voter

During China’s imperial age, those deemed guilty of the worst offenses were sometimes sentenced to death in a public square by a brutal form of execution known as lingchi. Soldiers — using sharp blades — would slice away pieces of flesh from the accused until they died. Translated, lingchi means “death by a thousand cuts.”

Maybe democracy does die in darkness, as journalist Bob Woodward often suggests. Or maybe democracy’s demise comes in the light of day, in a public forum, where everyone can bear witness. Sometimes those holding the knives are the oligarchs or elected officials drenched in corruption. And sometimes there’s blood on the hands of the people.

On Saturday, voters in San Antonio — the seventh-largest city in the country — are headed to the polls to decide the first open mayoral race since President Obama’s first term. Or at least some voters will be.

In November 2024, nearly 60% of the 1.3 million registered voters in the county cast a ballot in the general election. However, in the local election held last month, barely 10% showed up to the polls. Before anyone starts throwing shade at San Antonio, in Dallas the turnout was even lower.

Lackluster participation in an “off year” election is not new. However, the mayoral race in San Antonio has increased national interest because the outcome is being viewed as a litmus test for both the strength of the Democrats’ resistance and the public’s appetite for the White House’s policies.

Like other big blue cities nestled in legislatively red states, San Antonio’s progressive policies have been under constant assault from the governor’s mansion. And with neither the progressive candidate, Gina Ortiz Jones, or her MAGA-leaning opponent, Rolando Pablos, eclipsing 50% of the vote in May, the runoff has drawn more than $1 million in campaign spending from outside conservative groups looking to flip the traditionally blue stronghold.

The outcome could provide a possible glimpse into the 2026 mayoral race in Los Angeles, should the formerly Republican Rick Caruso decide to run against Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat. When the two faced off in 2022, around 44% of the city’s registered voters went to the polls. Caruso lost by less than 90,000 votes in a city with 2.1 million registered voters — most of whom didn’t submit a ballot.

It is rather astonishing how little we actually participate in democracy, given the amount of tax dollars we have spent trying to convince other nations that our government system is the best on the planet. Capitulating to President Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of mass voter fraud, many local conservative elected officials have tried to ram through a litany of “voter integrity” policies under the guise of protecting democracy. However, democracy is not a delicate flower in need of protection. It’s a muscle in need of exercise.

“Some people find voting to be a chore,” Michele Carew, the elections administrator for Bexar County — which includes San Antonio — told me. “We need to make voting easier and quite frankly, fun. And we need to get those who don’t feel like their vote counts to see that it does. That means getting out and talking to people in our neighborhood, in our churches, in our grocery stores … about when elections are coming up and what’s at stake locally.”

Carew said that the added outside interest in the city’s election has driven up early voting a tick and that she expects to see roughly a 15% turnout, which is an increase over previous years. It could be worse. The city once elected a mayor with 7% turnout back in 2013. Carew also expressed concern about outside influence on local governing.

“One of the first times I saw these nonpartisan races become more political was in 2020, and so as time goes by it’s gotten even more so. I would like to think once the candidate is elected mayor they remain nonpartisan and do what’s best for the city and not their party.”

In 2024, a presidential election year when you’d expect the highest turnout, 1 in 3 registered voters across this country — roughly 20 million people — took a look around and said, “Nah, I’m good.” Or something like that.

The highest turnout was in Washington, D.C., where nearly 80% showed up. Too bad it’s not a state. Among the lowest turnout rates? Texas — which has the second-greatest number of voters, behind only California.

And therein lies the problem with trying to extrapolate national trends from local elections. Maybe Ortiz Jones will win in San Antonio this weekend. Maybe Caruso will win in L.A. next year. None of this tells us how the vast majority of Americans are really feeling.

Sure, it’s good fodder to debate around the table or on cable news shows, but ultimately the sample size of a mayoral election belies any claims about a result’s meaning. Turnout during an off year is just too low.

One thing we know for certain is most voters in America exercise their right to vote only once every four years. Oligarchs and corrupt officials are not great, but it’s hard for democracy to stay healthy and strong if that’s all the exercise it’s getting.

@LZGranderson

AUSTIN, Texas — President Trump and congressional Republicans have made it a priority this year to require people to prove citizenship before they can register to vote. Turning that aspiration into reality has proved difficult.

Trump’s executive order directing a documentary, proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections has been blocked by a judge, while federal legislation to accomplish it doesn’t appear to have the votes to pass in the Senate. At the same time, state-level efforts have found little success, even in places where Republicans control the legislature and governor’s office.

The most recent state effort to falter is in Texas, where a Senate bill failed to gain full legislative approval before lawmakers adjourned on Monday. The Texas bill was one of the nation’s most sweeping proof-of-citizenship proposals because it would have applied not only to new registrants but also to the state’s roughly 18.6 million registered voters.

“The bill authors failed spectacularly to explain how this bill would be implemented and how it would be able to be implemented without inconveniencing a ton of voters,” said Anthony Gutierrez, director of the voting rights group Common Cause Texas.

Voting by noncitizens is already illegal and punishable as a felony, potentially leading to deportation, but Trump and his allies have pressed for a proof-of-citizenship mandate by arguing it would improve public confidence in elections.

Before his win last year, Trump falsely claimed noncitizens might vote in large enough numbers to sway the outcome. Although noncitizen voting does occur, research and reviews of state cases has shown it to be rare and more often a mistake.

Voting rights groups say the various proposals seeking to require proof of citizenship are overly burdensome and threaten to disenfranchise millions of Americans. Many do not have easy access to their birth certificates, have not gotten a U.S. passport or have a name that no longer matches the one on their birth certificate — such as women who changed their last name when they married.

The number of states considering bills related to proof of citizenship for voting tripled from 2023 to this year, said Liz Avore, senior policy advisor with the Voting Rights Lab, an advocacy group that tracks election legislation in the states.

That hasn’t resulted in many new laws, at least so far. Republicans in Wyoming passed their own proof-of-citizenship legislation, but similar measures have stalled or failed in multiple GOP-led states, including Florida, Missouri, Texas and Utah. A proposal remains active in Ohio, although Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said he doesn’t want to sign any more bills that make it harder to vote.

In Texas, the legislation swiftly passed the state Senate after it was introduced in March but never made it to a floor vote in the House. It was unclear why legislation that was such a priority for Senate Republicans — every one of them co-authored the bill — ended up faltering.

“I just think people realized, as flawed as this playbook has been in other states, Texas didn’t need to make this mistake,” said Rep. John Bucy, a Democrat who serves as vice chair of the House elections committee.

Bucy pointed to specific concerns about married women who changed their last name. This surfaced in local elections earlier this year in New Hampshire, which passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement last year.

Other states that previously sought to add such a requirement have faced lawsuits and complications when trying to implement it.

In Arizona, a state audit found that problems with the way data were handled had affected the tracking and verification of residents’ citizenship status. It came after officials had identified some 200,000 voters who were thought to have provided proof of their citizenship but had not.

A proof-of-citizenship requirement was in effect for three years in Kansas before it was overturned by federal courts. The state’s own expert estimated that almost all of the roughly 30,000 people who were prevented from registering to vote while it was in effect were U.S. citizens who otherwise had been eligible.

In Missouri, legislation seeking to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement cleared a Senate committee but never came to a vote in the Republican-led chamber.

Republican state Sen. Ben Brown had promoted the legislation as a follow-up to a constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote, which Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved last November. He said there were several factors that led to the bill not advancing this year. Due to the session’s limited schedule, he chose to prioritize another elections bill banning foreign contributions in state ballot measure campaigns.

“Our legislative session ending mid-May means a lot of things die at the finish line because you simply run out of time,” Brown said, noting he also took time to research concerns raised by local election officials and plans to reintroduce the proof-of-citizenship bill next year.

The Republican-controlled Legislature in Utah also prioritized other election changes, adding voter ID requirements and requiring people to opt in to receive their ballots in the mail. Before Gov. Spencer Cox signed the bill into law, Utah was the only Republican-controlled state that allowed all elections to be conducted by mail without a need to opt in.

Under the Florida bill that has failed to advance, voter registration applications wouldn’t be considered valid until state officials had verified citizenship, either by confirming a previous voting history, checking the applicant’s status in state and federal databases, or verifying documents they provided.

The bill would have required voters to prove their citizenship even when updating their registration to change their address or party affiliation.

Its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, said it was meant to follow through on Trump’s executive order: “This bill fully answers the president’s call,” she said.

Cassidy and Lathan write for the Associated Press. Cassidy reported from Atlanta. AP writers Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyo.; David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo.; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Fla.; Hannah Schoenbaum in Salt Lake City; Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio; and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

After losing last month in Orange County Superior Court, the state of California is asking a state appellate court to overturn a Huntington Beach measure that could require voters to present photo identification to cast ballots in local elections.

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, the state’s top elections official, have been tangling with Huntington Beach in court for more than a year over Measure A, which amends the city charter to say that local officials “may” require photo ID for municipal elections starting in 2026.

In April, Orange County Superior Court Judge Nico Dourbetas said the state had not shown that “a voter identification requirement compromises the integrity of a municipal election.” Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns called the ruling a “huge victory.”

Bonta appealed Wednesday to the 4th Appellate District, where the state hopes for a more favorable hearing. In February, a three-judge panel from the 4th District said that Huntington Beach’s assertion of a “constitutional right to regulate its own municipal elections free from state interference” was “problematic,” but kicked the case back down to Orange County Superior Court.

More than 53% of Huntington Beach voters supported the charter amendment in the March 2024 election.

The amendment also requires that Huntington Beach provide 20 in-person polling places and to monitor ballot drop boxes. The city has not shared plans on how the law could be implemented in next year’s elections.

A representative for Huntington Beach didn’t respond to requests for comment Thursday. The city’s lawyers have argued that the city charter gives local officials autonomy to oversee municipal issues, including local elections.

Bonta and Weber contend that while California’s 121 “charter cities” can govern their own municipal affairs, local laws can’t conflict with state laws on issues of “statewide concern,” including the integrity of California elections and the constitutional right to vote.

The voter ID law is one of several fronts in the ongoing battle that conservative officials in Huntington Beach have waged against California since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The city has used similar arguments about its charter city status in fights over state housing laws, education policies for transgender students and “sanctuary state” immigration laws.

The issue of voter ID has become a flashpoint with conservative politicians, including President Trump, who in January demanded that California enact a voter ID law in order to receive aid for the devastating Los Angeles area wildfires.

California voters are required to verify their identities when they register to vote, and the state imposes criminal penalties for fraudulent registration. California does not require photo identification at the polls but does require that voters provide their names and addresses.

The photo ID measure may also be invalidated by Senate Bill 1174, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last fall, which bars local election officials from requiring photo identification in elections.

May 28 (UPI) — The Trump administration is suing North Carolina and the state’s Board of Elections on accusations of maintaining voter registration records that include voters who did not provide required identifying information, in violation of federal law.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit Tuesday, alleging the defendants violated the Help America Vote Act of 2002 by using a state voter registration form that did not “explicitly require” a voter to provide a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number.

Those who filled out the form, without providing the identifying information, were then added to the voter registration record.

HAVA was sweeping voter reform legislation that included updated voter identification procedures. Under the law, a voter registration application must include either the applicant’s driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

The lawsuit alleges that a “significant number” of North Carolina voters who did not provide the required identifying information were registered to vote by election officials.

“Accurate voter registration rolls are critical to ensure that elections in North Carolina are conducted fairly, accurately and without fraud,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “The Department of Justice will not hesitate to file suit against jurisdictions that maintain inaccurate voter registration rolls in violation of federal voting laws.”

The lawsuit comes after Jefferson Griffin, a Republican Court of Appeals judge, finally conceded defeat to his Democratic opponent for North Carolina’s state Supreme Court seat earlier this month, following six months of litigation over the legality of tens of thousands of votes cast in the election.

Griffin lost to Associate Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes and sought to have some 60,000 ballots in six Democratic-leaning counties rejected on the same grounds that the Justice Department cited in its lawsuit on Wednesday — the ballots were cast by voters, mostly in the military or overseas, who did not provide photo ID or an ID exception form.

Democrats accused him of attempting to steal the election, and the state’s high court ruled to uphold the validity of the votes cast.

With Riggs’ victory, the state’s Supreme Court maintains a 5-2 Republican majority.

ASUNCIÓN, Paraguay, May 23 (UPI) — Venezuela will hold regional and parliamentary elections Sunday amid a deep political and economic crisis. High voter abstention is forecast and a divided opposition lacks a unified strategy against the ruling party.

María Corina Machado, leader of the opposition Democratic Unitary Platform, who is in hiding from government security forces, has called for a boycott of the vote. She urged Venezuelans not to legitimize what she describes as a fraudulent process.

Other opposition leaders, including former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles and Zulia state Gov. Manuel Rosales, have chosen to participate in the vote to preserve political representation.

After leading the opposition coalition that secured Edmundo González’s victory in the 2024 presidential vote, Machado remains a key figure for many who oppose President Nicolás Maduro.

Maduro rejected the election results and held on to power by force. Machado’s influence is expected to drive widespread abstention, according to Beatriz Rangel, a former Cabinet minister under President Carlos Andrés Pérez.

A recent poll from the Center for Political and Government Studies at Andrés Bello Catholic University found that just 15.9% of Venezuelans plan to vote in the upcoming elections. Of those, 74.2% said they would back pro-Maduro government candidates, while 13.8% expressed support for figures aligned with Rosales and Capriles.

The leading reasons cited for abstention include a lack of trust in the National Electoral Council (27.4%), the belief that voting no longer makes a difference (23.9%), and the view that participating would undermine protests against alleged fraud in the most recent presidential election (14.4%).

Venezuela’s economic situation continues to worsen after a brief period of relative stability. The Venezuelan Finance Observatory reported a 2.7% contraction in the economy during the first quarter of 2025 compared to the same period last year, citing declining oil production, soaring inflation and reduced domestic consumption.

The Economic and Social Research Institute at Andrés Bello Catholic University projects inflation will reach 220% by the end of the year, driven by the depreciation of the bolívar and falling government revenues. The weakened currency has made imported goods more expensive and eroded purchasing power for most Venezuelans.

The upcoming elections will decide 285 seats in the National Assembly and 24 regional governorships, most of which are expected to remain under the control of Maduro allies.

For the first time, representatives from the disputed Guayana Esequiba region also will be elected, a move that has heightened tensions with Guyana. The Guyanese government has denounced the inclusion as illegal and warned that those participating could face arrest.

News and social media feeds inundate us with dramatic scenes of immigration policing. Viral videos of immigrant mothers picked up on sidewalks near their homes, news accounts of ICE agents showing up in Los Angeles schools and social media posts of U.S. citizens detained by government agents, all create a frightening spectacle. President Trump fuels the fear by trolling immigrant communities with sinister Valentine cards, dangling self-deportation incentives and implementing a chaotic enforcement strategy that ignores attempts at judicial oversight. Amid all this, many look to state and local leaders for calm, reassurance and support.

In California, there remains a simple and consistent response. No matter who, when, where or how you ask, a commanding majority of registered voters in the Golden State support a path to citizenship for those in the state without proper documents. In other words, across the partisan aisle, and across all kinds of different groups and places, most voters see a path to citizenship as a much-needed policy fix, even now.

In August of 2024, a few months before the presidential election, the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Poll asked more than 4,000 voters across the state whether they would support or oppose a “path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who come forward, are up to date on their taxes, and pass a background check.”

At that time, the Harris and Trump campaigns were in full swing. Harris’ team had already held a few news conferences at the border, insinuating that increased border security would be top of mind in her administration. Meanwhile, Trump continued his usual discourse about immigrants, once infamously contending that immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” It was difficult to see who, if anyone, felt sympathy toward community members who’d entered the country without authorization or overstayed a visa, despite the fact that many of them had raised new generations of American citizens and contributed to public coffers and local job markets.

But even back in August, 80% of California registered voters who answered the poll supported a path to citizenship. This included close to 60% of polled Republicans, 75% of independents and even 56% of those who intended to vote for Trump. It also included 75% of those who earned a high school degree or less, 80% of those who earned a college degree or more, 80% of women, 78% of men, 75% of homeowners and 84% of those under 40. Among the strongest supporters were Democrats, with 91% support, as well as middle- and high-income earners, and those who lived in the Bay Area. Across most categories, a commanding majority of California voters expressed support for a pathway to citizenship.

But that was then, before the onslaught. Before the viral videos, the renditions to El Salvador, the offer of cash to self-deport. One could argue that in those before-times, perhaps voters were somehow more sympathetic to immigrants because they were distracted by other issues, like the price of eggs and groceries or broader inflation issues. And perhaps some might not have believed that Trump would actually follow through on his attacks on immigrant communities.

So in early May the Berkeley IGS Poll asked survey respondents again about their support for a path to citizenship. This time we polled more than 6,000 registered California voters and we inserted a small survey experiment. We were curious about whether respondents’ support in August had been so strong because the question they were asked included language about a “background check,” an idea that might have primed them to think about “good” and “bad” immigrants and may have inadvertently linked unauthorized status to crime. So for half of all respondents in May, we asked the same question again, but for the second half of respondents, we omitted this language, simply asking if they would support or oppose a “path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are working or going to school and are up to date on their taxes.”

Our survey found no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The vast majority of California voters think a path to citizenship is simply the right thing to do, background check or not.

Moreover, we found virtually no differences from August to May. Eighty percent of registered voters this month, including close to 60% of Republicans, continued to support a path to citizenship. Somewhere between 70% and 85% of every demographic, including respondents under 40, those over 65, those of different racial groups, those in unions, those that rent their homes, those that own their homes, men, women, those in the Central Valley, Los Angeles County, the Inland Empire and even those on the far North Coast all expressed support for a path to citizenship. The consistency is resounding.

If you’re trying to make sense of the bombast and the whirlwind of executive and law enforcement actions directed at immigrants, remember the one thing that unites a commanding majority of California voters, almost without regard to who we are and where we live, an understanding that good policy is practical policy: Undocumented community members deserve relief.

State and local leaders do not design federal immigration policy, but they should remember this poll data as they make decisions about how to support us all. If it were put to a vote, an overwhelming majority of Californians would support immigration reform, not mass deportation.

G. Cristina Mora and Nicholas Vargas are professors at UC Berkeley affiliated with the Institute of Governmental Studies, where Mora serves as co-director.

For some folks, this summer will be a time of relaxation: picnics, barbecues, vacation. For others, a mad scramble between work and swim meets, baseball tournaments or shopping before shelves go bare and the Trump tariffs price everything beyond reach.

For Kamala Harris, it’s a time for deciding.

The former vice president is expected to spend a chunk of her summer weighing various options — whether to retire from politics after more than 20 years seeking elected office, whether to mount a 2026 bid for California governor or whether to make a third attempt at the White House in 2028.

According to several who’ve spoken with Harris, she is genuinely undecided, torn between concern and affection for her home state and an undimmed desire to be president.

Of the three options, the most pressing is whether to enter the race to replace her fellow Democrat, the term-limited Gavin Newsom, as governor.

The contest is already well underway — 10 serious (broadly speaking) candidates have so far announced their candidacies. While Harris’ near-universal name recognition and nationwide fundraising base allow her to wait longer than others, a serious gubernatorial bid will take more than a few months to mount.

That forces a decision and a public announcement sooner rather than later.

If she does run, one thing Harris must avoid at all costs is anything that bespeaks arrogance, entitlement or anything less than a 100% commitment to serving as governor. It’s not hard to imagine one of her first utterances as a candidate would be pledging to serve a full four-year term and vowing not to use the office as an interim step toward another presidential bid.

Failing that, voters have every reason to send Harris packing. California doesn’t need another governor with a wandering political eye.

Another imperative Harris faces is offering a compelling reason why she wants to be governor. Seeking the office for the same reason climbers tackle Mt. Everest — because it’s there — won’t do.

History offers a lesson.

In November 1979, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy was preparing to launch an upstart bid for president against the unpopular incumbent, Jimmy Carter. He gave a television interview that was so legendarily awful it’s become an object lesson in how not to start a campaign.

Asked why he wanted to be president, Kennedy paused at length, appearing stricken. He then unspooled a long-winded, curlicued, two-minute response that mentioned natural resources, technology, innovation, productivity, inflation, energy, joblessness and the economy, among other things. His answer was lucid as a fog bank and inspiring as a stalk of celery.

“Kennedy was on a rocket ship,” said Dan Schnur, a veteran communications strategist and political science professor, who uses the Kennedy interview as part of his curriculum at USC, Pepperdine and UC Berkeley. Carter was in dreadful shape, Kennedy was political royalty and the enthusiasm for his candidacy at the Democratic grassroots “looked like it was going to sweep him to the nomination.

“And then he did that one interview,” Schnur recollected, “and he couldn’t answer the most basic question.”

Though Kennedy ended up giving Carter a stiff challenge, he never fully recovered from leaving that terrible impression.

Harris should take heed.

A recent poll by the L.A. Times and UC Berkeley gave her a 50% approval rating among California voters, which is not exactly a number to beat the band. Still, she would enter the governor’s race as a heavy favorite to at least make the runoff under the state’s top-two election system. If a Republican nabbed the second spot, Harris would be strongly positioned to win in November, given California’s strong Democratic leaning.

But, again, neither is a reason for Harris to be governor.

Some of those close to the former vice president wonder how much she really wants, or would enjoy, the job.

In 2015, when the governorship and a U.S. Senate seat both came open, Harris — the state’s attorney general at the time — opted to seek the latter. Her reasons were both personal, involving family considerations, and professional, given the platform and opportunities afforded a member of the Senate.

In short, Harris has never burned with a passion to be California governor.

That makes it all the more important for her to explain — clearly and convincingly — why she’d want to be elected.

“She’s got to give some affirmative reason why she’s running and why it would be good for the voters of California,” Schnur said. “And it’s not just a matter of constructing several words into a sentence.

“It’s not hard for someone as smart as Kamala Harris and her team to concoct a lab-tested phrase that tests well,” he went on. “The challenge isn’t typing out a sentence. It’s developing a core purpose that can then be explained in a sentence.”

Harris has all summer to look inward and figure that out. If she can’t, California voters should choose someone else for their next governor.

PHOENIX — Former President Biden’s time in office is behind him, but his age and mental acuity have become an issue for the next leaders in his party.

Audio was published Friday from portions of interviews Biden gave to federal prosecutors in 2023, the latest in a stream of reports putting questions about Biden’s health back in the spotlight. Months after former Vice President Kamala Harris lost the presidential election to Donald Trump, a new book alleges that White House aides covered up Biden’s physical and mental decline.

Several potential Democratic contenders for the 2028 nomination have been asked in recent days whether they believe Biden was declining in office or whether he should have sought reelection before a disastrous debate performance led to his withdrawal.

Many Democrats would prefer to focus on President Trump’s second term and his sagging poll numbers. Trump has done his best to prevent that — mentioning Biden’s name an average of six times per day during his first 100 days in office, according to an NBC News analysis — and Republicans have followed his lead, betting that voters frustrated by Trump’s policy moves will still prefer him over memories of another unpopular presidency.

In the race for Virginia governor, one of this year’s highest-profile contests, Republican Winsome Earle-Sears is running a pair of digital ads tying Democratic former Rep. Abigail Spanberger to Biden, with images of the two hugging and the former president calling her a friend.

“The stench of Joe Biden still lingers on the Democratic Party,” Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett said. “We have to do the hard work of fixing that, and I think that includes telling the truth, frankly, about when we were wrong.”

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut told Politico this week that “there’s no doubt” that Biden, now 82, experienced cognitive decline as president.

Pete Buttigieg, who was Biden’s Transportation secretary, wasn’t as blunt but stopped short of defending Biden’s initial decision to run for reelection. He responded “maybe” when asked Tuesday whether the Democratic Party would have been better off if Biden hadn’t declared a bid for a second term.

“Right now, with the advantage of hindsight, I think most people would agree that that’s the case,” Buttigieg told reporters during a stop in Iowa.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said he didn’t see signs of mental or physical decline in his meetings with Biden.

“I saw him a few times,” he told CNN this week. “I certainly went to the White House whenever there was an opportunity for me to make the case for something for people in my state. And I never had the experience of anything other than a guy who brought to the table a lot of good ideas about how to solve problems.”

The book “Original Sin,” by journalists Jake Tapper of CNN and Alex Thompson of Axios, revives a core controversy of Biden’s presidency: his decision to run for a second term despite voters, including Democrats, telling pollsters that he should not. Biden would have been 86 at the end of a second term had he won in November.

A spokesperson for Biden did not respond to a request for comment.

“We continue to await anything that shows where Joe Biden had to make a presidential decision or where national security was threatened or where he was unable to do his job,” the spokesperson has told many media outlets in response to the book.

Late Friday, Axios published portions from audio recordings of Biden’s six hours of interviews with prosecutors investigating his handling of classified documents after his term as vice president ended in 2017, for which he was not charged.

The Biden administration had already released transcripts of the interviews, but the recordings shed light on special counsel Robert Hur’s characterization of Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and appeared to validate his claim that the then-president struggled to recall key dates, including the year his son Beau died of cancer — 2015.

Biden and his aides fiercely objected to Hur’s report, which they characterized as a partisan hit. Biden at that time — early 2024 — was still planning to run for a second term and fending off accusations that he was too old for another four years in the job.

The recordings released by Axios include Biden’s discussion of his son’s death. His responses to some of the prosecutors’ questions are punctuated by long pauses, and his lawyers at times stepped in to help him recall dates and timelines.

Before he dropped his reelection bid last summer, Biden faced widespread doubts within his own party, even as Democratic leaders dismissed a series of verbal flubs and Republican allegations about his declining acuity.

In January 2022, a year into Biden’s first term, an AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that only 48% of Democrats wanted him to seek reelection. That fell to 37% of Democrats in an AP-NORC poll in February 2023. Three-quarters of Americans — and 69% of Democrats — said in August 2023 that they believed Biden was too old to serve as president for another four-year term.

And shortly after his debate flop, nearly two-thirds of Democrats said Biden should withdraw from the race.

Biden and former First Lady Jill Biden appeared on ABC’s “The View” on May 8 in a preemptive defense of his health and decision-making before the first excerpts of “Original Sin” were published.

The former president said he’s responsible for Trump’s victory but attributed Harris’ loss, at least in part, to sexism and racism. He maintained that he would have won had he remained the Democratic nominee. Both Bidens rejected concerns about his cognitive decline.

Patricia McEnerney, a 74-year-old Democrat in Goodyear, Ariz., said Biden should not have tried to run again.

“I think it’s sad the way it ended,” she said.

She compared him to Douglas MacArthur, the World War II and Korean War general famously dismissed by President Truman.

“I think he needs to stop giving interviews. I think that would help,” McEnerney said. “Like MacArthur said, generals just fade away.”

Janet Stumps, a 66-year-old Democrat also from Goodyear, a Phoenix suburb, had a different view.

“I don’t think it’s going to hurt the Democrats,” Stumps said. “I feel badly that he feels he has to defend himself. I don’t think he has to. Everybody ages. And the fact that he did what he did at his age, I think he should be commended for it.”

Hackett, the Democratic strategist, predicted Biden won’t be a major factor in the 2026 midterms or the 2028 presidential primaries. But he said Democrats who want voters to trust them would be well-served “by telling the truth about the mistakes that our party made in the run-up to 2024.”

“Those mistakes were largely driven by Joe Biden, and I think any Democrat not willing to say that is not really prepared to face the voters, who want the truth and they want authenticity,” Hackett said.

Rick Wilson, a former GOP strategist who co-founded the anti-Trump group the Lincoln Project, said Republicans want to talk about Biden to avoid defending Trump. But he said the strategy is folly.

Besides “political nerds,” he said, “no one else cares.”

Cooper writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Thomas Beaumont in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, contributed to this report.