With Georgia passing legislation to dramatically restrict voting access, and with similar legislation pending in other states, fundamental issues of voting and democracy are now front and center in Congress.
With Georgia passing legislation to dramatically restrict voting access, and with similar legislation pending in other states, fundamental issues of voting and democracy are now front and center in Congress. A sweeping set of election reforms recently passed the House as H.R. 1 and are now before the Senate. The fate of these efforts, and the future of fundamental Senate procedures such as the legislative filibuster, could be decided in the weeks ahead. On Monday, April 19th, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation convened advocates from the states and Capitol Hill to discuss what is at stake and the strategies being used in the fight for voting rights and democracy reform.
Speakers include:
Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen
Wade Henderson, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Representative John Sarbanes, Maryland's 3rd Congressional District
Tova Wang (Moderator), Harvard Kennedy School
About the Ash Center
The Ash Center is a research center and think tank at Harvard Kennedy School focused on democracy, government innovation, and Asia public policy. AshCast, the Center's podcast series, is a collection of conversations, including events and Q&As with experts, from around the Center on pressing issues, forward-looking solutions, and more.
Visit the Ash Center online, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. For updates on the latest research, events, and activities, please signup for our newsletter.
[Music]
Presenter: You're listening to AshCast, the podcast of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School.
Representative Sarbanes: Why is it every two years we can't get to the ballot box in America without having to run an obstacle course. And there's no good explanation for why we can't meet the gold standard in the United States for voting rights.
Tova Wang: Thank you for joining us. We appreciate it and welcome you to an Ash Center event. We would like to first acknowledge the land on which Harvard sits as the traditional territory of the Massachusett people and a place that has long served as a site of meeting and exchange among nations. I am Tova Wang, I am a democracy fellow at the Ash Center. I have been working on voting rights and voter participation for over twenty years and I don't think that I need to tell anyone in this audience too much about what's going on around voting rights and democracy in this country right now so I won't take long. Um, I'm sure you're familiar with all the restrictive bills that are being introduced and passed in the states although there are many good ones as well that we should recognize. Um, and I'm guessing that you already know a lot, of something, about H.R.1 if you're here today. It includes a number of provisions that would make voting more inclusive and it also includes two other pillars of democracy, which are campaign finance reform and ethics reform. Both I hope we can hear a little bit about today. And the last thing I'll note is that this bill has been the work of many years, starting with the work of the late John Lewis probably a decade ago and building from there, so we now find ourselves in this historic moment and working with things that he began some years ago. And with that, I'm going to introduce everyone on the panel and then just do a round of questions. And then, depending on where we're at, do some follow-up. And then, go to your questions and answers.
Tova Wang: So, just for some introductions. Congressman Sarbanes has represented Maryland's 3rd congressional district since 2007 in the U.S. Congress. He currently serves on several committees and sub-committees, including the House Oversight and Reform Committee and its sub-committee on government operations. Since 2017, he has chaired the democracy reform taskforce an effort of the House of Representatives, an effort to put the public interests over those of special interests. Wade Henderson currently serves as the interim president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which he previously led for 20 years. The Leadership Conference is the premier coalition charged by its diverse membership of over 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil rights of all persons in the United States. After taking the helm of the Leadership Conference in 1996 he worked diligently to address policy concerns of interest to the civil and human rights community and to strengthen the collective of the colation. Under his stewardship, the Leadership Conference become one of the nation's most effective organizations in advocating for progressive, civil, and human rights policies, including of course, voting rights. And Lisa Gilbert is Public Citizen's Executive Vice President, previously she was Public Citizen's Vice President of Legislative Affairs. She was also the director of Public Citizen's congress watch division and deputy director of that division. She's a strong advocate for government transparency, integrity, financial reform, civil justice, and consumer protection. And Lisa founded the 200-person declaration for the American Democracy Coalition, which, by chance, successfully pushed through the U.S. House of Representatives the 'For the People Act' H.R.1.
So I'm going to just ask each one of you a question and if you can keep your answers to around five minutes that would be great. And I do want to start with Representative Sarbanes. I know how busy you are. You've been a champion in Congress for years on democratic reform and we now have the greatest chance for major progress in decades. I'm wondering what, for you, are the most important major provisions that we should know about in the bill and also why has this been done in a way that's one big package of voting rights, redistricting ethics, and democracy reform.
Representative Sarbanes: Well, first of all, thanks Tova for the invitation and to Miles Rapoport, I want to thank him for his incredible work in the democracy reform space over the years. Very pleased to be joined by the fellow panelists here today, Lisa Gilbert from Public Citizen, Wade Henderson at Leadership Conference, round two. It's great to have him back in that position at this critical moment for our democracy. Boy, I hesitate always, for people who have heard me speak before, to single out any part of the For the People Act to elevate above others because I think all of the components are really, really critical. And the reason is they all are the product of what the public has been telling us for years. We very much constructed this piece of legislation based on listening to those grievances. And they fall into three or four broad baskets which you've alluded to. I mean, this effort around voting reforms really comes from people saying to us, why is it every two years we can't get to the ballot box in America without having a run an obstacle course? And there's no good explanation for why we can't meet the gold standard in the United States when it comes to voting rights. And so many of the reforms that are contained in the bill and we'll talk about it I'm sure today are designed to make sure we are reaching that gold standard among our peer nations. But they also said things to us like politicians shouldn't choose their voters, it should be the other way around that led to sort of a focus on fair redistricting. They said when you go to Washington please behave yourselves so that opened up the discussion around ethic reforms and they certainly insisted and have been for years that lawmakers not get tangled up in the money that they act in the public interest and not on behalf of well-heeled special interests. So a lot of the campaign finance reforms fall into that basket. The reason the package is there is that response but also a coalition of groups and Lisa is the one who can speak to this best, but this coalition that came together having worked in many different diverse areas whether it's environment or good government or gun safety or in the faith community or tax policy, consumer protection, all recognizing that forward motion on their important priorities depended on unrigging the system in Washington and out in the country. And if you think about it, it's voter suppression which has diminished the voices of the people in the country. It's conflicts of interest and big money that it diminished the people in Washington. So if we're gonna lift up the voices of everyday Americans, we have to address all those things. But that coalition was very insistent if we keep that bill together we can create enough momentum to kinda break down that the doors of resistance. And certainly the status quo is always resisting change. And so far, this is proven out. Let me make a couple closing observations as they're really important. The voting reforms in H.R.1, which are quite powerful and we'll talk the more and represent as you indicated, the imprint of John Lewis in that he wrote the first 300 pages of this bill, it was his Voter Empowerment Act. They are part of a larger suite of reforms all of which are moving forward. On different tracks, but together. So it's not just H.R.1 before the People Act, which is critical in terms of ensuring access to the ballot box, it's also H.R.4 which is the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act which would address the legacy of the Shelby case and try to restore the Voting Rights Act and wait as the resident, not just expert, but in many ways architect of a lot of that legislative effort, but it's and it's also H.R.51, which is DC statehood. All of these bills as I say are on separate tracks for very good reasons, but they're all moving in parallel and helping to get us to a place where Americans can have confidence that their voice is really being heard in their own democracy. And we're very keen on making sure every single piece in that suite of reforms is successful and successful soon because we know the American people coming off of this very difficult election in 2020 are waiting to see, are their lawmakers gonna stand up, fix democracy and make sure that their voice is the one that's being heard. We're determined to get that done, that was behind the momentum of H.R.1. We now have S.1 on the Senate side, we're continuing to push that forward and hopefully we will get it over the finish line. Thanks very much
Tova Wang: As I've been able to see firsthand for some of the time you've been in the fight for voting rights and civil rights for decades. And I'm wondering if you think this time is different in some way. Is the push for H.R.1/S.1 different than what you've seen in the past? And I, if you want to speak also to the John Lewis Voting Rights Act as well I think it would be very helpful for people to know something about that too.
Wade Henderson: Sure, thanks Tova. I'm honored to be with you in the Ash Center, thank you for sponsoring this program. I'm delighted to join my colleagues John Sarbanes, Congressman Sarbanes, and Lisa Gilbert, this is a terrific panel so thanks for having me. I think you've raised a great question. I think there's some things that are similar, there are some things that are different and I'll talk a little bit about H.R.4 the John Lewis Voting Rights bill in that process and I'll try to wrap it into a five-minute presentation very quickly. Look, there was something eerily haunting about this present state of American democracy. Particularly if we look at the lens of trying to, our quest to become a more perfect union. You know in thinking about the defining characteristics of this period one can't help but think of the big lie that president Trump promulgated over the last two years that suggested that somehow if he lost the election, it could only occur through voter fraud. Secondly, the election itself which produced an unanticipated result, particularly in the Georgia runoff, which in which you had the first African-American Senator in the South elected since in modern times and the first Jewish Senator elected in the history of the country. With a turnout of voters of color and poor people, rural people that made a huge difference. Then thirdly, the insurrection of January 6th which is unlike anything this country has ever seen before and that deserves its own special point of discussion. The emergence and growth of white supremacist in the, since Charlottesville of course, but surrounding the election. What we saw at the Capitol, an event subsequently with the oath keepers and the proud boys and others and it is really quite a disturbing. And then finally the development in over 40 states with Republican legislatures, promulgating efforts to disenfranchise voters of color and the poor in an effort to prevent the election of 2020 of being repeated again with a series of new statutes that would disenfranchise all of these voters. And I compare that to the period in our country, in 1870 in the five-year aftermath of the civil war. When we passed the 15th amendment to the constitution that gave black men the right to vote, we then saw the emergence of the Ku Klux Klan and the passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871, to stop the white supremacist efforts that we saw at that time. And the subsequent, you know killing in its infancy, the reconstruction era and the growth of African-Americans in politics. All of that is quite reminiscent in some ways of what we have seen replicated today and that parallel with the growth of Jim Crow election restrictions and what we see happening in the wake of insurrection of the 2020, 2021. That parallel is very disturbing to me. I'm reminded of the quote of William Faulkner who said that the past is never dead, it's not even past. And that is something that stands out because of what we have seen replicated in this great period of time. So that's what is troubling because it is reminding us of a previous time when we saw the withering of democratic traditions and values. And the effort to suppress the minority vote and we see it replicating itself again. Now what is different, is something that is much more recent events. In 2006 the Civil Rights Community, the leadership conference and others led the last reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And we had at the end of the day incredible bipartisan support. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing in favor of strengthening the Voting Rights law. And the House of Representatives it was an equally overwhelming vote I think it was like 393 to something like 30 votes in the House an extraordinary level of consensus around voting rights. And prior to that voting rights had always been a bipartisan issue. It was Republican presidents that had signed the voting rights. reauthorization bills into law. And so to now see this period of partisan division with such great intensity, where Republicans at the state level are attempting to enact new restrictions on the right to vote and looking at Republicans now in the House of Representatives and the Senate, turning their backs on voting rights and turning their backs on the great traditions of their party. The president Lincoln's in the Frederick Douglas' of the Republican party of old. That's what is different than what we have seen that and so what I would close with is saying that the threat to American democracy, that is posed by the state restrictions that have begun to spring up and are now migrating since the passage of Georgia throughout the South but also in places like Michigan and Arizona and others. To me that represents an existential threat to American democracy as we know it. And that is something that I think the public has to become aware of. So I'll stop there Tova and would be happy to answer questions.
Tova Wang: Okay, great maybe as a followup we can talk a little bit about the John Lewis Voting Rights.
Wade Henderson: I would be happy to do that.
Tova Wang: Okay 'cause that's important.
Wade Henderson: Absolutely.
Tova Wang: So let me just turn to Lisa. Lisa you've been heading up this coalition of 200 organizations to help try and get H.R.1 passed successfully now and now you've got S.1. What has that been like this time around? What have you been doing around that? And have you been able to find, picking up on what Wade was just saying, have you been able to find partners across the spectrum at all in this fight? So maybe you can tell us a little bit about what it's been like on the outside.
Lisa Gilbert: Absolutely, thanks Tova and thanks to you and Miles and the Ash Center for the invitation today. You know I've been working on different democracy issues for almost 15 years now, and I really have not seen an opportunity moment like this one before, it feels like we're dealing with a perfect storm of crises as Wade was just talking about from the voter suppression bills, to the direct challenges to our system and safety that we saw with the insurrection, to the need to just wipe out the stain of the last four years of a norm breaking president who thought the country was his to profit from. You know there's this hunger to restore trust in government. And, you know we, a public citizen, you know saw this moment coming in some ways and so founded this large and Diverse Declaration for American Democracy coalition. We created it three years ago with the idea that in the wake of Trump we might have a moment to wipe the slate clean and move the boldest democracy legislation ever proposed. And our coalition came together to try to build that power and sort of seed the ground in order to be ready for the change moment when it happens. You know obviously doing this before we knew the depths to which Trump would sink and the impeachments in his future, but with the idea that the public and legislators might be ready for real change when his time as president was up. And as you were just saying and as Representative Sarbanes mentioned, you know we have over 200 organizations in the coalition and it's been incredibly organic, you know groups ranging from faith partners, to the environment, to labor, to choice, to civil rights, to government, veteran's groups, small business groups, you know many many groups that are non-partisan, you know and as a coalition we focused in on the For The People Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and DC statehood, you know working, you know across the country in states with our state partners. You know working to create a groundswell of calls and organizing in pivotal places like West Virginia, you know generating media, working with our Great Hill allies, working with the White House in the Biden era and really guiding the outside game strategy to you know make the For The People Act a reality. You know and it certainly, you know, has been organic, it has been the kind of thing where people, you know really across the spectrum, across organizational types have recognized jointly that you know if we can win on this, we can win on the other core components of their mission. You know it isn't something that was usual, you know 10 years ago for environmental organizations to participate in a democracy coalition. And what has changed is this real acceptance and understanding that, you know if we are able to succeed at unrigging the system then government will be more representative, more trustworthy and things like environmental reforms can actually finally happen. And I think that has just been an awakening that's occurred you know again across different sorts of organizations, and they've also recognized how critical the different pieces of this bill are and how important it is to keep it all together, you know whether it's because of what we're seeing around voter suppression, whether it's because of the money they have seen in their own issue industry pouring it in on the other side of that topic or just their membership talking about how they don't trust government and it's too corrupt and so we have to have ethics reforms. So I just think there's been this mass understanding you know that, you know it is popular to do this, we need the For The People Act to unrig government and if we win, we'll win on everything else.
Tova Wang: Thank you Lisa. Representative Sarbanes just one follow up for you. I mean, I have to I think ask about the political strategy given the filibuster, et cetera and ask you to respond to what some people are talking about which is why don't we just cut off some parts of it, try and get a consensus, try to get bipartisan support for what we can now? And what the strategy is around keeping it together.
Representative Sarbanes: Well, I think to go back to what I said earlier the reason you don't wanna break the bill up is because every part of the bill is an engine pulling the whole bill forward. We actually found that in-house, on any given day, there was one component of the bill that was the most consequential on that day in terms of taking a few steps forward. The next day it'd be a completely different part of the bill that was helping to do the work of pulling the bill forward. So we learned firsthand and we'd had two runs at this. We did it in the 116th Congress, got a pass in the House and we did it again recently in the 117th Congress. In this Congress we saw firsthand the power of the bill came from keeping it together and keeping all of those interlocking components where they could be kinda mutually reinforcing of each other. And that's certainly the message that we've shared with our colleagues in the Senate, that the power of the bill comes from it's overarching approach. And this is the case not just in terms of the particular equities that various lawmakers have, but we've definitely seen it out in the public. If you have sort of this set of reforms that people can lift up depending on where they are, you get that kind of resonance. We can say, for example, that you know many people are like well, the voting part of this is so critical and it's getting such attention and that's appropriate in this moment because you're seeing this stampede sadly towards voter suppression across the country at the state level. And kind of the threshold part of our democracy, the bedrock of it is the idea of being able to get to the ballot box and exercise your franchise. So we know that that is a very high priority item. But it's also to be honest the narrative that stirs the pot the most because you have some in this country that are sort of extending the narrative from the last election around voter fraud and stop the stealing, all that kind of stuff. So it kinda works that up even as others recognize that we have to have this fundamental access to the ballot box. That's about freedom, it's about people's voices. On the other hand when you go to the money of reforms you discover that across the board among independents, Democrats and Republicans, this cynicism about Washington being an insider's game is palpable. And if you offer a set of reforms that can address that and cut through that and break lawmaker dependence on big money and all that comes with it, you can actually get support in all quarters. And so that helps to push the bill forward. And we very much designed it as something that across all fronts, voting ethics and campaign finance reform we'd respect the public and make them feel included and lifted up. And in this moment, this critical moment where you're absolutely right to ask what is the plan? We don't wanna leave any of the tools in our tool kit behind. We wanna bring all of that to bare. We wanna respond directly to what the public has told us, their priorities are and help achieve this change. Now we understand there's tricky math on the Senate side and I don't pretend to be an expert on the filibuster or the rules that govern the Senate. There's a certain mystery to that as you know. I will say this though, the louder the chorus is, out in the country and in all the various states that this change needs to happen, the greater the burden on the members of the Senate to make sure we get it done. And if it becomes clear to our colleagues in the Senate that this is a sort of must-do situation and the moment cannot be surrendered, then I think they're gonna figure it out. I really believe that because the call for this change is too broad, it's too deep out there in the country for us to miss the moment. So that's sort of my story and I'm sticking to it. And I think that this can land in the right place as long as every citizen out there who cares about this change becomes fully engaged. And with each passing day, you see that happening.
Tova Wang: Thank you, Wade did you wanna just weigh in for one minute about the John Lewis Voting Rights Act so we don't?
Wade Henderson: Yes, Tova thank you so much. First of all, I agree completely with Congressman Sarbanes that because this moment is such an existential threat to American democracy as we know it, we need both S.1 and H.R.4 the John Lewis bill to make certain that American democracy is made whole and protected. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is essentially Congress's response to the Supreme Court decision of June 25th, 2013 in the case of Shelby County versus Holder. Which was a challenge to the Voting Rights Act and specifically a challenge to the formula that was used in the Voting Rights Act to determine which states, which jurisdictions within states would be covered by the laws pre-clearance requirements, which required the justice department to review any proposed changes, being made to local election laws, to determine whether they would have either a discriminatory impact directly or by implication, by indirectly through disparate impact of a particular policy. The court invalidated the formula that was a part of the Voting Rights Act at that time and said that Congress needed to establish a fresh formula. It needed to re-examine how it determined which jurisdictions would be covered. And in so doing invalidated the heart of the act which was Section 5 of the act which was the pre-clearance requirement. Because those provisions have been eliminated, states immediately in the aftermath of that decision, 27 States immediately passed almost virtually the next day new restrictions on the right to vote. And let me give you an example of how that plays out. So take Georgia, which now just passed new restrictions which are really problematic. Over the last six years Georgia has closed over 200 voting precincts all over the state, including many rural communities that had a limited number of precincts to begin with. 10 counties with high percentages of black voters had precincts closed. The result is that there was widespread confusion among voters about where to cast their ballot. If you went to the wrong precinct to cast a ballot, you were in many instances required to cast a provisional ballot. That provisional ballot wasn't actually counted in the final vote tally of the election, unless it were deemed as so essential, they needed to consider these votes and in some instances that wasn't the case. Because of that confusion and because of the closing of precincts, you ended and the growth in voters, Georgia experienced over a growth of over 2 million voters in the last four years, you had these incredible long lines in black communities, in poor communities where voters were required to wait for, you know just hour after hour before they could cast their vote, because they lived in an area with a high concentration of voters and poor services, no precincts. Some white counties and rural communities fared a lot better and didn't have those restrictions. So when you pass a law that says you can't give somebody water who is standing in line, I'll recognize that you are working a real hardship on the rights of voters to cast their ballot. Because it is primarily in those communities where black voters are high they've already been compromised because of a closing of precincts, you've extended the length of time in which they cast a ballot and now you've prevented them from getting the substance of water just to survive during that time period, don't tell me that's not a restriction that is intended to create a result that disenfranchises black voters, of course it is. And so what you now have are Republicans who lost the election in 2020, rather than trying to appeal to these new voters with the strength of their ideas and the power of their commitment to American democracy, they've instead chosen to shrink the base and without the protection of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that the justice department can weigh in appropriately before these changes take effect. You are virtually guaranteeing no protection for voters as state after state chooses to manipulate the voter system to ensure that they get the outcome they want. And that's why there's such anger and antagonism and fear about where we stand in the wake of the Georgia new election law has it migrates from Georgia to Texas and Arizona and Florida and other parts of the country. And so the John Lewis bill would respond to some aspects of that, but you also need S.1 and particularly Title I of the S.1, to ensure that there are other complimentary provisions that guarantee the right to vote, extend early voting and establish standards that states are required to adhere to minimum standards, to protect the integrity of the ballot, without which I can assure you there will be a manipulation of the system to establish an outcome on a partisan basis and that's not what America wants or needs or supports. And that's why these bills taken together are absolutely essential. I would just note that also the H.R.51 about DC statehood there are several of us on the call today who are, I think in DC who are taking a keen interest in that as well as the other piece that we've talked about. And I did wanna put it on Lisa actually to lift up a little bit of what is less known and less talked about in all of this which first of all is the ethics reform part, the ethics reform pillar of H.R.1, as Representative Sarbanes described it. And also, let me just tack on to this if you wanna talk for a second, there are some good things happening out in the states around voting, so to the extent that you have any, the things that you wanna, you know about that you can lift up that would be great too.
Representative Sarbanes: Great, thanks Tova. Yes, I mean it is lesser known but also incredibly popular provisions of the For The People Act. You know, because a large percentage of the population thinks the government is corrupt, you know, doesn't trust our democracy, that things that deal with unrigging our system and cleaning up corruption are incredibly popular and the bill contains numerous provisions to clean it up in all three branches of government. So just a couple of examples, you know in, when it comes to the courts, the legislation includes the creation of a code of ethics for the Supreme court. The courts nine justices are the only us judges, state or federal, not bound by a written code of ethical conduct. You know everyone else is subject to the official code of conduct, which requires them to think about integrity and independence of the judiciary and in matters like recusal, financial disclosure, outside employment, partisan political engagements, gifts, you know so the bill would bring SCOTUS up to par with the requirements on other judges which just makes a ton of sense. You know when it comes to the executive branch the bill has numerous provisions for dealing with conflicts of interest and transparency. You know there's one requirement made obviously necessary by former president Trump which would require presidential appointees to recuse themselves from government matters to which the president or their spouse is a party. You know, we obviously saw, you know president Trump's continued ownership and control of businesses that had contracts with the government, White House interference in the Mueller investigation, you know just episodes that raise the prospect of presidents using their authority to exert pressure for personal reasons. So we certainly wanna be fed up. And then when it comes to Congress, the bill also does a ton to strengthen ethics. You know, it strengthens conflict of interest rules for members of Congress. It codifies House rules to prohibit House members from serving on boards of for-profit companies, it bars members of the House and Senate and their staff from working to advance legislation that might further their own personal financial interests or help their immediate families. And then finally, I just wanna mention because they're so often demonized but, you know beyond grappling with just branches of government, the bill also cracks down on lobbyists. You know, we have fairly out-of-date federal lobbying disclosure requirements in the LDA, so the bill really steps them up, you know, it lowers the percentage of time spent lobbying that you need in order to actually be forced to register as a lobbyist. It also, you know tries to capture shadow lobbying. So people who do things as consultants or advisors but, you know sort of, you know former officials perhaps themselves but are never captured as lobbyists so we don't really understand their influence and how they're using their Rolodex. So this really addresses that perceived gap and steps up on lobbyist enforcement. So, you know, that's just a sampling of the ethics provisions, but hopefully gives you a sense of how comprehensive the language is and how much you know, the authors of the bill thought about all the different places where, you know we need to beef up our ethics requirements to unrigging the government and deal with corruption.
Tova Wang: Thanks and Representative Sarbanes, I wanted to at least give you a minute if you'd like to also lift up the campaign finance reform provisions of the bill which I also feel like are getting less attention than some of the voting provisions and are worth our attention as well.
Representative Sarbanes: Yeah I think they are probably getting less attention now just because we're seeing this contest around voting playing out every single day. But what's interesting is I still think those reforms are front of mind for most Americans out there because it's, over the last few years it's been one of the things that's produced the most frustration I think and anger and led to this cynicism that I mentioned. I mean, even if you think about it, if voting were what it should be in this country and you felt confident that the person you wanted to support you were gonna be able to get out there, exercise your franchise and send them to Washington, but then you discover with every passing day that they've been captured by the insiders game and the big money and special interests, you really feel helpless as an American 'cause you sort of say, look I fought my way to the ballot box, I got there, I exercised my franchise, this is the bedrock of our democracy, my voice, and then it turns out all the policy coming out of Washington is getting made for somebody else. It's getting made for people that are hiding behind the curtain. And this is what's left people feeling very powerless and from the sense of powerlessness comes frustration and anger. And sometimes it can lead to people reaching for very drastic solutions to their anger, in some ways I think that's how our last president gained a lot of traction in the country. Because he that sentiment, that cynicism and he traded on it, he promised a solution which he didn't deliver on, but it doesn't mean that sentiment is still not there. So the challenge for us is to solve that anger that people feel at being left out, sort of locked out and neglected inside their own democracy, solve it in a way constructive and restorative way. And we do that through things like transparency so we know where that secret money is coming from that's been pouring into our politics for the last few years, particularly since the Citizens United case happened. We do that by fixing the broken Federal Election Commission which can't function right now so it can't be the cop on the beat, it can't be the referee on the field to blow the whistle when the big money crowd is stepping over the lines in the money space. And that's always happens in the last six months of every election cycle and it's all hidden away because the FEC can't do its job. And we absolutely respond to people's sense of being powerless by standing up a new way of funding campaigns in America, congressional campaigns, which is a small-donor matching system. So that small donations from everyday Americans get mashed on a six to one basis. And candidates who are willing to turn away from the special interest and the deep-pocketed donors and the lobbyist and turn instead to small donors and go find those voices of support, can actually be competitive and run. What do we see from that, in places around the country where it's been done at the state and local level? We see, first of all much more diversity in the candidate pool, those who can run and win elections, because you don't have to know a lobbyist or a pack or some deep-pocketed donor in order to power your campaign, you can go out and build support among everyday Americans. So you get much more diversity. Secondly, you get this sense of ownership and empowerment where everyday Americans feel like, hey we're the ones that call the shots in this country, in this democracy, in our politics, instead of the money crowd being the ones that call the shots. So it's very empowering. We wanna bring that sense of empowerment to Washington. We wanna liberate lawmakers from the dependence on the big money crowd out there, and that's what the promise of this small-donor matching system is. And by the way, we don't pay for that with taxpayer money, we pay for it with a small surcharge placed on government settlements with big corporate law breakers. So the people that are leaning on our politics and breaking the public's trust, yeah they're the ones that are gonna have to help override or underwrite a new system that can lift up and restore trust out there in the public. So it's all about empowerment, it's all about making people feel respected again in their democracy. And so many of the ethics reforms, campaign finance reforms and obviously on its face the voting reforms are about respect for the voter, for the citizen, for the person in our country who just wants their voice to be heard.
Tova Wang: I'm gonna, we have a million questions, I'm gonna get to that. I just have to throw out one quick question. I have been really, I found really wild the, all of the activity by corporations all of a sudden on the voting rights issue. I'm mostly of one mind but not completely of one mind about it. I just very quickly 'cause we do wanna go to the question see if you had any particular views on that that you wanted to share.
Representative Sarbanes: Well, I love to hear my fellow panelists' thoughts. I guess I would say this, I always welcome those who wanna stand up for voting rights in America. And if corporations wanna gather around that advocacy at this moment in time, that's terrific too. I'd be more excited if I saw them broadly embracing all of these reforms that we're discussing today because I think frankly, they might pick and choose as to the things they're ready to change and the things they're not ready to change. But, you know, I think the more people that are stepping in and making the argument that we've gotta protect our basic franchise, that's all for the good. But we need this full package if we're going to truly say to Americans, we respect your voice and we want to lift it up.
Wade Henderson: Yeah, look I agree with the congressman. It would be terrific if the corporate voices that we see emerging embrace the entire package of Voting Rights bills under consideration. Having said that, however, I am thrilled that corporations are raising their voices and stepping into this debate in a way that I hope will have a constructive influence, particularly among Republicans who now are turning their backs on voting rights reforms, when in fact previously they would have embraced them. And I think what corporations have done is they've stepped into a vacuum. There's a vacuum that was left by the last administration in its effort to promote as I said the big lie, which I think through misinformation, distortion and lies has really had a profound and negative effect on American democracy as we know it. To have such a sizeable portion of the American electorate of the view that this last election was decided to fraudulent means even though even experts in the previous administration contend this is the most secure election we've had in our country really ever. To have that distortion of information is just particularly harmful. And I think that corporations by raising their voices now are sending important signals beyond Georgia, to other states that are considering these changes, making clear that there will be problems down the road if these provisions are enacted. And they are helping to amplify the voices of voting rights advocates and ordinary citizens who are saying please don't disenfranchise us simply because you are unhappy with the outcome of the last election, bring us your ideas, bring us your commitment to American democracy and let the voter decide. You know let the voters pick their elected officials as opposed to having the elected officials pick the voters that they want. And that's unfortunately what the system is helping to produce with this manipulation. I think this is such an important time for American democracy. I'm delighted that corporations are weighing in and I hope they will continue to use the power of their voices and implicitly the power of their money in funding elections to help shape how elected officials respond to their clarion call. I think it's too important to ignore.
Lisa Gilbert: So I'll just tack on, I mean I think it's pretty fascinating to see corporations decide to do this now not just around voter suppression, but also, you know stopping contributions to those that supported or refused to support president Biden moving through the democratic process around the day of the insurrection. It's sort of a tacit admission for the very first time ever from companies that the money they spend in politics has ramifications that, you know people are paying attention that, you know they might get boycotted. You know there is like a real reputational risk for how they spend their money in politics. And that is very different. You know, we have been pushing them for years to admit that and they have not. And you know they actually not only have not, but said explicitly that the information was not material, not important for shareholders to know, it was one of their strongest reasons, for example the Chamber of Commerce pushed back on the SEC requiring political spending disclosure. So it is very fascinating. I think I'm a little more cynical about it. I wanna see them you know do more than make these, you know commentaries. I want them to see spending in a more permanent way or support disclosure, support the SEC rules, support S.1 publicly in a pledge. I think they can go further to prove that it's not just a PR moment, but it is also something that they're going to stick with and actually change the way their corporations operate.
Tova Wang: Thank you, Lisa, I am also fascinated by it. I'm gonna turn it to Miles now for question and answers which we have many of and if people can go maybe five minutes over, whoever can maybe we can do that. So I'm gonna turn it over to Miles now.
Miles Rapoport: All right, thanks Tova and thanks also to the panelists. So we've got like, well over 30 questions, but there, but it's possible to group them, they fall into kind of four categories and we don't have much time, but one is about what about the Republicans? I mean, there was one complaint that there's not a Republican on the panel, fair enough. But also the question of how are you going to appeal to some Republicans? Is it possible to gain some Republican support for this? You know, what's your, what are your thoughts about that? I'll just say quickly, the second, the other two, one is the filibuster which I think we've explored, obviously more to say. And the other is about the constitutionality and what's the Supreme Court gonna do if these were to pass? So if you can address the kind of the Republican issue a little bit more that would be great and then go to the constitutional issue. We'll have covered many, many of the questions that we have.
- Well, real quick, in terms of Republican support, let's be very clear for a minute here. There is great Republican support for this bill in the country. And unfortunately over the last few years in Washington, the Republican leadership has decided that they can sort of unilaterally determine whether something's considered partisan or nonpartisan by how they direct their members to vote on the Hill. My judgment of whether something is bipartisan is what people out in the country think. And the measures that are included in this For The People Act all poll at 70% and across the board. And strong majority of independents, Republicans and Democrats support this bill. So rank and file Republicans support these things. And if you saw the Jane Mayer article in the New Yorker a couple of weeks ago, that was a bunch of Republican operatives admitting as such and basically saying people like this bill and we can't win the battle out in the public over H.R.1/S.1 'cause our own people support a lot of these measures. So their conclusion was we have to try to win it on the inside. Use our kinda inside leverage to take down the bill. That's a very cynical approach, but the fact that we can't get Mitch McConnell or leadership types in Washington to support this bill coming from the Republican side of the aisle, does not mean that it is a partisan bill. It just means that they haven't caught up with or aren't paying enough attention to, I think their own voters out there. On the filibuster as I say I think, you know it will land where it will land, as long as where it lands is getting this bill through, I'll be thrilled with that. And then the I'll just say very quickly, both in the 116th Congress and 117th Congress, with the refinements we made more recently, we really girded this bill class in terms of its constitutionality. It's anchored with a lot of very important findings language and purpose language that we think will help navigate any challenge that comes at it. There will absolutely be legal challenges to the bill if it passes, but we think all of the various components of the bill from the voting, to the ethics and certainly the campaign finance reform have been drafted in a way that they can survive that challenge. So we feel pretty good about that.
Congressman Sarbanes: I certainly think Tova that is, and Miles that is true with regard to the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. That bill has not yet been introduced in the House and there's a reason for it. I think in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County versus Holder, there is a sense that we need to hold hearings first to establish an evidentiary record that would justify the kind of intervention we are calling for with regard to the new formula that will be developed to determine which states and which subdivisions, political subdivisions will require a pre-clearance. We wanna be able to show that there is a rationale, a justification for that kind of intervention based on a contemporary review of documents and voting patterns in a given state. So there are hearings taking place now in the House and Senate, those hearings will culminate in late spring with a new formula that will be included in a revised Voting Rights Act and introduced probably in the end of June or early part of July. And that is intended to create a voting rights law that can't be overturned by the Supreme or won't be overturned by the Supreme Court because we know that the individual majority of the court is going to review these provisions quite carefully with great scrutiny. And we wanna be able to withstand that Supreme Court review. And so the approach that is being taken to the John Lewis bill is intended to insulate the bill from the kind of criticism and attack that we anticipate will come the Supreme Court. We think that's the case. And with regard to Republicans and getting cooperation, you know, I think that there are many ideas that are under consideration. I'll simply go with the views of majority leader Chuck Schumer, who has said that look failure is not an option when it comes to consideration of the Voting Rights bill. Failure is not an option. Now he will obviously think strategically about to approach the filibuster, how to ensure that he has support from the 50 democratic party caucus, that's gonna be important. And obviously there are some who suggest that not every member of the caucus is on board with ending or modifying the filibuster. But I do think there are ways of demonstrating that we can either get Republican cooperation and thus have a bipartisan bill, not just in the country but in the Congress as well, or demonstrating that it is impossible to get Republican support in Congress and that another approach has to be taken to get the bill through. And I think there are many proposals that are under consideration, that for me would satisfy both ends of the spectrum in terms of reaching agreement. One example of that Tom Harkin, the former Senator from Iowa used to promote was to start with a 60-vote filibuster requirement that you get 60 votes to overturn a filibuster. And then on the second attempt, if you didn't get the 60 votes you'd reduce the number required perhaps to 56 or 57. After that second vote, if you didn't get the 56 or 57 you needed, reduce it further, maybe 52, something like that. But at the end of the day you would have three or four cloture votes based on a formula and requiring members to hold the floor and their ground to make the filibuster real, in other words not simply saying I filibuster the bill and therefore that ends all debate. And making sure that people are put to their proofs. That is one approach that has been talked about and I think it has appeal to some. So I think there are many ways, Miles to get around these restrictions. I'm not gonna, you know line up behind any one particular approach right now. But I do think that Chuck Schumer in his wisdom about how to handle strategically this initiative is thinking about a number of those approaches and will pursue them if required.
Lisa Gilbert: And then I'll just pile on quickly as I know, we're short on time to say that I agree completely with Congressman Sarbanes. You know, this bill is immensely popular on both sides of the aisle and it is just that leaders here have not caught up. I mean, you know, we see 80, 90% support for, you know anti-corruption money and politics, you know dealing with improving voting access. It is just simply popular with everyone and so they have no, no ability to oppose on the merits. And that is the reason why we will eventually win. You know, when it comes to the filibuster, public citizen is a proponent of doing away with it. We think it's, you know a racist relic that is abused currently and makes the Senate non-functional. You know but when we talk about this bill, I think the most important thing to say is what Wade was just saying, that you know, there is no option, we need to pass this legislation and nothing should stand in the way. And you know we would accept changes to filibuster that are short of eliminating it in order to make sure that this democracy reform bill becomes a reality because it is just an emergency. We have to pass it and all means necessary whatever we need to do.
Tova Wang: Thank you, Lisa and everybody. I know that we're running out of time, but I wanna give miles an opportunity to ask one last question 'cause it's important.
Tova Wang: The one other set of questions that people had as organizers you'll appreciate it is what can we do? What can people in Massachusetts here do? What kinds of things can actually help this bill move forward?
Lisa Gilbert: Well, maybe I'll kick that one off. Yeah, I mean, I wanna encourage folks to engage with our huge coalition that I've been talking about, the Declaration For American Democracy. You can find it online dfad.org. So please head there, there are tons of ways to engage. We just completed a huge democracy week of action which happened during recess. We're planning a big set of events on May 8th. You know, a lot of it is digital and obviously in this moment of pandemic and so you can engage from anywhere and the tactics are wide ranging from things that you can write, letters to the editor in particular places, calls you could make, organizations you can engage with. You know we have a whole sort of youth task force so really wants students to engage as well. So just, you know encourage everyone to do that.
Wade Henderson: I would only add there was a question that asked about public education and suggested that they had not seen much on the public debate about these bills and wondering where those messages are. And I can assure you there is a public education campaign being developed as we speak, being laid out, being rolled out as we speak. It will intensify in the coming weeks and months ahead. It will correspond with congressional consideration for votes on these bills. And you're likely to see much more in the way of the public engagement around these issues. And as Lisa said, there are many organizations that are part of the DFAD Coalition leadership conference is one, but you've got groups from traditional organizations like the League of Women Voters to elements of the movement for Black Lives to progressive's and lots of different space that have come together unified in our view that the one thing that cuts across every one of our organizations is a commitment to American democracy as evidenced by our support of these two bills S.1 and H.R.4 the John Lewis bill.
Representative Sarbanes: And I'll add what you can do is take responsibility for everyone in your circle of influence and make sure that they know there's a solution. A lot of people don't know that there's an H.R.1/S.1, they don't know that there's a For The People Act. When you tell them what's in this bill, when you tell them what's in H.R.4, when you talk to them about these democracy reforms, they're like this is what we've been waiting for for years. So a lot of it is just educating people 'cause what we've found is when they know what these proposals are that is activating in and of itself and then they become part of this army of activists and volunteers that are determined to reach out and make sure that this change gets done. So, you know there's over 200 people on this call. I think if you each take responsibility for 5 or 10 people that you're close to, it's not a huge responsibility 'cause all you have to do is reach out to them and say, "you know how angry and frustrated you are with politics and democracy and how nervous you are about what's happened to American democracy? Well, there is a solution and here it is. Go Google this go to declaration for American democracy. Put in For The People Act and see what comes up." There's plenty of information out there that's available. We just gotta get it to people and we gotta get it to them quick, because time is also of the essence here. The American people fought their way to the ballot box in 2020, they pulled our democracy back from the brink, in January of 2021, we saw that what we pulled back from the brink is still very fragile with that attack on our capital. This is the opportunity through H.R.1, through H.R.4 the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and these other important reform measures. This is the chance to shore up the foundation of our democracy in a way that we can be proud of in this country. So please take responsibility, view today's session as sort of a download of the opportunity to go out and share this with other people. And I think if we all do that we're gonna get this over the finish line and we're gonna get it done relatively soon. So I believe that's gonna happen. I wanna thank you for the opportunity today.
Tova Wang: Well, thank you Representative Sarbanes, Wade Henderson, Lisa Gilbert. This was amazing, thank you so much for taking the time. And please keep on top of the Ash Center website and follow us on Twitter for our upcoming events. I know that we have several upcoming that will be of interest to you. So thank you everyone for joining us today and we will see you the next time.
[Music]
Presenter: You've been listening to AshCast, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation's podcast. If you'd like to learn more, please visit ash.harvard.edu or follow the Ash Center on social media @harvardash.
[Music]