Speaker 1: Native Lampod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Speaker 1: Reason Choice Media.
Speaker 2: Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome.
Speaker 3: If you believe that there is a law, please tell me,
Speaker 3: because we just had the voting rights that gut it.
Speaker 3: So please tell me what law, particularly in the South,
Speaker 3: previns us from happening. And I just want to just
Speaker 3: one bit of it. Like I was in the General
Speaker 3: Assembly in South Carolina when we drew these lines, and
Speaker 3: so I've actually seen these lines be drawn.
Speaker 1: And what I'm.
Speaker 3: Absolutely telling you is places like Tim Scott's old South
Speaker 3: Carolina first District right where he seeded black voters to
Speaker 3: Jim Clyburn. That's exactly what he did. It made Jim
Speaker 3: Cliburn's district more African American. It made Tim Scott's district
Speaker 3: more white so that people would vote for them.
Speaker 4: Change that?
Speaker 2: Do you change it by running away and delaying the
Speaker 2: process and.
Speaker 3: Not elected commissioners.
Speaker 1: Vote on it? Yeah, that's that. Just again, everybody we
Speaker 1: were talking about in the main episode of Native Lampot
Speaker 1: this week, this whole redistricting fight that's happening around the country.
Speaker 1: What's at stake? And Frankly what's the right way to go.
Speaker 1: We've seen members of the legislature.
Speaker 4: Andrew, this is Native Lampod. Welcome home, y'all. This and
Speaker 4: mini pod. We just jumped right.
Speaker 1: Why should I say Native lamp welcome.
Speaker 4: We didn't welcome. We just were like Also in the
Speaker 4: main episode.
Speaker 1: Was yeah, yeah, we skipped the part welcome home everybody.
Speaker 1: This is uh the mini pod this week for Native Lampod.
Speaker 1: We're acting. We're acting like y'all know exactly what's going on.
Speaker 1: I'm Andrew Gillum co host along with Angela Rye and
Speaker 1: an Abstenia, our sister Tiffany Tippany Cross who was in
Speaker 1: the congo.
Speaker 4: We had a lot to say. So Tif we actually
Speaker 4: glad you got here today because we need to take
Speaker 4: all your time. We were claiming your time today. Andrew,
Speaker 4: You know what, this reminded me of starting a podcast
Speaker 4: like that. Reminded me of picking up the phone with
Speaker 4: Eddie Rakhas.
Speaker 1: Because he when you literally conversation yes.
Speaker 4: So anyway, so anyway what yeah, what do.
Speaker 1: You say, daddy? Where are you coming back from?
Speaker 4: Yeah, bring me to the top of the conversation.
Speaker 1: Well, we are talking about redistricting and we're trying not
Speaker 1: to make this topic glaze over everybody's eyes and brows
Speaker 1: by making it frankly, as front and center and as
Speaker 1: local as we can. Right there, you saw the clip
Speaker 1: of our good friend Bacari Sellers, who is a former
Speaker 1: member of the South Carolina Legislature, talking about what his
Speaker 1: experience was drawing districts in that state, House districts, center districts,
Speaker 1: and of course congressional districts and that state. And his
Speaker 1: last point of that video he was making to response
Speaker 1: to the question of how should these maps be drawn?
Speaker 1: Rather than politically it's his argument was for drawing these
Speaker 1: maps using a non partisan redistricting commission to do it
Speaker 1: different than what the State of Texas is the attempting
Speaker 1: to do right now, which is to basically have the legislature,
Speaker 1: a political body, draw the congressional districts. Angela, where do
Speaker 1: you put the merits of independent versus political drawing of lines?
Speaker 4: So I think again, you know how so next year
Speaker 4: is going to be the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary
Speaker 4: of the declaration of independence. So there's this idea that, like,
Speaker 4: we hold these truths, but who holds these truths?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 4: Like every if the truths weren't designed to be held
Speaker 4: by everyone. At what point are they held by everyone?
Speaker 4: And I think what is incredible about our friends who
Speaker 4: are institutionalists like Bakari, is there's, you know, this aspiration
Speaker 4: that we are striving to get to and we think
Speaker 4: that if we put people in position to think the
Speaker 4: way they ought, then they will do the things they
Speaker 4: ought to do. But that's not always the case. So
Speaker 4: when you talk about these independent commissions, Andrew, the question becomes,
Speaker 4: you know, are the independent politically? This woman who he
Speaker 4: was arguing with on on CNN talks about, well, now
Speaker 4: we have AI to draw maps. AI has a bias
Speaker 4: because there's someone who built they have right that, so
Speaker 4: now it carries their bias. If someone is independent politically,
Speaker 4: well where do they lean economically? Do they believe people
Speaker 4: who are poor or disenfranchised or incarcerated deserve to also
Speaker 4: have a vote in Congress? And a lot of people
Speaker 4: don't understand that people are counted for the sake of
Speaker 4: population in congressional and state districts when they're incarcerated, But
Speaker 4: a lot of them still don't have a vote if
Speaker 4: the laws say so in their state. What is my point,
Speaker 4: you can be independent and bipartisan or nonpartisan and still
Speaker 4: have bias. I for one, in this country, especially right now,
Speaker 4: while fascists run the government, while J sixers are running
Speaker 4: around the country imp implementing their will at their will,
Speaker 4: even doging their will an upon us, I struggle with
Speaker 4: the idea that an independent commission can do the right thing.
Speaker 4: We have seen where members of Congress, particularly my former
Speaker 4: bosses CBC members, have been harmed by these independent commissions.
Speaker 4: Bacari brought up something where he talked about Congressman Clyburn.
Speaker 4: Congressman Clyburn, who I love, has been criticized often for
Speaker 4: maintaining a district that I believe if someone could fact
Speaker 4: check this on the show and text it to me,
Speaker 4: but I believe his district is at least sixty percent black.
Speaker 4: I do want to triple check that, because a lot
Speaker 4: of members of Congress say at this point, mister Cliburn
Speaker 4: really doesn't need a sixty percent plus black district because
Speaker 4: of how much he's impacted South Carolina all the things
Speaker 4: that he's done. Well, mister Cliburn would argue, well, this
Speaker 4: is for the person who comes after me, right, And
Speaker 4: some people would still say, well, he doesn't need it.
Speaker 4: Maybe it's fifty, maybe it's forty. On the on the
Speaker 4: other hand, I promise you I'm going somewhere. On the
Speaker 4: other hand, Congressman Bobby Scott has said, I don't need
Speaker 4: a fifty sixty seventy percent black district. Carve up my
Speaker 4: district so it's more geographically aligned and in tune with
Speaker 4: what we need to get accomplished geographically. Because I could
Speaker 4: win with a thirty five forty percent black district. Let's
Speaker 4: create another black district in Virginia, which they've done so
Speaker 4: now Jennifer McClellan occupies that seat. It was a seat
Speaker 4: that was formerly held by Donald mckeechen, who got rest.
Speaker 4: His soul is no longer with us, lolo. I appreciate that,
Speaker 4: but it was for mister Cliburn, not Thompson. So all
Speaker 4: good there. I think we only have one majority district
Speaker 4: in Mississippi period. But I'm actually looking for the numbers
Speaker 4: for mister Cliburn because their a position is that there
Speaker 4: could be two majority minority districts in South Carolina. My
Speaker 4: point in saying all of that is, so mister Cliburn
Speaker 4: is forty seven percent black, and so I don't know
Speaker 4: what the argument has been historically. I know before it
Speaker 4: was they could at least carve out one more black district.
Speaker 4: He agrees with that, but for whatever reason, that number
Speaker 4: was higher. So I'm saying all that to say independent
Speaker 4: or not, it's never truly independent AI or not. It
Speaker 4: doesn't mean that it's no longer biased. But I think
Speaker 4: right now what we are having to reckon with is
Speaker 4: our permanent interest. That means that we have to move
Speaker 4: in our reality. It's a reality of war. It is
Speaker 4: not an ideal It is an ideology war, but it's
Speaker 4: not an ideal situation. We're not in an ideal situation,
Speaker 4: so we shouldn't have ideal commissions.
Speaker 1: That's fair, I mean, I think so in an equalized
Speaker 1: in a righteous world, where all things, you know, were equal,
Speaker 1: when people follow the law and didn't detempt to manipulate
Speaker 1: the laws to their own political advantage, which is what
Speaker 1: we're up against right now. The long term impact of
Speaker 1: allowing the Texas legislature to reach draw this district and
Speaker 1: we draw the lines in the rules to advantage them
Speaker 1: by five seats if they're in results and they're in goal,
Speaker 1: may be the demise of the democracy as we know it,
Speaker 1: meaning those members can be holdouts when it comes around
Speaker 1: to the next point of counting the electoral college and
Speaker 1: they say we reject you know, there's a majority there
Speaker 1: to reject what the electoral college members say and leave
Speaker 1: Donald Trump in office. We've never had that scenario, but
Speaker 1: we also never had that scenario tested. And right now
Speaker 1: under these lawless folks who are so power hungry, we
Speaker 1: don't really know what we will get as a result
Speaker 1: of the conundrum. I think we find ourselves, particularly those
Speaker 1: of us who are kind of good government champions, you know,
Speaker 1: that we should set the rules to be fair and
Speaker 1: equitable and then let how the politics of it play out.
Speaker 1: Is that in many democratic states they have already gone
Speaker 1: the route of setting up these independent, these quote independent
Speaker 1: redistricting commissions, seeding away the power of the governor or
Speaker 1: the legislature from being able to bigfoot and have their
Speaker 1: way over these commissions. Well republican states, including you know
Speaker 1: in my own, they continue to allow the political drawing
Speaker 1: of lines. They have no interest in good government. Their
Speaker 1: only interest is in maintaining and keeping power, not to
Speaker 1: ensure that we've got a fair and representative democracy. And
Speaker 1: so we're hearing from democratic governors across the country saying, hey, look,
Speaker 1: if y'all have changed in the rules, we're willing to
Speaker 1: meet you there. We will fight you based off of
Speaker 1: those rules being changed, except not being able to do
Speaker 1: it unilaterally because they've got these redistrict commissions that are
Speaker 1: right now empowered to do what it is that they've
Speaker 1: been tasked with doing, which is to draw these districts,
Speaker 1: and to do so without any partisan interest whatsoever, but
Speaker 1: rather than fairness around those maps. So democratic governors are
Speaker 1: in many ways already handicapped in this fight because they
Speaker 1: are bound by these redistrict commissions. I think what made
Speaker 1: Kathy Hochel so distinct, as we've heard her speak this week,
Speaker 1: is that they too have a Registrian Commission, which she
Speaker 1: is prepared to disband, yeah, in concert with other legislative bodies,
Speaker 1: so that they will have the ability to do with
Speaker 1: the Republicans in Texas are doing. What's just to say, fine,
Speaker 1: we'll just draw Republicans right out of their seats and
Speaker 1: make sure that we only create seats that are accessible
Speaker 1: by Democrats. Is it the is it the long term
Speaker 1: fair thing to do? Or is it the right thing
Speaker 1: in this moment to do to eventually save off this
Speaker 1: attack on democracy?
Speaker 4: Can she do that? Andrew? For those listening at home
Speaker 4: that are saying, if there's an independent commission that was
Speaker 4: stood up like by the state legislature, I know all
Speaker 4: of these states are different. Who has the authority in
Speaker 4: New York, for example, to do this? And is it
Speaker 4: different for Gavin? We have a clip for him.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think we do have a clip of Gavin
Speaker 1: and we should actually hear that on the other side
Speaker 1: of this. But it does matter how they are stood up.
Speaker 1: And some states it's been by referendum, and the voters
Speaker 1: by referendum and changing the constitution through referendum have decided
Speaker 1: what the process is. And in other states, the legislature
Speaker 1: itself have established these commissions. And if they are in
Speaker 1: those cases established by the legislature or by an order
Speaker 1: of the governor, the institution that established them are the
Speaker 1: institutions that can dissolve or reform them in many cases,
Speaker 1: So in my state it might be through constitutional amendment,
Speaker 1: and Texas it appears that the legislature maintains power, and
Speaker 1: New York it sounds like the legislature through a legislative
Speaker 1: process can reform that process, but I have to take it.
Speaker 1: I've got to look deeper into the government the statutes.
Speaker 1: But if the governor is saying so, when the legislative
Speaker 1: branch is concurring, it sounds to me like the legislative
Speaker 1: process is where the reform would take place.
Speaker 4: And yeah, okay, So then do they conven a special
Speaker 4: session just like.
Speaker 1: I think they are in session? So it would be
Speaker 1: a matter of them and they control both the House
Speaker 1: and the Senate there in New York, in New York
Speaker 1: and New York the state of New York, that would
Speaker 1: would allow allowed them to do this and to do
Speaker 1: it in concert with the law without subverting the law.
Speaker 4: Okay, but we should hear from California.
Speaker 1: California, because I think there's a different test there, even
Speaker 1: though that is the most populous state and probably the
Speaker 1: state that could yield the most seats. The last estimation
Speaker 1: I heard was potential of nine seats being made permanently
Speaker 1: democratic if the California legislature were to enforce a new
Speaker 1: partisan map that would give Democrats the advantage up to
Speaker 1: nine seats. Trumping upon the pardon the pund trumping, Trump's
Speaker 1: effort in Texas, which well, you'll five seats. Let's play
Speaker 1: that clip from California.
Speaker 5: You know, California is one of several blue states now
Speaker 5: looking to counter at Texas and President Trump's plan.
Speaker 1: Here's what we know.
Speaker 5: The governor wants new maps to go before voters in November,
Speaker 5: but today candidate for governor Steve Hilton announced heam plans
Speaker 5: to file legal action to block redistricting if the governor
Speaker 5: moves forward. Hilton calls the move a power grab by
Speaker 5: state democrats.
Speaker 2: Districts should be drawn by an independent commission once every
Speaker 2: ten years, crucially following a census so that you know
Speaker 2: where people live, so that the districts reflect population.
Speaker 1: I didn't realize the the uh that the governor was
Speaker 1: trying to get it on the ballot this year. I
Speaker 1: didn't know that part of it. I thought he was
Speaker 1: trying to change it legislatively.
Speaker 4: But yeah, and I think, but I think it's to
Speaker 4: your point. If the if the people voted for that,
Speaker 4: what the power does he have to you know, does
Speaker 4: he challenge it? It's the ballot courts. It just had Wow, it's.
Speaker 1: Ballot so stood up by the their commission, stood up
Speaker 1: by the by the people. To a constitutional amendment probably,
Speaker 1: and now it's going back to them for their approval
Speaker 1: to change those maps. This this this cycle, and again
Speaker 1: I think the data on California, a map that was
Speaker 1: actually presented through the course of conversation this week from California,
Speaker 1: is that they can pick up nine seats were they
Speaker 1: to politically duramander the seats in the state of California.
Speaker 1: And again that would be four more than the five
Speaker 1: that California that Texas is trying to is trying to create.
Speaker 4: So I wanted to just look to see which states
Speaker 4: have independent commissions, which ones have political commissions, which ones
Speaker 4: have advisory commissions, and then backup commissions. There are eight
Speaker 4: states with independent commissions. There are three political commissions, three
Speaker 4: backup commissions, and four advisory commissions, which we have.
Speaker 1: To assume the rest of the country then must be legislative.
Speaker 4: That's correct. And so in Connecticut, for example, there's a
Speaker 4: backup commission. It says super majority, no veto and they
Speaker 4: their last map was drawn by the state court the
Speaker 4: Arizona it's an independent commission, but it doesn't tell me
Speaker 4: how it was stood up. Idaho is another one. Michigan
Speaker 4: is another one. Nonpartisan independent Montana. New Jersey has a
Speaker 4: political commission, so that would be an interesting one. The
Speaker 4: New York has the independent Commission with the supermajority, and
Speaker 4: it says that their last map was drawn by the legislature.
Speaker 4: So what I think is interesting is which states have
Speaker 4: maps that were last drawn by legislatures to the extent
Speaker 4: that they're blue. They change. But here is the caution
Speaker 4: I'd offer you, Andrew, even in our frisky fight, you know,
Speaker 4: we own control most of the state legislation.
Speaker 1: Oh, the majority control by Republicans.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like super majority, Like, isn't it thirty two?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's pretty bad. The only comfort I taken
Speaker 1: the majority Republicans control of legislatures is that in many
Speaker 1: those states the populations have not changed to the point
Speaker 1: where they get new seats in any way. So in
Speaker 1: each they.
Speaker 4: Can eliminate the seats we see we have.
Speaker 1: Correct, they can decrease the power and those states, I
Speaker 1: think that would throw the course into a WorldWind, because
Speaker 1: in most of those cases, there's no doubt about it,
Speaker 1: they are going to land back into the courts. The
Speaker 1: course will end up drawing maps for the country. To
Speaker 1: be quite frank and I misspoke.
Speaker 4: It's the Republicans control a majority of seats in twenty
Speaker 4: nine state houses, which is still a majority, it's not
Speaker 4: a super majority, and thirty state Senates. And so what
Speaker 4: somebody needs to do is overlay which ones and then
Speaker 4: which of those are independently controlled. Because what you don't
Speaker 4: want to do, we're already in a constitutional crisis in
Speaker 4: the sixtieth anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. Which you
Speaker 4: don't want to do is throw us into a state
Speaker 4: based constitutional crisis too, where power is you know, being
Speaker 4: swayed by, you know, by a whim like it's just
Speaker 4: I don't know what else.
Speaker 1: But that's what we mean when we say in arms race,
Speaker 1: this is a total race to the bottom. If we
Speaker 1: get Republicans and democratic states replicating one another, a back
Speaker 1: and forth and back and forth. And by the way,
Speaker 1: we can't even we can't even angela break it down
Speaker 1: to Republicans health states versus Democratic states because in some
Speaker 1: of those states they're real institutional institutionalists who have their
Speaker 1: own political reasons as to why they would or could
Speaker 1: or could not do some of these kinds of things.
Speaker 1: It would it would create quite a conspiracy for these
Speaker 1: states Republican health states to have to get together under
Speaker 1: the direction of the White House and basically start determining
Speaker 1: where to pick up pick off, convene these conventions, convene
Speaker 1: redistricting bodies, and so on and so forth to map
Speaker 1: their power, and Democrats would have to do the same thing.
Speaker 1: We used to have people who cared enough about the
Speaker 1: letter of the law not to drive us down this road.
Speaker 1: But where we are right now is the obsession with
Speaker 1: the concentration of power is prepared to seed and up
Speaker 1: in everything that we have once known to be true,
Speaker 1: all in the pursuit of power. And I don't know
Speaker 1: anything that has ever ended correctly, that has ended ever
Speaker 1: right in pursuit of power. Those things tend to corrupt
Speaker 1: themselves and blow up the whole system. That's just where
Speaker 1: we are.
Speaker 4: So if we're saying that the only way for us
Speaker 4: to fight back, if we're saying, you know, we know
Speaker 4: that we would like to be an ideal, but we're
Speaker 4: keeping it all the way real. So if we're doing that,
Speaker 4: and we know that to stop the hemorrhage, we do
Speaker 4: have to consolidate power, and we yeah, we have to
Speaker 4: beat them. So isn't that still a powagraph. We still
Speaker 4: think it's a paragraph for righteousness, but it is a
Speaker 4: power graph.
Speaker 1: It is a fight for power, there's no doubt about that.
Speaker 1: But either think what the fight that Democrats that are
Speaker 1: having that is different than Republicans. It's Democrats are not
Speaker 1: trying to rig the system. They're trying to keep a fit.
Speaker 1: They're trying to have a system a floor in place.
Speaker 1: Texas is trying to overrun the floor. They're saying, we're
Speaker 1: not interested in maps that properly give representation to the
Speaker 1: people in our state. What they're interested in is a
Speaker 1: map that produces Republicans only. There's a big difference between
Speaker 1: representation and then a difference between power. The right representation
Speaker 1: for the purpose of power. Well, and that's what Republicans
Speaker 1: are attempting, you know, in this case to accomplish is
Speaker 1: to power grab. And I think that what Democrats are
Speaker 1: hoping for with Kathy holkal is hoping for by making
Speaker 1: this threat is that the threat of mutually assured destruction
Speaker 1: will be enough to stay the hand of other people
Speaker 1: from following down Texas's path. Basically, it's a shot over
Speaker 1: the bout that says, Texas, if you want to go there.
Speaker 1: We'll meet you there. State of New York, and then
Speaker 1: some other state. Let's say Florida, the third largest state
Speaker 1: in the country, says, oh, New York, if you want
Speaker 1: to go there, we will meet you there. And then
Speaker 1: California wais in and says, oh, we're the most populous
Speaker 1: state in the country. If you want to go there, Florida,
Speaker 1: we'll meet you there. And what do you have right there?
Speaker 1: The four largest states in the country have just started
Speaker 1: a war.
Speaker 4: Well, let me ask you this. Okay, let's try to
Speaker 4: take party out of it. We're gonna we're gonna try
Speaker 4: to be an independent commission. Oh lord, let's see how
Speaker 4: well we do here. Republicans, you say, are engaging in
Speaker 4: a power grab. In order to stop the hemorrhage of
Speaker 4: said power grab, Democrats are doing.
Speaker 1: What they are, meeting them there by saying we will
Speaker 1: draw our seats to increase power democratic power.
Speaker 4: Okay, now, hold on, so are you opposed. Let's say
Speaker 4: that Texas is like that, bish, that's what you want
Speaker 4: to do. Now, I'm gonna get rid of all the Democrats.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna make it an all Republican you know, and
Speaker 4: say that that's what they do. You said a moment
Speaker 4: ago that we're just increasing the number of democratic seats.
Speaker 4: We're not making it all democratic. If they go all Republican,
Speaker 4: do you want New York to meet them and to
Speaker 4: be with the ships and say where all dims? Now?
Speaker 1: I think you have to show up at a gunfight
Speaker 1: with a bazuka. Yeah. And we didn't ask for this, no.
Speaker 4: Of course, But I'm just saying, so in your mind,
Speaker 4: is it? Is it not a power grab?
Speaker 3: Two?
Speaker 4: Because it's a neutralization strategy.
Speaker 1: It is a neutralization strategy. We didn't and by the way,
Speaker 1: we didn't start this. You say it don't start not
Speaker 1: but but what But what we're saying here is is
Speaker 1: Republican says you are not the only ones who can
Speaker 1: play this game. Yeah right, they're acting as it.
Speaker 4: So what's the floor, Andrew? I think so now you
Speaker 4: know I got anxiety. Yes, so I have anxiety about
Speaker 4: this because I'm like, I don't see this go like
Speaker 4: you know, like you know, no, I feel like it's
Speaker 4: I feel like every red line in the stand that
Speaker 4: that that they cross. Then we have another re Yes.
Speaker 4: So then if you walk this.
Speaker 1: Out, it's mutually assured destruction. You said that's what that's
Speaker 1: what that's what this is. So then this is why
Speaker 1: Russia doesn't fire a nuclear weapon at the United States.
Speaker 1: This is why the United States does not fire a
Speaker 1: nuclear weapon at Russia or the EU, or or India
Speaker 1: because or Pakistan, because these countries all have first strike
Speaker 1: capabilities to the United States. So that's why nuclear is
Speaker 1: off the table, because we are all assured mutual destruction
Speaker 1: if one does it. And that's why we're making this
Speaker 1: argument here is if you do it, you're going to
Speaker 1: be met by the same thing.
Speaker 4: So is that why they pushed so we started this
Speaker 4: this this this mini pod with Bakari's clip. Is that
Speaker 4: why they started to drift or shift towards into in
Speaker 4: the commissions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they began the move toward independent commissions so that
Speaker 1: we didn't have this sort of warfare breakout where you
Speaker 1: just have politicians choosing their voters rather than the voters
Speaker 1: choosing their members of Congress or choosing who they want
Speaker 1: to latch.
Speaker 4: Then voters, they're not the undoing of democracy.
Speaker 1: I don't know what it is, and it's unfortunately been
Speaker 1: that unequal an unfair path for quite a while. We
Speaker 1: just hadn't seen this type of threatened escalation during a
Speaker 1: mid term descential meaning in the middle of the way
Speaker 1: of the dissential discential census, or were you redrawing of
Speaker 1: the line. So no facts have changed, really nothing, no
Speaker 1: facts have changed. They're simply using the numbers that are
Speaker 1: on the table to manipulate the map to their advantage.
Speaker 1: That's okay, they are.
Speaker 4: Let me tell you this, and I know we this
Speaker 4: is a long rap time. This is my last thing.
Speaker 4: This is my last thing though, So you know, we
Speaker 4: had an election in Seattle and in King County this week.
Speaker 4: Right now as I'm talking to you, it's still next
Speaker 4: connect with a progressive white woman that may end up
Speaker 4: beating not only a black mayor, but a black mayor
Speaker 4: is a family friend here, Bruce Harrow. I'm hoping that's
Speaker 4: not true. Germai Zahalai will be the King County executive
Speaker 4: black man. And there's also an election in Detroit, I know,
Speaker 4: in several other places. But what I want to point out, Andrew,
Speaker 4: is we're talking about the people, the electeds, choosing their voters,
Speaker 4: But if we're honest, the voters still aren't really choosing
Speaker 4: their folks. Because in Seattle, they're celebrating the fact that,
Speaker 4: you know, if the voter turnout could get up to
Speaker 4: thirty thirty three percent in Detroit, they're talking about seventeen percent.
Speaker 4: So it's like people are still not really choosing their candidates.
Speaker 4: It is a select few. It is a talented tenth,
Speaker 4: that is a talented seventeenth choosing who will represent the
Speaker 4: best interests of these voters. I don't know what we
Speaker 4: get what we do to get people to lean in
Speaker 4: in a process that, especially when we're watching it, like
Speaker 4: freaking implode this whole thing about like I voted, I
Speaker 4: picked my person, and then you redraw the goddamn lines.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, By the way, this is some of the
Speaker 1: kinds of tactics that add to people deciding not to
Speaker 1: participate in the process. Right, they make the choice to
Speaker 1: stay out. But this is what I pull out as
Speaker 1: a difference. The difference with voter turnout numbers and percentages
Speaker 1: are that steal. The voters are making a you know,
Speaker 1: they are getting to decide whether to participate or not.
Speaker 1: We have otherwise, is a system deciding who gets to
Speaker 1: show up, who gets to win, and who you get
Speaker 1: to choose from by way of candidates because we have
Speaker 1: rigged the rules to dictate to dictate that to you.
Speaker 4: But I think that's why they don't show up. So
Speaker 4: I don't see them as separate. I see them as
Speaker 4: inherently connected.
Speaker 1: I see them, I see them connected, I see them
Speaker 1: as slightly different. Because I want to be able to
Speaker 1: make the choice around my representation. I don't want you
Speaker 1: telling me that that a black candidate is now off
Speaker 1: the table because I've totally read on these lines to
Speaker 1: make sure that they'll never ever to be able to
Speaker 1: compete and win. That's that's the thing, the difference.
Speaker 4: I think we have to keep talking about this. You know,
Speaker 4: we will over time for a mini pod data shut
Speaker 4: in today, But it's so good because what I think
Speaker 4: we get to the heart of brother is, you know,
Speaker 4: democracy is not like this foregone conclusion. It's something that
Speaker 4: is being fought for minute by minute, second by second,
Speaker 4: and it requires oversight, not just by it.
Speaker 1: It requires our participation. Yes, but we don't get to
Speaker 1: watch this thing and think that it's going to work
Speaker 1: out the way we want it.
Speaker 4: And casting a ballot isn't sufficient, Like you literally have
Speaker 4: to oversee the people who you put in place to
Speaker 4: oversee what is happening, because they may be overseeing it
Speaker 4: in a way that is not represent your best Angela.
Speaker 1: I've said this on the show before it I stand
Speaker 1: by it, and that is is that democracy is a
Speaker 1: contact sport and it is the reason why this is
Speaker 1: the least in the least popular form of government as
Speaker 1: we look around the world, it is not easy to maintain.
Speaker 1: It is much easier to maintain a single leader at
Speaker 1: the top telling everybody what they can do and what
Speaker 1: they cannot do, and people obliging themselves and obligating themselves
Speaker 1: under that leadership structure. We are in a difficult process.
Speaker 1: Democracies are hard, They must be fought for. It is
Speaker 1: why the framer said, we hand you a republic if
Speaker 1: you can keep it. If you can keep it, part
Speaker 1: is where we come in. If we can keep it.
Speaker 1: So that's the question of the day, and we'll only
Speaker 1: be answered by how it is that we respond to
Speaker 1: the threat that Texas is putting up and the threat
Speaker 1: that all these other states are going to continue to
Speaker 1: put up in the face of Donald Trump's power hungry party.
Speaker 4: Right now, I want to tell you this because we
Speaker 4: do really do have to go. But we normally don't
Speaker 4: have cost to action in the in the mini pods.
Speaker 4: But I just want to shout out our sister friend
Speaker 4: Balicia Butterfield, because in the face of all that's happening,
Speaker 4: because democracy is crumbling, because it's a contact sport, she
Speaker 4: stood up something where she's using the hashtag relief is resistance.
Speaker 4: As you know, Andrew, more than three hundred and ninety
Speaker 4: thousand Black women are now unemployed because of what's happened
Speaker 4: with the federal government, because of what's happened with DEI.
Speaker 4: And that's just in the last three months. She stood
Speaker 4: up an emergency relief fund and asking black women to
Speaker 4: apply if they need support, and so far more than
Speaker 4: eighteen thousand Black women have applied for emergency relief. And
Speaker 4: I just want to encourage us to remember that the
Speaker 4: power is still with the people. Even when our representatives
Speaker 4: cheat us out of real representation, we can be there
Speaker 4: to stand up for each other to provide real relief.
Speaker 4: We did that with Stay to the People. Balisha's doing
Speaker 4: this now Black Voters Matter is doing this work. We
Speaker 4: have to continue to lean in for each other where
Speaker 4: our elected officials are leaving gaps.
Speaker 1: That's real. Thank you, Ellen, Welcome Home.
Speaker 4: Native lamdpod is a production of iHeartRadio and partnership with
Speaker 4: Resent Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
Speaker 4: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 4: favorite shows.