Elections

The vote count continues to determine who will join conservative Keiko Fujimori in Peru’s presidential run-off in June.

Calls to remove the head of Peru’s electoral authority have intensified as delays and alleged irregularities clouded the presidential vote count.

As of Friday, no clear challenger has emerged to face conservative frontrunner Keiko Fujimori in the June 7 run-off.

The general election was held on Sunday, but an extension was granted to accommodate for the difficulties in ballot distribution.

Pressure has mounted against the head of Peru’s National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE), Piero Corvetto. Complaints over errors and logistical problems during Sunday’s election have been compounded by a slow tally that has rattled investor confidence and heightened uncertainty.

According to the ONPE, leftist Roberto Sanchez and ultraconservative former Lima Mayor Rafael Lopez Aliaga remain locked in a close battle for second place, separated by about 13,000 votes as of Friday.

With 93.3 percent of the ballots counted, Sanchez held 12.0 percent of the vote and Lopez Aliaga 11.9 percent.

Fujimori, meanwhile, remained firmly in first place with 17 percent, positioning her for the run-off. Final results could take up to two weeks, according to local election-monitoring group Transparencia.

The vote counting has been further delayed by the roughly 5 percent of ballots that were identified for review due to missing information or errors in polling station records, according to ONPE data. Those ballots will be reviewed by a special electoral jury before being included in the final count, officials said.

Business leaders and lawmakers from across the political spectrum have called on Corvetto to step down, arguing that a replacement should oversee the second round.

“Errors this serious have consequences,” Jorge Zapata, head of business chamber CONFIEP, told local radio station RPP.

Earlier this week, Corvetto acknowledged that there had been some logistical delays that forced voting to be extended by a day, mainly in Lima. Those delays triggered fraud allegations, notably from Lopez Aliaga, who has called for counting to be suspended. Corvetto has denied that any irregularities took place.

Even so, Peru’s top electoral court, the National Jury of Elections, filed a criminal complaint with prosecutors against Corvetto, citing alleged offences, including violations of voting rights. Representatives for Corvetto did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

An investigation is also under way after materials from four polling stations were found on a public road in Lima on Thursday, the police said. ONPE said on the social media platform X that the votes from those stations had already been recorded for counting.

European Union election observers said this week that they found no evidence of fraud.

Hungary’s newly elected leader, Peter Magyar, stormed to power last weekend after campaigning to, among other things, take a step back from Russia.

Instead, Magyar has promised voters he will steer Hungary back towards the European Union, following the 16-year rule of far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who went to great lengths to deepen ties with Russia.

Under Orban, Hungary opposed most of the European Union’s stances against Russia and  blocked sanctions and obstructed military aid for Ukraine.

Above all, he and his Fidesz party entrenched Hungary’s reliance on Russian oil.

Now, following a massive electoral turnout and a landslide victory, Magyar – once a devotee of Orban and now leader of the centre-right Tisza party – has promised to end Russian oil imports by 2035. But how realistic a goal is that? And can he achieve it?

How much does Hungary depend on Russia for energy?

Hungary has been central to keeping Russian oil and gas flowing into the EU, even as Europe and the US banned some imports and imposed sanctions on anyone paying more than $60 a barrel for Russian oil.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU banned seaborne imports of Russian oil but kept land flows legal. That allowed Hungary to continue importing most of its crude by pipeline via Ukraine.

The EU first announced plans to phase out Russian energy imports in May 2022, shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In December 2025, a binding agreement was made for member nations to completely phase out Russian oil and gas imports by late 2027. But, instead of diversifying from Moscow, Hungary increased its dependency.

According to a 2026 report by the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD), Hungary had expanded its reliance on Russian crude from 61 percent in 2021 to 93 percent by 2025.

Much of the crude oil Hungary imports from Russia comes via the Druzhba pipeline. It is one of the key pipelines that ensures the continued flow of Russian crude to both Hungary and Slovakia. At 5,500 km (3,420 miles) long, it begins in Almetyevsk in western Russia and runs into Belarus. It splits at Mozyr, with one branch going to Poland and Germany and the southern branch goes through Ukraine into Slovakia, Hungary and Czechia.

In January, the section of the pipeline running through Ukraine suffered significant damage. Ukraine blamed a Russian airstrike – Moscow denies that.

Hungary and Slovakia have complained that Ukraine has been deliberately slow to repair the damage. As a result, in March, Orban vetoed a 90 billion euro ($106bn) loan from the EU to Ukraine until the pipeline reopens.

On Tuesday this week, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said oil will flow again through the conduit by the end of April as he expects the new Hungarian leadership to lift its veto on the loan by then.

As for gas, Hungary remains one of the most dependent EU member states on Russian natural gas, accounting for roughly three-quarters of its annual imports, the CSD report shows.

Since the start of Russia’s invasion, Hungary has imported an estimated 15.6 billion euros ($18.4bn) worth of Russian gas. Long-term contracts with Russia’s state-owned Gazprom, the continued reliance on TurkStream – a natural gas pipeline running from Russia to Turkiye – and “the weak use of alternative interconnectors have locked the country into Russia’s reconfigured gas export system”, the CSD report states.

Nuclear energy dependency is yet another issue. Hungary granted Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear energy corporation, the construction contract for the expansion of its Paks atomic plant, 100km (62 miles) southwest of Budapest on the Danube River. Russia, in turn, provided Hungary with a state loan to finance most of the development of new reactors. The European Commission approved the plan in 2017 and construction started in February.

Now, Magyar says he intends to reassess the project’s financing. But the Paks plant provides 40 to 50 percent of all electricity generated in Hungary. The expansion plans will increase that to between 60 and 70 percent, which would cut reliance on imported energy, but keep Hungary tied to Russia. 

According to a 2025 joint research paper by the Center for the Study of Democracy and the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, Hungary could potentially diversify its energy supply by importing non-Russian oil via alternative sources such as the Adria pipeline. It transports crude from the Adriatic Sea to refineries in Croatia, Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. Their refiners, which are controlled by Hungarian oil and gas company MOL, are capable of processing non-Russian crude, the research paper said.

Russian oil has been coming in at a discounted rate as a result of Western sanctions, so any diversification will likely be more expensive.

Can Hungary wean itself off its dependence on Russian oil?

It won’t be easy, and Magyar knows it. “The geographical position of neither Russia nor Hungary will change. Our energy exposure will also be here for a while,” he said before last weekend’s election. And in an interview with the Financial Times, Magyar insisted that Russian imports should remain an option. “This does not mean that by ending dependence on someone you no longer continue to buy from them,” he said.

Magyar will seek to strike a balance between respecting current contracts with Moscow to ensure Hungary’s energy security, while establishing political distance, said Pawel Zerka, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“I would expect this government not to be pro-Russia in the sense of going to Moscow and keeping ties with the Russian government, but they don’t have easy options to replace Russian fuel with something else, especially considering the international situation with the Middle East,” Zerka said, referring to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf which has blocked the shipping of 20 percent of the world’s oil and LNG supplies.

Zerka added that the newly elected leader will not have political room to be particularly cordial with Russian President Vladimir Putin, considering the disapproval of Russia by his electoral base. A recent poll by the European Council on Foreign Relations shows that a majority of Tisza’s voters see Russia as an adversary or rival to compete with.

“It will be interesting to see how he combines this with energy needs,” Zerka said.

How does the EU view Hungary’s energy ties to Russia?

The strong energy ties between Russia and Hungary have long caused friction with the EU. Following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the European bloc has worked to cut imports of Russian oil and gas. Budapest has done the opposite.

In January, the EU passed legislation to completely phase out Russian gas and LNG imports by late 2027.

Orban’s government had called for all restrictions on Russian oil to be lifted as a result of the global energy crisis triggered by the war in the Middle East. While Trump has made some concessions on Russian oil already loaded on tankers at sea – causing several heading for China to head to India instead – EU leaders have maintained they will hold firm on sanctions.

In the lead-up to last weekend’s election, Magyar’s manifesto called the dependence on Russian energy a “systemic risk” and he would wean Hungary off its reliance by 2035. But whether he can do that in time to beat the EU’s 2027 deadline is likely to provoke discussion in Brussels.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has ordered a probe into whether right-wing presidential candidate Flavio Bolsonaro issued defamatory statements about his election rival, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

On Wednesday, a decision from Justice Alexandre de Moraes was published, allowing the Federal Police to proceed with an investigation into posts Bolsonaro published in January.

Bolsonaro, at the time, responded to news that the United States had abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro with insinuations linking Lula to crimes.

“Lula will be exposed,” Bolsonaro posted on the social media platform X, with screenshots of a handcuffed Maduro and an article about Lula.

He then predicted that the left-wing alliance known as the Sao Paulo Forum would collapse in scandal.

“It is the end of the Sao Paulo Forum: international drug and arms trafficking, money laundering, support for terrorists and dictatorships, rigged elections,” Bolsonaro wrote.

There are limitations to the freedom of speech in Brazil, and under its penal code, defamation can be a criminal offence. Prosecutors have the option of seeking heightened penalties for defamation against presidents or heads of state.

The Federal Police have a period of 60 days to carry out their initial investigation.

But in a statement to local media, a spokesperson for Bolsonaro, a senator for Rio de Janeiro, denounced the probe as a violation of his rights.

“The senator limited himself to reporting facts and detailing crimes for which Nicolas Maduro was arrested and is being prosecuted internationally,” the statement said, adding that there was no “direct criminal accusation against” Lula.

Bolsonaro and Lula are currently in a neck-and-neck race for the presidency ahead of October’s general election.

A poll released this week from the research firm Quaest shows Lula slightly ahead in the first round of voting, with 37 percent of the vote compared with Bolsonaro’s 32 percent.

But if the race proceeds to a run-off, the frontrunner flips. Bolsonaro polls slightly ahead in a one-on-one contest against Lula, netting 42 percent support compared with the incumbent’s 40 percent.

The poll has a margin of error of about 2 percent, though, meaning the results are not conclusive. There is also nearly five and a half months until the first round of voting on October 4.

Both Bolsonaro and Lula are well-known quantities in Brazil’s political sphere.

For the 80-year-old Lula, this year’s race will see him run for a fourth term in office. Previously, he served as president from 2003 to 2011, and then he ran again in 2022, defeating Senator Bolsonaro’s father, Jair Bolsonaro, the incumbent president that year.

The elder Bolsonaro is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence for attempting to subvert the results of that election.

The margins were tight in the 2022 run-off, and then-President Bolsonaro refused to concede defeat, instead suggesting that there were “malfunctions” in the electronic voting machines that favoured Lula.

His supporters took to the streets to protest his loss, blockading roads and attacking police headquarters in the capital, Brasilia.

The unrest culminated in an attack on January 8, 2023, against government buildings in the capital, which was seen as an attempt to trigger a military uprising against Lula’s leadership.

Former President Bolsonaro was later convicted in September 2024 of plotting to stay in power, with prosecutors presenting evidence that he and his allies explored options including calling a new election and assassinating Lula.

The former president has denied wrongdoing and accused his adversaries of a political witch-hunt.

In December, his eldest son, Flavio, 44, entered the 2026 presidential race with his father’s endorsement. He has suggested he would seek his father’s freedom as part of his campaign.

Earlier this year, Lula vetoed a bill that would have lowered Jair Bolsonaro’s prison sentence. He has denounced his predecessor’s actions as a coup attempt.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has been unambiguous about his desire for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, a sweeping voting law that supporters say will boost election security and that detractors say risks disenfranchising millions of voters.

The push has gained new urgency, with the US Senate continuing debate on the law following a two-week recess.

The president has said the bill, which at its core would create higher documentation standards for proving citizenship when registering to vote and casting a ballot, is his top priority ahead of the midterm elections in November, which will determine which party controls the Senate and the US House of Representatives.

The bill has near-total support from Republicans, with Democrats remaining largely unified in opposition. It passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in February along party lines.

The measure has since remained stalled in Congress, where Republicans control 53 out of 100 seats, short of the 60 votes it will likely need to pass.

That is, unless party leaders move to change the chamber’s longstanding rules, a transformative approach considered a”nuclear” option that will reverberate for years to come.

Here’s what to know.

What would the SAVE America Act do?

The version of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act passed by the House in February would require voters to provide proof of citizenship – a birth certificate or passport – when registering to vote. It would also implement stricter voter identification requirements for individuals casting ballots, whether by mail or in person.

Under the US Constitution, states administer elections, and currently have different processes for registering voters and confirming citizenship. Voting by noncitizens is already illegal, and all people registering to vote attest they are US citizens under threat of perjury.

The bill does not provide any funding for the new verification processes, which would be effective immediately upon the bill being signed into law.

The legislation would also require all states to run their voter rolls through a US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) “Alien Verification Eligibility” system to identify potential noncitizens already enrolled.

It would include criminal penalties for election officials who register voters without the required documentation.

What has Trump said about the SAVE Act?

The US president has long maintained that elections in the country are marred by widespread fraud, including noncitizen voting, despite there being no evidence to support these claims.

Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has influenced many of Trump’s policies, has found only exceedingly rare instances of voter fraud over decades of US elections.

Trump’s focus on election administration dates back to his 2020 loss to former US President Joe Biden, which he continues to maintain was the result of the vote being “stolen”. Again, no evidence has emerged to back those claims.

The president has called the SAVE America Act “one of the most IMPORTANT & CONSEQUENTIAL pieces of legislation in the history of Congress, and America itself”.

In March, he vowed not to sign any other bills into law until the legislation was passed. He has further vowed not to endorse any Republicans who do not support the legislation.

Trump also told members of his party in March that passing the bill would “guarantee” their success not only in the midterm elections but in the years to come.

Several top Republicans have embraced Trump’s messaging, with US House Speaker Mike Johnson saying opponents of the legislation “want illegal aliens to vote in our elections”.

What have critics said about the SAVE Act?

Critics have said the bill would be tantamount to widespread voter disenfranchisement, creating onerous barriers to address what several studies show to be the fleetingly rare problem of noncitizens registering to vote.

Several studies have shown that about 11 percent of eligible voters do not have access to birth certificates, while 52 percent do not have valid passports. All told, a recent study by several election-monitoring groups found that about nine percent of eligible voters in the US do not have easy access to documents proving citizenship, accounting for about 21.3 million people.

Several groups, including the Bipartisan Policy Center, have argued the legislation risks doing more damage than good. Data from a USCIS voter verification system, which some states already use to identify noncitizens in their voter rolls, found that only 0.04 percent of reviewed cases were flagged as potential noncitizens.

But as noted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, evidence indicates that the rate may be considerably lower, pointing to a review by Travis County, Texas that found that a quarter of the voters flagged by USCIS had actually provided proof of citizenship.

In another example, a review of all registered voters in Utah from 2025 to 2026 found only a single instance of a noncitizen registered to vote out of more than two million voters. There were no confirmed instances of a noncitizen actually voting.

Top Democrats have echoed those criticisms, while charging that Trump is seeking to influence the outcome of the midterms as part of what they call a years-long effort to politicise voting administration.

“The only thing Republicans are trying to save with this legislation is their own skin in the next election,” Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, said earlier this week.

Could it affect women and name changes?

A main point of contention for opponents of the legislation is the additional barriers it could create for individuals, primarily women, who changed their last names after marriage or for other reasons.

An estimated 69 million women in the US lack easy access to documentation linking their current legal names to those at birth, according to the League of Women Voters, which has been a leading opponent of the bill.

The requirement for extra documentation for some married women creates inherent inequality in the system, the organisation has argued.

The law would further create extra barriers for individuals who move regularly, including members of the military, and those who have been afflicted by disruptive life changes, including natural disasters, opponents have argued.

How does this relate to the filibuster?

The so-called “filibuster” is a procedural rule in the Senate that can be used to require 60 votes to pass most bills, as opposed to a simple majority of 51 votes in the 100-seat chamber.

Parties in the minority have long used the rule to temper the party in the majority, with Republicans and Democrats rarely holding a filibuster-proof 60 seats.

Being a rule of the Senate’s own making, it could be easily scrapped by the party in power. However, doing so has long been seen as a “nuclear” option. While it would offer short-term benefits to the majority party, it would undermine the same party if it becomes the minority in future elections.

Nevertheless, Trump has heaped pressure on Republican leaders in the Senate to scrap the rule, writing on Truth Social in March, they need to “Kill the Filibuster”.

What happens next?

Debate remains ongoing in the Senate over the legislation, but major shifts in support are seen as extremely unlikely.

Republicans are unlikely to bring the legislation to a vote if they do not have the support for it to pass.

Currently, there is no plan to hold a vote to do away with the filibuster, which would require only a simple majority.

Lawmakers have also not yet pursued other, more incremental procedural manoeuvres to pass the bill without 60 votes.