election will take place in a single round of voting, held on November 30. The candidate with the most votes will be declared the winner and should take office on January 25, 2026.

How long is the presidential term?

Each president may serve a single four-year term in office.

Who is eligible to vote?

There are about 6.5 million Hondurans eligible to cast a ballot, including about 400,000 living abroad in the United States. That group, however, is restricted to voting on the presidential candidates.

Voting is obligatory in Honduras, but there are no penalties for those who do not participate.

Who are the candidates?

Three of the five presidential candidates have emerged as main challengers in the race.

Competing as the candidate for the left-leaning LIBRE Party is Rixi Moncada, a close confidant of President Castro who has served first as her finance minister, from 2022 to 2024, and later as her secretary of defence.

Moncada resigned that position in May to pursue her presidential bid.

If elected, she has pledged to “democratise the economy”, pushing back against efforts to privatise state services. Her platform also promises greater access to credit for small businesses and a crackdown on corporate corruption.

Another contender is Salvador Nasralla, a familiar face in Honduran politics. A candidate for the centrist Liberal Party, he is running for president for a fourth time.

A 72-year-old with a background in civil engineering, Nasralla formerly served as Castro’s vice president before resigning in April 2024.

Nasralla has said that he will streamline government functions while seeking to bring informal workers, who make up a large portion of the country’s labour force, into the formal economy.

Finally, running as the candidate for the right-leaning National Party is Nasry “Tito” Asfura.

Previously a mayor and representative for the capital of Tegucigalpa, Asfura has said he will run the country as an “administrator” and “executor”, promoting pro-business policies to attract investment.

How have foreign relations played a role in the election?

On foreign relations, Moncada is expected to continue her predecessor’s pursuit of closer ties with countries such as China and support for other left-wing figures in the region.

Both Nasralla and Asfura have said they will orient Honduras towards the US and its allies, including Israel and Taiwan.

On Wednesday, in the waning days of the presidential race, US President Donald Trump expressed his support for Asfura.

Trump also cast Honduras’s presidential race as part of his broader campaign against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, blaming the South American leader for drug trafficking and the establishment of left-wing governments across the region.

“Democracy is on trial in the coming Elections in the beautiful country of Honduras on November 30th. Will Maduro and his Narcoterrorists take over another country like they have taken over Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela?” Trump wrote on his platform Truth Social.

“The man who is standing up for Democracy, and fighting against Maduro, is Tito Asfura.”

What do the polls say?

Though pre-election surveys have shown Moncada, Nasralla and Asfura to be in the lead, no clear frontrunner has emerged.

In September, a poll released by the firm CID Gallup found that Nasralla had 27 percent support, Moncada 26 and Asfura 24. Those percentages separating the three candidates were within the poll’s margin of error.

An additional 18 percent of respondents in that survey indicated they were undecided.

Why has election integrity been a concern?

Questions of corruption have long dogged Honduras’s fragile democracy, and this election season has brought those fears back to the fore.

During the March primaries, for instance, there were “irregularities” in the distribution of election materials, and some polling stations reported delays, long lines and thin staffing that forced the vote to stretch late into the night.

There has also been discord between the two government agencies that handle Honduras’s elections: the National Electoral Council (CNE) and the Electoral Justice Tribunal.

Congress elects the main leaders for each of the two agencies. But both the tribunal and the CNE have been targeted for investigation recently.

In October, prosecutors opened a criminal probe into CNE leader Cossette Lopez over alleged plans for an “electoral coup”.

The Joint Staff of the Armed Forces has also asked the CNE for a copy of a vote tally sheet for the presidential race on election day, prompting concerns over possible interference by the armed forces.

The Electoral Justice Tribunal, meanwhile, has faced an investigation into whether it has voted without all of its members present.

Both President Castro and members of the opposition have spoken about the potential for fraud in Sunday’s vote, heightening scrutiny on the vote.

Organisations such as Human Rights Watch and the Organization of American States (OAS) have expressed concern over the pressure facing election officials.

“What matters most now is that electoral institutions are allowed to operate independently, that the Armed Forces adhere strictly to their limited constitutional role, and that all political actors refrain from actions or statements that could inflame tensions or undermine public trust,” said Goebertus.

The military has seized power in Guinea-Bissau, a day before Sunday’s presidential election results were due to be announced.

The African Union and West African regional bloc ECOWAS have condemned the coup.

Why has it happened and what are the implications?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Kabir Adamu – Managing director of Beacon Security and Intelligence

Bram Posthumus – Political and economic analyst specialising in West Africa and the Sahel region

Ovigwe Eguegu – Peace and security policy analyst at the consultancy Development Reimagined

A Georgia judge has dismissed the sprawling 2020 election interference case against Donald Trump, ending the final effort to prosecute the president for allegedly attempting to overturn his loss to Joe Biden.

Peter Skandalakis, who took over the case after the initial prosecutor’s removal, asked Judge Scott McAfee to dismiss the charges on Wednesday.

Trump’s lawyer Steve Sadow praised the decision to end the “political persecution” against the president.

The dismissal concludes the last of Trump’s four criminal cases, only one of which saw trial and resulted in a conviction.

A Georgia appeals court removed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the case after it determined a romantic relationship with a special prosecutor created an “appearance of impropriety”.

Skandalakis, executive director of the nonpartisan agency Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, appointed himself to the case after Willis’ disqualification and when other state prosecutors declined to take the case.

In Wednesday’s motion to a Fulton County judge, he said he was discontinuing the case “to serve the interests of justice and promote judicial finality”.

“As a former elected official who ran as both a Democrat and a Republican and now is the Executive Director of a non-partisan agency, this decision is not guided by a desire to advance an agenda but is based on my beliefs and understanding of the law,” Skandalakis added.

Around five million votes for president were cast in Georgia in 2020, with Biden winning the critical swing state by just under 12,000 votes.

Trump and some of his allies refused to accept the result, and the state quickly became a focal point for efforts to overturn the election.

In January 2021, The Washington Post published a recording of Trump speaking with Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

“I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state,” Trump said in the recording.

Willis began investigating Trump’s activities soon after the report, convening a special grand jury to weigh the facts.

Willis filed an indictment in August 2023 alleging that Trump conspired with 18 other defendants to interfere in the election result. The charges included racketeering and other state offences.

The group “refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and wilfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump”.

Four co-defendants took plea deals with prosecutors that resulted mostly in fines, suspended sentences and community service, including attorneys Sidney Powell, Kenneth Cheseboro, and Jenna Ellis.

Wednesday’s dismissal also applies to the remaining co-defendants, including former New York mayor and Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows, chief of staff during Trump’s first presidency.

Mr Sadow, president Trump’s lead attorney in the case, praised the decision to drop the charges.

“The political persecution of President Trump by disqualified DA Fani Willis is finally over,” he said. “This case should never have been brought. A fair and impartial prosecutor has put an end to this lawfare.”

The Georgia election interference case was once considered the most threatening of Trump’s four criminal indictments, because he could not pardon himself from state-level charges if he returned to office.

Prosecutors brought Trump to the Fulton County Jail, where they took his mugshot.

Legal experts who closely followed the case were not surprised by its dismissal. A judge tossed out several of the charges in 2024, and Willis was disqualified a few months later.

Willis’ removal raised doubts about whether a replacement would take up such a complicated prosecution. Trump’s 2024 election essentially put his case on hold until his term ends in 2029.

“It was incredibly unlikely it was going to go forward anyway, because the amount of financial resources and man hours necessary to take on this case didn’t seem to be within the scope of what Peter Skandalakis had,” said Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor at the Georgia State College of Law.

However, Mr Kries was surprised by some of Skandalakis’ reasoning for dropping the case.

“I think the report itself to me is a little more surprising because it seems to give the president and some of his allies a lot of benefit of the doubt, given what the evidence brought forth looked like,” he said.

Trump has also faced a series of other criminal proceedings.

These include a 2024 conviction in a New York hush-money case, and he is appealing against it.

Two additional federal cases – one alleging he conspired to overturn the 2020 election and another accusing him of unlawfully retaining classified documents – were dropped following his return to the White House.

He also faces several high-profile civil lawsuits which are progressing through the appeals courts.

Earlier this month, Trump asked the US Supreme Court to review the $5m (£3.6m) civil case brought by writer E Jean Carroll, after a federal appeals court upheld the award and declined to rehear the matter. The court said he defamed and sexually abused Ms Carroll, allegations he denies.

In August, a New York appeals court threw out a $500m civil fraud penalty against Trump that resulted from a separate, civil fraud lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Conflicting claims come before the release of official results by the country’s electoral commission.

The two leading candidates in Guinea-Bissau’s presidential election – incumbent Umaro Sissoco Embalo and main challenger Fernando Dias – have both declared victory before the release of official results.

Both campaigns had claimed on Monday that their contender exceeded the 50 percent threshold needed to win outright, eliminating the need for a run-off.

“We have won the presidential race. We will not have a second round,” Dias told supporters in the capital, Bissau, adding that people were “tired” and wanted change.

Hours later, Embalo’s campaign spokesperson Oscar Barbosa also claimed the president had won outright, insisting there would be no run-off and calling on rivals to avoid making claims that undermine the electoral process.

There was no immediate comment by the National Electoral Commission, which is expected to announce provisional results on Thursday, regarding the conflicting claims.

Twelve candidates competed in Sunday’s poll that saw a turnout of more than 65 percent.

The African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC), the movement that led the fight against Portuguese colonial rule, was barred from fielding a candidate for the first time.

The party endorsed Dias, boosting his campaign, especially after former Prime Minister Domingos Simoes Pereira, the PAIGC leader, backed him. The 47-year-old is standing with the Party for Social Renewal.

Embalo, 53, is a former army general who served as prime minister from 2016 to 2018. He is seeking to become Guinea-Bissau’s first president in 30 years to win a second term.

Opposition parties argue that Embalo’s mandate should have ended earlier this year. The Supreme Court ruled that his term should run until early September, but the election was pushed back to November.

Embalo dissolved parliament, which was controlled by the opposition after the 2019 and 2023 legislative elections, and has not allowed it to sit since December 2023.

Guinea-Bissau has experienced repeated coups and attempted coups since its independence more than 50 years ago, and remains one of the world’s poorest countries, with half the population living in poverty, according to the World Bank.

More than 200 international observers were in the country to monitor the electoral process, including from the West African regional bloc ECOWAS, the African Union and the community of Portuguese-speaking countries.

Sinisa Karan wins 50.89 percent of the vote, while his main rival Branko Blanusa gets 47.81 percent, preliminary results show.

A close ally of Bosnia’s former Serb Republic leader Milorad Dodik, who was ousted from office over his separatist policies, has won the territory’s snap presidential election, according to electoral authorities.

Sinisa Karan of the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats party (SNSD) won 50.89 percent of the vote in Sunday’s poll, the election commission’s president Jovan Kalaba told reporters.

Opposition candidate Branko Blanusa of the Serb Democratic Party (SDS) won 47.81 percent, he said.

The results were based on 92.87 percent of counted votes, the election commission said, adding that 35.78 percent of some 1.2 million eligible voters had turned out for the election.

The presidential mandate will last for less than a year since a general election is scheduled next October.

Dodik, speaking at the SNSD headquarters in Banja Luka, the capital of Bosnian Serb statelet Republika Srpska, called Karan’s win “unquestionable”.

Karan, who currently serves as the Serb Republic minister of scientific and technological development, pledged to continue Dodik’s policies “with ever greater force”.

“As always, when the times were difficult, the Serb people have won,” he added.

The SDS, meanwhile, said it would request the repetition of the vote at three polling stations, citing major election irregularities.

The election was called to replace Dodik after he was stripped of his office and banned from politics for six years.

Dodik was ousted in August after a Bosnian court convicted him of disobeying the orders of the international High Representative for Bosnia, who oversees the implementation of the 1995 Dayton Accords, which ended the bloody three-and-a-half-year Bosnian war.

He had repeatedly clashed with High Representative Christian Schmidt, declaring his decisions illegal in Republika Srpska, which is controlled by Bosnian Serbs.

The other half of the country is run jointly by Bosniaks, who are mainly Muslims, and Croats. The two entities are bound together by a central administration.

Dodik, who still advocates eventual separation of Republika Srpska from Bosnia, paid a fine to stay away from jail and stepped aside as president while staying at the helm of his governing SNSD party.

Prior to the vote, Karan said that democratic elections were “a way to strengthen our peace and stability” and to “strengthen the institutions of our Republika Srpska and our entire republic”.

But Dodik appeared to be intent on remaining in the driving seat, telling voters that “I will remain with you to fight for our political goals”, and Karan’s “victory will be my victory too”.

Bosnia’s complex political structure was established 30 years ago by the United States-brokered Dayton peace agreement, ending the 1992-95 ethnic conflict that killed more than 100,000 people and left millions homeless.

The war started when Bosnia declared independence from Yugoslavia and the country’s Serbs took up arms to carve up their own territory, hoping to join with neighbouring Serbia.

MINNEAPOLIS — Since it was created in 2018, the federal government’s cybersecurity agency has helped warn state and local election officials about potential threats from foreign governments, showed officials how to protect polling places from attacks and gamed out how to respond to the unexpected, such as an election day bomb threat or sudden disinformation campaign.

The agency was largely absent from that space for elections this month in several states, a potential preview for the 2026 midterms. Shifting priorities of the Trump administration, staffing reductions and budget cuts have many election officials concerned about how engaged the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency will be next year, when control of Congress will be at stake in those elections.

Some officials say they have begun scrambling to fill the anticipated gaps.

“We do not have a sense of whether we can rely on CISA for these services as we approach a big election year in 2026,” said Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat who until recently led the bipartisan National Assn. of Secretaries of State.

The association’s leaders sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in February asking her to preserve the cybersecurity agency’s core election functions. Noem, whose department oversees the agency, replied the following month that it was reviewing its “funding, products, services, and positions” related to election security and that its services would remain available to election officials.

Simon said secretaries of state are still waiting to hear about the agency’s plans.

“I regret to say that months later, the letter remains very timely and relevant,” he said.

An agency in transition

CISA, as the agency is known, was formed under the first Trump administration to help safeguard the nation’s critical infrastructure, including dams, power plants and election systems. It has been undergoing a major transformation since President Trump’s second term began in January.

Public records suggest that roughly 1,000 CISA employees have lost their jobs in recent years. The Republican administration in March cut $10 million from two cybersecurity initiatives, including one dedicated to helping state and local election officials.

That was a few weeks after CISA announced it was conducting a review of its election-related work, and more than a dozen staffers who have worked on elections were placed on administrative leave. The FBI also disbanded a task force on foreign influence operations, including those that target U.S. elections.

CISA is still without an official director. Trump’s nomination of Sean Plankey, a cybersecurity expert in the first Trump administration, has stalled in the Senate.

CISA officials did not answer questions seeking specifics about the agency’s role in the recently completed elections, its plans for the 2026 election cycle or staffing levels. They said the agency remains ready to help protect election infrastructure.

“Under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Noem, CISA is laser-focused on securing America’s critical infrastructure and strengthening cyber resilience across the government and industry,” said Marci McCarthy, CISA’s director of public affairs.

She said CISA would announce its future organizational plans “at the appropriate time.”

Christine Serrano Glassner, CISA’s chief external affairs officer, said the agency’s experts are ready to provide election guidance if asked.

“In the event of disruptions or threats to critical infrastructure, whether Election Day-related or not, CISA swiftly coordinates with the Office of Emergency Management and the appropriate federal, state and local authorities,” she said in a statement.

States left on their own

California’s top election security agencies said CISA has played a “critical role” since 2018 but provided little, if any, help for the state’s Nov. 4 special election, when voters approved a redrawn congressional redistricting map.

“Over the past year, CISA’s capacity to support elections has been significantly diminished,” the California secretary of state’s office said in a statement to the Associated Press. “The agency has experienced major reductions in staffing, funding, and mission focus — including the elimination of personnel dedicated specifically to election security and foreign influence mitigation.

“This shift has left election officials nationwide without the critical federal partnership they have relied on for several election cycles,” the statement said.

CISA alerted California officials in September that it would no longer participate in a task force that brought together federal, state and local agencies to support county election offices. California election officials and the governor’s Office of Emergency Services did what they could to fill the gaps and plan for various security scenarios.

In Orange County, Registrar of Voters Bob Page said in an email that the state offices and other county departments “stepped up” to support his office “to fill the void left by CISA’s absence.”

Neighboring Los Angeles County had a different experience. The registrar’s office, which oversees elections, said it continues to get a range of cybersecurity services from CISA, including threat intelligence, network monitoring and security testing of its equipment, although local jurisdictions now have to cover the costs of some services that had been federally funded.

Some other states that held elections this month also said they did not have coordination with CISA.

Mississippi’s secretary of state, who heads the national association that sent the letter to Noem, did not directly respond to a request for comment, but his office confirmed that CISA was not involved in the state’s recent elections.

In Pennsylvania, which held a nationally watched retention election for three state Supreme Court justices this month, the Department of State said it is also relied more on its own partners to ensure the elections were secure.

In an email, the department said it was “relying much less on CISA than it had in recent years.” Instead, it has begun collaborating with the state police, the state’s own homeland security department, local cybersecurity experts and other agencies.

Looking for alternatives

Simon, the former head of the secretary of state’s association, said state and local election officials need answers about CISA’s plans because officials will have to seek alternatives if the services it had been providing will not be available next year.

In some cases, such as classified intelligence briefings, there are no alternatives to the federal government, he said. But there might be ways to get other services, such as testing of election equipment to see if it can be penetrated from outside.

In past election years, CISA also would conduct tabletop exercises with local agencies and election offices to game out various scenarios that might affecting voting or ballot counting, and how they would react. Simon said that is something CISA was very good at.

“We are starting to assume that some of those services are not going to be available to us, and we are looking elsewhere to fill that void,” Simon said.

Karnowski and Smyth write for the Associated Press. Smyth reported from Columbus, Ohio.

President Umaro Sissoco Embalo wants a second term and is challenged by a relatively unknown candidate who is backed by a former prime minister.

Voting stations are open in Guinea-Bissau, where the government has been afflicted by repeated coup attempts and where President Umaro Sissoco Embalo is seeking a rare second term in office amid fierce backlash from the opposition.

Hundreds of thousands are expected to vote on Sunday as the West African country faces a challenging election in a region where civilian administration has been undermined by military rulers who have taken power by force over the past several years.

The winner needs more than 50 percent of the votes, or there will be a run-off election. Nearly half of the country’s 2.2 million residents are registered to vote.

There are 12 candidates, but the main race is believed to be between the president and Fernando Dias da Costa, a little-known 47-year-old who is backed by former Prime Minister Domingos Simoes Pereira.

Pereira, the runner-up in the 2019 presidential election, leads the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde, but the politician and the top opposition party have been banned from taking part in Sunday’s election.

Embalo, 53, is a former army general who has served as president since February 2020. He was also the prime minister between November 2016 and January 2018.

The barred opposition maintains that Embalo’s term should have ended earlier this year, and the Supreme Court previously ruled that it should run until early September. The election was delayed until November.

Embalo dissolved the parliament, which was dominated by opposition figures in legislative elections held in 2019 and 2023, and has not allowed it to convene since December 2023.

He has promised to develop the small country’s infrastructure and modernise its main airport, among other things.

But Guinea-Bissau remains one of the world’s impoverished countries, with half its population considered poor, according to the World Bank.

The country has experienced numerous coups and attempted coups since its independence from Portugal more than 50 years ago.

There have been at least two attempts since Embalo took power. The latest was at the end of October, when the country’s army announced that a group of military officers had been arrested for allegedly planning a coup.

WASHINGTON — Washington National Cathedral on Thursday hosts a bipartisan show of respect and remembrance for Dick Cheney, the consequential and polarizing vice president who in later years became an acidic scold of fellow Republican President Trump.

Trump, who has been publicly silent about Cheney’s death Nov. 3, was not invited to the 11 a.m. memorial service.

Two ex-presidents are coming: Republican George W. Bush, who is to eulogize the man who served him as vice president, and Democrat Joe Biden, who once called Cheney “the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history” but now honors his commitment to his family and to his values.

Daughter Liz Cheney, a former high-ranking House member whose Republican political career was shredded by Trump’s MAGA movement, will join Bush in addressing the gathering at the grand church known as “a spiritual home for the nation.”

Others delivering tributes include Cheney’s longtime cardiologist, Jonathan Reiner; former NBC News correspondent Pete Williams, who was Cheney’s spokesman at the Pentagon; and the former vice president’s grandchildren. Hundreds of guests are expected.

Cheney had lived with heart disease for decades and, after the Bush administration, with a heart transplant. He died at age 84 from complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease, his family said.

The White House lowered its flags to half-staff after Cheney’s death, as it said the law calls for, but Trump did not issue the presidential proclamation that often accompanies the death of notable figures, nor has he commented publicly on his passing.

The deeply conservative Cheney’s influence in the Bush administration was legendary and, to his critics, tragic.

He advocated for the U.S. invasion of Iraq on the basis of what proved to be faulty intelligence and consistently defended the extraordinary tools of surveillance, detention and inquisition employed in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Bush credited him with helping to keep the country safe and stable in a perilous time.

After the 2020 election won by Biden, Liz Cheney served as vice chair of the Democratic-led special House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. She accused Trump of summoning the violent mob and plunging the nation into “a moment of maximum danger.”

For that, she was stripped of her Republican leadership position and ultimately defeated in a 2022 Republican primary in Wyoming. In a campaign TV ad made for his daughter, Dick Cheney branded Trump a “coward” who “tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him.”

Last year, it did not sit well with Trump when Cheney said he would vote for Democrat Kamala Harris in the presidential election.

Trump told Arab and Muslim voters that Cheney’s support for Harris should give them pause, because he “killed more Arabs than any human being on Earth. He pushed Bush, and they went into the Middle East.”

Woodward writes for the Associated Press.

It’s sheer coincidence that I’m writing here on the same subject as my Los Angeles Times colleague Jonah Goldberg’s most recent column: The crying need to amend the Constitution to do something about the much-abused presidential pardon power, the only unchecked power that a president has.

The fact that both Goldberg, a right-of-center commentator, and I, center-left, would near-simultaneously choose to vent on this topic — to call, in effect, for a national uprising against this presidential prerogative despite the evident difficulty of amending the Constitution — is telling: It’s a reflection of Americans’ across-the-spectrum disgust with how modern presidents have perverted it for personal and political benefit, usually on their way out the door. (Goldberg makes the case to get rid of the pardon power altogether. I would give Congress a veto, so presidents still can right actual wrongs of the justice system, as the founders intended.)

Yes, “both sides” are culpable. And yet, Goldberg and I agree, one president has surpassed all others in the shamelessness of his pardons: Donald Trump. In just 10 months he’s built a track record sorrier than that of his first term, which is saying something, and elevated clemency reform to an imperative.

We can’t stop Trump before he pardons again. Nor, probably, would an amendment campaign succeed before (if?) he leaves office in January 2029. But Americans of all political stripes can at least join in getting the process rolling, if only to protect against future presidents’ abuses.

From his first day in office, when Trump granted clemency to nearly 1,600 rioters who beat cops and stormed the Capitol to overturn his 2020 defeat, already 20 times this year he’s either pardoned or commuted the prison sentences of additional scores of undeserving hacks, fellow election deniers, war criminals, donors, investors in Trump businesses and career criminals who just happen to support him. (Recidivism among Trump’s beneficiaries is proving a problem; among the new charges: child sex abuse.)

The clemency actions have come so fast and furious that they hardly register as the scandals that they are, especially as the news about them vies for attention with the many other outrages of Trump’s presidency.

“No MAGA left behind,” Trump pardon attorney “Eagle Ed” Martin brazenly posted in May and again this month in announcing preemptory pardons for former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and more than 75 other Republicans who were part of the fake-elector schemes to reverse Trump’s 2020 losses in battleground states, as well as other efforts after the 2020 election to keep him in power.

Those grants were followed last weekend by mercy for two more MAGA militants: Suzanne Kaye, a Florida woman sentenced to prison for threatening in video posts to “shoot their [expletive] a–” if FBI agents tried to question her about her involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection, and Daniel Edwin Wilson of Kentucky, who was among those pardoned for his crimes on Jan. 6 but later sentenced by a Trump-appointed district judge on gun charges related to an illegal cache of weaponry that agents found at his home.

To Trump, absolving his supporters as victims of a supposedly weaponized justice system in effect absolves him as well, and furthers his false narrative — his big lie — that the 2020 election was stolen from him. As Martin, the White House pardon attorney, wrote in this month’s passel of pardons: “This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election.” The opposite is true.

Lo, Trump’s mercy knows no bounds — of propriety, that is. The president won’t even rule out a pardon for convicted child-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, longtime procurer for, and participant with, Jeffrey Epstein in the sexploitation of young girls.

Even if Trump’s abuse of the pardon power isn’t unprecedented, its scale and shamelessness is. His Day One mass pardons for Jan. 6 participants set the tone. That action kept his 2024 campaign promise to “free the J-6 hostages,” but it broke an earlier, videotaped vow he’d made on Jan. 7, 2021, when anger at the Capitol attack was near-universal: “To those who broke the law, you will pay.” Hundreds did pay, convicted by juries and judges of both parties and sentenced to up to 22 years in prison. Until Trump got back in power.

Need evidence of how Trump’s pardons corrode the rule of law? Last December, weeks before he returned to the White House, yet another Jan. 6 participant, Philip Sean Grillo, was sentenced. The Reagan-appointed federal judge in the case, Royce Lamberth, admonished: “Nobody is being held hostage. … Every rioter is in the situation he or she is in because he or she broke the law, and for no other reason.” Grillo shouted back, as U.S. marshals led him off: “Trump’s gonna pardon me anyways.” He was right, of course.

Then there’s this: In September, after a Republican former Tennessee House speaker and his aide were sentenced in a fraud case, the government’s announcement quoted a senior FBI agent in Nashville calling the punishment “a wake-up call to other public officials who believe there are no consequences for betraying the public trust.” On Nov. 7, Trump pardoned both men.

Trump’s promiscuous use of his power has even spawned a niche business of Trump-connected lawyers peddling their influence to pardon-seekers willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to get out of jail not-so-free.

Consider the case of Changpeng Zhao, billionaire founder of the crypto exchange Binance, who served time in 2023 for facilitating money laundering, including for terrorist groups. Zhao didn’t just hire Trump-friendly lawyers. His company helped secure a $2-billion investment in the Trump family’s crypto startup. Last month, Trump pardoned Zhao. “I heard it was a Biden witch hunt,” he nonchalantly told CBS News’ “60 Minutes.”

Zhao’s success alone should be scandal enough to fuel a campaign to repeal or reform the pardon power. But there is so much more. And we surely haven’t seen the last.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

In the days and weeks after the 2020 election, partisans across the country used lies and deceit to try to defraud the American people and steal the White House.

Although Joe Biden was the clear and unequivocal winner, racking up big margins in the popular vote and electoral college, 84 fake electors signed statements certifying that Donald Trump had carried their seven battleground states.

He did not.

The electoral votes at issue constituted nearly a third of the number needed to win the presidency and would have been more than enough to reverse Biden’s victory, granting Trump a second term against the wishes of most voters.

To some, the attempted election theft is old (and eagerly buried) news.

The events that culminated in the violent assault on the Capitol and attempt to block Biden from taking office occurred half a decade ago, the shovel wielders might say, making them as relevant as those faded social-distancing stickers you still see in some stores. Besides, Trump was given a second turn in the White House by a plurality of voters in 2024.

But it’s only old news if you believe that justice and integrity carry an expiration date, wrongdoing is fine with the passage of enough time and the foundational values of our country and its democracy — starting with fair and honest elections — matter only to the extent they help your political side prevail.

It bears repeating: “What we’re talking about here is an attempt to overturn the outcome of a presidential election,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, who heads the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy think tank at New York University. “If people can engage in that kind of conduct without consequence or accountability, then we have to worry about it happening again.”

Which is why punishment and deterrence are so important.

Last week, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the criminal case against six Republicans who signed certificates falsely claiming Trump had won the state’s electoral votes. Those charged include Nevada’s GOP chairman, Michael McDonald, and the state’s representative on the Republican National Committee, Jim DeGraffenreid.

The ruling focused on a procedural matter: whether the charges should have been brought in Douglas County, where the fake certificates were signed in the state capital — Carson City — or in Clark County, where they were submitted at a courthouse in Las Vegas. A lower court ruled the charges should have been brought in Douglas County and dismissed the case. The high court reversed the decision, allowing the prosecution on forgery charges to proceed.

As well it should. Let a jury decide.

Of course, the Nevada Six and other phony electors are but small fry. The ringleader and attempted-larcenist-in-chief — Donald “Find Me 11,780 Votes” Trump — escaped liability by winning the 2024 election.

This month, he pardoned scores of fake electors and others involved in the attempted election heist — including his bumbling ex-attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani — for any potential federal crimes. The move was purely symbolic; Trump’s pardoning power does not extend to cases brought in state courts.

But it was further evidence of his abundant contempt for the rule of law. (Just hours after taking office, Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 defendants — including some who brutalized cops with pepper spray and wooden and metal poles — who were involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.)

Efforts around the country to prosecute even those low-level schemers, cheaters and 2020 election miscreants have produced mixed results.

In Michigan, a judge threw out the criminal case against 15 phony electors, ruling the government failed to present sufficient evidence that they intended to commit fraud.

In New Mexico and Pennsylvania, fake electors avoided prosecution because their certification came with a caveat. It said the documentation was submitted in the event they were recognized as legitimate electors. The issue was moot once Trump lost his fight to overturn the election, though some in Trump’s orbit hoped the phony certifications would help pressure Pence.

Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, looks askance at many of the cases that prosecutors have brought, suggesting the ballot box — rather than a courtroom — may be the better venue to litigate the matter.

“There’s a fine line between what’s distasteful conduct and what’s criminal conduct,” Muller said. “I don’t have easy answers about which kinds of things should or shouldn’t be prosecuted in a particular moment, except to say if it’s something novel” — like these 2020 cases — “having a pretty iron-clad legal theory is pretty essential if you’re going to be prosecuting people for engaging in this sort of political protest activity.”

Other cases grind on.

Three fake electors are scheduled for a preliminary hearing on forgery charges next month in Wisconsin. Fourteen defendants — including Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — face charges in Georgia. In Arizona, the state attorney general must decide this week whether to move forward with a case against 11 people after a judge tossed out an indictment because of how the case was presented to grand jurors.

Justice in the case of the 2020 election has been far from sure and swift. But that’s no reason to relent.

The penalty for hijacking a plane is a minimum of 20 years in federal prison. That seems excessive for the fake electors.

But dozens of bad actors tried to hijack an election. They shouldn’t be let off scot-free.

ATLANTA — The fate of the Georgia election interference case against President Trump and others is now in the hands of a new prosecutor who has to decide how he is going to move forward with the sprawling indictment.

After courts removed Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis over an “appearance of impropriety” created by a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she had chosen to lead the case, it was up to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia to name someone to take over. Council Executive Director Pete Skandalakis said Friday that he would handle the case himself after he was unable to find anyone else willing to do it.

The indictment against Trump and 18 others was returned by a grand jury in August 2023 and uses the state’s anti-racketeering law to allege a wide-ranging conspiracy to illegally overturn Trump’s narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia in the 2020 election.

Here are some things to know about Skandalakis and what might come next for this prosecution.

How did Skandalakis end up with this case?

When a prosecutor recuses or is removed from a case in Georgia, the executive director of the nonpartisan Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council steps in to appoint a substitute prosecutor. Skandalakis, who has led the agency since January 2018, said in an emailed statement that he contacted several prosecutors about taking over the election interference case and they all declined.

The judge overseeing the case had said that if a new prosecutor wasn’t appointed by Friday, he would dismiss the case. Skandalakis said that while he could easily have let the judge’s deadline pass without appointing anyone and allowed the case to be dismissed, he “did not believe that to be the right course of action.”

He acknowledged that he had not had a chance to fully review the case, having only recently received from Willis’ office 101 boxes of documents and an eight-terabyte hard drive with the full investigative file. Appointing himself to the case, he said, “will allow me to complete a comprehensive review and make an informed decision regarding how best to proceed.”

Prior to his time at the council, Skandalakis spent about 25 years as the elected Republican district attorney for the Coweta Judicial Circuit, southwest of Atlanta. But former Gwinnett County Dist. Atty. Danny Porter, who has known Skandalakis for more than 40 years, said they shared a philosophy that the district attorney’s office should be nonpartisan.

“I wouldn’t put too much weight on the fact that he ran as a Republican,” Porter said. “I feel certain that he’s going to do what he said he’s going to do and give it a fair and transparent review and come to conclusions based on the law and the facts.”

Skandalakis is no stranger to sensitive high-profile cases. He took on the investigation into the June 2020 shooting death of Rayshard Brooks, a Black man, by a white police officer after Willis recused her office from the case. He ultimately decided that the two officers involved had acted reasonably, and he declined to pursue charges.

What happens next?

Skandalakis will continue to review the case file to decide how he wants to proceed. The judge has set a Dec. 1 status hearing and said the prosecution should be prepared to say at that time whether it intends to seek a new indictment.

Skandalakis has declined to comment beyond the statement he released Friday. But Porter, who has served as a substitute prosecutor, said the first step is generally to get the case filed, which Skandalakis has done. Then, Porter said, it is not improper to have a discussion with the removed prosecutor about their summary of the case, but that should be the last contact between the two prosecution teams about the case.

Then the substitute prosecutor would start from scratch, figuring out how the case is organized, determining the budget and resources needed and figuring out how to handle it.

The size of this case makes all that a “nearly impossible task for one person to do,” Porter said. While Skandalakis has a “great staff” with some really talented prosecutors, they all have other cases on their plates.

The Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council has a tight budget, and the state Legislature is dominated by Republicans, many loyal to Trump, who are unlikely to grant any special appropriations for this prosecution. But Skandalakis could look for money elsewhere to hire contract attorneys and cover other expenses, Porter said.

Then Skandalakis will have to decide whether he wants to continue on the course that Willis had charted, pursue only some of the charges or dismiss the case.

“I think the case as it’s indicted is completely untryable,” Porter said, adding that he would try to slim it down, either by seeking a new indictment or asking the judge to sever some counts to break it down into smaller cases, Porter said.

What is in the indictment?

The indictment includes charges related to a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger during which Trump urged the state’s top elections official to help him “find” the votes he needed to win. Other charges have to do with a getting a slate of Republican electors to falsely declare that Trump won the state, allegations of harassment of a Georgia election worker and a breach of election equipment in a rural south Georgia county.

Four of the 19 people charged pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors in the months following the indictment. Trump and the other 14 people charged have all pleaded not guilty. It seems unlikely that any action against Trump could proceed while he is in office — given U.S. Justice Department policy and a Supreme Court ruling that shield a president from prosecution — but the others do not have that protection.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

ATLANTA — The leader of a nonpartisan organization announced he will take over the Georgia election interference case against President Trump and others after Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis was removed from the case.

The Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia was tasked with finding someone to lead the case after Willis was disqualified over an “appearance of impropriety” created by a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she’d chosen to lead it. The organization’s executive director, Pete Skandalakis, said Friday that he would take the case on himself.

“The filing of this appointment reflects my inability to secure another conflict prosecutor to assume responsibility for this case,” Skandalakis said in an emailed statement. “Several prosecutors were contacted and, while all were respectful and professional, each declined the appointment.”

While it is unlikely that any action against Trump could proceed while he is the sitting president, there are 14 other people still facing charges in the case, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Trump earlier this week announced pardons for people accused of backing his efforts to overturn the results of that election — including those charged in Georgia — but that doesn’t affect state charges.

After the Georgia Supreme Court in September declined to hear Willis’ appeal of her disqualification, it fell to the nonpartisan Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council to find a new prosecutor. Skandalakis can continue to follow Willis’ vision for the prosecution, decide to pursue only some charges or dismiss the case altogether.

“While it would have been simple to allow Judge McAfee’s deadline to lapse or to inform the Court that no conflict prosecutor could be secured — thereby allowing the case to be dismissed for want of prosecution — I did not believe that to be the right course of action,” Skandalakis wrote. “The public has a legitimate interest in the outcome of this case. Accordingly, it is important that someone make an informed and transparent determination about how best to proceed.”

The Associated Press sent text messages seeking comment to a spokesperson for Willis and a lawyer for Trump.

Willis announced the sprawling indictment against Trump and 18 others in August 2023. She used the state’s anti-racketeering law to allege a wide-ranging conspiracy to try to illegally overturn Trump’s narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

Defense attorneys sought Willis’ removal after one of them revealed in January 2024 that Willis had engaged in a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case. The defense attorneys said the relationship created a conflict of interest, alleging that Willis personally profited from the case when Wade used his earnings to pay for vacations the pair took.

During an extraordinary hearing the following month, Willis and Wade both testified about the intimate details of their personal relationship. They maintained that their romance didn’t begin until after Wade was hired and said that they split the costs for vacations and other outings.

The trial judge, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, rebuked Willis, saying in an order in March 2024 that her actions showed a “tremendous lapse in judgment.” But he said he did not find a conflict of interest that would disqualify Willis. He ultimately ruled that Willis could remain on the case if Wade resigned, which the special prosecutor did hours later.

Defense attorneys appealed that ruling, and the Georgia Court of Appeals removed Willis from the case in December, citing an “appearance of impropriety.” The high court in September declined to hear Willis’ appeal.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is heading for a sweep in the legislative assembly elections in the eastern state of Bihar.

The election in India’s third-most populous state, with 74 million registered voters across 243 assembly constituencies, has been viewed as a key test of Modi’s popularity, especially among Gen Z: Bihar is India’s youngest state.

Vote counting concluded on Friday after two phases of voting on November 6 and November 11.

Here is more about the election results and what they mean.

What was the result of the Bihar election?

As of 5:30pm (1200 GMT) on Friday, the NDA had won two seats and was leading in 204 out of 243, while the opposition Mahagathabandhan, or the Grand Alliance, with the Indian National Congress and the regional Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) as the main parties, was leading in just 33 seats, according to the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which is currently not part of either alliance, was leading in one seat. The All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), another party that does not belong in either major alliance, had won or was leading in the remaining five seats.

BJP and allies

• Within the NDA, the BJP had won or was leading in 93 seats with a 20.5 percent overall vote share. 
• The regional Janata Dal (United) or JD(U), a key NDA constituent, had won or was leading  in 83 seats, with 19 percent votes overall.
• Another local NDA ally, the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) or LJPRV, had won or was ahead in 19 seats.
• The Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RSHTLKM) was leading in four seats.
• The Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular), or HAMS, had won or was leading in five seats.

Opposition alliance

• The Congress, India’s main opposition party, had won or was leading in five seats with 8.7 percent of the overall vote.
• The Grand Alliance’s biggest party, RJD, had or was leading in 26 seats with 22.8 percent of the vote.
• The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation), or CPI(ML)(L), was leading in one seat.
• The Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI(M), was ahead in one seat.

How are Tejashwi Yadav and Maithili Thakur doing?

As votes were being counted, two of the most watched constituencies were Raghopur and Alinagar.

Raghopur has long been an RJD stronghold. But for some time during counting, Tejashwi Yadav, the son of RJD leader Lalu Prasad Yadav and the party’s de facto chief now, was trailing behind BJP candidate Satish Kumar in the Yadav family bastion. This had switched to a 13,000 vote lead for Yadav by 1200 GMT, with most votes counted. If Yadav were to still lose, it will be a historic defeat for what was, many years, the first family of Bihar. He previously won the seat in 2015 and 2020. His father has also won from Raghopur twice in the past, while his mother, Rabri Devi, has won it three times.

Popular folk singer, Maithili Thakur, representing the BJP, was leading in the Alinagar seat, with the RJD’s Binod Mishra trailing by 8,588 votes — another close contest.

What is driving the results?

Female voters

Political analysts attribute the gains for the key governing party in this election to the appeals Modi’s party has made to female voters.

In September, the BJP transferred about $880m to 7.5 million women – with 10,000 rupees ($112.70) paid directly into their bank accounts – under a seed investment programme called the Chief Minister’s Women Employment Scheme. Modi’s office said: “The assistance can be utilised in areas of the choice of the beneficiary, including agriculture, animal husbandry, handicrafts, tailoring, weaving, and other small-scale enterprises.”

Women make up nearly half of all eligible voters in Bihar, where women’s political participation is on the rise. Female representation in the state has historically been low. But in 2006, Bihar reserved 50 percent of seats on local bodies for women, which has boosted their political representation.

Female voter turnout in the state has often surpassed that of men since 2010. The turnout among women this time was 71.6 percent, compared with 62.8 percent for men.

Voter ID checks

The opposition has also accused the ECI of deliberately revising the official voter list to benefit the BJP via a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls over the past few months. Registered voters were required to present documents proving they were Indian nationals and legal residents of the constituency in which they voted.

As Al Jazeera reported in July, however, many of the poorest people in Bihar do not hold any of the several documents that the ECI listed as proof of identity.

The opposition argues, therefore, that this new requirement could disenfranchise poor and vulnerable groups, including disadvantaged castes and Muslims, who typically vote for the RJD-Congress alliance.

In September, the ECI removed 4.7 million names from Bihar’s rolls, leaving 74.2 million voters. In Seemanchal, a Muslim-majority area, voter removals exceeded the state average.

What is the significance of these results?

Bihar is India’s third most populous state, home to 130 million people. It sends the fifth-highest number of legislators to parliament.

The latest vote has been viewed as a key popularity test for Modi, who was sworn in for his third premiership after he won the national elections in June 2024.

But the BJP failed to secure a majority in the national election on its own, forcing it to rely on regional allies such as the JD(U) to form the government.

Since the national election, the BJP has won most major state elections, and the streak seems to be continuing in Bihar.

Nov. 12 (UPI) — Adelita Grijalva was sworn in Wednesday afternoon on the floor of the House of Representatives by Speaker Mike Johnson after the Democrat was elected two months ago in Arizona.

Immediately after the ceremony, she became the 218th House member to sign the discharge petition, the bare minimum to approve a floor vote on legislation compelling the federal government to release the case files of Jeffrey Epstein.

Grijalva, 55, won a special election Sept. 23 to fill the vacant 7th Congressional District seat after Rep. Raul Grijalva, her father and fellow Democrat, died March 13. Six days later, Democrat Gov. Katie Hobbs ordered dates for the primary and general election.

Democrats now hold 214 House seats to the Republicans’ 2019, with two still vacant.

Wednesday’s ceremony occurred before the scheduled House vote on the Senate-approved measure to fund the federal government so that it can reopen after being shut down for a record 43 days.

Johnson didn’t swear her in while the House was on an extended recess that started Sept. 19 and lasted until Wednesday amid the federal government shutdown.

“What is most concerning is not what this administration has done, but what the majority in this body has failed to do: Hold Trump accountable as a coequal branch of government that we are,” Grijalva told House members.

Grijalva said the delay deprived 813,000 people in southern Arizona of her support while the shutdown endured.

Grijalva didn’t have a working office phone, an office budget or the ability to use government systems. She also couldn’t open office in her southern Arizona district.

“This is an abuse of power,” she said. “One individual should not be able to unilaterally obstruct the swearing in of a duly elected member of Congress for political reasons.”

Johnson earlier said he would swear in Grijalva when the House reconvened, which spurred federal lawsuits accusing the House speaker of delaying the matter.

John was accused of delaying the swearing in so the petition wouldn’t have enough votes to look at the Department of Justice investigation of the financier and convicted sex offender involving minors who committed suicide while jailed in New York City and was awaiting a federal trial on other charges.

Johnson told reporters Wednesday night that the House will vote next week on whether to force the release of documents. He said he would bypass the seven-day waiting period and instead “we’re going to put that on the floor for a full vote next week, as soon as we get back.”

The petition has signatures from all Democrats and four Republicans.

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California told reporters Wednesday night: “I believe we’re going to get 40, 50 Republicans voting with us on the release. And if we get that kind of overwhelming vote, that’s going to push the Senate and it’s going to push for a release of the files from the Justice Department.”

Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act in July.

Grijalva signed it with two Epstein survivors watching in the gallery.

“Just this morning, House Democrats released more emails showing that Trump knew more about Epstein’s abuses than he previously acknowledged,” she said. “It’s about time for Congress to restore its role as a check and balance on this administration and fight for we, the American people.

She added: “Justice cannot wait another day.”

The House earlier released more than 33,000 pages of files from the Epstein case that were redacted only to protect the names of witnesses and block information related to child abuse.

The petition must pass the Republican-controlled Senate before making it to President Donald Trump‘s desk.

Johnson has said the delay in swearing in Grijalva had nothing to do with the Epstein files, which the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been investigating.

House Democrats said Johnson could have called a pro forma session of the House to swear in Grijalva and said he had done so earlier this year to swear in two Republican representatives, The Hill reported.

One vacant seat in Tennessee leans Republican and will be filled by a special election in December, according to CNN.

Another vacancy in Texas has two Democrats as the final two candidates in a runoff election that will be held in January.

With no clear majority, formation of next government will require intensive deal-making among strongest blocs.

A coalition led by Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has emerged as winner in Iraq’s parliamentary election, according to electoral authorities.

The Independent High Electoral Commission said on Wednesday that al-Sudani’s Reconstruction and Change coalition received 1.3 million votes in Tuesday’s election, about 370,000 more than the next closest competitor.

Speaking after the initial results were announced, al-Sudani hailed the voter turnout of 56 percent, saying it was “clear evidence of another success” that reflected the “restoration of confidence in the political system”.

However, while al-Sudani, who first came to power in 2022, had cast himself as a leader who could turn around Iraq’s fortunes after decades of instability, the poll was marked by disillusionment among weary voters who saw it as a vehicle for established parties to divide Iraq’s oil wealth.

Turnout was lower in areas like Baghdad and Najaf after populist Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Sadrist Movement, called on his vast numbers of supporters to boycott the “flawed election”.

As expected, Shia candidates won seats in Shia-majority provinces, while Sunni candidates secured victories in Sunni-majority provinces and Kurdish candidates prevailed in Kurdish-majority provinces.

But there were some surprises, notably in Nineveh, a predominantly Sunni Arab province, where the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) secured the highest number of seats.

Meanwhile, in Diyala province, which has a significant Kurdish minority, no Kurdish candidates won seats for the first time since 2005.

No party can form a government on its own in Iraq’s 329-member legislature, so parties build alliances with other groups to become an administration, a fraught process that often takes many months.

Back in 2021, al-Sadr secured the largest bloc before withdrawing from parliament following a dispute with Shia parties that refused to support his bid to form a government.

“None of the political factions or movements over the past 20 years have been able to gain a total majority … that allows one bloc to choose a prime minister, so at the end, this is going to lead to rounds of negotiations and bargaining among political factions,” said Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Baghdad.

The poll marked the sixth election held in Iraq since a United States-led invasion in 2003 toppled longtime ruler Saddam Hussein and unleashed a sectarian civil war, the emergence of the ISIL (ISIS) group and the general collapse of infrastructure in the country.

The next premier must answer to Iraqis seeking jobs and improved education and health systems in a country plagued by corruption and mismanagement.

He will also have to maintain the delicate balance between Iraq’s allies, Iran and the US, a task made all the more delicate by recent seismic changes in the Middle East.

A U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington on Tuesday overturned a decision requiring organizations that run election-related television ads to reveal their funders, saying a lower court erred in finding that Congress intended to require such disclosure — a victory for some of the biggest groups participating in the 2012 campaign.

In an unsigned decision, the three-judge panel wrote that it was “doubtful” that Congress anticipated how campaign finance rules would change and sent the case back to the lower court for further review.

But for the remainder of this election the ruling lets up the pressure on GOP-allied organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS, which changed their ad strategies after a federal judge ruled this spring that Congress intended such groups to disclose their donors.

INTERACTIVE: Spending during the 2012 election

“We’re just delighted,” said Thomas Kirby, an attorney for the Center for Individual Freedom, one of two groups that pursued an appeal of the case. “CFIF believes that the right to engage in political speech should not be needlessly conditioned upon the loss of anonymity.”

Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-Md.), who brought the original case against the Federal Election Commission that upheld the donor disclosure requirement, issued a statement saying the appellate decision “struck a blow against transparency in the funding of political campaigns.”

“The Court of Appeals’ decision today will keep the American people, for the time being, in the dark about who is attempting to influence their vote with secret money,” he added.

The case hinges on the FEC’s interpretation of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, a landmark campaign finance reform measure that, among other things, required groups that engage in “electioneering communications” to reveal all their contributors.

Five years later, the FEC issued a rule stating that such organizations only had to reveal the donors who gave for the purpose of financing TV ads.

Van Hollen — backed by lawyers from the campaign finance reform organizations Democracy 21, Public Citizen, Campaign Legal Center and the law firm WilmerHale — sued the FEC, arguing that the rule created a major loophole that undermined the intent of the McCain-Feingold Act. A federal judge agreed, ruling on March 30 that the FEC had overstepped its authority.

“Congress intended to shine light on whoever was behind the communications bombarding voters immediately prior to elections,” Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in her decision.

Her ruling threw out the 2007 rule and reinstated a 2003 FEC regulation that required organizations doing electioneering to report all donations of $1,000 or more dating back to the first day of the preceding year.

That triggered a scramble among politically active groups on the right that have been fighting efforts to force them to reveal their funders. Despite the fact that they are organized as nonprofit social welfare organizations – or, in the case of the Chamber, as a trade group — the groups began running explicitly political ads, taking advantage of the conflicting patchwork of campaign finance rules that did not require disclosure of those doing “express advocacy.”

That move came with its own risk: paying for overtly political spots could jeopardize their tax status.

INTERACTIVE: Battleground states map

Such a tactic is no longer necessary after Tuesday’s ruling by the appellate court, which declared that the McCain-Feingold Act is “anything but clear” in light of major court cases that have followed it, including the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United.

The panel chided the FEC for not clearly dealing with the changes in the law or defending its stance in court. The appellate court sent the case back to the lower court, ordering it to refer the matter back to the FEC to defend its current rules or issue new ones.

But with the FEC locked in partisan gridlock, it remains unclear whether the six commissioners will be able to come to agreement on how to proceed.

Campaign finance reform advocates said they were not giving up, saying they still believed they had a strong argument to make at the district court level if the FEC chooses to defend the current rules.

“The Court of Appeals got it wrong,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21. “There is no way Congress enacted a statute to result in no disclosure of contributors when the statute calls for all disclosure of contributors.”

Wertheimer said his group would also continue to press the Internal Revenue Service to scrutinize the activities of groups such as Crossroads GPS that claim to be nonprofit social welfare organizations.

But he admitted that in the prospect of forcing such organizations to reveal their donors this year has been effectively shut down.

“They’ll go back to doing electioneering and claim that their campaign ads are not campaign ads,” Wertheimer said.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook[email protected]

Twitter: @mateagold