Australia's&nbsp;opposition&nbsp;Labor Party&nbsp;leader, Anthony Albanese, said Monday he was only "human" after being unable to remember the country's unemployment&nbsp;rate&nbsp;on the first full day of campaigning for May 21 elections.

Albanese's party is ahead in the polls as he seeks to oust Prime Minister Scott Morrison's conservative coalition government.

The economy is a key issue for many of the country's 17 million voters.

&nbsp;Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-announces-general-elections-on-may-21-469899">Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announces general elections on May 21</a>

Asked to give the national&nbsp;jobless&nbsp;rate&nbsp;by a reporter, Albanese stumbled, replying: "The national unemployment&nbsp;rate&nbsp;at the moment is, I think it is 5 point...4, sorry, I am not sure what it is."

Australia's unemployment&nbsp;rate&nbsp;is at a 13-year low of 4.0 per cent, a level that Morrison has been touting as he warns voters not to trust Labour with the economy.

Albanese also skirted questions on the key interest that banks charge each other for overnight loans. Known as the bank&nbsp;rate, or the cash&nbsp;rate, it stands at 0.1 per cent.

"Earlier today I made a mistake. I'm human," Albanese said shortly afterwards.

Watch |&nbsp;Australian PM Scott Morrison calls federal election for May 21

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/australian-pm-scott-morrison-calls-federal-election-for-may-21-469909/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"But when I make a mistake I will fess up to it and I will set about correcting that mistake. I won't blame someone else. I will accept responsibility. That's what leaders do."

On a two-party basis, Labor leads the Liberal-National Party coalition by 53 per cent to 47 per cent, according to the latest Newspoll released this weekend.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/singapore-sentences-australian-for-hurling-wine-bottle-killing-man-469294">Singapore sentences Australian for hurling bottle, killing man in 'act of religious hostility toward Muslims'</a>

Asked similar questions later, Morrison gave the correct figures, adding his own government's prediction that the unemployment&nbsp;rate&nbsp;"is falling to a 50-year low".

Multiple surveys show the cost of living, with gasoline prices soaring since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a key concern ahead of the election.

Australia's opposition Labor Party leader, Anthony Albanese, said Monday he was only "human" after being unable to remember the country's unemployment rate on the first full day of campaigning for May 21 elections.

Australia's opposition Labor Party leader, Anthony Albanese, said Monday he was only "human" after being unable to remember the country's unemployment rate on the first full day of campaigning for May 21 elections. Albanese's party is ahead in the polls as he seeks to oust Prime Minister Scott Morrison's conservative coalition government. The economy is a key issue for many of the country's 17 million voters. Also read | Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announces general elections on May 21 Asked to give the national jobless rate by a reporter, Albanese stumbled, replying: "The national unemployment rate at the moment is, I think it is 5 point...4, sorry, I am not sure what it is." Australia's unemployment rate is at a 13-year low of 4.0 per cent, a level that Morrison has been touting as he warns voters not to trust Labour with the economy. Albanese also skirted questions on the key interest that banks charge each other for overnight loans. Known as the bank rate, or the cash rate, it stands at 0.1 per cent. "Earlier today I made a mistake. I'm human," Albanese said shortly afterwards. Watch | Australian PM Scott Morrison calls federal election for May 21 "But when I make a mistake I will fess up to it and I will set about correcting that mistake. I won't blame someone else. I will accept responsibility. That's what leaders do." On a two-party basis, Labor leads the Liberal-National Party coalition by 53 per cent to 47 per cent, according to the latest Newspoll released this weekend. Also read | Singapore sentences Australian for hurling bottle, killing man in 'act of religious hostility toward Muslims' Asked similar questions later, Morrison gave the correct figures, adding his own government's prediction that the unemployment rate "is falling to a 50-year low". Multiple surveys show the cost of living, with gasoline prices soaring since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a key concern ahead of the election.

Australia's opposition leader forgets jobless rate, says 'I made a mistake. I'm human'

Mexicans&nbsp;will&nbsp;vote&nbsp;Sunday in a divisive national referendum championed by&nbsp;President&nbsp;Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on&nbsp;whether&nbsp;he&nbsp;should&nbsp;step down or complete his six-year term.

While recall&nbsp;elections&nbsp;in other countries tend to be initiated by political opponents, Mexico's&nbsp;vote&nbsp;is the brainchild of Lopez Obrador, who enjoys an approval rating of nearly 60 per cent.

The 68-year-old&nbsp;president, who was elected in 2018, and other supporters of the referendum -- the first of its kind in Mexico -- say it is a way of increasing democratic accountability.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/in-unusual-step-mexico-president-asks-voters-if-he-should-go-469282">In an unusual step, Mexico president asks voters if he should go</a>

"Now we have the chance to change what's not right. There have been presidents who, after being elected by the people, ended up serving other interests," Benigno Gasca, a 57-year-old mathematician and musician, told AFP.

But critics see it as an expensive propaganda exercise and an unnecessary distraction from the many challenges facing the country, including drug-related violence, poverty and the rising cost of living.

"It's a useless exercise,&nbsp;money thrown away," said Laura Gonzalez, a 62-year-old retired teacher.

Experts say turnout is likely to be well below the 40-percent level needed for the&nbsp;vote&nbsp;to be legally binding.

Opposition parties have urged&nbsp;Mexicans&nbsp;to abstain from&nbsp;voting&nbsp;in what they call a "populist exercise."

Eyes on turnout&nbsp;

Some 93 million voters will be able to participate in the midterm referendum, which was incorporated into Mexico's constitution in 2019 at Lopez Obrador's initiative.

Most of the signatures that were collected in order for the&nbsp;vote&nbsp;to happen came from his supporters.

Given the popularity of the anti-corruption austerity advocate, his presidency is not at risk "at all," said political analyst Martha Anaya.

On the contrary, the referendum could give impetus to his policy agenda, such as controversial energy reforms, she said.

Watch |&nbsp;India is an important partner in Trade, Space says Mexico Foreign minister Ebrard

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-is-an-important-partner-in-trade-space-says-mexico-foreign-minister-ebrard-467044/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The&nbsp;president&nbsp;also has his eye on the 2024&nbsp;elections&nbsp;and the prospects for his party and possible successors, including Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum.

The Mexican constitution limits presidents to one term, and Lopez Obrador has vowed to retire in 2024, following accusations by opponents that the referendum is a step towards trying to&nbsp;stay&nbsp;in power.

Lopez Obrador enjoyed an approval rating of 58 percent in March, although that was far below a peak of 81 percent seen in February 2019, according to a poll of polls by the Oraculus&nbsp;firm.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-is-an-important-partner-in-trade-space-says-mexico-foreign-minister-ebrard-467045">&nbsp;</a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/space-and-pharma-to-be-key-focus-of-mexico-fms-india-visit-tomorrow-466726">Space and pharma to be key focus of Mexico FM’s India visit on Wednesday</a>

The&nbsp;president&nbsp;accuses the National Electoral Institute of sabotaging the referendum in collusion with his political opponents.

The body, which unsuccessfully sought a larger budget, will set up around 57,500 polling stations, compared with 161,000 in a normal national&nbsp;election.

Voting&nbsp;will start at 1300 GMT and end at 2300 GMT in most of the country, with the result expected to be announced late Sunday.

Lopez Obrador has overseen a series of referendums since taking office on controversial issues including his "Maya Train" railroad project, and canceling a partially finished airport for Mexico City.

A public consultation held in August on&nbsp;whether&nbsp;to prosecute his predecessors for alleged corruption drew only a small fraction of voters to the polls.

Mexicans will vote Sunday in a divisive national referendum championed by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on whether he should step down or complete his six-year term.

Mexicans will vote Sunday in a divisive national referendum championed by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on whether he should step down or complete his six-year term. While recall elections in other countries tend to be initiated by political opponents, Mexico's vote is the brainchild of Lopez Obrador, who enjoys an approval rating of nearly 60 per cent. The 68-year-old president, who was elected in 2018, and other supporters of the referendum -- the first of its kind in Mexico -- say it is a way of increasing democratic accountability. Also read | In an unusual step, Mexico president asks voters if he should go "Now we have the chance to change what's not right. There have been presidents who, after being elected by the people, ended up serving other interests," Benigno Gasca, a 57-year-old mathematician and musician, told AFP. But critics see it as an expensive propaganda exercise and an unnecessary distraction from the many challenges facing the country, including drug-related violence, poverty and the rising cost of living. "It's a useless exercise, money thrown away," said Laura Gonzalez, a 62-year-old retired teacher. Experts say turnout is likely to be well below the 40-percent level needed for the vote to be legally binding. Opposition parties have urged Mexicans to abstain from voting in what they call a "populist exercise." Eyes on turnout Some 93 million voters will be able to participate in the midterm referendum, which was incorporated into Mexico's constitution in 2019 at Lopez Obrador's initiative. Most of the signatures that were collected in order for the vote to happen came from his supporters. Given the popularity of the anti-corruption austerity advocate, his presidency is not at risk "at all," said political analyst Martha Anaya. On the contrary, the referendum could give impetus to his policy agenda, such as controversial energy reforms, she said. Watch | India is an important partner in Trade, Space says Mexico Foreign minister Ebrard The president also has his eye on the 2024 elections and the prospects for his party and possible successors, including Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum. The Mexican constitution limits presidents to one term, and Lopez Obrador has vowed to retire in 2024, following accusations by opponents that the referendum is a step towards trying to stay in power. Lopez Obrador enjoyed an approval rating of 58 percent in March, although that was far below a peak of 81 percent seen in February 2019, according to a poll of polls by the Oraculus firm. Also read | Space and pharma to be key focus of Mexico FM’s India visit on Wednesday The president accuses the National Electoral Institute of sabotaging the referendum in collusion with his political opponents. The body, which unsuccessfully sought a larger budget, will set up around 57,500 polling stations, compared with 161,000 in a normal national election. Voting will start at 1300 GMT and end at 2300 GMT in most of the country, with the result expected to be announced late Sunday. Lopez Obrador has overseen a series of referendums since taking office on controversial issues including his "Maya Train" railroad project, and canceling a partially finished airport for Mexico City. A public consultation held in August on whether to prosecute his predecessors for alleged corruption drew only a small fraction of voters to the polls.

Mexicans vote whether president should stay or go

&nbsp;Hong Kong's former No. 2 official John Lee, who has announced he will run in a&nbsp;leadership&nbsp;election in May, said on Saturday he plans a new chapter for the global financial hub that has been wracked by unprecedented upheaval with protests and COVID-19.

Lee, 64, resigned on Wednesday to run to replace Chief Executive Carrie Lam, whose five-year term ends on June 30. Lam oversaw one of the most tumultuous periods in Hong Kong history with pro-democracy demonstrations and coronavirus.

"This will be&nbsp;a new symphony and I am the conductor," Lee, who was the city's security chief during anti-government protests in 2019, told a press conference.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hong-kong-deputy-chief-says-he-plans-to-run-for-citys-top-job-468986">Hong Kong deputy chief says he plans to run for city's top job</a>

"Together, we will play a more splendid new piece for Hong Kong."

Fleshing out his policy platform, Lee said loyalty to the central government was a priority for any chief executive and part of his platform included accelerating plans to resolve the city's chronic housing shortage.

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: Hong Kong separates 2,000 Covid-positive children from parents

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-hong-kong-separates-2000-covid-positive-children-from-parents-466791/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Hong Kong media reports said this week that Beijing officials want Lee to be the only candidate, and will not give the green light to others to stand against him.

Lee said he welcomed any other&nbsp;leadership&nbsp;contenders.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hong-kong-activists-fade-from-view-as-national-security-case-drags-469025">Hong Kong activists fade from view as national security case drags</a>

The city's four biggest property tycoons, including CK Asset's Victor Li, son of billionaire Li Ka-shing, said in separate statements this week that Lee was a suitable candidate to lead Hong Kong to stability.

The show of support, from some of the city's most powerful property tycoons, came before Lee officially announced his bid to run for leader, signalling the move had already been approved and received tacit approval from some Hong Kong business people.

Hong Kong's former No. 2 official John Lee, who has announced he will run in a leadership election in May, said on Saturday he plans a new chapter for the global financial hub that has been wracked by unprecedented upheaval with protests and COVID-19.

Hong Kong's former No. 2 official John Lee, who has announced he will run in a leadership election in May, said on Saturday he plans a new chapter for the global financial hub that has been wracked by unprecedented upheaval with protests and COVID-19. Lee, 64, resigned on Wednesday to run to replace Chief Executive Carrie Lam, whose five-year term ends on June 30. Lam oversaw one of the most tumultuous periods in Hong Kong history with pro-democracy demonstrations and coronavirus. "This will be a new symphony and I am the conductor," Lee, who was the city's security chief during anti-government protests in 2019, told a press conference. Also read | Hong Kong deputy chief says he plans to run for city's top job "Together, we will play a more splendid new piece for Hong Kong." Fleshing out his policy platform, Lee said loyalty to the central government was a priority for any chief executive and part of his platform included accelerating plans to resolve the city's chronic housing shortage. Watch | Gravitas: Hong Kong separates 2,000 Covid-positive children from parents Hong Kong media reports said this week that Beijing officials want Lee to be the only candidate, and will not give the green light to others to stand against him. Lee said he welcomed any other leadership contenders. Also read | Hong Kong activists fade from view as national security case drags The city's four biggest property tycoons, including CK Asset's Victor Li, son of billionaire Li Ka-shing, said in separate statements this week that Lee was a suitable candidate to lead Hong Kong to stability. The show of support, from some of the city's most powerful property tycoons, came before Lee officially announced his bid to run for leader, signalling the move had already been approved and received tacit approval from some Hong Kong business people.

Hong Kong leadership contender John Lee says he plans a new chapter for the global financial hub

Mexico&nbsp;will hold its first presidential recall referendum on Sunday, promoted by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, on whether he should complete his six-year term -- an exercise that has split public opinion.

With an approval rating of nearly 60 per cent, the midterm popularity test appears unlikely to result in Lopez Obrador's early departure.

The president argues that submitting himself to the recall referendum is important for democracy, but critics see it as little more than an expensive propaganda exercise.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-is-an-important-partner-in-trade-space-says-mexico-foreign-minister-ebrard-467045">India is an important partner in trade, space says Mexico Foreign Minister Ebrard</a>

The 68-year-old self-styled anti-corruption, the pro-austerity crusader was elected in 2018 vowing to overhaul&nbsp;Mexico's "neoliberal" economic model.

Lopez Obrador has promised not to seek reelection in 2024, following accusations by opponents that the referendum is a step towards changing the rules to enable him to stay in power beyond then.

The Mexican constitution limits presidents to one term.

Lopez Obrador "seeks, like any populist politician, to maintain the climate of polarization and encourage the narrative that the people are on his side," said political consultant Luis Carlos Ugalde, a former head of&nbsp;Mexico's electoral institute.

But Ugalde is sceptical that the vote will smooth the way for Lopez Obrador to stay in office beyond 2024.

"Perhaps there will be voices in his party that say he should stay, but the power of that voice will be minimal," Ugalde said.

A successful result on Sunday could inject momentum into Lopez Obrador's policy agenda, including controversial energy reforms.

Lopez Obrador's Morena party lost its absolute majority in the lower house of Congress in legislative elections last year.

The president also has his eye on the 2024 elections and the prospects for his party and possible successors including&nbsp;Mexico City&nbsp;Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum.

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: Why hundreds of birds fell to death in Mexico

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-why-hundreds-of-birds-fell-to-death-in-mexico-453597/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Populist exercise

Lopez Obrador has overseen a series of referendums since taking office on controversial issues including his "Maya Train" railroad project and cancelling a partially finished airport for&nbsp;Mexico City.

A public consultation held in August on whether to prosecute his predecessors for alleged corruption drew only a small fraction of voters to the polls.

The midterm recall referendum was incorporated into&nbsp;Mexico's constitution in 2019 at Lopez Obrador's initiative.

Some 93 million voters will be able to participate, but many are expected to stay home.

The outcome will be overwhelmingly in favour of Lopez Obrador completing his term, although in any case turnout is likely to be below the 40-per cent level needed for the vote to be legally binding, predicted Ugalde.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/space-and-pharma-to-be-key-focus-of-mexico-fms-india-visit-tomorrow-466726">Space and pharma to be key focus of Mexico FM’s India visit on Wednesday</a>

The opposition parties PAN, PRI and PRD have urged Mexicans to abstain from voting in what they call a "populist exercise."

Lopez Obrador enjoyed an approval rating of 58 per cent in March, although that was far below a peak of 81 per cent seen in February 2019, according to a poll of polls by the Oraculus&nbsp;firm.

"It's kind of an oxymoron to have a recall process when you have a popular president," said Jorge Buendia, director of public opinion firm Buendia &amp; Marquez.

"The strongest supporters of the president are those that are going to go to the polls," he told a panel discussion.

Lopez Obrador owes much of his popularity to his social welfare programs aimed at helping the poor and dominates&nbsp;Mexico's news agenda with press conferences lasting up to three hours every weekday.

Lopez Obrador's critics say he is damaging democratic checks and balances with his attacks on bodies including the National Electoral Institute, which the president accuses of undermining the referendum.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/high-level-visits-from-colombia-mexico-to-india-in-few-weeks-461993">High level visits from Colombia, Mexico to India in few weeks</a>

"We will defend the National Electoral Institute, which is under attack by the presidency," said Amado Vazquez, a lawyer attending a protest against Sunday's vote in the western city of Guadalajara.

The referendum is biased in favour of the government and "in no way a citizen's vote," he added.

Mexico will hold its first presidential recall referendum on Sunday, promoted by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, on whether he should complete his six-year term -- an exercise that has split public opinion.

Mexico will hold its first presidential recall referendum on Sunday, promoted by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, on whether he should complete his six-year term -- an exercise that has split public opinion. With an approval rating of nearly 60 per cent, the midterm popularity test appears unlikely to result in Lopez Obrador's early departure. The president argues that submitting himself to the recall referendum is important for democracy, but critics see it as little more than an expensive propaganda exercise. Also read | India is an important partner in trade, space says Mexico Foreign Minister Ebrard The 68-year-old self-styled anti-corruption, the pro-austerity crusader was elected in 2018 vowing to overhaul Mexico's "neoliberal" economic model. Lopez Obrador has promised not to seek reelection in 2024, following accusations by opponents that the referendum is a step towards changing the rules to enable him to stay in power beyond then. The Mexican constitution limits presidents to one term. Lopez Obrador "seeks, like any populist politician, to maintain the climate of polarization and encourage the narrative that the people are on his side," said political consultant Luis Carlos Ugalde, a former head of Mexico's electoral institute. But Ugalde is sceptical that the vote will smooth the way for Lopez Obrador to stay in office beyond 2024. "Perhaps there will be voices in his party that say he should stay, but the power of that voice will be minimal," Ugalde said. A successful result on Sunday could inject momentum into Lopez Obrador's policy agenda, including controversial energy reforms. Lopez Obrador's Morena party lost its absolute majority in the lower house of Congress in legislative elections last year. The president also has his eye on the 2024 elections and the prospects for his party and possible successors including Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum. Watch | Gravitas: Why hundreds of birds fell to death in Mexico Populist exercise Lopez Obrador has overseen a series of referendums since taking office on controversial issues including his "Maya Train" railroad project and cancelling a partially finished airport for Mexico City. A public consultation held in August on whether to prosecute his predecessors for alleged corruption drew only a small fraction of voters to the polls. The midterm recall referendum was incorporated into Mexico's constitution in 2019 at Lopez Obrador's initiative. Some 93 million voters will be able to participate, but many are expected to stay home. The outcome will be overwhelmingly in favour of Lopez Obrador completing his term, although in any case turnout is likely to be below the 40-per cent level needed for the vote to be legally binding, predicted Ugalde. Also read | Space and pharma to be key focus of Mexico FM’s India visit on Wednesday The opposition parties PAN, PRI and PRD have urged Mexicans to abstain from voting in what they call a "populist exercise." Lopez Obrador enjoyed an approval rating of 58 per cent in March, although that was far below a peak of 81 per cent seen in February 2019, according to a poll of polls by the Oraculus firm. "It's kind of an oxymoron to have a recall process when you have a popular president," said Jorge Buendia, director of public opinion firm Buendia & Marquez. "The strongest supporters of the president are those that are going to go to the polls," he told a panel discussion. Lopez Obrador owes much of his popularity to his social welfare programs aimed at helping the poor and dominates Mexico's news agenda with press conferences lasting up to three hours every weekday. Lopez Obrador's critics say he is damaging democratic checks and balances with his attacks on bodies including the National Electoral Institute, which the president accuses of undermining the referendum. Also read | High level visits from Colombia, Mexico to India in few weeks "We will defend the National Electoral Institute, which is under attack by the presidency," said Amado Vazquez, a lawyer attending a protest against Sunday's vote in the western city of Guadalajara. The referendum is biased in favour of the government and "in no way a citizen's vote," he added.

In an unusual step, Mexico president asks voters if he should go

Official results from Hungary's general election on Sunday showed nationalist Hungarian Prime Minister&nbsp;Viktor&nbsp;Orban's Fidesz party had won a fourth term in office by a much greater margin than pre-election polls had suggested, after a campaign overshadowed by the war in neighbouring Ukraine.

Addressing a jubilant crowd chanting his name, many of them wearing Fidesz's orange party colour,&nbsp;Orban&nbsp;said: "We have won a great victory -- a victory so great you can perhaps see it from the moon and certainly from Brussels".

Orban's administration has presided over repeated confrontations with the European Union, including over the neutering of the press and judiciary, and measures targeting the LGBTQ community -- also the subject of a vote on Sunday.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hungarians-vote-on-orbans-12-year-rule-in-tight-ballot-overshadowed-by-ukraine-war-467895">Hungarians vote on Orban's 12-year rule in tight ballot overshadowed by Ukraine war</a>

The 58-year-old, already the longest-serving head of government in the EU, was challenged by six united opposition parties seeking to roll back the "illiberal" revolution&nbsp;Orban's Fidesz party has pursued during 12 consecutive years in office.

But with 94 percent of votes counted, Fidesz was on 53 percent compared to 35 percent for the opposition coalition, according to results from the national election office -- a result which means the party will retain its two-thirds majority in parliament.

Peter Marki-Zay, 49, the conservative leading the opposition list, addressed supporters and conceded defeat late on Sunday evening.

"I will not hide my sadness and my disappointment," he told them, combatively accusing Fidesz of running a campaign of "hate and lies".

He added that the opposition had done "everything humanly possible" but that the campaign had been "an unequal fight" given the way in which he and other anti-Fidesz politicians had been all but banished from state media.

MEP Marton Gyongyosi from the right-wing Jobbik party which is part of the opposition coalition, told AFP that "abuses" had taken place on Sunday and added: "This will have to be considered when talking about how the results of the elections can be respected".

Orban&nbsp;has dismissed such complaints and insisted the vote was fair.

For the first time more than 200 international observers monitored the election in Hungary, an EU member, along with thousands of domestic volunteers from both camps.

Turnout reached 68.69 percent, almost matching the record participation seen at the last national elections in 2018.

The far-right Mi Hazank party also surpassed expectations and will make its debut in parliament after crossing the five-percent minimum threshold.

Watch |&nbsp;Hungary: Viktor Orban scores fourth consecutive win in general elections

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/hungary-viktor-orban-scored-a-fourth-consecutive-win-in-general-elections-468142/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Ruined the country

Budapest resident Agnes Kunyik, 56, told AFP she had backed the opposition.

"They have ruined our country, destroyed it," she said of Fidesz, becoming visibly emotional.

But one of those who had turned out for&nbsp;Orban's victory celebration, 55-year-old Ildiko Horvath, said that under Fidesz "Hungary is really going forwards," adding: "On the really important questions like the (Ukraine) war and migrants he always decides in line with what the majority wants."

Russia's February 24 invasion of Ukraine cast a long shadow over the campaign.

Diplomatically,&nbsp;Orban&nbsp;fell into line with EU support for Kyiv despite his long-standing closeness to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But at home,&nbsp;Orban&nbsp;has struck a neutral and even anti-Ukrainian tone at times, refusing to let weapons for Ukraine cross Hungarian territory.

He cast himself as the protector of stability and accused the opposition of "warmongering".

In his victory speech&nbsp;Orban&nbsp;said: "We never had so many opponents," reeling off a list that comprised "Brussels bureaucrats... the international mainstream media, and finally the Ukrainian president".

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has singled&nbsp;Orban&nbsp;out for criticism over his reticence to take a tougher stance against Russia.

French and Italian far-right leaders Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini were quick to offer their congratulations on Sunday.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-crisishungary-pm-orban-calls-sanctions-double-edged-weapon-458898">Russia-Ukraine Crisis:Hungary PM Orban calls sanctions 'double-edged weapon'</a>

Le Pen, herself gathering momentum in polls before the first round of presidential elections in France next week, posted a picture of herself shaking hands with&nbsp;Orban&nbsp;and the caption: "When the people vote, the people win!"

As well as electing MPs, Hungarians were voting in a referendum designed to elicit support for what Fidesz calls a "child protection" law&nbsp;banning the portrayal of LGBTQ people to under-18s.

Budapest resident Regina, 25 -- who refused to give her surname -- told AFP she had spoiled her ballot in the "twisted" referendum which she said had portrayed LGBTQ Hungarians as an "enemy".&nbsp;

Partial results showed the referendum had failed as not enough valid votes had been cast.&nbsp;

Official results from Hungary's general election on Sunday showed nationalist Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's Fidesz party had won a fourth term in office by a much greater margin than pre-election polls had suggested, after a campaign overshadowed by the war in neighbouring Ukraine.

Official results from Hungary's general election on Sunday showed nationalist Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's Fidesz party had won a fourth term in office by a much greater margin than pre-election polls had suggested, after a campaign overshadowed by the war in neighbouring Ukraine. Addressing a jubilant crowd chanting his name, many of them wearing Fidesz's orange party colour, Orban said: "We have won a great victory -- a victory so great you can perhaps see it from the moon and certainly from Brussels". Orban's administration has presided over repeated confrontations with the European Union, including over the neutering of the press and judiciary, and measures targeting the LGBTQ community -- also the subject of a vote on Sunday. Also read | Hungarians vote on Orban's 12-year rule in tight ballot overshadowed by Ukraine war The 58-year-old, already the longest-serving head of government in the EU, was challenged by six united opposition parties seeking to roll back the "illiberal" revolution Orban's Fidesz party has pursued during 12 consecutive years in office. But with 94 percent of votes counted, Fidesz was on 53 percent compared to 35 percent for the opposition coalition, according to results from the national election office -- a result which means the party will retain its two-thirds majority in parliament. Peter Marki-Zay, 49, the conservative leading the opposition list, addressed supporters and conceded defeat late on Sunday evening. "I will not hide my sadness and my disappointment," he told them, combatively accusing Fidesz of running a campaign of "hate and lies". He added that the opposition had done "everything humanly possible" but that the campaign had been "an unequal fight" given the way in which he and other anti-Fidesz politicians had been all but banished from state media. MEP Marton Gyongyosi from the right-wing Jobbik party which is part of the opposition coalition, told AFP that "abuses" had taken place on Sunday and added: "This will have to be considered when talking about how the results of the elections can be respected". Orban has dismissed such complaints and insisted the vote was fair. For the first time more than 200 international observers monitored the election in Hungary, an EU member, along with thousands of domestic volunteers from both camps. Turnout reached 68.69 percent, almost matching the record participation seen at the last national elections in 2018. The far-right Mi Hazank party also surpassed expectations and will make its debut in parliament after crossing the five-percent minimum threshold. Watch | Hungary: Viktor Orban scores fourth consecutive win in general elections Ruined the country Budapest resident Agnes Kunyik, 56, told AFP she had backed the opposition. "They have ruined our country, destroyed it," she said of Fidesz, becoming visibly emotional. But one of those who had turned out for Orban's victory celebration, 55-year-old Ildiko Horvath, said that under Fidesz "Hungary is really going forwards," adding: "On the really important questions like the (Ukraine) war and migrants he always decides in line with what the majority wants." Russia's February 24 invasion of Ukraine cast a long shadow over the campaign. Diplomatically, Orban fell into line with EU support for Kyiv despite his long-standing closeness to Russian President Vladimir Putin. But at home, Orban has struck a neutral and even anti-Ukrainian tone at times, refusing to let weapons for Ukraine cross Hungarian territory. He cast himself as the protector of stability and accused the opposition of "warmongering". In his victory speech Orban said: "We never had so many opponents," reeling off a list that comprised "Brussels bureaucrats... the international mainstream media, and finally the Ukrainian president". Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has singled Orban out for criticism over his reticence to take a tougher stance against Russia. French and Italian far-right leaders Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini were quick to offer their congratulations on Sunday. Also read | Russia-Ukraine Crisis:Hungary PM Orban calls sanctions 'double-edged weapon' Le Pen, herself gathering momentum in polls before the first round of presidential elections in France next week, posted a picture of herself shaking hands with Orban and the caption: "When the people vote, the people win!" As well as electing MPs, Hungarians were voting in a referendum designed to elicit support for what Fidesz calls a "child protection" law banning the portrayal of LGBTQ people to under-18s. Budapest resident Regina, 25 -- who refused to give her surname -- told AFP she had spoiled her ballot in the "twisted" referendum which she said had portrayed LGBTQ Hungarians as an "enemy". Partial results showed the referendum had failed as not enough valid votes had been cast.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban wins fourth term with comfortable margin

Costa Ricans began voting on Sunday to elect one of two scandal-tainted presidential candidates in a country grappling with sky-high poverty and unemployment.

Former president Jose Maria Figueres was once investigated for corruption while ex-finance minister Rodrigo Chaves was previously demoted for sexual harassment.

But with 23 percent of the population living in poverty and unemployment soaring to 14 percent alongside a series of corruption scandals, Costa Ricans seem more focused on the economy as they elect a successor to Carlos Alvarado.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/costa-rica-issues-covid-19-vaccine-requirement-for-children-427338">Costa Rica issues COVID-19 vaccine requirement for children</a>

Polls opened at 6.00 am (1200 GMT) and will close at 6.00 pm (0000 GMT). "Go to your center and vote," the electoral tribunal said on Twitter as voting began.

Costa Rica has been described as the "happiest" country in Latin America and praised for its environmental policies and eco-tourism, but the vital tourism industry was hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic.

Alongside Peru, it suffered the largest fall in employment figures in the region between 2019 and 2020.

We're very poor

"The next president has to change everything because we're very poor. There is no work here, there is nothing," said Ana Briceno, 64, a travel agent in the capital San Jose.

"In the last years with Carlos Alvarado the situation has been very difficult ... so I think the future president must focus on the economy," said Cristina Aguilar, 32.

Given their previous troubles, the two candidates have sought to keep the debate swirling around the economy.

Watch |&nbsp;Costa Rica: Hydroelectric power plant gets new lease of life from crypto mining

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/costa-rica-hydroelectric-power-plant-gets-new-lease-of-life-from-crypto-mining-444237/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"The urgent themes to address are the ones causing discomfort and suffering to the people," said Chaves, 60, a surprise qualifier for Sunday's run-off, having polled fourth ahead of February's first round.

"The first is the lack of jobs. Secondly, the cost of living."

Chaves, from the newly formed right-wing Social Democratic Progress Party, led the most recent opinion polls, with more than 41 percent support, compared to 38 percent for Figueres.

Figueres, 67, who was president from 1994 to 1998, is equally focused on the economy.

"In the economic agenda, unemployment is the most important, the creation of employment opportunities is the priority," he said.

Figueres, whose father Jose abolished the army in 1948 when he was president, topped the first round of voting among a crowded field of 25 contenders with 27.3 percent, ahead of Chaves who had 16.8 percent.

But they were a long way from the 40 percent needed to win outright.

&nbsp;'Misinterpreted' jokes&nbsp;

Both men have reached this final stage of the election despite the specter of past scandals.

Chaves, who spent six months as finance minister in the outgoing government, was investigated over sexual harassment&nbsp;complaints brought by multiple women while he was a senior official at the World Bank, where he worked for 30 years.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/costa-rican-police-seize-4-tonnes-of-colombian-cocaine-399028">Costa Rican police seize 4 tonnes of Colombian cocaine</a>

He was demoted, though not fired, and has dismissed his behavior as jokes that were "misinterpreted due to cultural differences."

Figueres, who represents the centrist National Liberation Party (PLN), was investigated for allegedly taking $900,000 from French engineering firm Alcatel, which has admitted to bribing officials.

The ex-president, who worked abroad at the time as executive director of the World Economic Forum (WEF), refused to give evidence in the case in 2004 and returned to Costa Rica only in 2011 when the investigation expired.

"Right now, I don't know who I will vote for ... because Chaves contradicts himself in everything and given what Figueres did last time, it leaves us undecided," said Jairo Montero, 37.

In the unlikely event the election ends in a draw, Costa Rican law says the elder candidate would win, in this case Figueres.&nbsp;

The first results are expected at around 8:30 pm.&nbsp;

The winner will begin a four-year term on May 8.

Costa Ricans began voting on Sunday to elect one of two scandal-tainted presidential candidates in a country grappling with sky-high poverty and unemployment. Former president Jose Maria Figueres was once investigated for corruption while ex-finance minister Rodrigo Chaves was previously demoted for sexual harassment.

Costa Ricans began voting on Sunday to elect one of two scandal-tainted presidential candidates in a country grappling with sky-high poverty and unemployment. Former president Jose Maria Figueres was once investigated for corruption while ex-finance minister Rodrigo Chaves was previously demoted for sexual harassment. But with 23 percent of the population living in poverty and unemployment soaring to 14 percent alongside a series of corruption scandals, Costa Ricans seem more focused on the economy as they elect a successor to Carlos Alvarado. Also read | Costa Rica issues COVID-19 vaccine requirement for children Polls opened at 6.00 am (1200 GMT) and will close at 6.00 pm (0000 GMT). "Go to your center and vote," the electoral tribunal said on Twitter as voting began. Costa Rica has been described as the "happiest" country in Latin America and praised for its environmental policies and eco-tourism, but the vital tourism industry was hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic. Alongside Peru, it suffered the largest fall in employment figures in the region between 2019 and 2020. We're very poor "The next president has to change everything because we're very poor. There is no work here, there is nothing," said Ana Briceno, 64, a travel agent in the capital San Jose. "In the last years with Carlos Alvarado the situation has been very difficult ... so I think the future president must focus on the economy," said Cristina Aguilar, 32. Given their previous troubles, the two candidates have sought to keep the debate swirling around the economy. Watch | Costa Rica: Hydroelectric power plant gets new lease of life from crypto mining "The urgent themes to address are the ones causing discomfort and suffering to the people," said Chaves, 60, a surprise qualifier for Sunday's run-off, having polled fourth ahead of February's first round. "The first is the lack of jobs. Secondly, the cost of living." Chaves, from the newly formed right-wing Social Democratic Progress Party, led the most recent opinion polls, with more than 41 percent support, compared to 38 percent for Figueres. Figueres, 67, who was president from 1994 to 1998, is equally focused on the economy. "In the economic agenda, unemployment is the most important, the creation of employment opportunities is the priority," he said. Figueres, whose father Jose abolished the army in 1948 when he was president, topped the first round of voting among a crowded field of 25 contenders with 27.3 percent, ahead of Chaves who had 16.8 percent. But they were a long way from the 40 percent needed to win outright. 'Misinterpreted' jokes Both men have reached this final stage of the election despite the specter of past scandals. Chaves, who spent six months as finance minister in the outgoing government, was investigated over sexual harassment complaints brought by multiple women while he was a senior official at the World Bank, where he worked for 30 years. Also read | Costa Rican police seize 4 tonnes of Colombian cocaine He was demoted, though not fired, and has dismissed his behavior as jokes that were "misinterpreted due to cultural differences." Figueres, who represents the centrist National Liberation Party (PLN), was investigated for allegedly taking $900,000 from French engineering firm Alcatel, which has admitted to bribing officials. The ex-president, who worked abroad at the time as executive director of the World Economic Forum (WEF), refused to give evidence in the case in 2004 and returned to Costa Rica only in 2011 when the investigation expired. "Right now, I don't know who I will vote for ... because Chaves contradicts himself in everything and given what Figueres did last time, it leaves us undecided," said Jairo Montero, 37. In the unlikely event the election ends in a draw, Costa Rican law says the elder candidate would win, in this case Figueres. The first results are expected at around 8:30 pm. The winner will begin a four-year term on May 8.

Costa Rica presidential candidates vow to tackle unemployment

President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday holds his first rally of the French election campaign, with far-right rival Marine Le Pen eating into what once seemed his unassailable lead barely a week ahead of the ballot.

The centrist Macron threw his hat into the election ring at the last moment and has been distracted by the war in&nbsp;Ukraine, conducting diplomacy from the Elysee while Le Pen paces the country to discuss basic issues, including purchasing power.&nbsp;

With the first round of elections on April 10,&nbsp;followed by a run-off on April 24,&nbsp;polls have shown Le Pen comfortably in second place in the initial stage and narrowing the gap on Macron for round two.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/french-far-right-leader-le-pen-closing-gap-on-macron-polls-466898">French far-right leader Le Pen closing gap on Macron: Polls</a>

Macron's 1230 GMT rally before an expected crowd of 35,000 at the indoor La Defense Arena stadium,&nbsp;a vast venue that usually hosts top-level rugby and rock concerts,&nbsp;represents a pivotal chance for the president to regain momentum.

He will make his appearance more "physical" than traditional rallies, according to his campaign team, requiring an "energetic presence" on stage.

He will address his supporters for an hour or more, it said.

The latest Elabe poll published Saturday showed Le Pen garnering 47 percent of the vote in a second-round run-off against Macron, who was projected to win 53 percent.

Allowing for a margin of error in the poll, this could put Le Pen in the zone to snatch victory.

"Of course Marine Le Pen can win," Macron's former prime minister Edouard Philippe warned in an interview with the Le Parisien daily posted online Thursday.

Philippe, who is backing Macron, added that "if she wins, believe me, things will be seriously different for the country... Her programme is dangerous."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/top-10-world-news-macron-calls-for-restraint-in-words-and-actions-regarding-ukraine-conflict-and-more-466071">Top 10 world news: Macron calls for restraint in words and actions over Ukraine crisis and more</a>

Possible to defeat Macron

Le Pen, who lost to Macron in the 2017 polls run-off, has sought to moderate her image in the last half decade in a process helped by the emergence of Eric Zemmour as a fellow candidate in the far-right.

While Zemmour risks taking votes from Le Pen in the first round, his more radical stances in immigration and Islam have helped her project a more mainstream image.

"We feel it on the ground, there is a great dynamic, a hope that is emerging as the campaign nears it end," she said on a visit to eastern France Friday.

"What people said was the automatic re-election of Emmanuel Macron turned out to be fake news. It is perfectly possible to defeat Emmanuel Macron and radically change the politics of this country," she added.

Sarkozy snub?&nbsp;

But the first round risks being a disaster for The Republicans,&nbsp;the traditional right-wing party that was the political home of ex-presidents such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac.

Their candidate Valerie Pecresse is projected by most polls to be vying with Zemmour for fourth place after failing to find momentum in the campaign.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/french-general-vidaud-to-step-down-as-military-intelligence-chief-over-ukraine-war-failure-467255">&nbsp;French General Vidaud to step down as military intelligence chief over Ukraine war 'failure'</a>

Her big chance to ignite her bid will be at a rally Sunday in southern Paris. But the Le Parisien daily reported that Sarkozy,&nbsp;whose support is still coveted by the right despite criminal convictions,&nbsp;would be staying away in a major snub to her campaign.

The Socialist candidate, Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo, is struggling to reach beyond low single figures while the Greens hopeful Yannick Jadot has failed to put the environment at the centre stage of the campaign.

The left's main hope is the far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon who most polls project coming in third place but believes he has a chance of making a run-off.

Melenchon, an explosive orator, will address an open air meeting in Place du Capitole in centre of the southern French city of Toulouse on Sunday.

Watch |&nbsp;Will Macron get a second term as France goes to polls in 8 days?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/will-macron-get-a-second-term-as-france-goes-to-polls-in-8-days-467628/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday holds his first rally of the French election campaign, with far-right rival Marine Le Pen eating into what once seemed his unassailable lead barely a week ahead of the ballot.

President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday holds his first rally of the French election campaign, with far-right rival Marine Le Pen eating into what once seemed his unassailable lead barely a week ahead of the ballot. The centrist Macron threw his hat into the election ring at the last moment and has been distracted by the war in Ukraine, conducting diplomacy from the Elysee while Le Pen paces the country to discuss basic issues, including purchasing power. With the first round of elections on April 10, followed by a run-off on April 24, polls have shown Le Pen comfortably in second place in the initial stage and narrowing the gap on Macron for round two. Also read | French far-right leader Le Pen closing gap on Macron: Polls Macron's 1230 GMT rally before an expected crowd of 35,000 at the indoor La Defense Arena stadium, a vast venue that usually hosts top-level rugby and rock concerts, represents a pivotal chance for the president to regain momentum. He will make his appearance more "physical" than traditional rallies, according to his campaign team, requiring an "energetic presence" on stage. He will address his supporters for an hour or more, it said. The latest Elabe poll published Saturday showed Le Pen garnering 47 percent of the vote in a second-round run-off against Macron, who was projected to win 53 percent. Allowing for a margin of error in the poll, this could put Le Pen in the zone to snatch victory. "Of course Marine Le Pen can win," Macron's former prime minister Edouard Philippe warned in an interview with the Le Parisien daily posted online Thursday. Philippe, who is backing Macron, added that "if she wins, believe me, things will be seriously different for the country... Her programme is dangerous." Also read | Top 10 world news: Macron calls for restraint in words and actions over Ukraine crisis and more Possible to defeat Macron Le Pen, who lost to Macron in the 2017 polls run-off, has sought to moderate her image in the last half decade in a process helped by the emergence of Eric Zemmour as a fellow candidate in the far-right. While Zemmour risks taking votes from Le Pen in the first round, his more radical stances in immigration and Islam have helped her project a more mainstream image. "We feel it on the ground, there is a great dynamic, a hope that is emerging as the campaign nears it end," she said on a visit to eastern France Friday. "What people said was the automatic re-election of Emmanuel Macron turned out to be fake news. It is perfectly possible to defeat Emmanuel Macron and radically change the politics of this country," she added. Sarkozy snub? But the first round risks being a disaster for The Republicans, the traditional right-wing party that was the political home of ex-presidents such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac. Their candidate Valerie Pecresse is projected by most polls to be vying with Zemmour for fourth place after failing to find momentum in the campaign. Also read | French General Vidaud to step down as military intelligence chief over Ukraine war 'failure' Her big chance to ignite her bid will be at a rally Sunday in southern Paris. But the Le Parisien daily reported that Sarkozy, whose support is still coveted by the right despite criminal convictions, would be staying away in a major snub to her campaign. The Socialist candidate, Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo, is struggling to reach beyond low single figures while the Greens hopeful Yannick Jadot has failed to put the environment at the centre stage of the campaign. The left's main hope is the far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon who most polls project coming in third place but believes he has a chance of making a run-off. Melenchon, an explosive orator, will address an open air meeting in Place du Capitole in centre of the southern French city of Toulouse on Sunday. Watch | Will Macron get a second term as France goes to polls in 8 days?

Emmanuel Macron holds first rally as France election race tightens

The voting on the no-confidence motion against Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan will be held on April 3, Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid said on Tuesday.

Rashid was addressing the media here in the federal capital over the latest political situation after the Opposition parties submitted a no-confidence motion against Khan on Monday during a session of the National Assembly.

There will be a debate on the no-confidence motion on March 31, followed by voting on April 3, he said, adding that Khan would emerge victorious.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-punjab-cm-usman-buzdar-resigns-ahead-of-no-confidence-motion-466519">Pakistan: Punjab CM Usman Buzdar resigns ahead of no-confidence motion</a>

He predicted that all estranged allies would come back to support the government headed by Khan as already done by Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q).

He also said all roads have been cleared and there was no blockade in part of the city after the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Opposition parties held separate political rallies on Sunday and Monday.

Rashid also said at least four terrorists were arrested by the security agencies, saving the capital from a huge disaster.

The remarks came as the Pakistan opposition alliance in the last midnight power show vowed to bring down the beleaguered government of Prime Minister Khan.

The Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), which among others include Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-I), organised a big rally on the Srinagar Highway in Islamabad.

PML-N vice president Maryam Nawaz and leader of the opposition in Punjab Assembly Hamza Shehbaz who had started the rally from Lahore on March 26, arrived two days later in Islamabad to join the supporters of JUI-F and other PDM parties who had already set up a camp.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-pm-imran-khan-who-faces-a-no-trust-vote-calls-it-a-foreign-funded-conspiracy-466334">Pakistan PM Imran Khan, who faces a no-trust vote,&nbsp;calls it a foreign-funded conspiracy</a>

Maryam, daughter and heir of former three-time premier Nawaz Sharif, castigated incumbent premier Khan for using the religious card to save his tottering throne.

I challenge you to have 172 MNAs with you on the voting day on the no-trust motion,&nbsp;she said.

She accused Khan of putting down his most trusted Punjab Chief Minister, Usman Buzdar, to save his power after the government decided to replace him with Chaudhry Pervez Elahi to win the support of his Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid party.

You pushed your most trustworthy man [Buzdar] into the water to save your own rule. We have not seen such an ungrateful man in our whole lives, she said.

She also said that Khan claimed a foreign conspiracy to topple him and blamed him for showing a fake letter at the rally a day earlier.

She said Khan had lost people's confidence, as proved by the ruling party's defeat in 15 out of 16 by-elections in recent months.

Several other PDM leaders also addressed the gathering and they also announced to change their rally into a sit-in and the workers would be camping until the vote of no-confidence was held.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-should-apologise-for-genocide-in-1971-says-bangladesh-foreign-minister-466235">Bangladesh foreign minister says Pakistan should apologise for genocide in 1971</a>

Khan, 69, is heading a coalition government and he can be removed if some of the partners decide to switch sides. The PTI has 155 members in the 342-member National Assembly and needs at least 172 lawmakers to retain power.

Khan came to power in 2018 with promises to create a Naya Pakistan' but miserably failed to address the basic problem of keeping the prices of commodities in control, giving air to the sails of opposition ships to make war on his government.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;Pakistan PM Imran Khan faces the most crucial test as countdown to the no-confidence motion begins

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-pm-imran-khan-faces-the-most-crucial-test-as-countdown-to-the-no-confidence-motion-begins-466566/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The voting on the no-confidence motion against Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan will be held on April 3, Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid said on Tuesday. Rashid was addressing the media here in the federal capital over the latest political situation after the Opposition parties submitted a no-confidence motion against Khan on Monday during a session of the National Assembly.

The voting on the no-confidence motion against Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan will be held on April 3, Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid said on Tuesday. Rashid was addressing the media here in the federal capital over the latest political situation after the Opposition parties submitted a no-confidence motion against Khan on Monday during a session of the National Assembly. There will be a debate on the no-confidence motion on March 31, followed by voting on April 3, he said, adding that Khan would emerge victorious. Also read | Pakistan: Punjab CM Usman Buzdar resigns ahead of no-confidence motion He predicted that all estranged allies would come back to support the government headed by Khan as already done by Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q). He also said all roads have been cleared and there was no blockade in part of the city after the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Opposition parties held separate political rallies on Sunday and Monday. Rashid also said at least four terrorists were arrested by the security agencies, saving the capital from a huge disaster. The remarks came as the Pakistan opposition alliance in the last midnight power show vowed to bring down the beleaguered government of Prime Minister Khan. The Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), which among others include Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-I), organised a big rally on the Srinagar Highway in Islamabad. PML-N vice president Maryam Nawaz and leader of the opposition in Punjab Assembly Hamza Shehbaz who had started the rally from Lahore on March 26, arrived two days later in Islamabad to join the supporters of JUI-F and other PDM parties who had already set up a camp. Also read | Pakistan PM Imran Khan, who faces a no-trust vote, calls it a foreign-funded conspiracy Maryam, daughter and heir of former three-time premier Nawaz Sharif, castigated incumbent premier Khan for using the religious card to save his tottering throne. I challenge you to have 172 MNAs with you on the voting day on the no-trust motion, she said. She accused Khan of putting down his most trusted Punjab Chief Minister, Usman Buzdar, to save his power after the government decided to replace him with Chaudhry Pervez Elahi to win the support of his Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid party. You pushed your most trustworthy man [Buzdar] into the water to save your own rule. We have not seen such an ungrateful man in our whole lives, she said. She also said that Khan claimed a foreign conspiracy to topple him and blamed him for showing a fake letter at the rally a day earlier. She said Khan had lost people's confidence, as proved by the ruling party's defeat in 15 out of 16 by-elections in recent months. Several other PDM leaders also addressed the gathering and they also announced to change their rally into a sit-in and the workers would be camping until the vote of no-confidence was held. Also read | Bangladesh foreign minister says Pakistan should apologise for genocide in 1971 Khan, 69, is heading a coalition government and he can be removed if some of the partners decide to switch sides. The PTI has 155 members in the 342-member National Assembly and needs at least 172 lawmakers to retain power. Khan came to power in 2018 with promises to create a Naya Pakistan' but miserably failed to address the basic problem of keeping the prices of commodities in control, giving air to the sails of opposition ships to make war on his government. Watch | Pakistan PM Imran Khan faces the most crucial test as countdown to the no-confidence motion begins

Pakistan: Voting on no-confidence motion against Imran Khan to be held on April 3, says minister Sheikh Rashid

Colombians voted for senator and former guerrilla Gustavo Petro as the left's presidential nominee by a wide margin on Sunday, making him the front runner in an election that could yield the country's first-ever leftist leader in May.

As predicted, the 61-year-old came out on top in the primaries -- called inter-party "consultations" -- which took place alongside elections for the Senate and House of Representatives, currently in the hands of right-wing parties.

But leftist candidates were projected to win the most seats in&nbsp;Colombia's Senate, as well as contending for second place in the lower house, partial results showed.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/high-level-visits-from-colombia-mexico-to-india-in-few-weeks-461993">High level visits from Colombia, Mexico to India in few weeks</a>

With more than 90 percent of polling stations counted, the left's Historical Pact coalition is set to win 17 of the 102 seats in the upper house, according to electoral authority figures.&nbsp;

In the lower house, it looks set to take 25 of the 165 seats in a tie with the Conservatives and behind the Liberals.

Nearly 39 million of&nbsp;Colombia's 50 million inhabitants were eligible to vote in a complex but critical election in a country plagued by violence and growing poverty levels.

"Colombia&nbsp;saw an election day with transparency and respect for rights," election authority head Alexander Vega said, referring to a largely incident-free vote.

Rejection of violence

Outgoing President Ivan Duque -- who called on Colombians to vote as a "rejection of violence" through the "triumph of democracy" -- had promised safety "guarantees" for the non-compulsory vote.

The polls came with the president and legislature both at rock-bottom levels of public support.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/colombia-says-at-least-23-farc-dissidents-killed-in-operation-456571">Colombia says at least 23 FARC dissidents killed in operation</a>

Colombia&nbsp;has always been ruled by the political right. But polls show that Petro -- a former guerrilla, ex-Bogota mayor and senator -- stands a real chance of winning.

Centrist Ingrid Betancourt, who was once held hostage by the guerrillas of the now-defunct Revolutionary Armed Forces of&nbsp;Colombia&nbsp;(FARC), won her coalition's nomination Sunday. She presents herself as an alternative to both the ruling right and Petro.

Sunday's process is to yield three presidential contenders from 15 candidates hoping to represent groups of politically aligned parties -- one each for the left, right and center.

Three others have already been chosen by their respective groupings.

Six finalists will face off in a first round of presidential elections on May 29, which will be followed by a runoff on June 19 if no one wins an outright majority.

Petro came away with more than 80 percent of the vote for the Historical Pact coalition, winning against environmentalist Francia Marquez, who snagged 15 percent of the left's vote, to represent the group at the polls this spring.&nbsp;

&nbsp;First leftist president?&nbsp;

Voters flocked to the polls in Bogota, although heavy rains at midday threatened turnout.

"I vote to change this Congress, where it is always the same people who do nothing" for years, nurse Carolina Lopez, 30, told AFP.

Colombia's distrust of the left is widely associated with FARC and other rebel groups that fought the government in a nearly six-decade civil conflict.

"When the government is unpopular, there is alternation and the opposition wins, but in&nbsp;Colombia, this is new: the left has never really been in a position to win an election," said analyst Yann Basset of the Rosario University in Bogota.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/colombian-court-decriminalises-abortion-up-to-24-weeks-of-gestation-455226">Colombian court decriminalises abortion up to 24 weeks of gestation</a>

In 2018, Petro lost the presidential race to Duque, who is leaving office as his country's most unpopular president in history following a year marked by social unrest and a violent police crackdown that drew international condemnation.

"Today, change starts at the polls, with a vote that supports hope and life in&nbsp;Colombia," Petro said while voting.

It is also Betancourt's second presidential run: she was abducted 20 years ago while campaigning and held captive in the jungle for more than six years.

Her vice presidential running mate is set to be retired colonel Jose Luis Esparza, who rescued Betancourt from her FARC captors.

Colombian presidents serve a non-renewable four-year term.

At midday, the government said there was "total normality" in voting throughout the country. But the army reported two soldiers had been killed and another two wounded in bomb attacks in southern&nbsp;Colombia.&nbsp;

The country's election authority confirmed an attempted cyberattack against its website before polling had begun, which they said was immediately controlled.

Watch |&nbsp;Colombia's highest court legalises abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/colombias-highest-court-legalises-abortion-up-to-24-weeks-of-pregnancy-455345/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

And Interior Minister Daniel Palacios said there had been 662 reports of incidents related to the vote, including 166 complaints, 120 cases of voter coercion and 120 cases of attempted bribery.

&nbsp;Economy dominates&nbsp;

Duque's successor faces a multitude of challenges, not least of which is a new cycle of murders and kidnappings as violence has surged despite the 2016 peace deal that disarmed the FARC and officially ended the civil war.

Colombians voted for senator and former guerrilla Gustavo Petro as the left's presidential nominee by a wide margin on Sunday, making him the front runner in an election that could yield the country's first-ever leftist leader in May.

Colombians voted for senator and former guerrilla Gustavo Petro as the left's presidential nominee by a wide margin on Sunday, making him the front runner in an election that could yield the country's first-ever leftist leader in May. As predicted, the 61-year-old came out on top in the primaries -- called inter-party "consultations" -- which took place alongside elections for the Senate and House of Representatives, currently in the hands of right-wing parties. But leftist candidates were projected to win the most seats in Colombia's Senate, as well as contending for second place in the lower house, partial results showed. Also read | High level visits from Colombia, Mexico to India in few weeks With more than 90 percent of polling stations counted, the left's Historical Pact coalition is set to win 17 of the 102 seats in the upper house, according to electoral authority figures. In the lower house, it looks set to take 25 of the 165 seats in a tie with the Conservatives and behind the Liberals. Nearly 39 million of Colombia's 50 million inhabitants were eligible to vote in a complex but critical election in a country plagued by violence and growing poverty levels. "Colombia saw an election day with transparency and respect for rights," election authority head Alexander Vega said, referring to a largely incident-free vote. Rejection of violence Outgoing President Ivan Duque -- who called on Colombians to vote as a "rejection of violence" through the "triumph of democracy" -- had promised safety "guarantees" for the non-compulsory vote. The polls came with the president and legislature both at rock-bottom levels of public support. Also read | Colombia says at least 23 FARC dissidents killed in operation Colombia has always been ruled by the political right. But polls show that Petro -- a former guerrilla, ex-Bogota mayor and senator -- stands a real chance of winning. Centrist Ingrid Betancourt, who was once held hostage by the guerrillas of the now-defunct Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), won her coalition's nomination Sunday. She presents herself as an alternative to both the ruling right and Petro. Sunday's process is to yield three presidential contenders from 15 candidates hoping to represent groups of politically aligned parties -- one each for the left, right and center. Three others have already been chosen by their respective groupings. Six finalists will face off in a first round of presidential elections on May 29, which will be followed by a runoff on June 19 if no one wins an outright majority. Petro came away with more than 80 percent of the vote for the Historical Pact coalition, winning against environmentalist Francia Marquez, who snagged 15 percent of the left's vote, to represent the group at the polls this spring. First leftist president? Voters flocked to the polls in Bogota, although heavy rains at midday threatened turnout. "I vote to change this Congress, where it is always the same people who do nothing" for years, nurse Carolina Lopez, 30, told AFP. Colombia's distrust of the left is widely associated with FARC and other rebel groups that fought the government in a nearly six-decade civil conflict. "When the government is unpopular, there is alternation and the opposition wins, but in Colombia, this is new: the left has never really been in a position to win an election," said analyst Yann Basset of the Rosario University in Bogota. Also read | Colombian court decriminalises abortion up to 24 weeks of gestation In 2018, Petro lost the presidential race to Duque, who is leaving office as his country's most unpopular president in history following a year marked by social unrest and a violent police crackdown that drew international condemnation. "Today, change starts at the polls, with a vote that supports hope and life in Colombia," Petro said while voting. It is also Betancourt's second presidential run: she was abducted 20 years ago while campaigning and held captive in the jungle for more than six years. Her vice presidential running mate is set to be retired colonel Jose Luis Esparza, who rescued Betancourt from her FARC captors. Colombian presidents serve a non-renewable four-year term. At midday, the government said there was "total normality" in voting throughout the country. But the army reported two soldiers had been killed and another two wounded in bomb attacks in southern Colombia. The country's election authority confirmed an attempted cyberattack against its website before polling had begun, which they said was immediately controlled. Watch | Colombia's highest court legalises abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy And Interior Minister Daniel Palacios said there had been 662 reports of incidents related to the vote, including 166 complaints, 120 cases of voter coercion and 120 cases of attempted bribery. Economy dominates Duque's successor faces a multitude of challenges, not least of which is a new cycle of murders and kidnappings as violence has surged despite the 2016 peace deal that disarmed the FARC and officially ended the civil war.

Ex-guerrilla Petro front runner in Colombia presidential primaries

Punjab recorded a voter turnout of 17.77 per cent at 11 am on Sunday in the ongoing Assembly elections.

According to the Election Commission of India, Sri Muktsar Sahib witnessed the highest voter turnout of 23.34 per cent followed by Fazilka (22.55 per cent) and Malerkotla (22.07 per cent) till 11 am.Pathankot recorded the lowest percentage of voter turnout of 12.44 per cent.&nbsp;

Further, while Sahibjada Ajit Singh Nagar saw 13.15 per cent voter turnout.Jalandhar reported 14.30 per cent voter turnout, Ludhiana recorded 15.58 per cent while Moga registered 16.29 per cent polling.Meanwhile, Hoshiarpur recorded 18.88 per cent while Kapurthala recorded 16.03 per cent. Mansa recorded 19.75 per cent. Moga recorded 16.29 per cent.Assembly polls for electing 117 assembly seats in Punjab will be held on February 20.

The results will be declared on March 10.In the 2017 Assembly polls in the state, the Congress had won an absolute majority by winning 77 seats, ousting the SAD-BJP government, which had been in power for 10 years.&nbsp;

Punjab recorded a voter turnout of 17.77 per cent at 11 am on Sunday in the ongoing Assembly elections. According to the Election Commission of India, Sri Muktsar Sahib witnessed the highest voter turnout of 23.

Punjab recorded a voter turnout of 17.77 per cent at 11 am on Sunday in the ongoing Assembly elections. According to the Election Commission of India, Sri Muktsar Sahib witnessed the highest voter turnout of 23.34 per cent followed by Fazilka (22.55 per cent) and Malerkotla (22.07 per cent) till 11 am.Pathankot recorded the lowest percentage of voter turnout of 12.44 per cent. Further, while Sahibjada Ajit Singh Nagar saw 13.15 per cent voter turnout.Jalandhar reported 14.30 per cent voter turnout, Ludhiana recorded 15.58 per cent while Moga registered 16.29 per cent polling.Meanwhile, Hoshiarpur recorded 18.88 per cent while Kapurthala recorded 16.03 per cent. Mansa recorded 19.75 per cent. Moga recorded 16.29 per cent.Assembly polls for electing 117 assembly seats in Punjab will be held on February 20. The results will be declared on March 10.In the 2017 Assembly polls in the state, the Congress had won an absolute majority by winning 77 seats, ousting the SAD-BJP government, which had been in power for 10 years.

Punjab reports 17.77 pc voter turnout till 11 am

Polling on all Assembly seats in Punjab and 59 constituencies for the third phase of Uttar Pradesh elections began&nbsp;at 7 am on Sunday.&nbsp;

In Punjab, over 2.14 crore voters will decide the fate of 1304 candidates in the fray from 117 constituencies. The state is witnessing a multi-corner contest this time with Congress, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Shiromani Akali Dal-Bahujan Samaj Party alliance, and the coalition of Bharatiya Janata Party-former chief minister Amarinder Singh`s Punjab Lok Congress party as key players.

CM Charanjit Singh Channi, who is the Congress`s chief ministerial face, is contesting from two seats Chamkaur Sahib and Bhadaur. Punjab Congress chief Navjot Singh Sidhu is facing SAD`s Bikram Singh Majithia, AAP`s Jeevanjyot Kaur and BJP`s Jagmohan Singh Raju in Amritsar (East).

AAP Lok Sabha MP from Sangrur and party`s CM face Bhagwant Mann is contesting from Dhuri seat. Punjab Lok Congress chief Captain Amarinder Singh is seeking re-election from the Patiala constituency.Five-time Chief Minister and senior Shiromani Akali Dal leader Parkash Singh Badal is in the fray from the Lambi seat while SAD chief Sukhbir Singh Badal is in the electoral contest from Jalalabad.&nbsp;

The BJP has pitted its Punjab unit chief Ashwani Kumar Sharma from the Pathankot constituency.In the third phase of Uttar Pradesh polls, 59 assembly seats across 16 districts are going to the polls on Sunday. As many as 627 candidates are in the fray. Over 2.16 crore voters are eligible to exercise their franchise at 25,794 polling places and 15,557 polling stations in the third phase of Assembly elections.Among the key constituencies where polling began today include Karhal where former chief minister and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav is contesting his maiden Assembly election.&nbsp;

The BJP has pitted Union Minister of State in the Ministry of Law and Justice Satya Pal Singh Baghel against Akhilesh Yadav.Akhilesh`s uncle and Pragatisheel Samajwadi Party (Lohia) supremo Shivpal Singh Yadav is contesting from Jaswantnagar seat.Elections in Uttar Pradesh are being held in seven phases and will conclude on March 7. Besides UP, polling for assembly elections in Goa and Uttarakhand has recently concluded. Manipur will go to the polls in two phases- on February 28 and March 5. The counting of votes in Uttar Pradesh, Goa, Uttarakhand, Punjab and Manipur will take place on March 10.

Polling on all Assembly seats in Punjab and 59 constituencies for the third phase of Uttar Pradesh elections began at 7 am on Sunday. In Punjab, over 2.14 crore voters will decide the fate of 1304 candidates in the fray from 117 constituencies.

Polling on all Assembly seats in Punjab and 59 constituencies for the third phase of Uttar Pradesh elections began at 7 am on Sunday. In Punjab, over 2.14 crore voters will decide the fate of 1304 candidates in the fray from 117 constituencies. The state is witnessing a multi-corner contest this time with Congress, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Shiromani Akali Dal-Bahujan Samaj Party alliance, and the coalition of Bharatiya Janata Party-former chief minister Amarinder Singh`s Punjab Lok Congress party as key players. CM Charanjit Singh Channi, who is the Congress`s chief ministerial face, is contesting from two seats Chamkaur Sahib and Bhadaur. Punjab Congress chief Navjot Singh Sidhu is facing SAD`s Bikram Singh Majithia, AAP`s Jeevanjyot Kaur and BJP`s Jagmohan Singh Raju in Amritsar (East). AAP Lok Sabha MP from Sangrur and party`s CM face Bhagwant Mann is contesting from Dhuri seat. Punjab Lok Congress chief Captain Amarinder Singh is seeking re-election from the Patiala constituency.Five-time Chief Minister and senior Shiromani Akali Dal leader Parkash Singh Badal is in the fray from the Lambi seat while SAD chief Sukhbir Singh Badal is in the electoral contest from Jalalabad. The BJP has pitted its Punjab unit chief Ashwani Kumar Sharma from the Pathankot constituency.In the third phase of Uttar Pradesh polls, 59 assembly seats across 16 districts are going to the polls on Sunday. As many as 627 candidates are in the fray. Over 2.16 crore voters are eligible to exercise their franchise at 25,794 polling places and 15,557 polling stations in the third phase of Assembly elections.Among the key constituencies where polling began today include Karhal where former chief minister and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav is contesting his maiden Assembly election. The BJP has pitted Union Minister of State in the Ministry of Law and Justice Satya Pal Singh Baghel against Akhilesh Yadav.Akhilesh`s uncle and Pragatisheel Samajwadi Party (Lohia) supremo Shivpal Singh Yadav is contesting from Jaswantnagar seat.Elections in Uttar Pradesh are being held in seven phases and will conclude on March 7. Besides UP, polling for assembly elections in Goa and Uttarakhand has recently concluded. Manipur will go to the polls in two phases- on February 28 and March 5. The counting of votes in Uttar Pradesh, Goa, Uttarakhand, Punjab and Manipur will take place on March 10.

Assembly elections 2022: Polling begins in Punjab, 59 UP seats

Malta&nbsp;will&nbsp;hold&nbsp;a general&nbsp;election&nbsp;on&nbsp;March&nbsp;26, Prime Minister Robert Abela said on Sunday, adding that he would ask the president to dissolve parliament.

The government's five-year term ends in June and opinion polls say a vote is set to hand a third successive term to Abela's centre-left Labour Party.

"The future is bright because we're strong in the present," Abela told supporters at a rally in Floriana just outside&nbsp;Malta's capital Valletta.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/in-a-eu-first-malta-legalises-cannabis-at-home-and-for-personal-use-436963">In a EU first, Malta legalises cannabis at home and for personal use</a>

Abela has been prime minister and Labour leader since the resignation in January 2020 of Joseph Muscat, who led the party to landslide victories in 2013 and 2017.

Muscat resigned following the arrest of a top businessman, Yorgen Fenech, who was accused of complicity in the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in October 2017.

Media reported at the time that Muscat and his chief of staff were close friends of Fenech. Neither has been accused of involvement in the murder.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/september-21-in-history-from-france-becoming-republic-to-maltas-independence-329066">&nbsp;September 21 in history: From France becoming Republic to Malta's Independence</a>

Muscat and his Chief of Staff Keith Schembri have confirmed their friendships with Fenech but deny involvement or prior knowledge of the murder.

Despite Muscat's resignation and other controversies over government corruption, Labour remains popular thanks to a strong economy and generous assistance to businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Its chief rival, the Opposition centre right Nationalist Party has, meanwhile, seen three leaders in five years and is struggling to present itself as a united alternative government.

Watch |&nbsp;Malta to legalise cannabis for personal use, supporters hail decision

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/malta-to-legalise-cannabis-for-personal-use-supporters-hail-decision-437136/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The&nbsp;March&nbsp;26&nbsp;election&nbsp;will be held a week before Pope Francis is due to visit the Mediterranean island. Turnout at general&nbsp;elections is normally strong, exceeding 95 per cent.

Malta will hold a general election on March 26, Prime Minister Robert Abela said on Sunday, adding that he would ask the president to dissolve parliament. The government's five-year term ends in June and opinion polls say a vote is set to hand a third successive term to Abela's centre-left Labour Party.

Malta will hold a general election on March 26, Prime Minister Robert Abela said on Sunday, adding that he would ask the president to dissolve parliament. The government's five-year term ends in June and opinion polls say a vote is set to hand a third successive term to Abela's centre-left Labour Party. "The future is bright because we're strong in the present," Abela told supporters at a rally in Floriana just outside Malta's capital Valletta. Also read | In a EU first, Malta legalises cannabis at home and for personal use Abela has been prime minister and Labour leader since the resignation in January 2020 of Joseph Muscat, who led the party to landslide victories in 2013 and 2017. Muscat resigned following the arrest of a top businessman, Yorgen Fenech, who was accused of complicity in the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in October 2017. Media reported at the time that Muscat and his chief of staff were close friends of Fenech. Neither has been accused of involvement in the murder. Also read | September 21 in history: From France becoming Republic to Malta's Independence Muscat and his Chief of Staff Keith Schembri have confirmed their friendships with Fenech but deny involvement or prior knowledge of the murder. Despite Muscat's resignation and other controversies over government corruption, Labour remains popular thanks to a strong economy and generous assistance to businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its chief rival, the Opposition centre right Nationalist Party has, meanwhile, seen three leaders in five years and is struggling to present itself as a united alternative government. Watch | Malta to legalise cannabis for personal use, supporters hail decision The March 26 election will be held a week before Pope Francis is due to visit the Mediterranean island. Turnout at general elections is normally strong, exceeding 95 per cent.

Malta to hold parliamentary election on March 26

Uttar Pradesh recorded a voter turnout of 35.88 per cent, while Punjab reported 34.10 per cent till 1 pm on Sunday in the ongoing phase of the Assembly elections.According to the Election Commission of India, in Uttar Pradesh, Etah witnessed the highest voter turnout of 42.24 per cent followed by Lalitpur (42.12 per cent) and Manpuri (41.14 per cent) till 1 pm.

Kanpur Nagar recorded the lowest percentage of voter turnout of 28.50 per cent. Further, Jhansi saw 32.83 per cent voter turnout.Meanwhile, Fazilka in Punjab reported 40.59 per cent voter turnout which is the highest. While Sahibjada Ajit Singh Nagar reported 27.22 per cent voter turnout which is the lowest in Punjab.

Polling in 59 constituencies for the third phase of the Uttar Pradesh elections is underway.In the third phase of the Uttar Pradesh polls, 59 assembly seats across 16 districts are going to the polls on Sunday.&nbsp;

As many as 627 candidates are in the fray. Over 2.16 crore voters are eligible to exercise their franchise at 25,794 polling places and 15,557 polling stations in the third phase of Assembly elections.

Among the key constituencies where polling began today include Karhal where former chief minister and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav is contesting his maiden Assembly election.Akhilesh`s uncle and Pragatisheel Samajwadi Party (Lohia) supremo Shivpal Singh Yadav is contesting from Jaswantnagar seat.

Voting for 117 constituencies in Punjab is underway amid tight security.In Punjab, over 2.14 crore voters will decide the fate of 1304 candidates who are in the fray from 117 constituencies.

There are 2,14,99,804 voters in Punjab who are eligible to exercise their franchise on Sunday. He said that there are 1304 candidates--1209 male, 93 women and two transgenders are in the fray in 117 constituencies spread across 23 districts of the state.The state is witnessing a multi-corner contest this time with Congress, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Shiromani Akali Dal-Bahujan Samaj Party alliance, and the coalition of Bharatiya Janata Party-former chief minister Amarinder Singh`s Punjab Lok Congress party as key players.The counting of votes will be done on March 10.

Uttar Pradesh recorded a voter turnout of 35.88 per cent, while Punjab reported 34.10 per cent till 1 pm on Sunday in the ongoing phase of the Assembly elections.

Uttar Pradesh recorded a voter turnout of 35.88 per cent, while Punjab reported 34.10 per cent till 1 pm on Sunday in the ongoing phase of the Assembly elections.According to the Election Commission of India, in Uttar Pradesh, Etah witnessed the highest voter turnout of 42.24 per cent followed by Lalitpur (42.12 per cent) and Manpuri (41.14 per cent) till 1 pm. Kanpur Nagar recorded the lowest percentage of voter turnout of 28.50 per cent. Further, Jhansi saw 32.83 per cent voter turnout.Meanwhile, Fazilka in Punjab reported 40.59 per cent voter turnout which is the highest. While Sahibjada Ajit Singh Nagar reported 27.22 per cent voter turnout which is the lowest in Punjab. Polling in 59 constituencies for the third phase of the Uttar Pradesh elections is underway.In the third phase of the Uttar Pradesh polls, 59 assembly seats across 16 districts are going to the polls on Sunday. As many as 627 candidates are in the fray. Over 2.16 crore voters are eligible to exercise their franchise at 25,794 polling places and 15,557 polling stations in the third phase of Assembly elections. Among the key constituencies where polling began today include Karhal where former chief minister and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav is contesting his maiden Assembly election.Akhilesh`s uncle and Pragatisheel Samajwadi Party (Lohia) supremo Shivpal Singh Yadav is contesting from Jaswantnagar seat. Voting for 117 constituencies in Punjab is underway amid tight security.In Punjab, over 2.14 crore voters will decide the fate of 1304 candidates who are in the fray from 117 constituencies. There are 2,14,99,804 voters in Punjab who are eligible to exercise their franchise on Sunday. He said that there are 1304 candidates--1209 male, 93 women and two transgenders are in the fray in 117 constituencies spread across 23 districts of the state.The state is witnessing a multi-corner contest this time with Congress, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Shiromani Akali Dal-Bahujan Samaj Party alliance, and the coalition of Bharatiya Janata Party-former chief minister Amarinder Singh`s Punjab Lok Congress party as key players.The counting of votes will be done on March 10.

UP reports 35.88 pc voter turnout, Punjab records 34.10 pc till 1 pm

Voters in Switzerland will decide on Sunday whether to become the first country to ban&nbsp;animal&nbsp;testing&nbsp;in a referendum that will also consider tightening controls on cigarette&nbsp;advertising.

Campaigners who want to end all experiments on mice, rats and other&nbsp;animals gathered enough signatures to stage the&nbsp;vote&nbsp;under the&nbsp;Swiss&nbsp;system of direct democracy, meeting strong opposition from the country's huge pharmaceutical sector.

The industry, which includes heavyweights Roche and Novartis, says such research is needed to develop new drugs.

Supporters of a ban on&nbsp;animal&nbsp;testing, which government data shows caused more than 500,000&nbsp;animals to die in&nbsp;Swiss&nbsp;laboratories in 2020, say the practice is ethically wrong and unnecessary.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/switzerland-long-a-safe-haven-for-tobacco-ads-weighs-a-ban-452502">Switzerland, long a safe haven for tobacco ads, weighs a ban</a>

The most recent opinion poll showed 68% of respondents opposed the proposed ban, suggesting it is unlikely to be approved.

The proposal to further restrict&nbsp;tobacco&nbsp;advertising&nbsp;looks likely to pass, with 63% of people polled in favour.

Voters' answers will be binding on the government, which will then decide on how to implement the proposals.

The anti-tobacco&nbsp;campaign, which needs support from a majority of cantons and&nbsp;voters to pass, wants to extend the current curbs on&nbsp;advertising&nbsp;to cover adverts anywhere young people can see them.

This would include barring&nbsp;advertising&nbsp;in newspapers, cinemas, the internet, at events, and on billboards, with supporters saying such adverts encourage youth smoking.

The government says the proposed crackdown goes too far, and has come up with counterproposals that would further reduce&nbsp;advertising&nbsp;but still allow it in newspapers, shops and on the internet.

Also being decided on Sunday is a government proposal to abolish a 1% tax on equity raised by a company, a measure it says would reduce investment costs and support economic growth.

Watch |&nbsp;Switzerland tightens covid curbs, Denmark imposes new restrictions and more

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/covid-news-switzerland-tightens-covid-curbs-denmark-imposes-new-restrictions-and-more-438051/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Opponents say scrapping the tax, which raises about 250 million&nbsp;Swiss&nbsp;francs ($270 million) per year, would benefit mainly large companies, with individual taxpayers left to make up the shortfall.

Financial support for&nbsp;Swiss&nbsp;media is the final issue to be considered by&nbsp;voters on Sunday. The government wants to avert the closure of more local newspapers and radio stations by granting an aid package of 151 million francs.

With slogans on posters saying "No taxpayers' cash for media billionaires", opponents have said the proposal would be a waste of public money and could threaten media independence.

The&nbsp;vote&nbsp;could go either way, with 49% against and 46% in favour, according to the latest polling data published by&nbsp;Swiss&nbsp;broadcaster SRG.

Voters in Switzerland will decide on Sunday whether to become the first country to ban animal testing in a referendum that will also consider tightening controls on cigarette advertising.

Voters in Switzerland will decide on Sunday whether to become the first country to ban animal testing in a referendum that will also consider tightening controls on cigarette advertising. Campaigners who want to end all experiments on mice, rats and other animals gathered enough signatures to stage the vote under the Swiss system of direct democracy, meeting strong opposition from the country's huge pharmaceutical sector. The industry, which includes heavyweights Roche and Novartis, says such research is needed to develop new drugs. Supporters of a ban on animal testing, which government data shows caused more than 500,000 animals to die in Swiss laboratories in 2020, say the practice is ethically wrong and unnecessary. Also read | Switzerland, long a safe haven for tobacco ads, weighs a ban The most recent opinion poll showed 68% of respondents opposed the proposed ban, suggesting it is unlikely to be approved. The proposal to further restrict tobacco advertising looks likely to pass, with 63% of people polled in favour. Voters' answers will be binding on the government, which will then decide on how to implement the proposals. The anti-tobacco campaign, which needs support from a majority of cantons and voters to pass, wants to extend the current curbs on advertising to cover adverts anywhere young people can see them. This would include barring advertising in newspapers, cinemas, the internet, at events, and on billboards, with supporters saying such adverts encourage youth smoking. The government says the proposed crackdown goes too far, and has come up with counterproposals that would further reduce advertising but still allow it in newspapers, shops and on the internet. Also being decided on Sunday is a government proposal to abolish a 1% tax on equity raised by a company, a measure it says would reduce investment costs and support economic growth. Watch | Switzerland tightens covid curbs, Denmark imposes new restrictions and more Opponents say scrapping the tax, which raises about 250 million Swiss francs ($270 million) per year, would benefit mainly large companies, with individual taxpayers left to make up the shortfall. Financial support for Swiss media is the final issue to be considered by voters on Sunday. The government wants to avert the closure of more local newspapers and radio stations by granting an aid package of 151 million francs. With slogans on posters saying "No taxpayers' cash for media billionaires", opponents have said the proposal would be a waste of public money and could threaten media independence. The vote could go either way, with 49% against and 46% in favour, according to the latest polling data published by Swiss broadcaster SRG.

Switzerland to vote on becoming first nation to ban animal testing

Voting for first phase of state assembly elections in northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh took place on Thursday (February 10). Uttar Pradesh, literally meaning northern province, is the most populous state in India and has greatest political might in terms of representatives it sends to Indian parliament.

State elections in Uttar Pradesh are often seen by political parties as a step towards preparing for parliamentary elections. Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) Yogi Adityanath is the current chief minister of Uttar Pradesh who is looking to retain power while Indian National Congress, Samajwadi Party and other opposition parties are looking to wrest control.

In first phase, 623 candidates are competing for 58 seats across 11 districts in the state. 22.8 million persons were eligible to vote across these districts.

As per the Election Commission of India`s Voter Turnout application, the total voter turnout for the first phase of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections was 59.87 per cent at the end of the session.&nbsp;Voting for the first phase of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections began at 7 am on Thursday

The districts which recorded the highest voter turnout were Shamli with 66.14 per cent, followed by Muzaffarnagar and Mathura at 65.32 per cent 62.90 per cent respectively. Gautam Buddha Nagar reported only 54.38 per cent voter turnout till 7:55 pm. Other than Gautam Buddha Nagar, the districts with the lowest reported voter turnout are Ghaziabad, Meerut, Agra with 52.43 per cent, 60 per cent and 60.23 per cent respectively.&nbsp;

Additional Chief Election Officer BD Ram Tiwari said that the voting was largely peaceful.

"There were reports of a technical error in EVMs at some places. Those EVMs are being replaced," he said. He was quoted by PTI.

The second phase of polling for the Uttar Pradesh Assembly is scheduled for February 14.

586 candidates are in the fray for 55 Assembly Constituencies in the second phase. Post the completion of the seven phased elections, the counting of votes will take place on March 10.

(With inputs from agencies)

Voting for first phase of state assembly elections in northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh took place on Thursday (February 10). Uttar Pradesh, literally meaning northern province, is the most populous state in India and has greatest political might in terms of representatives it sends to Indian parliament.

Voting for first phase of state assembly elections in northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh took place on Thursday (February 10). Uttar Pradesh, literally meaning northern province, is the most populous state in India and has greatest political might in terms of representatives it sends to Indian parliament. State elections in Uttar Pradesh are often seen by political parties as a step towards preparing for parliamentary elections. Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) Yogi Adityanath is the current chief minister of Uttar Pradesh who is looking to retain power while Indian National Congress, Samajwadi Party and other opposition parties are looking to wrest control. In first phase, 623 candidates are competing for 58 seats across 11 districts in the state. 22.8 million persons were eligible to vote across these districts. As per the Election Commission of India`s Voter Turnout application, the total voter turnout for the first phase of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections was 59.87 per cent at the end of the session. Voting for the first phase of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections began at 7 am on Thursday The districts which recorded the highest voter turnout were Shamli with 66.14 per cent, followed by Muzaffarnagar and Mathura at 65.32 per cent 62.90 per cent respectively. Gautam Buddha Nagar reported only 54.38 per cent voter turnout till 7:55 pm. Other than Gautam Buddha Nagar, the districts with the lowest reported voter turnout are Ghaziabad, Meerut, Agra with 52.43 per cent, 60 per cent and 60.23 per cent respectively. Additional Chief Election Officer BD Ram Tiwari said that the voting was largely peaceful. "There were reports of a technical error in EVMs at some places. Those EVMs are being replaced," he said. He was quoted by PTI. The second phase of polling for the Uttar Pradesh Assembly is scheduled for February 14. 586 candidates are in the fray for 55 Assembly Constituencies in the second phase. Post the completion of the seven phased elections, the counting of votes will take place on March 10. (With inputs from agencies)

Uttar Pradesh elections phase 1: Nearly 60% voter turnout at India's largest state

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., was finally closing in on a hard-fought agreement with Republicans on a gun safety measure, following a string of horrific shootings in 2019, when the talks suddenly collapsed.

New plans in the House to impeach former President Donald Trump meant that Republicans were no longer in the mood to compromise with Democrats on anything, and the emerging accord went the way of so many seemingly promising ones on Capitol Hill in recent years, stymied by Republicans who said they were willing to accept some sort of deal — just not that one.

“The world has become so polarized that our Republican colleagues come so very close to closing a deal, but then they begin staring down the abyss of their base and they recoil,” said Blumenthal, who attributed the Republican recalcitrance to fear of a political backlash for any cooperation with Democrats.

The same has been true for other politically charged issues where efforts at compromise have ended up going nowhere in Congress. Republicans initially seemed willing to engage on legislation addressing immigration and police misconduct, for example, only to abruptly pull back, blaming Democrats for what they called unreasonable demands or a refusal to take hard steps that might anger their liberal supporters.

So as a group of senators in both parties has recently ramped up discussions aimed at reaching a compromise on voting legislation, leading Democrats who saw their far broader voting rights package stall in the Senate last week have been wary.

They worry that the emerging legislation could be a distraction from the pressing issue their bill was meant to address — Republican voter-suppression efforts at the state level — and amount to little more than cover for Republicans who want to appear interested in protecting election integrity despite uniformly opposing Democrats’ voting rights bill.

They have taken note that Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, has blessed the effort — a telltale sign, say Democrats who have learned to be endlessly suspicious of his motives, that it might go nowhere.

The Democratic fear is that once the moment passes and attention shifts away from election law to spending issues and now a contentious Supreme Court nomination, the talks will fizzle and Democrats will be left with nothing to show for their voting rights drive, even as the 2022 midterms loom and the 2024 election is just over the horizon.

But leaders of the talks that now include at least 16 senators divided between Republicans and Democrats say they are substantive, gaining momentum and could produce legislation that might prevent another Jan. 6-style confrontation by focusing on fixing the deficiencies in the 135-year-old Electoral Count Act.

They point to the bipartisan infrastructure measure that many of the same lawmakers were able to produce last year as their model for negotiations and as proof that compromise is still possible.

“I’m encouraged by the fact that almost every day, someone calls me and asks to join our group,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a centrist and a leader of the compromise effort. She characterized its members, who met virtually this week, as ranging from “pretty conservative to pretty liberal.”

“This is a serious, committed group of senators from both sides of the aisle,” she said in an interview. “This is not a surface effort.”

Aiding the outlook for the talks is the fact that Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, is also now encouraging them. He is taking what one ally described as a wait-and-see attitude after initially lashing out at the potential compromise as a ruse to undercut the Democratic voting rights package.

A separate group that includes Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., chair of the Rules Committee, and Angus King, I-Maine, is drafting comparable legislation.

Virtually all Democrats back the idea of fixing the Electoral Count Act, which lays out the ceremonial process by which Congress makes an official count of the presidential election results to confirm the victor, to guard against its being exploited in the way that Trump and his allies attempted to do so.

But they caution that it is no substitute for their proposals, which focus on countering efforts to make it harder for minorities to vote and restoring parts of the landmark Voting Rights Act.

“I don’t think anybody is against fixing the piece,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said about the electoral vote counting process. “But nobody should pretend that this in any way solves the bigger issues regarding the attack on our democracy.”

Collins, however, said that the focus on how presidential electoral votes are tallied should be the aim of any new voting legislation as a direct response to the assault on the Capitol last January by Trump’s supporters seeking to interfere with the tally.

“That the Democrats didn’t put anything on the Electoral Count Act in their 735-page bill is astounding to me given the link to Jan. 6,” Collins said.

Collins and others said the ongoing negotiations were extending beyond counting the electoral ballots into shoring up other areas of the federal election process after the experiences of 2020. Those involved in the talks are now beginning to focus on specific areas where they think action is needed to try to develop relevant consensus legislation.

Those areas include overhauling the Electoral Count Act to clarify issues such as the role of the vice president, who presides over the congressional count, and what to do in cases of competing slates of voters; handling threats against election workers and officials, and imposing penalties for election interference; voting rights and practices; renewing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and providing new grants for election entities; and the presidential transition.

The subject of the transition arose after the General Services Administration delayed officially signing off on the transition between administrations when Trump refused to concede and lodged false claims of widespread voter fraud.

The tension in the negotiations is most likely to come from efforts by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and other Democrats involved who want to expand the emerging measure to cover voting rights and practices, folding in some elements of the stalled Democratic legislation. Republicans have so far shown no inclination to reopen that fight.

“We have had that debate,” Collins said.

The goal of the talks is to get at least 10 Republicans to come aboard and hold all Democrats in line to assemble at least 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, with the hope that more Republicans would join in as they saw the potential for legislative action.

While Democrats have been able to find Republicans such as Collins and Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah and Rob Portman of Ohio to join them on various measures, achieving critical mass has proved much more difficult.

“Depending on the issue, you may be able to find one or two Republicans who are wiling to make a deal, but finding 10 is a whole different ballgame,” Van Hollen said. “For a variety of reasons, too many Republicans can never get to yes.”

But despite past bad experiences and reservations about the ongoing talks, Democrats said they still held out hope they could find common ground with Republicans on voting issues.

“I have to have hope because I couldn’t come to work every day if I didn’t,” Blumenthal said. “I sincerely hope that some of my colleagues on some issues will come together.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., was finally closing in on a hard-fought agreement with Republicans on a gun safety measure, following a string of horrific shootings in 2019, when the talks suddenly collapsed.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., was finally closing in on a hard-fought agreement with Republicans on a gun safety measure, following a string of horrific shootings in 2019, when the talks suddenly collapsed. New plans in the House to impeach former President Donald Trump meant that Republicans were no longer in the mood to compromise with Democrats on anything, and the emerging accord went the way of so many seemingly promising ones on Capitol Hill in recent years, stymied by Republicans who said they were willing to accept some sort of deal — just not that one. “The world has become so polarized that our Republican colleagues come so very close to closing a deal, but then they begin staring down the abyss of their base and they recoil,” said Blumenthal, who attributed the Republican recalcitrance to fear of a political backlash for any cooperation with Democrats. The same has been true for other politically charged issues where efforts at compromise have ended up going nowhere in Congress. Republicans initially seemed willing to engage on legislation addressing immigration and police misconduct, for example, only to abruptly pull back, blaming Democrats for what they called unreasonable demands or a refusal to take hard steps that might anger their liberal supporters. So as a group of senators in both parties has recently ramped up discussions aimed at reaching a compromise on voting legislation, leading Democrats who saw their far broader voting rights package stall in the Senate last week have been wary. They worry that the emerging legislation could be a distraction from the pressing issue their bill was meant to address — Republican voter-suppression efforts at the state level — and amount to little more than cover for Republicans who want to appear interested in protecting election integrity despite uniformly opposing Democrats’ voting rights bill. They have taken note that Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, has blessed the effort — a telltale sign, say Democrats who have learned to be endlessly suspicious of his motives, that it might go nowhere. The Democratic fear is that once the moment passes and attention shifts away from election law to spending issues and now a contentious Supreme Court nomination, the talks will fizzle and Democrats will be left with nothing to show for their voting rights drive, even as the 2022 midterms loom and the 2024 election is just over the horizon. But leaders of the talks that now include at least 16 senators divided between Republicans and Democrats say they are substantive, gaining momentum and could produce legislation that might prevent another Jan. 6-style confrontation by focusing on fixing the deficiencies in the 135-year-old Electoral Count Act. They point to the bipartisan infrastructure measure that many of the same lawmakers were able to produce last year as their model for negotiations and as proof that compromise is still possible. “I’m encouraged by the fact that almost every day, someone calls me and asks to join our group,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a centrist and a leader of the compromise effort. She characterized its members, who met virtually this week, as ranging from “pretty conservative to pretty liberal.” “This is a serious, committed group of senators from both sides of the aisle,” she said in an interview. “This is not a surface effort.” Aiding the outlook for the talks is the fact that Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, is also now encouraging them. He is taking what one ally described as a wait-and-see attitude after initially lashing out at the potential compromise as a ruse to undercut the Democratic voting rights package. A separate group that includes Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., chair of the Rules Committee, and Angus King, I-Maine, is drafting comparable legislation. Virtually all Democrats back the idea of fixing the Electoral Count Act, which lays out the ceremonial process by which Congress makes an official count of the presidential election results to confirm the victor, to guard against its being exploited in the way that Trump and his allies attempted to do so. But they caution that it is no substitute for their proposals, which focus on countering efforts to make it harder for minorities to vote and restoring parts of the landmark Voting Rights Act. “I don’t think anybody is against fixing the piece,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said about the electoral vote counting process. “But nobody should pretend that this in any way solves the bigger issues regarding the attack on our democracy.” Collins, however, said that the focus on how presidential electoral votes are tallied should be the aim of any new voting legislation as a direct response to the assault on the Capitol last January by Trump’s supporters seeking to interfere with the tally. “That the Democrats didn’t put anything on the Electoral Count Act in their 735-page bill is astounding to me given the link to Jan. 6,” Collins said. Collins and others said the ongoing negotiations were extending beyond counting the electoral ballots into shoring up other areas of the federal election process after the experiences of 2020. Those involved in the talks are now beginning to focus on specific areas where they think action is needed to try to develop relevant consensus legislation. Those areas include overhauling the Electoral Count Act to clarify issues such as the role of the vice president, who presides over the congressional count, and what to do in cases of competing slates of voters; handling threats against election workers and officials, and imposing penalties for election interference; voting rights and practices; renewing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and providing new grants for election entities; and the presidential transition. The subject of the transition arose after the General Services Administration delayed officially signing off on the transition between administrations when Trump refused to concede and lodged false claims of widespread voter fraud. The tension in the negotiations is most likely to come from efforts by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and other Democrats involved who want to expand the emerging measure to cover voting rights and practices, folding in some elements of the stalled Democratic legislation. Republicans have so far shown no inclination to reopen that fight. “We have had that debate,” Collins said. The goal of the talks is to get at least 10 Republicans to come aboard and hold all Democrats in line to assemble at least 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, with the hope that more Republicans would join in as they saw the potential for legislative action. While Democrats have been able to find Republicans such as Collins and Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah and Rob Portman of Ohio to join them on various measures, achieving critical mass has proved much more difficult. “Depending on the issue, you may be able to find one or two Republicans who are wiling to make a deal, but finding 10 is a whole different ballgame,” Van Hollen said. “For a variety of reasons, too many Republicans can never get to yes.” But despite past bad experiences and reservations about the ongoing talks, Democrats said they still held out hope they could find common ground with Republicans on voting issues. “I have to have hope because I couldn’t come to work every day if I didn’t,” Blumenthal said. “I sincerely hope that some of my colleagues on some issues will come together.”

Are new voting bill talks for real or for show?

According to reports, Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro has been accused of spreading misinformation on the voting system and integrity of polls in 2018.

Report: Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro spread misinformation on national voting system

Speaking to a local news station in November, Donald Kirk Hartle described being “surprised” by the possibility that someone had stolen his dead wife’s mail-in ballot and used it to vote in the 2020 election. “That is pretty sickening to me, to be honest with you,” he told KLAS-TV in Las Vegas.

But this week, the Nevada attorney general filed two charges of voter fraud against Hartle, 55, claiming that he was the one who forged his wife’s signature to vote with her ballot.

“Voter fraud is rare, but when it happens, it undercuts trust in our election system and will not be tolerated by my office,” Aaron D. Ford, the attorney general, said in a statement Thursday. “I want to stress that our office will pursue any credible allegations of voter fraud and will work to bring any offenders to justice.”

The announcement from Ford’s office comes months after waves of Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, falsely asserted that the 2020 election had been tainted by widespread voter fraud, including in Nevada, a state that Trump lost.

Hartle, a registered Republican, was charged with voting using the name of another person and voting more than once in the same election, the attorney general’s office said in the statement. Each charge carries a prison sentence of up to four years and a fine of up to $5,000, prosecutors said.

The criminal complaint did not explain how prosecutors came to the conclusion that Hartle had committed voter fraud. Questions sent to the office of Ford, a Democrat elected to the position in 2018, were not immediately responded to Saturday.

David Chesnoff, a lawyer for Hartle, said in a statement that his client “looks forward to responding to the allegations in court.” Hartle is scheduled to appear Nov. 18 in the Las Vegas Township Justice Court.

The Nevada Republican Party had cited Hartle’s story as evidence of voting irregularities on Twitter last year, saying that Hartle “was surprised to find that his late wife Rosemarie, a Republican, cast a ballot in this year's election despite having passed away” in 2017.

Since the announcement of the charges against Hartle, the party has not corrected the record, said Callum Ingram, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno.

“The state Republican Party has been pretty quiet certainly on this case since the narrative got flipped on its head,” Ingram said in an interview on Saturday.

Hartle is the chief financial officer and treasurer for Ahern Rentals, according to his LinkedIn profile. The business rents out construction equipment and is a part of the Ahern Family of Companies. One of its businesses, Xtreme Manufacturing, was fined $3,000 in 2020 for hosting a Trump rally that did not comply with the state’s COVID regulations at the time, said Kathleen Richards, a spokesperson for the city of Henderson, Nevada.

Nevada was among several states dealing with dubious claims of voter fraud after the presidential election last November.

Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske said in a document posted in December titled “Facts vs. Myths” that there was no evidence of large-scale voter fraud in the state.

Cegavske’s office led the investigation of Hartle’s case.

“Our office takes voter fraud very seriously,” Cegavske said in the statement released by Ford’s office. “Our securities division worked hard to bring this case to a close.”

Conservative news outlets spread Hartle’s story. After the state Republican Party highlighted the case on Twitter, conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza discussed the case on his show. Then Fox News host Tucker Carlson promoted Hartle’s account, saying, “We don’t know who did this. We wish we did, because it’s fraud.”

For many voters in the state, Ingram said, proving that widespread voter fraud did not occur “is something that no amount of counterevidence, no amount of effort to prove folks wrong with facts or reason, is ever going to touch because it’s an unquestionable article of faith.”

Speaking to a local news station in November, Donald Kirk Hartle described being “surprised” by the possibility that someone had stolen his dead wife’s mail-in ballot and used it to vote in the 2020 election.

Speaking to a local news station in November, Donald Kirk Hartle described being “surprised” by the possibility that someone had stolen his dead wife’s mail-in ballot and used it to vote in the 2020 election. “That is pretty sickening to me, to be honest with you,” he told KLAS-TV in Las Vegas. But this week, the Nevada attorney general filed two charges of voter fraud against Hartle, 55, claiming that he was the one who forged his wife’s signature to vote with her ballot. “Voter fraud is rare, but when it happens, it undercuts trust in our election system and will not be tolerated by my office,” Aaron D. Ford, the attorney general, said in a statement Thursday. “I want to stress that our office will pursue any credible allegations of voter fraud and will work to bring any offenders to justice.” The announcement from Ford’s office comes months after waves of Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, falsely asserted that the 2020 election had been tainted by widespread voter fraud, including in Nevada, a state that Trump lost. Hartle, a registered Republican, was charged with voting using the name of another person and voting more than once in the same election, the attorney general’s office said in the statement. Each charge carries a prison sentence of up to four years and a fine of up to $5,000, prosecutors said. The criminal complaint did not explain how prosecutors came to the conclusion that Hartle had committed voter fraud. Questions sent to the office of Ford, a Democrat elected to the position in 2018, were not immediately responded to Saturday. David Chesnoff, a lawyer for Hartle, said in a statement that his client “looks forward to responding to the allegations in court.” Hartle is scheduled to appear Nov. 18 in the Las Vegas Township Justice Court. The Nevada Republican Party had cited Hartle’s story as evidence of voting irregularities on Twitter last year, saying that Hartle “was surprised to find that his late wife Rosemarie, a Republican, cast a ballot in this year's election despite having passed away” in 2017. Since the announcement of the charges against Hartle, the party has not corrected the record, said Callum Ingram, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno. “The state Republican Party has been pretty quiet certainly on this case since the narrative got flipped on its head,” Ingram said in an interview on Saturday. Hartle is the chief financial officer and treasurer for Ahern Rentals, according to his LinkedIn profile. The business rents out construction equipment and is a part of the Ahern Family of Companies. One of its businesses, Xtreme Manufacturing, was fined $3,000 in 2020 for hosting a Trump rally that did not comply with the state’s COVID regulations at the time, said Kathleen Richards, a spokesperson for the city of Henderson, Nevada. Nevada was among several states dealing with dubious claims of voter fraud after the presidential election last November. Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske said in a document posted in December titled “Facts vs. Myths” that there was no evidence of large-scale voter fraud in the state. Cegavske’s office led the investigation of Hartle’s case. “Our office takes voter fraud very seriously,” Cegavske said in the statement released by Ford’s office. “Our securities division worked hard to bring this case to a close.” Conservative news outlets spread Hartle’s story. After the state Republican Party highlighted the case on Twitter, conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza discussed the case on his show. Then Fox News host Tucker Carlson promoted Hartle’s account, saying, “We don’t know who did this. We wish we did, because it’s fraud.” For many voters in the state, Ingram said, proving that widespread voter fraud did not occur “is something that no amount of counterevidence, no amount of effort to prove folks wrong with facts or reason, is ever going to touch because it’s an unquestionable article of faith.”

Nevada man is charged with voting using his dead wife’s ballot

The three parties on track to form Germany’s next coalition government are in favour of lowering the voting age to 16.

The Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) have signed up to reduce the age at which Germans can vote. This comes in as an acknowledgement that an increasingly politicised generation of young people must have a future say in running the country.

A poll ahead of the German elections last month showed that the young people were frustrated at not being able to vote in an election that was dominated by people over 50s. They also made up the majority, which is &nbsp;60 per cent, of voters.&nbsp;

Only 14 per cent of voters were under 30, compared with 19 per cent in 1961.

The Greens and FDP, who secured the most votes among younger people, have been highlighting the importance of capturing their political enthusiasm.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-hypersonic-weapons-test-suffers-setback-due-to-rocket-failure-422943">Also read |&nbsp;US hypersonic weapons test suffers setback due to rocket failure</a>

A poll carried out by the environmental NGO Nabu revealed that 59 per cent of voters over 65 said before the September 26 vote they would not be considering younger voters’ climate protection interests when they cast their ballots.

Also, in a mock election of more than 200,000 young people across Germany, which was held just over a week before the real election, 21 per cent of participants voted for the Greens.&nbsp;

This was seen as an indication the party might have received considerably more than the 15 per cent it secured in the official election had the voting age been lower.

Thorsten Frei, the deputy leader of the CDU parliamentary group, said that he was “very sceptical” about lowering the age.&nbsp;

“Without a doubt, there are many young people with a strong political interest,” he told the newspaper Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung. “But rights and obligations have to be in alignment, and the question is whether it makes sense, on the one hand, to be able to partake in decision-making about the future of our country, but on the other, to not be able to sign a mobile phone contract or watch certain films at the cinema without parental consent? I have my doubts.”

The three parties on track to form Germany’s next coalition government are in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. The Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) have signed up to reduce the age at which Germans can vote.

The three parties on track to form Germany’s next coalition government are in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. The Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) have signed up to reduce the age at which Germans can vote. This comes in as an acknowledgement that an increasingly politicised generation of young people must have a future say in running the country. A poll ahead of the German elections last month showed that the young people were frustrated at not being able to vote in an election that was dominated by people over 50s. They also made up the majority, which is 60 per cent, of voters. Only 14 per cent of voters were under 30, compared with 19 per cent in 1961. The Greens and FDP, who secured the most votes among younger people, have been highlighting the importance of capturing their political enthusiasm. Also read | US hypersonic weapons test suffers setback due to rocket failure A poll carried out by the environmental NGO Nabu revealed that 59 per cent of voters over 65 said before the September 26 vote they would not be considering younger voters’ climate protection interests when they cast their ballots. Also, in a mock election of more than 200,000 young people across Germany, which was held just over a week before the real election, 21 per cent of participants voted for the Greens. This was seen as an indication the party might have received considerably more than the 15 per cent it secured in the official election had the voting age been lower. Thorsten Frei, the deputy leader of the CDU parliamentary group, said that he was “very sceptical” about lowering the age. “Without a doubt, there are many young people with a strong political interest,” he told the newspaper Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung. “But rights and obligations have to be in alignment, and the question is whether it makes sense, on the one hand, to be able to partake in decision-making about the future of our country, but on the other, to not be able to sign a mobile phone contract or watch certain films at the cinema without parental consent? I have my doubts.”

German coalition in favour of lowering voting age to 16

Early voting has begun in Iraq. The elections are a major reaction to the protest that rocked the country in 2019. Women candidates are battling for seats in Iraq.

Early voting begins in Iraq, women candidates battle for seats

Thousands of people are demonstrating in the United States capital and in several cities across the country to demand voting rights protection.

This comes amid a barrage of state-level legislation that might impose ballot restrictions.

Held on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s historic 1963 March on Washington, organisers of the “March On For Voting Rights” rally said that the efforts to curb voting access disproportionately affect people of colour.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-loud-explosion-heard-in-kabul-few-hours-after-bidens-warning-409224">Also read |&nbsp;Afghanistan: Loud explosion heard in Kabul few hours after Biden's warning</a>

In Washington, DC, protesters were seen holding “Black Lives Matter” flags and signs calling for federal legislation marched from McPherson Square towards the final meeting point at the National Mall, where King gave his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech 58 years ago.

Other marches were planned in Phoenix, Miami, Atlanta, and dozens of other US cities.

Thousands of people are demonstrating in the United States capital and in several cities across the country to demand voting rights protection. This comes amid a barrage of state-level legislation that might impose ballot restrictions.

Thousands of people are demonstrating in the United States capital and in several cities across the country to demand voting rights protection. This comes amid a barrage of state-level legislation that might impose ballot restrictions. Held on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s historic 1963 March on Washington, organisers of the “March On For Voting Rights” rally said that the efforts to curb voting access disproportionately affect people of colour. Also read | Afghanistan: Loud explosion heard in Kabul few hours after Biden's warning In Washington, DC, protesters were seen holding “Black Lives Matter” flags and signs calling for federal legislation marched from McPherson Square towards the final meeting point at the National Mall, where King gave his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech 58 years ago. Other marches were planned in Phoenix, Miami, Atlanta, and dozens of other US cities.

People march across US to demand voting rights protection

Brazil's Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) decided on Monday to open an investigation into far-right President Jair Bolsonaro for his statements claiming there will be fraud in next year's elections. 
 
Bolsonaro, who is expected to seek a second term in 2022, has repeatedly said Brazil's electronic voting system is vulnerable to fraud. 
 
Critics say Bolsonaro, like former US&nbsp;President Donald Trump, is sowing doubts with his unfounded claims in order to pave the way for him not to accept defeat in 2022. 
 
The TSE also decided to ask the Supreme Court to investigate whether Bolsonaro committed a crime by attacking the electoral system on social media and threatening Brazil's democracy. 
 
The TSE voted to investigate Bolsonaro after he accused the court's members of complicity in maintaining a voting system that would help former leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva return to power. 
 
Bolsonaro is calling for the adoption of printed receipts that can be counted if any election result is disputed, a paper trail that would change the current all-electronic voting system. Bolsonaro has said he might not accept the result of next year's presidential election if the system is not changed. 
 
Over the weekend, supporters of the president held demonstrations in several cities backing his proposal. 
 
Earlier on Monday, a group of 18 active and former Brazilian Supreme Court justices, who also serve as judges on the TSE, said the election system is free of fraud. 
 
"Brazil has eliminated a history of election fraud," the judges said in a statement, saying that since the electronic voting system was adopted in 1996, there has never been a documented fraud case in any election. 
 
"The electronic voting system is subject to audits before, during and after the election," they said. The judges said all the steps are monitored by political parties, prosecutors, federal police, universities and the Brazilian Bar Association. 
 
The judges said printed ballots are less safe than electronic voting, and that if Brazil goes back to manual counting of 150 million printed ballots, the chance of fraud would be higher. 
 
A congressional committee will vote Thursday on a proposal pushed by Bolsonaro to introduce paper ballots. 
 
The government solicitor general's office did not immediately reply to a request for comment on the TSE decision.

Brazil's Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) decided on Monday to open an investigation into far-right President Jair Bolsonaro for his statements claiming there will be fraud in next year's elections.

Brazil's Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) decided on Monday to open an investigation into far-right President Jair Bolsonaro for his statements claiming there will be fraud in next year's elections. Bolsonaro, who is expected to seek a second term in 2022, has repeatedly said Brazil's electronic voting system is vulnerable to fraud. Critics say Bolsonaro, like former US President Donald Trump, is sowing doubts with his unfounded claims in order to pave the way for him not to accept defeat in 2022. The TSE also decided to ask the Supreme Court to investigate whether Bolsonaro committed a crime by attacking the electoral system on social media and threatening Brazil's democracy. The TSE voted to investigate Bolsonaro after he accused the court's members of complicity in maintaining a voting system that would help former leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva return to power. Bolsonaro is calling for the adoption of printed receipts that can be counted if any election result is disputed, a paper trail that would change the current all-electronic voting system. Bolsonaro has said he might not accept the result of next year's presidential election if the system is not changed. Over the weekend, supporters of the president held demonstrations in several cities backing his proposal. Earlier on Monday, a group of 18 active and former Brazilian Supreme Court justices, who also serve as judges on the TSE, said the election system is free of fraud. "Brazil has eliminated a history of election fraud," the judges said in a statement, saying that since the electronic voting system was adopted in 1996, there has never been a documented fraud case in any election. "The electronic voting system is subject to audits before, during and after the election," they said. The judges said all the steps are monitored by political parties, prosecutors, federal police, universities and the Brazilian Bar Association. The judges said printed ballots are less safe than electronic voting, and that if Brazil goes back to manual counting of 150 million printed ballots, the chance of fraud would be higher. A congressional committee will vote Thursday on a proposal pushed by Bolsonaro to introduce paper ballots. The government solicitor general's office did not immediately reply to a request for comment on the TSE decision.

Brazil court to probe Bolsonaro for attacks on voting system

Democratic legislators in Texas are fleeing the state in a bid to block Republicans from passing an elections bill that would impose new restrictions on voting.

Texas Democrats flee to Washington to oppose Republican voting bill

The US Justice Department announced Friday it was suing the state of&nbsp;Georgia&nbsp;over new election laws it charged would discriminate against African Americans.

The laws were passed in March by the Republican-dominated state legislature after Democrat Joe Biden stunned Republican incumbent Donald Trump by capturing&nbsp;Georgia&nbsp;in the November 2020 presidential election, helped in part by a strong turnout of Black voters.

The Justice Department charged that the new laws were passed with discriminatory intent with little study or debate, and would make voting harder in largely Black precincts compared to predominantly white areas.

"The rights of all citizens to vote are the central pillars of our democracy," said Attorney General Merrick Garland.

"Our complaint alleges that recent changes to&nbsp;Georgia's election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of Black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color," Garland said.

US Justice Department challenges Georgia voting rules

He said the department was studying new voting legislation in other states and would also sue if constitutional violations were seen.

"We will not hesitate to act," he said.

Collision course&nbsp;

The eruption of the coronavirus pandemic in the middle of an election year saw many states expand early voting and voting by mail, making it easier for the public to obtain and deliver ballots.

While that benefitted both parties, some Republicans including Trump believe it was to their disadvantage, and have pushed for tighter restrictions on how, when and where Americans can vote.

Trump continues to allege vote fraud in&nbsp;Georgia, but despite reviews, investigations and recounts, no significant fraud or irregularity has been uncovered.

The decision to sue in federal court put the Justice Department on a collision course with several Republican-led states attempting to enact new voting laws in the wake of last year's election.

Voting practices in the United States are mostly governed by individual states, as long as they respect constitutional equal rights principles.

If the department wins, the laws are judged illegal -- but the states can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Earlier this week, the Biden administration failed in an effort to pass legislation in Congress to protect voting rights and expand ballot access, as Republicans in the narrowly split Senate united to keep the bill from moving forward.

Garland also announced that the Justice Department is ordering federal prosecutors around the country to prosecute cases of threats against voting officials and poll volunteers, amid a "dramatic increase" in such incidents.

Republicans accused Democrats of using the lawsuit to pursue their own power.

"Joe Biden is now weaponizing the Justice Department to attack election integrity," said Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel in a statement.

Trump meanwhile repeated his unproven claims of ballot fraud.

"It should be the other way around!" Trump said in a statement

"The people of&nbsp;Georgia&nbsp;should sue the State, and their elected officials, for running a corrupt and rigged 2020 presidential election."

The US Justice Department announced Friday it was suing the state of Georgia over new election laws it charged would discriminate against African Americans. The laws were passed in March by the Republican-dominated state legislature after Democrat Joe Biden stunned Republican incumbent Donald Trump by capturing Georgia in the November 2020 presidential election, helped in part by a strong turnout of Black voters.

The US Justice Department announced Friday it was suing the state of Georgia over new election laws it charged would discriminate against African Americans. The laws were passed in March by the Republican-dominated state legislature after Democrat Joe Biden stunned Republican incumbent Donald Trump by capturing Georgia in the November 2020 presidential election, helped in part by a strong turnout of Black voters. The Justice Department charged that the new laws were passed with discriminatory intent with little study or debate, and would make voting harder in largely Black precincts compared to predominantly white areas. "The rights of all citizens to vote are the central pillars of our democracy," said Attorney General Merrick Garland. "Our complaint alleges that recent changes to Georgia's election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of Black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color," Garland said. US Justice Department challenges Georgia voting rules He said the department was studying new voting legislation in other states and would also sue if constitutional violations were seen. "We will not hesitate to act," he said. Collision course The eruption of the coronavirus pandemic in the middle of an election year saw many states expand early voting and voting by mail, making it easier for the public to obtain and deliver ballots. While that benefitted both parties, some Republicans including Trump believe it was to their disadvantage, and have pushed for tighter restrictions on how, when and where Americans can vote. Trump continues to allege vote fraud in Georgia, but despite reviews, investigations and recounts, no significant fraud or irregularity has been uncovered. The decision to sue in federal court put the Justice Department on a collision course with several Republican-led states attempting to enact new voting laws in the wake of last year's election. Voting practices in the United States are mostly governed by individual states, as long as they respect constitutional equal rights principles. If the department wins, the laws are judged illegal -- but the states can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Earlier this week, the Biden administration failed in an effort to pass legislation in Congress to protect voting rights and expand ballot access, as Republicans in the narrowly split Senate united to keep the bill from moving forward. Garland also announced that the Justice Department is ordering federal prosecutors around the country to prosecute cases of threats against voting officials and poll volunteers, amid a "dramatic increase" in such incidents. Republicans accused Democrats of using the lawsuit to pursue their own power. "Joe Biden is now weaponizing the Justice Department to attack election integrity," said Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel in a statement. Trump meanwhile repeated his unproven claims of ballot fraud. "It should be the other way around!" Trump said in a statement "The people of Georgia should sue the State, and their elected officials, for running a corrupt and rigged 2020 presidential election."

US Justice Department challenges Georgia voting rules

United States President Joe Biden on Saturday termed a voting bill in Texas an attack on democracy. Texas is the next Republican-led state seeking to restrict voting for people of colour. Biden said that Texas is now joining Georgia and Florida in attempting to limit “the sacred right to vote”.

"It's part of an&nbsp;assault&nbsp;on democracy&nbsp;that&nbsp;we’ve seen far too often this year -- and often&nbsp;disproportionately targeting&nbsp;Black and Brown Americans”, Biden announced in a statement.&nbsp;

Currently, final draft of the legislation is circulating at the Texas legislature. Many restrictive measures include a ban on drive-in voting, voting via mail, and limiting the hours of voting on election day.

Many claim that the law may help in making the voting process more secure but critics believe the law will make voting more difficult for Black, Latinos and other people of colour in the US who vote for Democrats.

New laws by Republicans are aimed at limiting election fraud, claims of which were spearheaded by former US President Donald Trump, who lost the election to Joe Biden and was unable to provide any evidence of a so-called “stolen election”.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/senate-confirms-geneticist-lander-as-biden-science-adviser-388190" hreflang="en">Senate confirms geneticist Lander as Biden science adviser &nbsp;</a>

Since the election, many Republican-led states have initiated bills aimed at making voting more restrictive. Georgia was traditionally considered a Republican state but voted for Biden this time. In March, it became one of the first states to adopt a voting law.

Biden also urged Congress to pass two bills that were designed to protect and favour people’s right to vote without much restrictions. But the slim majority of Democrats in the legislature has prevented the bills from seeing passage.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/business-economy/biden-budget-sets-aside-750-million-for-solarwinds-response-388143" hreflang="en">Biden budget sets aside $750 million for SolarWinds response</a>

United States President Joe Biden on Saturday termed a voting bill in Texas an attack on democracy. Texas is the next Republican-led state seeking to restrict voting for people of colour.

United States President Joe Biden on Saturday termed a voting bill in Texas an attack on democracy. Texas is the next Republican-led state seeking to restrict voting for people of colour. Biden said that Texas is now joining Georgia and Florida in attempting to limit “the sacred right to vote”. "It's part of an assault on democracy that we’ve seen far too often this year -- and often disproportionately targeting Black and Brown Americans”, Biden announced in a statement. Currently, final draft of the legislation is circulating at the Texas legislature. Many restrictive measures include a ban on drive-in voting, voting via mail, and limiting the hours of voting on election day. Many claim that the law may help in making the voting process more secure but critics believe the law will make voting more difficult for Black, Latinos and other people of colour in the US who vote for Democrats. New laws by Republicans are aimed at limiting election fraud, claims of which were spearheaded by former US President Donald Trump, who lost the election to Joe Biden and was unable to provide any evidence of a so-called “stolen election”. Also read: Senate confirms geneticist Lander as Biden science adviser Since the election, many Republican-led states have initiated bills aimed at making voting more restrictive. Georgia was traditionally considered a Republican state but voted for Biden this time. In March, it became one of the first states to adopt a voting law. Biden also urged Congress to pass two bills that were designed to protect and favour people’s right to vote without much restrictions. But the slim majority of Democrats in the legislature has prevented the bills from seeing passage. Also read: Biden budget sets aside $750 million for SolarWinds response

Joe Biden terms new Texas voting bill an 'attack on democracy'

Florida&nbsp;Governor&nbsp;Ron DeSantis, a potential Republican US presidential candidate in 2024, signed into&nbsp;law&nbsp;Thursday an election security bill certain to please supporters of Donald&nbsp;Trump, but which critics warn poses blatant barriers to voting.

By implementing SB90, which restricts voting by mail, requires valid&nbsp;voter&nbsp;identification and prohibits use of private funds to finance campaigns,&nbsp;Florida&nbsp;joins a growing list of Republican-run states that have tweaked&nbsp;voter&nbsp;laws&nbsp;following&nbsp;Trump's baseless charge of fraud in last year's election.

DeSantis signed the&nbsp;law&nbsp;in Palm Beach near the private Mar-a-Lago club where&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;has resided since leaving the White House in January.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="'From the Desk of...': Donald Trump launches his own social media space">'From the Desk of...': Donald Trump launches his own social media space</a>

The event itself stirred controversy. Supporters of the former president were in attendance, and Fox News — seen by many as pro-Trump&nbsp;— was the only television network allowed, as other local channels were barred entry.&nbsp;

In a statement, DeSantis said the bill will "strengthen the security of our elections." As he signed the measure he defended one of its many controversial elements: the restriction of vote-by-mail drop boxes.

"They need to be monitored," DeSantis told morning show Fox &amp; Friends as supporters behind him cheered. "You can't just leave these boxes out where there's no supervision."

Although there was no suspicion of fraud in&nbsp;Florida&nbsp;during November's presidential election, DeSantis said the&nbsp;law&nbsp;will ensure Floridians that "your vote is going to be cast with integrity and transparency."

More Democrats than Republicans voted by mail in November because of the pandemic and these ballots helped tip the balance in favor of&nbsp;Trump's Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Suffering reelection defeat,&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;claimed&nbsp;voter&nbsp;fraud — a baseless charge dismissed by dozens of courts across multiple states.

Florida&nbsp;Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, the only Democrat elected in the state's administration, accused DeSantis of signing the&nbsp;law&nbsp;to satisfy&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;and his&nbsp;base, whose support the&nbsp;governor&nbsp;seeks as he weighs his political future.

"The only fraud that I saw was by the Republicans," Fried told reporters.

"We know that the only reason to sign this piece of legislation... was for one person," she said, referring to&nbsp;Trump.

Critics of the new measure say the bill, approved last week by&nbsp;Florida's Republican-controlled legislature, is a form of&nbsp;voter&nbsp;suppression.

"Republicans across the country know they're failing to connect with and deliver for the American people, so they’ve decided their winning playbook centers on making it harder for them to make their voices heard," said Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison.

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund said it "creates barriers and burdens that impact all&nbsp;Florida&nbsp;voters, and disproportionally impacts the ability of Black voters, Latino voters and voters with disabilities to cast their ballot."

Unlike many other countries, the United States does not issue national identification cards.

Identity during US elections is verified through a driver's license or other forms of acceptable ID, which some people, disproportionally low-income and minority Americans, do not have.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a potential Republican US presidential candidate in 2024, signed into law Thursday an election security bill certain to please supporters of Donald Trump, but which critics warn poses blatant barriers to voting.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a potential Republican US presidential candidate in 2024, signed into law Thursday an election security bill certain to please supporters of Donald Trump, but which critics warn poses blatant barriers to voting. By implementing SB90, which restricts voting by mail, requires valid voter identification and prohibits use of private funds to finance campaigns, Florida joins a growing list of Republican-run states that have tweaked voter laws following Trump's baseless charge of fraud in last year's election. DeSantis signed the law in Palm Beach near the private Mar-a-Lago club where Trump has resided since leaving the White House in January. Also read: 'From the Desk of...': Donald Trump launches his own social media space The event itself stirred controversy. Supporters of the former president were in attendance, and Fox News — seen by many as pro-Trump — was the only television network allowed, as other local channels were barred entry. In a statement, DeSantis said the bill will "strengthen the security of our elections." As he signed the measure he defended one of its many controversial elements: the restriction of vote-by-mail drop boxes. "They need to be monitored," DeSantis told morning show Fox & Friends as supporters behind him cheered. "You can't just leave these boxes out where there's no supervision." Although there was no suspicion of fraud in Florida during November's presidential election, DeSantis said the law will ensure Floridians that "your vote is going to be cast with integrity and transparency." More Democrats than Republicans voted by mail in November because of the pandemic and these ballots helped tip the balance in favor of Trump's Democratic rival Joe Biden. Suffering reelection defeat, Trump claimed voter fraud — a baseless charge dismissed by dozens of courts across multiple states. Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, the only Democrat elected in the state's administration, accused DeSantis of signing the law to satisfy Trump and his base, whose support the governor seeks as he weighs his political future. "The only fraud that I saw was by the Republicans," Fried told reporters. "We know that the only reason to sign this piece of legislation... was for one person," she said, referring to Trump. Critics of the new measure say the bill, approved last week by Florida's Republican-controlled legislature, is a form of voter suppression. "Republicans across the country know they're failing to connect with and deliver for the American people, so they’ve decided their winning playbook centers on making it harder for them to make their voices heard," said Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund said it "creates barriers and burdens that impact all Florida voters, and disproportionally impacts the ability of Black voters, Latino voters and voters with disabilities to cast their ballot." Unlike many other countries, the United States does not issue national identification cards. Identity during US elections is verified through a driver's license or other forms of acceptable ID, which some people, disproportionally low-income and minority Americans, do not have.

Florida governor tightens voter law in appeal to Trump base

The Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, has signed a bill imposing new limits on voting by mail and using ballot drop boxes. The White House swiftly criticized the law, saying Florida is “moving in the wrong direction”.

Florida governor tightens restrictions on mail voting and ballot drop boxes

For two weeks, Delta Air Lines and Coca-Cola had been under pressure from activists and Black executives who wanted the companies to publicly oppose a new law in Georgia that makes it harder for people to vote. On Wednesday, six days after the law was passed, both companies stated their “crystal clear” opposition to it.

Now Republicans are mad at the companies for speaking out. Hours after the companies made their statements, Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, took aim at Ed Bastian, the CEO of Delta, accusing him of spreading “the same false attacks being repeated by partisan activists.” And Republicans in the Georgia state legislature floated the idea of increasing taxes on Delta as retribution.

On Thursday, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida posted a video in which he called Delta and Coca-Cola “woke corporate hypocrites.” Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi said Coca-Cola was “caving to the ‘woke’ left.” And Stephen Miller, an adviser to former President Donald Trump, said on Twitter, “Unelected, multinational corporations are now openly attacking sovereign U.S. states &amp; the right of their citizens to secure their own elections. This is a corporate ambush on Democracy.”

It was another illustration of just how fraught it is for big companies to wade in to partisan politics, where any support for the left draws the ire of the right, and vice versa.

Other big Georgia companies have managed to stay on the sidelines. UPS, which is based in Atlanta, also refrained from criticizing the new law before it was passed. On Thursday, the company said it “believes that voting laws and legislation should make it easier, not harder, for Americans to exercise their right to vote.” It made no mention of the law.

For two weeks, Delta Air Lines and Coca-Cola had been under pressure from activists and Black executives who wanted the companies to publicly oppose a new law in Georgia that makes it harder for people to vote.

For two weeks, Delta Air Lines and Coca-Cola had been under pressure from activists and Black executives who wanted the companies to publicly oppose a new law in Georgia that makes it harder for people to vote. On Wednesday, six days after the law was passed, both companies stated their “crystal clear” opposition to it. Now Republicans are mad at the companies for speaking out. Hours after the companies made their statements, Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, took aim at Ed Bastian, the CEO of Delta, accusing him of spreading “the same false attacks being repeated by partisan activists.” And Republicans in the Georgia state legislature floated the idea of increasing taxes on Delta as retribution. On Thursday, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida posted a video in which he called Delta and Coca-Cola “woke corporate hypocrites.” Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi said Coca-Cola was “caving to the ‘woke’ left.” And Stephen Miller, an adviser to former President Donald Trump, said on Twitter, “Unelected, multinational corporations are now openly attacking sovereign U.S. states & the right of their citizens to secure their own elections. This is a corporate ambush on Democracy.” It was another illustration of just how fraught it is for big companies to wade in to partisan politics, where any support for the left draws the ire of the right, and vice versa. Other big Georgia companies have managed to stay on the sidelines. UPS, which is based in Atlanta, also refrained from criticizing the new law before it was passed. On Thursday, the company said it “believes that voting laws and legislation should make it easier, not harder, for Americans to exercise their right to vote.” It made no mention of the law.

Delta and Coca-Cola face backlash on voting stance

The far-reaching voting rights measure that Democrats are pressing to enact, known as the For the People Act, was more a political statement than serious legislation when lawmakers first proposed it in 2019.

The bill, clocking in at 818 pages, includes a laundry list of Democratic priorities like expanded ballot access, tighter controls on political money and support for District of Columbia statehood. It had no chance of becoming law when Republicans controlled the Senate and the White House.

But with Democrats in power, the wish list has become a potentially historic law and the most pervasive overhaul of federal election rules in recent memory. Republicans have assailed it as a Democratic effort to rig the political system in their favor, even as some privately acknowledge that the bill’s broad aims are overwhelmingly popular, even among conservatives.

President Joe Biden and Democrats portray the bill as the civil rights imperative of modern times and call it essential to shoring up a shaky democracy. But many of them privately concede that some of its provisions, like restrictions on political money, have opponents in their own ranks.

Here is a summary of some of the central elements of the measure:

The bill would set a national floor for ballot access.

Should it become law, the legislation would effectively set a national floor on ballot access, requiring all federal elections to start with an identical set of rules. States and other federal jurisdictions could tweak them to provide more access, but not less. Some states like Colorado and Minnesota have rules that are more generous than what the bill mandates; others, like Texas and Tennessee, make it much harder to register and vote than the bill envisions.

Jurisdictions could ignore the rules for state and local elections, but as a practical matter, the new requirements would most likely apply to all voting.

Some Republicans charge that the bill would rig the voting rules in favor of Democrats. But Republican officials have been working for the past decade to restrict ballot access in ways that make it harder to vote for minority groups that traditionally favor Democrats.

Beyond the civic benefits of greater participation in elections, it is clear that expanding voting to more people would benefit both parties. Indeed, as Republicans have increasingly appealed to lower-income and less-educated voters, some experts say the restrictions that they have imposed may actually be cutting into turnout by the party’s loyalists.

Many Republican states have had one or more of the voting provisions for years with no indication that they disproportionately favor one party.

The measure would make it much easier to register to vote.

All voters would be able to register, designate party affiliations, change addresses and deregister online; 40 states and the District of Columbia offer some or all of those options. Voters would also be automatically registered when visiting state or federal agencies unless they explicitly decline, similar to what has been required of most states — but not always carried out — by the federal “motor-voter law” that passed in 1993. Voters could also register when they cast a ballot, either on Election Day or during early voting, as is already the case in 21 states.

Early voting would be expanded nationwide, with all jurisdictions offering it for 15 days, for 10 hours daily, at easily accessible polling places. All but a handful of states allow early voting; the average early-ballot period is 19 days, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The bill would also require jurisdictions to provide at least one secure ballot drop box for every 20,000 voters.

Mail voting would be extended nationwide, and states would have to prepay postage and electronically track ballots so voters would know when their ballots arrived and whether they had mistakes that needed to be fixed.

It would defang many voting restrictions imposed by Republicans.

Republicans have won enactment of voter-ID laws in most states by arguing that they are needed to combat fraud, even though the sort of in-person fraud that such rules discourage is all but nonexistent. The bill would effectively nullify such laws, allowing voters to sign affidavits swearing to their identities rather than showing ID.

The measure would also require that voters be notified at least a week before an election if their polling places have changed and order steps to reduce long lines. Voting rights activists and specialists argue that turnout falls when polling locations are closed or changed.

The legislation also would try to beat back rules adopted by some states, including Texas and New Hampshire, that make it more difficult for college students to vote. It would designate universities as voter-registration agencies and offer nonpartisan assistance to students who cast absentee ballots.

Under the bill, states would be barred from taking voters off the rolls because they had not participated in recent elections, a practice that the Supreme Court upheld in 2018. Critics argue that the practice is aimed at reducing turnout.

It would also restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, cementing into law a practice that states have increasingly adopted but some, such as Florida, have resisted.

Partisan gerrymandering would end.

Among other redistricting changes, the bill would mandate that political maps be drawn by nonpartisan commissions, not by state legislatures. If a legislature refused to approve a map, a three-judge federal panel would take over drafting.

A number of states have established such commissions in recent years, including Ohio and Colorado, but removing politics from political maps has proved difficult. Critics say Arizona’s Republican governor has stacked the selection process for that state’s commission, and the composition of Colorado’s new commission also has come under fire. The legislation lays out detailed instructions for choosing panel members.

Political contributions would be reined in.

The legislation would try to stop the flow of money to campaigns from abroad by requiring political committees to report foreign contacts, outlawing the use of shell companies to launder foreign contributions and barring foreigners from advising PACs on contributions and other political efforts. These moves and other requirements are direct responses to Russian efforts to support Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The most contentious provisions would pull back the veil over so-called dark political money, whose donors are secret, and regulate independent political expenditures — mostly spending that is not expressly coordinated with a candidate — by corporations.

Those provisions would counter the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that independent expenditures are a form of free speech protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively allowed nonprofit groups to spend unlimited amounts of money — $750 million in 2020, according to the advocacy group OpenSecrets — to support or oppose candidates or causes while keeping donors anonymous.

Public corporations would require approval by boards of directors and shareholders for independent expenditures and some other political spending over $50,000.

The bill would also require nonprofit groups spending money on elections or judicial nominations to disclose the donor of any contribution over $10,000 and ban shifting money between groups to disguise a donor’s identity.

It would also address the growing use of political advertising on the internet, requiring for the first time that ads disclose their sponsors and that online companies keep a public list of political advertising buyers.

Finally, the measure would set up new funds to match small donations to Senate and presidential candidates. The money, raised through fines on corporate lawbreakers and tax cheats, would be available only to candidates who reject political donations of more than $1,000.

The far-reaching voting rights measure that Democrats are pressing to enact, known as the For the People Act, was more a political statement than serious legislation when lawmakers first proposed it in 2019.

The far-reaching voting rights measure that Democrats are pressing to enact, known as the For the People Act, was more a political statement than serious legislation when lawmakers first proposed it in 2019. The bill, clocking in at 818 pages, includes a laundry list of Democratic priorities like expanded ballot access, tighter controls on political money and support for District of Columbia statehood. It had no chance of becoming law when Republicans controlled the Senate and the White House. But with Democrats in power, the wish list has become a potentially historic law and the most pervasive overhaul of federal election rules in recent memory. Republicans have assailed it as a Democratic effort to rig the political system in their favor, even as some privately acknowledge that the bill’s broad aims are overwhelmingly popular, even among conservatives. President Joe Biden and Democrats portray the bill as the civil rights imperative of modern times and call it essential to shoring up a shaky democracy. But many of them privately concede that some of its provisions, like restrictions on political money, have opponents in their own ranks. Here is a summary of some of the central elements of the measure: The bill would set a national floor for ballot access. Should it become law, the legislation would effectively set a national floor on ballot access, requiring all federal elections to start with an identical set of rules. States and other federal jurisdictions could tweak them to provide more access, but not less. Some states like Colorado and Minnesota have rules that are more generous than what the bill mandates; others, like Texas and Tennessee, make it much harder to register and vote than the bill envisions. Jurisdictions could ignore the rules for state and local elections, but as a practical matter, the new requirements would most likely apply to all voting. Some Republicans charge that the bill would rig the voting rules in favor of Democrats. But Republican officials have been working for the past decade to restrict ballot access in ways that make it harder to vote for minority groups that traditionally favor Democrats. Beyond the civic benefits of greater participation in elections, it is clear that expanding voting to more people would benefit both parties. Indeed, as Republicans have increasingly appealed to lower-income and less-educated voters, some experts say the restrictions that they have imposed may actually be cutting into turnout by the party’s loyalists. Many Republican states have had one or more of the voting provisions for years with no indication that they disproportionately favor one party. The measure would make it much easier to register to vote. All voters would be able to register, designate party affiliations, change addresses and deregister online; 40 states and the District of Columbia offer some or all of those options. Voters would also be automatically registered when visiting state or federal agencies unless they explicitly decline, similar to what has been required of most states — but not always carried out — by the federal “motor-voter law” that passed in 1993. Voters could also register when they cast a ballot, either on Election Day or during early voting, as is already the case in 21 states. Early voting would be expanded nationwide, with all jurisdictions offering it for 15 days, for 10 hours daily, at easily accessible polling places. All but a handful of states allow early voting; the average early-ballot period is 19 days, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The bill would also require jurisdictions to provide at least one secure ballot drop box for every 20,000 voters. Mail voting would be extended nationwide, and states would have to prepay postage and electronically track ballots so voters would know when their ballots arrived and whether they had mistakes that needed to be fixed. It would defang many voting restrictions imposed by Republicans. Republicans have won enactment of voter-ID laws in most states by arguing that they are needed to combat fraud, even though the sort of in-person fraud that such rules discourage is all but nonexistent. The bill would effectively nullify such laws, allowing voters to sign affidavits swearing to their identities rather than showing ID. The measure would also require that voters be notified at least a week before an election if their polling places have changed and order steps to reduce long lines. Voting rights activists and specialists argue that turnout falls when polling locations are closed or changed. The legislation also would try to beat back rules adopted by some states, including Texas and New Hampshire, that make it more difficult for college students to vote. It would designate universities as voter-registration agencies and offer nonpartisan assistance to students who cast absentee ballots. Under the bill, states would be barred from taking voters off the rolls because they had not participated in recent elections, a practice that the Supreme Court upheld in 2018. Critics argue that the practice is aimed at reducing turnout. It would also restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, cementing into law a practice that states have increasingly adopted but some, such as Florida, have resisted. Partisan gerrymandering would end. Among other redistricting changes, the bill would mandate that political maps be drawn by nonpartisan commissions, not by state legislatures. If a legislature refused to approve a map, a three-judge federal panel would take over drafting. A number of states have established such commissions in recent years, including Ohio and Colorado, but removing politics from political maps has proved difficult. Critics say Arizona’s Republican governor has stacked the selection process for that state’s commission, and the composition of Colorado’s new commission also has come under fire. The legislation lays out detailed instructions for choosing panel members. Political contributions would be reined in. The legislation would try to stop the flow of money to campaigns from abroad by requiring political committees to report foreign contacts, outlawing the use of shell companies to launder foreign contributions and barring foreigners from advising PACs on contributions and other political efforts. These moves and other requirements are direct responses to Russian efforts to support Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign. The most contentious provisions would pull back the veil over so-called dark political money, whose donors are secret, and regulate independent political expenditures — mostly spending that is not expressly coordinated with a candidate — by corporations. Those provisions would counter the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that independent expenditures are a form of free speech protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively allowed nonprofit groups to spend unlimited amounts of money — $750 million in 2020, according to the advocacy group OpenSecrets — to support or oppose candidates or causes while keeping donors anonymous. Public corporations would require approval by boards of directors and shareholders for independent expenditures and some other political spending over $50,000. The bill would also require nonprofit groups spending money on elections or judicial nominations to disclose the donor of any contribution over $10,000 and ban shifting money between groups to disguise a donor’s identity. It would also address the growing use of political advertising on the internet, requiring for the first time that ads disclose their sponsors and that online companies keep a public list of political advertising buyers. Finally, the measure would set up new funds to match small donations to Senate and presidential candidates. The money, raised through fines on corporate lawbreakers and tax cheats, would be available only to candidates who reject political donations of more than $1,000.

Here’s how Democrats’ sweeping voting rights law would work

Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia on Tuesday restored voting rights to more than 69,000 people who have served time in the state’s prisons — bucking a nationwide push in Georgia and other Republican-run states to restrict ballot access.

Northam, a Democrat, used his executive authority to reverse restrictions that deprive anyone convicted of a felony of their right to vote, run for office, become a notary or serve on juries.

The state “would automatically restore voting rights to individuals upon completion of their sentence of incarceration,” Northam said in a statement announcing the change — technically a rewrite of the state’s “eligibility criteria” for certain rights.

“Too many of our laws were written during a time of open racism and discrimination, and they still bear the traces of inequity,” Northam said.

He added: “We are a Commonwealth that believes in moving forward, not being tied down by the mistakes of our past. If we want people to return to our communities and participate in society, we must welcome them back fully — and this policy does just that.”

The move comes about two weeks after the state Legislature passed a sweeping voting rights bill that prevents any action that restricts ballot access to an individual or group on the basis of their race or color or for speaking languages other than English.

Virginia is one of only three states to disenfranchise people with felony convictions unless a governor steps in to restore their rights on a case-by-case basis.

In 2016, Terry McAuliffe, the former governor and a Democrat, tried to issue a similar executive order restoring the rights of 200,000 formerly incarcerated Virginians. He was blocked by the courts but eventually restored the rights of about 173,000 people, one by one, the biggest mass voting rights restoration of any governor in history.

It is not clear whether opponents of Northam’s policy will try to keep the order from being implemented or whether it will pass muster before courts.

But Northam and legislative leaders hope it never gets to that point — they want to enshrine the changes in the state’s constitution.

That will take time.

Earlier this year, the state’s General Assembly approved a constitutional amendment that would restore the civil rights to people upon completion of their sentence of incarceration, but it must be passed again, in the 2022 session, before being presented to the public as a voter referendum.

Northam, who is restricted by the state’s constitution from serving consecutive terms, basked in the praise of civil rights groups and his fellow Democrats for his order.

It was a remarkable turnaround from two years earlier, when many in his party called for his resignation in the wake of a report that he had appeared in blackface at a party when he was in medical school.

Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia on Tuesday restored voting rights to more than 69,000 people who have served time in the state’s prisons — bucking a nationwide push in Georgia and other Republican-run states to restrict ballot access.

Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia on Tuesday restored voting rights to more than 69,000 people who have served time in the state’s prisons — bucking a nationwide push in Georgia and other Republican-run states to restrict ballot access. Northam, a Democrat, used his executive authority to reverse restrictions that deprive anyone convicted of a felony of their right to vote, run for office, become a notary or serve on juries. The state “would automatically restore voting rights to individuals upon completion of their sentence of incarceration,” Northam said in a statement announcing the change — technically a rewrite of the state’s “eligibility criteria” for certain rights. “Too many of our laws were written during a time of open racism and discrimination, and they still bear the traces of inequity,” Northam said. He added: “We are a Commonwealth that believes in moving forward, not being tied down by the mistakes of our past. If we want people to return to our communities and participate in society, we must welcome them back fully — and this policy does just that.” The move comes about two weeks after the state Legislature passed a sweeping voting rights bill that prevents any action that restricts ballot access to an individual or group on the basis of their race or color or for speaking languages other than English. Virginia is one of only three states to disenfranchise people with felony convictions unless a governor steps in to restore their rights on a case-by-case basis. In 2016, Terry McAuliffe, the former governor and a Democrat, tried to issue a similar executive order restoring the rights of 200,000 formerly incarcerated Virginians. He was blocked by the courts but eventually restored the rights of about 173,000 people, one by one, the biggest mass voting rights restoration of any governor in history. It is not clear whether opponents of Northam’s policy will try to keep the order from being implemented or whether it will pass muster before courts. But Northam and legislative leaders hope it never gets to that point — they want to enshrine the changes in the state’s constitution. That will take time. Earlier this year, the state’s General Assembly approved a constitutional amendment that would restore the civil rights to people upon completion of their sentence of incarceration, but it must be passed again, in the 2022 session, before being presented to the public as a voter referendum. Northam, who is restricted by the state’s constitution from serving consecutive terms, basked in the praise of civil rights groups and his fellow Democrats for his order. It was a remarkable turnaround from two years earlier, when many in his party called for his resignation in the wake of a report that he had appeared in blackface at a party when he was in medical school.

Virginia’s governor restores voting rights to former inmates

About two years ago I did something foolish: I wrote an optimistic column arguing that a polarizing issue was ripe for deescalation and compromise.

The issue was voting rights, where Republicans have long championed voter ID laws as a bulwark against alleged voting fraud, while Democrats have countered that such restrictions unfairly burden many Americans, racial minorities especially, in the exercise of their hard-won right to vote.

The good news, I said back then, was that lots of studies suggest that voter ID laws don’t do either thing. They don’t prevent much (or any) fraud, but they also don’t have much (if any) effect on turnout, for minorities or any other group. So conservatives could stop pushing them, liberals could stop freaking out about them, and without either side losing anything substantial, compromise and conciliation could rule the day.

Naturally since then the voting wars have only burned hotter, thanks to the exigencies of the coronavirus era and the arson of Donald Trump. The virus prompted a vast expansion of mail-in voting in the name of public health, Trump blamed vote-by-mail fraud (among other conspiracies) for his defeat, and soon a large swathe of conservatives became convinced corrupt balloting had stolen the election.

Now Republicans all over the country are advancing bills that answer the “theft” of 2020 with new ID requirements and new limits on absentee and early votes, while Democrats are advancing a national bill that would essentially federalize election law and make certain Republican restrictions impermissible. And each side is talking like this is an existential fight, with the very concept of a fair democratic election hanging in the balance.

But the facts continue to suggest otherwise, with two new studies adding to the case for compromise and calm.

The first study, from the Democracy and Polarization Lab at Stanford University, looks at the effects of “no-excuse absentee voting” on the 2020 election — the kind of balloting that a lot of states expanded and that many Republican state legislators now want to roll back. Contrary to liberal expectations, easing the voting rules this way seemed to have no effect on turnout: “States newly implementing no-excuse absentee voting for 2020 did not see larger increases in turnout than states that did not.”

Then contrary to Republican fears, the easement didn’t help Democrats at the GOP’s expense: “No-excuse absentee did not substantially increase Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout.” Overall the authors argue that what drove higher turnout in 2020 was simply “voter interest” in the election, not the major voting rule change, which “mobilized relatively few voters and had at most a muted partisan effect.”

The second study comes from a doctoral candidate at the University of Oregon, and it looks further back in time to assess the effects of Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court revision of the Voting Rights Act that made it easier for states to impose voter ID laws and other restrictions. Using data from six federal elections, the author finds no post-Shelby divergence between white and African American turnout in states affected by the ruling. Indeed, if anything, the jurisdictions saw African American turnout rise relative to white turnout in the 2016 election, suggesting that new obstacles to voting prompt swift mobilization in response.

So rule changes favored by Democrats that make it modestly easier to vote probably didn’t help Democrats win the 2020 elections, and rule changes favored by Republicans that make it modestly harder to vote probably haven’t suppressed minority votes. Great news! I’m sure that &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt; we can call off the voting war and just find a sensible compromise instead.

For instance, my own preferred grand bargain would limit absentee voting but increase funding for polling places and make Election Day a national holiday. This would address reasonable Republican concerns about the civic benefits of having most people vote together, on the same day with the same information, while also answering Democratic concerns about long lines and working-class access to the polls. But there are other possible compromises as well …

No, ha-ha, just kidding, we aren’t going to compromise, not when there’s an apocalypse to fundraise off. And to be clear, Republicans are much more at fault for the needless escalation here. Democrats are guilty of rhetorical exaggeration and policy excess (their big voting rights bill, for instance, includes various traducements of free speech), but Republicans instigated the policy battle and thanks to Trump they’ve gone deepest into paranoia. At their most sincere, they can seem clueless about how the history of Jim Crow shadows these debates; at their most cynical or Trumpy, they’re just indulging a racialized fear of mobs in cities stealing elections from decent white suburbanites. And the deeper they dig in against reasonable critiques, the more the primal conservative suspicion of mass democracy, a “lower turnout is good, actually” mentality, has a way of coming out.

Some suspicion of pure democracy is essential to conservatism. But a high-minded case for lower turnout assumes that a smaller electorate will be more politically engaged and therefore more civic-minded. The evidence of recent American history, though, is that highly engaged, high-information voters tend to be zealous and blinkered hyperpartisans, in desperate need of balancing by more chilled-out and conflicted low-information votes.

The cynical conservative case for lower turnout, meanwhile, assumes that conservatism is the natural party of the responsible, always-registered-to-vote upper middle class. But as the GOP’s base has become more populist and working-class, the American right more anti-establishment, this self-interested logic is crumbling. If voter ID rules or absentee ballot limits did reduce turnout among occasional voters, a lot of those no-shows might be Trump supporters.

This is part of why the conservative fixation on hypothetical voter fraud is so exasperating. If the Trump era proved anything, it’s that Republicans can hold their ground as turnout rises, that they can be competitive with low-propensity voters and minority voters as well. But instead of taking that as an opportunity to actually reach for majorities again, under the influence of #StoptheSteal the party is effectively telling potential supporters that it doesn’t want high turnout, which is basically a way of saying, we don’t want your votes.

Then on the Democratic side, the focus on voting rules feeds a persistent misapprehension about the true constraints on liberal power. Liberals are disadvantaged in the American system at the moment, but it is long-standing constitutional structures, the Electoral College and the Senate above all, that give Republicans a modest advantage, not recent innovations in vote suppression. There isn’t a vast nonvoting majority that would sweep the left into power if only it were easier to vote, and the push for voter ID on the right isn’t actually a replay of Jim Crow. It’s a sideshow, fed by conservative paranoia, to the real struggle for power in America.

The shrewder left-wing analogy, offered by Corey Robin a few days ago in The New Yorker, isn’t to the Reconstruction-era South but to “Britain in the years before the Reform Act of 1832,” when it was antique constitutional structures that stifled democracy, not some sort of dramatic fascist putsch. From a conservative perspective I like this analogy, because it implies that today’s Republicans could learn something from Benjamin Disraeli, the opportunistic 19th-century Tory who leaned into democratization and proved the right could win mass working-class support.

But even Robin’s analogy exaggerates the structural limits on liberal power in the United States today. Those limits certainly exist; they delivered Trump the White House in 2016 with a minority of the popular vote. But the Democratic Party of 2021 has power that’s only marginally out of proportion to its popular support: Democrats won the national House vote by roughly 51% to 48% and the presidential popular vote by roughly 51% to 47%, and the fulcrum of power in Joe Biden’s Washington, a 51-50 Senate, is awfully close to those popular-vote splits.

This suggests that like the Republican minority, the Democratic majority runs a risk of letting a fixation on the structures of democracy become an excuse to shirk the more important work of a political party — which is to persuade the largest possible majority, not just a bare 51%, to vote its way. And the intensity of the debates over rules and structures, IDs and absentee ballots, reflects a bipartisan dynamic where neither coalition seems able to imagine being other than what it’s become in the last 10 years — a blocking minority for Republicans, a super-slim majority for Democrats.

Again, I don’t expect a compromise to emerge out of this stalemate. Instead, I expect the election rules of the future to be written by the party that recognizes that the surest way to make certain your opponents can’t win unfairly is to make sure the election isn’t close.

About two years ago I did something foolish: I wrote an optimistic column arguing that a polarizing issue was ripe for deescalation and compromise. The issue was voting rights, where Republicans have long championed voter ID laws as a bulwark against alleged voting fraud, while Democrats have countered that such restrictions unfairly burden many Americans, racial minorities especially, in the exercise of their hard-won right to vote.

About two years ago I did something foolish: I wrote an optimistic column arguing that a polarizing issue was ripe for deescalation and compromise. The issue was voting rights, where Republicans have long championed voter ID laws as a bulwark against alleged voting fraud, while Democrats have countered that such restrictions unfairly burden many Americans, racial minorities especially, in the exercise of their hard-won right to vote. The good news, I said back then, was that lots of studies suggest that voter ID laws don’t do either thing. They don’t prevent much (or any) fraud, but they also don’t have much (if any) effect on turnout, for minorities or any other group. So conservatives could stop pushing them, liberals could stop freaking out about them, and without either side losing anything substantial, compromise and conciliation could rule the day. Naturally since then the voting wars have only burned hotter, thanks to the exigencies of the coronavirus era and the arson of Donald Trump. The virus prompted a vast expansion of mail-in voting in the name of public health, Trump blamed vote-by-mail fraud (among other conspiracies) for his defeat, and soon a large swathe of conservatives became convinced corrupt balloting had stolen the election. Now Republicans all over the country are advancing bills that answer the “theft” of 2020 with new ID requirements and new limits on absentee and early votes, while Democrats are advancing a national bill that would essentially federalize election law and make certain Republican restrictions impermissible. And each side is talking like this is an existential fight, with the very concept of a fair democratic election hanging in the balance. But the facts continue to suggest otherwise, with two new studies adding to the case for compromise and calm. The first study, from the Democracy and Polarization Lab at Stanford University, looks at the effects of “no-excuse absentee voting” on the 2020 election — the kind of balloting that a lot of states expanded and that many Republican state legislators now want to roll back. Contrary to liberal expectations, easing the voting rules this way seemed to have no effect on turnout: “States newly implementing no-excuse absentee voting for 2020 did not see larger increases in turnout than states that did not.” Then contrary to Republican fears, the easement didn’t help Democrats at the GOP’s expense: “No-excuse absentee did not substantially increase Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout.” Overall the authors argue that what drove higher turnout in 2020 was simply “voter interest” in the election, not the major voting rule change, which “mobilized relatively few voters and had at most a muted partisan effect.” The second study comes from a doctoral candidate at the University of Oregon, and it looks further back in time to assess the effects of Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court revision of the Voting Rights Act that made it easier for states to impose voter ID laws and other restrictions. Using data from six federal elections, the author finds no post-Shelby divergence between white and African American turnout in states affected by the ruling. Indeed, if anything, the jurisdictions saw African American turnout rise relative to white turnout in the 2016 election, suggesting that new obstacles to voting prompt swift mobilization in response. So rule changes favored by Democrats that make it modestly easier to vote probably didn’t help Democrats win the 2020 elections, and rule changes favored by Republicans that make it modestly harder to vote probably haven’t suppressed minority votes. Great news! I’m sure that now we can call off the voting war and just find a sensible compromise instead. For instance, my own preferred grand bargain would limit absentee voting but increase funding for polling places and make Election Day a national holiday. This would address reasonable Republican concerns about the civic benefits of having most people vote together, on the same day with the same information, while also answering Democratic concerns about long lines and working-class access to the polls. But there are other possible compromises as well … No, ha-ha, just kidding, we aren’t going to compromise, not when there’s an apocalypse to fundraise off. And to be clear, Republicans are much more at fault for the needless escalation here. Democrats are guilty of rhetorical exaggeration and policy excess (their big voting rights bill, for instance, includes various traducements of free speech), but Republicans instigated the policy battle and thanks to Trump they’ve gone deepest into paranoia. At their most sincere, they can seem clueless about how the history of Jim Crow shadows these debates; at their most cynical or Trumpy, they’re just indulging a racialized fear of mobs in cities stealing elections from decent white suburbanites. And the deeper they dig in against reasonable critiques, the more the primal conservative suspicion of mass democracy, a “lower turnout is good, actually” mentality, has a way of coming out. Some suspicion of pure democracy is essential to conservatism. But a high-minded case for lower turnout assumes that a smaller electorate will be more politically engaged and therefore more civic-minded. The evidence of recent American history, though, is that highly engaged, high-information voters tend to be zealous and blinkered hyperpartisans, in desperate need of balancing by more chilled-out and conflicted low-information votes. The cynical conservative case for lower turnout, meanwhile, assumes that conservatism is the natural party of the responsible, always-registered-to-vote upper middle class. But as the GOP’s base has become more populist and working-class, the American right more anti-establishment, this self-interested logic is crumbling. If voter ID rules or absentee ballot limits did reduce turnout among occasional voters, a lot of those no-shows might be Trump supporters. This is part of why the conservative fixation on hypothetical voter fraud is so exasperating. If the Trump era proved anything, it’s that Republicans can hold their ground as turnout rises, that they can be competitive with low-propensity voters and minority voters as well. But instead of taking that as an opportunity to actually reach for majorities again, under the influence of #StoptheSteal the party is effectively telling potential supporters that it doesn’t want high turnout, which is basically a way of saying, we don’t want your votes. Then on the Democratic side, the focus on voting rules feeds a persistent misapprehension about the true constraints on liberal power. Liberals are disadvantaged in the American system at the moment, but it is long-standing constitutional structures, the Electoral College and the Senate above all, that give Republicans a modest advantage, not recent innovations in vote suppression. There isn’t a vast nonvoting majority that would sweep the left into power if only it were easier to vote, and the push for voter ID on the right isn’t actually a replay of Jim Crow. It’s a sideshow, fed by conservative paranoia, to the real struggle for power in America. The shrewder left-wing analogy, offered by Corey Robin a few days ago in The New Yorker, isn’t to the Reconstruction-era South but to “Britain in the years before the Reform Act of 1832,” when it was antique constitutional structures that stifled democracy, not some sort of dramatic fascist putsch. From a conservative perspective I like this analogy, because it implies that today’s Republicans could learn something from Benjamin Disraeli, the opportunistic 19th-century Tory who leaned into democratization and proved the right could win mass working-class support. But even Robin’s analogy exaggerates the structural limits on liberal power in the United States today. Those limits certainly exist; they delivered Trump the White House in 2016 with a minority of the popular vote. But the Democratic Party of 2021 has power that’s only marginally out of proportion to its popular support: Democrats won the national House vote by roughly 51% to 48% and the presidential popular vote by roughly 51% to 47%, and the fulcrum of power in Joe Biden’s Washington, a 51-50 Senate, is awfully close to those popular-vote splits. This suggests that like the Republican minority, the Democratic majority runs a risk of letting a fixation on the structures of democracy become an excuse to shirk the more important work of a political party — which is to persuade the largest possible majority, not just a bare 51%, to vote its way. And the intensity of the debates over rules and structures, IDs and absentee ballots, reflects a bipartisan dynamic where neither coalition seems able to imagine being other than what it’s become in the last 10 years — a blocking minority for Republicans, a super-slim majority for Democrats. Again, I don’t expect a compromise to emerge out of this stalemate. Instead, I expect the election rules of the future to be written by the party that recognizes that the surest way to make certain your opponents can’t win unfairly is to make sure the election isn’t close.

Can anything end the voting wars?

voting

Voting, News on Voting, stories on Voting, articles on Voting, Voting stories at Wion, Voting news, Voting latest news