Recession risk? What is being said at Trudeau retreat

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Trevor Etienne ran for three touchdowns, the first two set up by cornerback Daylen Everette’s takeaways, and fifth-ranked Georgia went on to beat Quinn Ewers and No. 1 Texas 30-15 on Saturday night.

Etienne’s last score was a 1-yard plunge on fourth down with 12:04 left. That came right after an ugly sequence when Texas fans littered the field with water bottles and other trash after referees called a pass-interference penalty that initially wiped out an interception and long return, before the flag was picked up and set up a Longhorns TD.

“These players bring the best out of me,” Georgia coach Kirby Smart said. “They tried to rob us with calls in this place. And these guys are so resilient.”

Georgia (6-1, 4-1 Southeastern Conference), which began the season at No. 1, has won three in a row since a 41-34 loss at then-No. 4 Alabama, when the Bulldogs overcame a 28-0 deficit and went ahead late during an exchange of long TD passes.

The Bulldogs never trailed in their first trip to Austin since 1958 to take on the SEC newcomer that had gotten through the first half of its schedule pretty much unscathed.

“Nobody gave us a chance. Everybody doubted us,” Smart said, then making a reference to ESPN’s “College GameDay” pregame show that broadcast from the Austin campus earlier in the day. “Did you watch the show this morning? I didn’t because I was in meetings, but I got 8,000 texts about it.”

Texas (6-1, 2-1) won at reigning national champion Michigan in Week 2 and had been behind for less than four minutes all season before facing the the back-to-back national champ before the Wolverines.

The 15-point loss was the most lopsided for a No. 1 team at home since Notre Dame’s 31-16 win at Pittsburgh in 1982, according to Sportradar, when Dan Marino was the Panthers quarterback.

“Unfortunately, we didn’t play our best football tonight, but we were still competitive. Hopefully, we get another crack at them,” Texas coach Steve Sarkisian said. ‘They’ve they’ve been the standard in college football now for about five, six, seven years and we played them really well in the second half.”

Georgia quarterback Carson Beck improved to 19-2 as a starter, including a 7-2 mark against ranked teams. He was 23 of 41 for 175 yards and finished with three interceptions, though Texas didn’t get anything out of the two he threw in the first quarter. The Longhorns had only 38 yards total when trailing 23-0 at halftime.

Jahdae Barron’s pick and 36-yard return to the Georgia 9 late in the third quarter came after contact with Arian Smith that drew a pass interference penalty. Sarkisian was irate at officials, then went to the far corner of the field where students sit signaling for them to quit throwing things.

As the debris was being picked up, officials were discussing the play and picked up the flag. Two plays later, Ewers threw a 17-yard touchdown to Jaydon Blue to get the Longhorns to 23-15.

Ewers completed 25 of 43 passes for 211 yards.

Everette’s blindside sack late in the first quarter jarred loose the ball from Ewers, and the defender recovered at the Texas 13 after several of his teammates had tried to pick up the fumble. That led to Etienne’s 2-yard TD for a 7-0 lead.

A 15-yard TD run by Etienne, with a late lunge into the end zone, made it 17-0 after Everette stepped in front of a receiver for an interception at the Texas 34.

“We all always say that takeaways come in bunches,” Everette said. “We practice taking small details seriously.”

Peyton Woodring kicked three field goals before halftime for Georgia, the last a 44-yarder as time expired after freshman Arch Manning, in for a second series, fumbled while being sacked.

The takeaway

Georgia: Smart got his 100th career win in 117 games over nine seasons. … The defense set the tone for the Dawgs, including seven sacks and forcing four turnovers that Georgia turned into 17 points.

Texas: This was the Longhorns’ biggest test so far in the SEC, and it turned into a jarring reminder of how difficult things can be in their new league. Texas has lost its last five home games against top-five opponents, since a win over No. 3 Nebraska in 1999 when they were in the Big 12 together.

Poll implications

Texas will fall out of the No. 1 spot, it is just a matter of how far. Oregon (6-0) is likely to take over at the top from No. 2, but Georgia could possibly replace the Ducks there. No. 3 Penn State and No. 4 Ohio State, whose only loss was at Oregon, were both off this weekend.

Up next

Georgia: Faces Florida on Nov. 2 in their annual game in Jacksonville, Florida.

Texas: At Vanderbilt on Saturday.

___

Get alerts on the latest AP Top 25 poll throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: and

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) — Prabowo Subianto was inaugurated Sunday as the eighth president of the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation, completing his journey from an ex-general accused of rights abuses during the dark days of Indonesia’s military dictatorship to the presidential palace.

The former defense minister, who turned 73 on Thursday, was cheered through the streets by thousands of waving supporters after taking his oath on the Quran, the Muslim holy book, in front of lawmakers and foreign dignitaries. Banners and billboards to welcome the new president filled the streets of the capital, Jakarta, where tens of thousands gathered for festivities including speeches and musical performances along the city’s major throughfare.

Subianto was a longtime rival of the immensely popular President Joko Widodo, who ran against him for the presidency twice and refused to accept his defeat on both occasions, in 2014 and 2019.

But Widodo appointed Subianto as defense chief after his reelection, paving the way for an alliance despite their rival political parties. During the campaign, Subianto ran as the popular outgoing president’s heir, vowing to continue signature policies like the construction of a multibillion-dollar new capital city and limits on exporting raw materials intended to boost domestic industry.

Backed by Widodo, Subianto swept to a landslide victory in February’s direct presidential election on promises of policy continuity.

Subianto was sworn in with his new vice president, 37-year-old Surakarta ex-Mayor Gibran Rakabuming Raka. He chose Raka, who is Widodo’s son, as his running mate, with Widodo favoring Subianto over the candidate of his own former party. The former rivals became tacit allies, even though Indonesian presidents don’t typically endorse candidates.

But how he’ll govern the biggest economy in Southeast Asia — where nearly 90% of Indonesia’s 282 million people are Muslims — remains uncertain after a campaign in which he made few concrete promises besides continuity with the popular former president.

Subianto, who comes from one of the country’s wealthiest families, is a sharp contrast to Widodo, the first Indonesian president to emerge from outside the political and military elite who came from a humble background and as president often mingled with working-class crowds.

Subianto was a special forces commander until he was expelled by the army in 1998 over accusations that he played a role in the kidnappings and torture of activists and other abuses. He never faced trial and went into self-imposed exile in Jordan in 1998, although several of his underlings were tried and convicted.

Jordanian King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein was expected to attend Sunday’s ceremony, but canceled at the last minute because of escalating Middle East tensions, instead deciding to send Foreign Affairs Minister Nancy Namrouqa as his special envoy. Subianto and Abdullah met in person in June for talks in Amman on humanitarian assistance to people affected by the war in Gaza.

Subianto, who has never held elective office, will lead a massive, diverse archipelago nation whose economy has boomed amid strong global demand for its natural resources. But he’ll have to contend with global economic distress and regional tensions in Asia, where territorial conflicts and the United States-China rivalry loom large.

Leaders and senior officials from more than 30 countries flew in to attend the ceremony, including Chinese Vice President Han Zheng and leaders of Southeast Asia countries. U.S. President Joe Biden sent Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Adm. Samuel Paparo, the U.S. Commander of the Indo-Pacific Command, was also among the American delegation.

Army troops and police, along with armored vehicles, fire trucks and ambulances, were deployed across the capital, and major roads were closed to secure the swearing-in.

The election outcome capped a long comeback for Subianto, who was banned for years from traveling to the United States and Australia.

He has vowed to continue Widodo’s modernization efforts, which have boosted Indonesia’s economic growth by building infrastructure and leveraging the country’s abundant resources. A signature policy required nickel, a major Indonesian export and a key component of electric car batteries, to be processed in local factories rather than exported raw.

He has also promised to push through Widodo’s most ambitious and controversial project: the construction of a new capital on Borneo, about 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) away from congested Jakarta.

Before February’s presidential election, he also promised to provide free school lunches and milk to 78.5 million students at more than 400,000 schools across the country, aiming to reduce malnutrition and stunted growth among children.

Indonesia is a bastion of democracy in Southeast Asia, a diverse and economically bustling region of authoritarian governments, police states and nascent democracies. After decades of dictatorship under President Suharto, the country was convulsed by political, ethnic and religious unrest in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Since then, it has consolidated its democratic transition as the world’s third-largest democracy, and is home to a rapidly expanding middle class.

___

Associated Press journalists Edna Tarigan and Andi Jatmiko contributed to this report.

Voters in Nebraska and Arizona will see competing measures on their November ballots — in one case about abortion, in the other about primary elections. If voters approve them all, what happens next could be up to the courts to decide.

Like more than a dozen other states, Arizona and Nebraska have constitutions stating that if two or more conflicting ballot measures are approved at the same election, the measure receiving the most affirmative votes prevails.

That sounds simple. But it’s actually a bit more complicated.

That’s because the Arizona and Nebraska constitutions apply the most-votes rule to the specifically conflicting provisions within each measure — opening the door to legal challenges in which a court must decide which provisions conflict and whether some parts of each measure can take effect.

The scenario may may sound odd. But it’s not unheard of.

Conflicting ballot measures “arise frequently enough, and the highest-vote rule is applied frequently enough that it merits some consideration,” said Michael Gilbert, vice dean of the University of Virginia School of Law, who analyzed conflicting ballot measures as a graduate student two decades ago when his curiosity was peaked by competing measures in California.

What’s going on in Nebraska?

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a nationwide right to abortion, Nebraska enacted a law last year prohibiting abortion starting at 12 weeks of pregnancy except in medical emergencies or when pregnancy results from sexual assault or incest.

Abortion-rights supporters gathered initiative signatures for a proposed constitutional amendment that would create “a fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health” of a pregnant woman, without interference from the state. Fetal viability generally is considered to be some time after 20 weeks. The amendment is similar to abortion-rights measures going before voters in eight other states.

Abortion opponents, meanwhile, pursued their own initiative to essentially enshrine the current law into the constitution. That measure would prohibit abortion in the second and third trimesters, except in medical emergencies or pregnancies resulting from sexual assault or incent.

The Nebraska Constitution says the winning measure with the most votes shall become law “as to all conflicting provisions.” State law says the governor shall proclaim which provision is paramount. Lawsuits could follow.

If the measure creating a right to abortion until fetal viability gets the most votes, it could be construed as fully conflicting with the restrictive measure and thus prevail in its entirety, said Brandon Johnson, an assistant law professor at the University of Nebraska.

But if the restrictive measure gets the most votes, a court could determine it conflicts with the abortion-rights measure only in the second and third trimesters, Johnson said. That could create a scenario where abortion is elevated as a fundamental right during the first trimester but restricted in the second and third.

“There’s a decent legal argument, based on the language that talks about conflicting provisions of the measures, that you can synchronize the two,” Johnson said.

What’s going on in Arizona?

Arizona, like most states, currently uses partisan primaries to choose candidates for the general election.

The Republican-led Legislature, on a party-line vote, placed an amendment on the November ballot that would enshrine partisan primaries in the state constitution, reaffirming that each party can advance a candidate for each office to the general election.

A citizens initiative seeks to change the current election method. It would create open primaries in which candidates of all parties appear on the same ballot, with multiple candidates advancing to the general election. It would be up to lawmakers or the secretary of state to enact requirements for exactly how many should advance. If at least three make it to a general election, then ranked choice voting would be used to determine the winner of the general election.

The Arizona Constitution says the winning ballot measure with the most votes shall prevail “in all particulars as to which there is conflict.”

In the past, the Arizona Supreme Court has cited that provision to merge parts of competing measures. For example, in 1992, voters approved two amendments dealing with the state mine inspector. One measure extended the term of office from two to four years. The other measure, which got more votes, limited the mine inspector to serving four, two-year terms.

In a case decided 10 years later, the Supreme Court said parts of both measures should take effect, ruling the mine inspector could serve four, four-year terms. That could have implications for Arizona’s future elections if voters approve both competing measures on this year’s ballot.

“The court really goes out of its way to harmonize the two,” said Joseph Kanefield, an attorney and former state election director who teaches election law at the University of Arizona. Striking one measure entirely “is something that the court will try to avoid unless they absolutely determine the two cannot exist together.”

What’s happened in other states?

When Gilbert’s curiosity was peaked about conflicting ballot proposals, he teamed up with a fellow graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, to examine 56 instances of competing ballot measures in eight states between 1980 and 2006. In some cases, the measures appeared to directly conflict. In others, the measures merely addressed similar topics.

Their research found that the measure getting the most affirmative votes often was the one that made the least change from the status quo.

But sometimes, the highest-vote rule never comes into play, because voters approve one measure while rejecting the other. Or voters defeat both measures.

In 2022, California voters were presented with two rival proposals to legalize sports betting. Interest groups spent roughly $450 million promoting or bashing the proposals, a national record for ballot measures. But both were overwhelmingly defeated.

In 2018, Missouri voters faced three different citizen-initiated proposals to legalize medical marijuana. Voters approved one and rejected two others.

“It is not unusual to have conflicting measures,” said John Matsusaka, executive director of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California. “But my observation is that voters usually understand the game and approve one and turn down the other.”