
Ecuador's President Wins Re-Election in Nation Rocked by Drug Violence
Ecuador's president, who unexpectedly surged in the polls to secure a shortened term in 2023, was declared the victor of the presidential election with a decisive lead on Sunday in a race that showed voters' faith in his vows to tackle the security crisis with an iron fist.
Daniel Noboa, 37, defeated Luisa González, 47, the handpicked successor of former President Rafael Correa.
Both candidates accused the other of electoral violations throughout the election season, and Ms. González said she would not recognize the results of the election, in a speech from the headquarters of her party, Citizen Revolution.
'I want to be very clear and emphatic: The Citizen Revolution has always recognized a defeat in the last elections when polls, tracking and statistics have shown it,' Ms. González said. 'Today, we do not recognize these results.'
Mr. Noboa celebrated his victory from the coastal town of Olón.
'This day has been historic,' he said. 'There is no doubt who the winner is.'
The day before the election, Mr. Noboa declared a state of emergency in seven states, most of them González strongholds, raising fears that he was trying to suppress the vote among her supporters. The declaration restricts social activities and allows police and military to enter homes without permission.
The president said the measure was in response to violence in certain parts of Ecuador. Ms. González described it as an attempt to curb political participation.
'Declaring a state of emergency in the middle of an electoral process due to alleged serious internal unrest is very questionable,' said Mauricio Alarcón Salvador, the director of Transparency International's chapter in Ecuador, who added that the decision should be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
But he said that any claims of electoral fraud 'must be substantiated,' something he saw as less likely given Mr. Noboa's large margin of victory. 'It cannot and should not be simply an assertion thrown into the air.'
Mr. Noboa has positioned himself as a law-and-order president but has so far achieved minimal results in tackling the nation's persistent drug violence and unemployment.
In the past five years, Ecuador has experienced an explosion in violence linked to drug trafficking. A justice system plagued by overcrowding in jails, corruption and underfunding has become fertile ground for prison gangs allied with powerful international drug cartels.
This shift has turned the once-peaceful nation of 18 million into a significant player in the global drug trade, disrupting the lives of Ecuadoreans and altering the country's status in a volatile region.
At the same time, just 36 percent of Ecuadoreans are adequately employed, according to government data, making the economy a top concern.
Mr. Noboa received 56 percent of the vote, compared with Ms. González's 44 percent, with more than 97 percent of votes counted on Sunday evening, according to official figures.
In a race that was expected to be tight, Mr. Noboa took a decisive lead early in the night. By 8 p.m., hundreds of his supporters were gathered outside of the national electoral council in Quito blowing horns, waving flags and holding the emblematic cardboard cutouts of his likeness.
At the nearby headquarters of Ms. González's party, hundreds of supporters were shouting 'recount.'
Since 2023, the country has been shaken by the assassination of a presidential candidate and the prison killings of six men accused of murdering him, as well as several prison riots and the on-air siege of a TV station.
To address the escalating crisis, Mr. Noboa declared a state of internal armed conflict last year, authorizing the military to patrol both the streets and the prisons. Rights groups condemned his hard-line tactics as excessive and harmful.
But the increased security presence was short-lived, and many voters — even some who oppose Mr. Noboa — say they want more action from the authorities, not less. Homicides declined early in his presidency but soon began rising again.
Mr. Noboa projected an image of himself on social media as the law-and-order candidate, but that posture wasn't reflected in reality, according to Caroline Ávila, an Ecuadorean political analyst.
'On a day-to-day basis, you won't find people on the streets doing surveillance,' she said. 'But you will have a TikTok video reminding you of the last raid.'
Mr. Noboa also sought to cast himself as Ecuador's best representative on the world stage, emphasizing his ability to build relationships with global leaders, including President Trump.
Mr. Noboa, a Harvard-educated heir to a multibillion-dollar banana empire, took office in 2023 after his predecessor called for early elections amid impeachment proceedings.
He first entered politics just four years ago, when he ran for a seat in the national legislature. In the 2023 presidential contest, he managed to rise from the bottom of the polls to second place in the first round of voting after a strong debate performance. He then beat Ms. González in the runoff.
Ms. González, who served in various positions in the leftist Correa government, is largely seen as the representative of the former president, a divisive figure in Ecuador who led from 2007 to 2017. Many revere Mr. Correa for the booming economy, low crime rates and investment in health and education that Ecuador experienced under his government. But others condemn him for his corruption conviction in 2020 and his authoritarian tendencies.
Mr. Noboa has also been accused of having authoritarian leanings. He drew international attention when he ordered the police to enter the Mexican Embassy in Quito to arrest a politician who was facing a prison sentence for corruption. Critics saw the move as a violation of diplomatic norms and an abuse of power
Still, last year, Ecuadoreans backed his tough-on-crime agenda by voting in favor of a referendum that formally expanded the military's role in law enforcement.
Junior Yazbek, 39, a car dealership owner, said he had voted for Mr. Noboa because he thought that foreign investment and trade would be higher under his leadership, which he thought were key to boosting Ecuador's economy.
'We really need good allies, big people like the United States,' he said.
Luis Cando and his wife, Mónica Sánchez, both 39, said they were planning to vote for Mr. Noboa in part because of the economy, which is worsened by the high crime levels.
'To have a small business, you can't open too late or too early, because the thieves are on the lookout,' said Ms. Sánchez, carrying their infant on her chest.
She was drawn to Mr. Noboa's promises to combat crime and create job opportunities.
'I hope he delivers on that, too,' she said. 'That it's not just a proposal.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
32 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Kirchner's Ban From Office Marks New Chapter for Argentina
Argentina's top court sidelined former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner from elections, likely ushering in a new political era in South America's second biggest economy. Just a week after President Javier Milei's arch rival announced a bid in a key midterm race, the Supreme Court banned the opposition leader from public office for life, delivering a major political victory for Milei as he works to convince investors that Argentina is changing. The ruling forces Peronism — the country's dominant political force for decades — to reinvent itself, while leaving Milei without his most emblematic adversary in an increasingly polarized nation.

Los Angeles Times
39 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Amid fears of pending California education cuts, top Trump official says state is ‘at risk'
As concerns heighten among officials and educators about possible pending federal funding cuts to California, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said Tuesday that the state is at risk, but did not elaborate on when a decision would be made or what the cuts could be. McMahon, in a videotaped interview with Bloomberg, was responding to a question about the possible termination of grant funding to California public universities by referencing issues related to Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on gender. President Trump has repeatedly threatened to withhold unspecified federal funding from California because it allows transgender athletes to compete with cisgender athletes in girls' and women's sporting events. 'Well in California I think we saw pretty flagrant violations of Title IX,' McMahon said, 'and that is why this ... focus ... was put on them.... We have, you know, men participating in women's sports, which is clearly against Title IX, and the president has made it very clear that he is definitely going to uphold Title IX.' If the Trump administration did not 'address' violations 'as they occur then it's sort of by acquiescence that it's OK to continue and it's not,' she said. The remarks were made during a Bloomberg event in which McMahon addressed a variety of topics, including the mass Education Department layoffs under her leadership — halted by federal courts and appealed to the Supreme Court — and an ongoing battle with Harvard University. Trump has stripped billions of dollars from Harvard and tried to ban foreign-born students and the university has launched multiple lawsuits in response. Reports, including one Friday by CNN, have emerged in recent days that the Trump administration is preparing to withhold wide swaths of federal funding from the Golden State's universities, scientific researchers and K-12 schools. The California State University and University of California systems already face hundreds of millions of dollars in grant cuts from multiple federal agencies, including the Education and Health and Human Services departments. These cuts too are the subject of litigation, and some have been put on hold by the courts. The possibility of further cuts have alarmed some California legislators. In a letter sent Friday to the administration, Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine) called talk of cuts 'targeted political vengeance' and said 'any significant move to cut federal funding to California would be outrageous, illegal and set a dangerous precedent. It would also have devastating impacts for our residents, whether they are Democrats, Republicans or independents.' He also raised a constitutional issue. 'Your withholding of funds that have been appropriated would constitute a direct attack on the separation of powers that is at the heart of our democratic republic,' Min wrote. The White House did not immediately respond to a request Tuesday related to McMahon's remarks, but in a statement Friday said that 'no final decisions' had been made on funding cuts. 'No taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country, and that's what California is doing through its lunatic anti-energy, soft-on-crime, pro-child mutilation, and pro-sanctuary policies. The Trump administration is committed to ending this nightmare and restoring the California Dream,' the statement said. 'No final decisions, however, on any potential future action by the Administration have been made, and any discussion suggesting otherwise should be considered pure speculation.' Madison Biedermann, a spokesperson for McMahon, on Tuesday affirmed the last part: No decision had been made. Biedermann said it would be incorrect to interpret McMahon's remarks as confirming imminent cuts. McMahon was restating the department's position: California is at serious risk of losing funds if it does not comply with Trump administration policies, including banning transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports. Biedermann said any reports about the timing or extent of any cuts is, at this point, 'speculation.' To date, she said, California is under investigation but has not been penalized based on its actions. Reports of imminent — but unconfirmed — cuts have appeared in Politico and the Washington Post. Among the areas of funding potentially at risk are the so-called formula funding programs that are approved and mandated by Congress. This includes Title I dollars that the federal government provides to schools to offset the effects of poverty. These funds alone are worth about $2.1 billion a year to California and about $460 million to Los Angeles Unified, the state's largest school system, where about 80% of students have family income low enough to qualify them for a free or reduced-price lunch. Aid for school meals — totaling $363 million to L.A. Unified alone — also is a potential lever of influence for the Trump administration. These dollars are administered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, outside McMahon's jurisdiction. Another potentially affected funding stream is $1.33 billion annually to offset part of the cost of educating students with disabilities — of which $177 million goes to L.A. Unified. When asked Tuesday about withholding formula funding, McMahon again raised the issue of Title IX compliance. 'I think that is part of what we found with the state of California just blatantly refusing to be in compliance with Title IX regulations,' McMahon said. 'So that is one of the tools and the other options that we have with California and I think it's right that we make them aware that that is a risk that they run.' California officials have defended their policy as consistent with state and federal law, prioritizing rights based on gender identity. California sued the U.S. Justice Department on Monday over its demand last week that local school districts ban transgender youth from competing in sports, arguing the federal agency had overstepped its authority in violation of both state and federal law. Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), chair of the California State Assembly's Education Committee, told The Times that he has kept a close eye on the Trump administration's attacks on public education. 'We know that the hardest hit would be our students with special needs and our disabled students,' he said. 'Also, Title I funding for our low-income students is a big concern.' Muratsuchi said that California's 'best defense' against Trump's actions 'is our Constitution and the rule of law.... The president should not have a unilateral power to cut funding appropriated by Congress.' Muratsuchi also stressed the importance of federal funding to the UC and CSU systems. 'To have the federal research funds cut is tremendously impactful,' he said. The Times' Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner and Bloomberg News contributed to this report.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court rejects GOP request to review Pa. provisional ballot ruling
A voter deposits a mail-in ballot at the drop box outside the Chester County Government Center on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Capital-Star/Peter Hall) A GOP challenge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling on provisional ballots is dead, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case Friday. The high court's rejection means county boards of elections must count provisional ballots cast by voters who find out their mail-in ballots have been rejected under the state Supreme Court's decision in October. The case at issue, Faith Genser et al vs. the Butler County Board of Elections, stemmed from a lawsuit filed after the 2024 primary election by two Butler County voters. They claimed they were disenfranchised when the board refused to count provisional ballots the voters cast on Election Day, after learning their mail ballots were disqualified for missing dates. The board of elections reasoned that the Pennsylvania Election Code says provisional ballots from voters whose mail-in ballots are 'timely received' can't be counted, even if the voters' mail-in ballots are rejected. In its 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court found the Elections Code requires county elections officials to count provisional ballots if no other ballot is attributable to the voter, and as long as there are no other issues that would disqualify their provisional ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court did not explain its decision not to hear the appeal. Attorneys for the RNC and Republican Party of Pennsylvania did not respond to an email requesting comment. 'Republicans don't think every rightful vote should count. We disagree, and now, the Supreme Court has sided with us. Pennsylvanians deserve to have their say in every election – full stop,' Democratic National Committee Chairperson Ken Martin said in a statement. The case is one of many involving 'paperwork errors' on vote-by-mail-ballots, since absentee voting without an excuse became an option in 2019 with the passage of Act 77. 'Every election, thousands of Pennsylvania mail ballots are voided due to common technical mistakes made by voters,' Rich Ting, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said. 'Thanks to Faith Genser and Frank Matis fighting for their right to vote, all Pennsylvania voters who make those mistakes are guaranteed the right to vote by provisional ballot as a failsafe.' The ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center with pro-bono counsel from Dechert LLP represented Genser and Matis in their lawsuit. 'The Supreme Court's determination not to hear this case means that Pennsylvanians who make a technical mistake with their mail-in ballots will have a way to fix the mistake instead of losing the opportunity to vote,' Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center, said. In its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the GOP argued the state Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania Legislature's authority to set the 'times, places and manner' for congressional elections, leaning on a premise known as the 'independent state legislature theory.' That theory asserts that the U.S. Constitution reserves the authority to set the times, places and manner of elections exclusively for state legislatures. In opposition, the DNC and Pennsylvania Democratic Party asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, because the case falls outside the limited circumstances in which it can review the judgment of a state's highest court. Such appeals are allowed only when a federal law is in question, a state law is claimed to conflict with federal law or 'where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution.' The decision last week is the second time the U.S. Supreme Court has passed on reviewing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision. In November it refused to place a stay on enforcement of the ruling days before the presidential election. The Pennsylvania General Assembly has taken steps to pass amendments to clarify the vote-by-mail law in recent weeks. House Bill 1396, sponsored by Speaker Joanna McClinton (D-Philadelphia) would give election workers up to a week before Election Day to prepare to count mail-in ballots, a process that has been a bottleneck for election results in parts of the state, and has provided fodder for election deniers. The measure would remedy other ambiguities in Act 77, such as making clear that county election officials must notify voters if their mail ballots are rejected. It passed the House with a 102-101 vote along party lines May 13. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE