tv Washington This Week CSPAN July 30, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
to do about it read she impressed me so much with the way we don't that platform. i thought it was important to say this is such a serious moment. can attempt to show vision and she did. i never got irritated from her. i insert her staff did. she had a long public life. mike: did you explain what was up? mayor to block io: i talked to her a lot in the lead up. i felt thelear what country needed and what we needed to hear from her. i do not think she was surprised that all. >> you are one of the leading aggressive figures. if i am a sanders delegate who
feels you got the short end of the stick, how can you help them get there. deblasio: everybody should recognize they came to change america and they have. not george bush on the aircraft carrier but in the sense bernie sanders did something wildly audacious to change the debate and change the party. he has already done that. now, we have much more work to do and much more essential work to do. this is what shirley and i talked about yesterday that we have to win on these issues and tax the wealthy at a higher in a fair rate. we have to achieve these things. the bernie sanders movement, i cannot remember another candidacy that didn't achieve its nominal goal, but achieved so much in terms of structural change in the debate and in the party. find anything that
compares to this. we will never be the same again. i would say to the folks in the bernie sanders movement, not only did you achieve a lot already, but there is much more to be done. bernie said in his speech very therly -- the campaign and presidency -- the real thing is waiting on the issues, and that campaign has to do this. >> somebody that gets the mechanics of campaigns -- could hillary clinton lose? deblasio: i don't think so, and i don't mean that as a statement of complacency. it's only a hard-fought campaign. we have to win it on the ground. right abouthas been a lot of that stuff. we have a working majority, but that working majority had better show up, and we have to do that. i do not believe it will be lost. i believe hillary clinton will and has at campaign
great compelling platform and message in history, but that does not mean anyone can rest on their laurels. income back to inequality -- the anger and frustration is so real that is not addressed finally, there are a lot of wild-card dynamics. >> a 68% chance of hillary clinton being president. mayor deblasio: i would say more. >> let's focus on another person who is not a progressive, but is a billionaire -- michael bloomberg -- does his endorsement matter anywhere outside of 79 and fit? -- fifth? mayor deblasio: [laughter] i think that is called leading the witness. i have some areas where i agree with mike bloomberg, and some disagreements. he is an important voice, clearly of the 1% -- i think the
.001%. he is going to speak to a lot of folks that i think, do not think inerms of party -- do not think in terms of ideology, but one saying, reasonable leadership. he will speak to a lot of folks that are concerned about america's role in the world, our standing in the world, and i think his voice will be helpful in saying this comparison is not even close. and it isore so -- true, you can say it with bernie, with mike bloomberg. mike bloomberg thought about running for president. when somebody who would have been an opponent or was an opponent says it is a better choice. wise for him not to run for president -- yet. he would not have made it. he, to his credit said it might have had the reverse effect of enabling and supporting trump and that would have the worst of all words -- worlds. mr. allen: the front page which
is your photo. this is based on the city department of investigations in "new york post" as the papers are doctored in "the daily news" -- "city hall whitewash shows they deliberately covered up rezoning ofout the luxury condominiums. what say you? mayor deblasio: this is bigger than what it. everybody get ready. -- watergate. everybody get ready. it is ridiculous. i got elected because one of the systems withive small donations. i was an underdog to we came here to change things. we're not here to make the rich richer, but to change our city. central to our vision is running a clean and appropriate government. this is overheated and off the
mark. we are clear that in everything we have done we have put the public first. my colleague runs this question -- you said you were satisfied with zachary carter's position -- what has changed? mayor deblasio: a lot of apartment in new york city has to think about the day -- today and tomorrow -- precedent, and the appropriate way to handle any matter, and i have tremendous respect is a former u.s. attorney. i think he is highly respected in our city. he made a set of decisions the right way to handle that and i thought he was right. i did not get into the weeds of it, but i thought is essential approach was right. can he do more -- it will show the same thing in the end, that things were handled appropriately, and there might
have been some mistakes and how to decision making process might have worked, and i take responsibility, but i happy with the outcome. in terms of the flow and how we handled investigations, i am perfectly comfortable. what you think of the idea of donald trump junior running for your job? mayor deblasio: bring it on. i have said it -- his father will be thoroughly rejected by the folks in new york city, and his values -- we are the most inclusive, divers, progressive city in this country, and there is repulsion at what trump has said. unless donald trump junior is going to get a name change, i think he is walking into a bad situation, but if you want to,, down. one thing that has been interested -- interesting is some folks pulling for an outside candidate, unhappy with your stance on uber and a host
of other business issues. what you make of that? mayor deblasio: i think it is small -- the notion of a consultant trying to find somebody to give them a lot of money is not the way we should do our politics. in the end, part of why i am very comfortable about where we stand is i thought about this from the perspective of a candidate and campaign manager -- what would you like to say after a term -- there are more jobs -- there are one quarter million or jobs than when i took over. crime is down. let's just in the police and the community has improved. rate thatt graduation we have had -- we had a lot of support in our recent campaigns of having from everyday people. we will do a grassroots campaign, and i'm very comfortable with that. mr. allen: the new york post is on their game, anthony weiner
will run for mayor again, but only against donald trump, jr.. don't tease us. donald trump junior, like father, like son, he tweets, "too soon, anthony," you probably shouldn't be talking about beating anything ever again. go back to your case. what say you? mayor deblasio: i will give him, for turn of a phrase, but look, anthony was a colic for a long time, and he is a guy that i appreciate. i do not think he is in doing it. donald trump junior -- if he onts to -- i think it is reality. i think it means he doesn't understand the people in new york city. mr. allen: you do not see congressman weiner having a future in public life question mark mayor deblasio: -- life? mayor deblasio: i didn't say
that, but i do not think it is something he is looking for not. mr. sherman: take us into your team -- there are gems in manhattan, yet you choose to go to the ymca -- mayor deblasio: what question mark nobody told me this. had they told me there was a gym in manhattan -- mr. sherman: choose to go to brooklyn. mayor deblasio: i do. mr. sherman: why? mayor deblasio: a lot of things -- the connection i have to my neighborhood is strong -- you think about the human reality -- it is where our children were born, i coached little league there -- the hope -- this is where our life took its shape. it is what i feel connected to. i think all of us, as elected officials, need that touchstone. when you drift from where you come from, it is part of what isolates you from everyday people. it is that -- i can go to the gym, and nobody bothers me,
because they're the same people and working out with for a decade. it is like "cheers" but in a gym. they don't do beer. -- i all of those factors think in this kind of -- the potential bubble of public office is very dangerous, and you have to find your grounding. n,u also have to find your ze whether it is exercise, or whatever it is that keeps you study and clear. being in the reminds us of where we came from -- in the neighborhood reminds me of where we came from and why i do the work. mr. allen: backstage, we were talking about the movie "spotlight." mayor deblasio: it is amazing. i keep coming back to it. i grew up in cambridge, massachusetts, and "boston globe was our paper, and it has special resonance. a powerful invocation of how the
culture and politics of boston mitigated against the truth and how difficult it was to overcome it. i come from a family of journalists. it is a perfect example of the good journalism can do, but you know those movies where scenes keep popping up in your mind for all sorts of unexplained reasons versus a movie you go to and you never think about again in your life -- "spotlight" keeps coming back to me because it reminds me of a way to make change, and reminds me how journalists can be positive change makers, and a relentless pursuit of the truth on something that was wildly painful and horrible -- what happened to all those young people and how it was covered up. it is an extraordinarily powerful moral story. i also want to say -- i mentioned this to you -- my film news of the day, mark ruffalo was robbed by the academy. he should have gotten best supporting actor. portrayal oferful
not only a journalist, but a change agent, have you seen. mr. sherman: it is already a tweet. mr. allen: go ahead, sir. -- it was one of the first signals of the rise of progressive politics, and i think the young people were much more progressive. what do you see is the future of progressive politics? mayor deblasio: i am very hopeful, and it starts in my own home. they are both intense progressives and they see clearly the contradiction of society, and they want to do something about it. i have argued there has been a misunderstanding of the current generation. i think they are stronger and more grounded and more serious than preceding generations. certainly more than the generation i was part of.
they were forged in a great recession when it became a clear when climate change became a clear and present danger. my kids are incredibly thrifty. there is this weird come interesting resonance where my children are wildly aware of every dollar because they came up in the time of the notion of college debt was terrifying i -- terrifying, so i like this generation. i think they are going to be better leaders than we are the happy the primary season brought that out and that is why continuing the moment we have seen is necessary -- i want them to be engaged in change movements around the movements of the day. mr. allen: were your kids bernie fans? kids keptasio: my their own counsel. mr. sherman: that sounds like a yes to me. mayor deblasio: you are very perceptive.
i never speak for them. fully-formed intellects, and i don't speak to them, but they were watching, and it meant a lot to them to vote. mr. sherman: and your son is off to college. mayor deblasio: he is in college, his first year at yell. graduated -- dante has three more years. mr. allen: and we have a question right here. -- r deblasio: >> i am a london-based urban innovation consultant. i am listening to the debates here this weekend feeling the parallels with brexit. as you know, even in london, where there has been a large stay vote, there has been a spike in xenophobia. of a large city
that you say is inclusive -- what can you as a mayor do about that? mayor deblasio: i have thought a lot about this. i appreciative question. i'm far away and i don't pretend to understand what i don't understand, but i have such frustration with the european community for having, in my view, sort of, the leaders, missed the gathering storm. as here, it is not first and foremost about immigration. it is about economic frustration. boy, if i thought paralysis in washington was a problem, the paralysis created by an attempt at a unified european governments -- i can only imagine how anger-creating that is to watch the immigration crisis, the income inequality crisis, the austerity crisis, all of this, and not feel like there any solutions whatsoever. it, we have an advantage. not only are we a more diverse
nation, but there have been meeting. lucian's at the local level and to some extent the state level. factors thatthe x has been underreported the last few years. this movement for change in the bernie sanders campaign was already, in many ways, in action -- in motion. wage,ght for the $15 in paid sick leave, a whole host of other issues -- it has been a gathering reality for years. that means, in a sense, we are in a healthier place. some of these issues are actually been addressed. i don't think we have the perils -- yes, there is tremendous frustration, but our party is in a much more frontal, affirmative lace, and i give hillary clinton a lot of credit. that platform, when it is fully explained to the american people, it is the kind of thing that is going to draw people toward a sense we can get it right again, so i feel it is a different reality. mr. allen: we are getting the
hook here -- as we say goodbye, you are just back from a trip to italy with your family. tell us about that. mayor deblasio: well, my son dante has been studying italian ofsiena, in tuscany, as part a program there, and he left america as a typical surly teenager, and i walked up to him in siena, the -- where there are the famous horse races, and he said speaking italian. he is a cultured, sophisticated guy, and then immediately went back to being surly. the honeymoon was over quickly. what was your best meal in italy? mayor deblasio: there were a lot of good deals. there was one by the river tiber in rome. i have family in rome, and the family gathered at this wonderful restaurant by the tiber river on a summer evening, and i will say some stereotypes
are true. you are a passionate and opinionated people. we were talking about the brexit, trump, hillary, and there were many gesticulations, and it was glorious. mr. allen: mr. mayor, we look forward to your speech behind the podium. thank you for the sneak peek and a great conversation. [applause] mr. allen: thank you so much. have a great convention. now we are welcome -- honor to welcome the mayor of the largest state, jerry brown. mr. sherman: governor. mr. allen: governor. ever. this is a great honor. ,overnor brown: i wanted to ask why do you wear different socks? mr. allen: it is the one time you are able to wear different stocks -- stocks. v. brown: the reason i say
that -- francis coppola does the same thing, and i cannot member if he did that because he wants to be remembered, or for some other perverse reason, but he had a reason, so you are in a good lineage. thank you, governor. part of my lineage is california. i grew up in rossmoor. an old-age that is home. isn't that a senior citizens community? mr. sherman: breaking news. gov. brown: there is always a lot more than i understand. mr. allen: right next to the naval base in seal beach. gov. brown: that is a conservative part of california. mr. allen: it is, or at least it was. no doubt about it. governor, tonight, you will be speaking to the convention, and i wonder if you can give us a
sneak peek -- you are going to talk about climate change, what is going to be the headline? gov. brown: that is it. you arethe only peek going to get it i do not like to anticipate my speeches. mr. allen: i can tell you a little bit more about what you would say. [laughter] gov. brown: you cannot cause -- because i am not finished writing it. mr. allen: you're going to talk about trump's denial and clinton's bold leadership. gov. brown: i don't know. maybe you a and putin have access to e-mail. [laughter] we can talk about the topic if you're a study in that -- the speech is not the point. the point is the overarching threats to all living things and to our country it is a matter -- country and so many other things, so it's a matter that takes great leadership, clarity, and courage, and a lot of people working together, which is not happening as we talk. mr. sherman: governor, the amazing history you have -- you
first spoke to a democratic national convention 24 years ago. you have seen so much history here. gov. brown: i spoke in 1980. how long ago is that -- isn't that 36? mr. allen: 36 years, but who is counting. gov. brown: it was a good speech. mr. allen: that was in madison square garden. gov. brown: yes. it is all on google. you can check it out. so, what is a convention you would like to relive? gov. brown: i wouldn't. first of all conventions -- they have their own reality. they are extremely noisy, sweaty, contentious. that is not the kind of thing -- i do not know that reliving is what i missed it in. i am mixed in living, and all the things that are surprising and new about things. conventions are not one of the things. what has surprised
you about your conversations here in philadelphia? gov. brown: what has surprised me? actually, nothing. it is putting much what i expected. it is very hot. the democrats having good democrats -- very contentious. , at thegy, excitement end of the day, it is exciting to be in that arena, to be at a presidential convention, so as many times as i have been to them, people are excited. it is the presidency. it is the country. it is an experience. mr. sherman: tell us what a day is like when you're at a convention? gov. brown: usually too long, too much food, and maybe too much drink sometimes. there are a lot of exchanges. mr. sherman: who have you spoken to? gov. brown: exchanges, but not anything deep or memorable.
interactions. mr. sherman: 20 spoken to. gov. brown: see a lot of people you knew not normally see. mr. sherman: web you spoken to that you have -- who have you spoken to that you have enjoyed. gov. brown: everyone i talked i have- spoken to enjoyed. i do not want to talk about the names you know about, because the people that is the most fun of people coming for the first time. i don't know their name -- they come up to me, say hello, and they are very glad to be there. so, these other delegates, and as you know, democrats have more delegates that any party in the world, and are a lot of people that have not been here, and they are excited, so i am excited to be here. mr. sherman: donald trump has said many times he will put your state into play. we had a conversation about the -- with a house majority leader from bakersfield california last week and he told us trump needs
to win 40% of hispanic votes in california to have a chance. does donald trump have a chance in your state? gov. brown: no. donald trump says a lot of things. i would count as she did not say he would win california. he said it -- he is going to put into play. that is trump for something. i am not clear what. i don't believe he will win california because on a host of issues with a different point of view. mr. sherman: have you met donald trump? gov. brown: i have. i wrote in his plane once. it was quite enjoyable. he is a very nice plane. i do not know if he has the same one. this was a few years ago. i was thinking about bringing a casino to oakland when i was mayor, and he was there for the opening of a casino in palm springs, so he gave me a ride back. the thing that i member the most rs he had a run walk -- renoi
in the front of the plane. i could not take my eyes off of this wonderful french impressionist painting. mr. sherman: did you tell them you have the same one. gov. brown: i couldn't say anything. i was impressed. mr. sherman: that is hard to forget, a renoir on a plane. gov. brown: i do not know if it was real or not. i thought it was. it was a hell of a statement. mr. sherman: he is a resident that she has a home in california. gov. brown: if he is a resident, i hope he is paying his 13% income tax. i doubt he is a resident. mr. sherman: what was your impression from him from that airplane ride? gov. brown: i cannot remember exactly. he was a quick ride. i don't have anything unpleasant to talk about. he is a bigger than life character. my memory is consistent with that. mr. allen: governor brown,
yesterday's front page of the " san jose mercury news" the "sanders california delegation among the largest -- loudest, angriest in attacking clinton." will the california delegation, round, what is the mood? gov. brown: i have attacked clinton, and i have, round, and i am sure the sanders people will. that is primaries. that is conventions and we have that many in the past. i think there are some real issues. i think hillary has grabbed onto some of these issues. the key point is the democratic party is distinctly different than the republican party, particularly the party under trump. so, i would say sanders -- he laid out a vision that was responded to by a lot of people.
it affects the party, the candidacy, and it is going to shape the world for the better. making a lot of noise. you know, people talk about movements, and all of the stuff. i have done that. if you go back to my 1992 campaign, i had a lot in common with sanders, but then, where do these excitements go, and how do they turn into laws, changes in attitudes or practices? the fact is, there is a lot of slippage between the speech, the action, the law, and the change. each step along that chain of event is slippage. it is very hard to move things. clinton'sy is hillary claim here. she has the expense, the knowledge, she has been through it, and she has made mistakes. i can tell you is somebody that
has been in the process a long time -- iran for a board -- i ran for a board in los angeles in 1969, and the things you do that are good, you often don't identify how it all happened, but when you make a mistake, it leads more of an impression. you think about it. you are wiser. that really is what experience is. it is the accumulation of events, actions, thoughts, and how the consequences turned out, and that level of experience can have no substitute, and when you are in business, you have one variable. it is called revenue over cost -- money. that is one. it is a one-variable operation. in politics, you are doing with psychology. you are dealing with religion. you are dealing with feelings. you are dealing with power relationships. it is very sophisticated and you cannot come from a one-variable world into a multi-variable
universe and expect to have the skill, confidence, and the know-how to not make catastrophic mistakes. i think in this campaign that is the central difference besides the values between hillary and trump. mr. allen: what is the mistake secretary clinton made? gov. brown: i will leave that to her. people say would you like to tell us your mistakes -- i say in the catholic church we go to confession in private. mr. allen: we thought this was confession. gov. brown: this is not confession. mr. allen: you endorsed hillary clinton in the state primary. i can't recite it. i did draft it. mr. allen: did you talk to her before you endorsed her? gov. brown: i did talk to her. i talked to bill. mr. allen: what were those discussions like? gov. brown: very interesting.
i enjoy them. bill clinton is a very -- i don't want to say fun -- that's not -- he has been around. he has been through it all. he has a lot of knowledge. i think that's very important. i see now what i didn't see in 1969, that experience actually has value. a bunch of old characters can be not so good. but if you have the right values going through it over decades, it's very helpful. talking to bill clinton, he knows stuff. and so does hillary. they have been around. we live in a very dangerous world. a very complicated world. it is changing all the time. i think that is an experience. when i wrote about it, i said she is ready on day one to leave the country. i meant that. it is different. you can talk about it.
you were sitting year, commenting, -- sitting here, commenting, writing, whatever you do at politico, being there is a totally different experience. hillary has that. it's very important, particularly at this time in history. gov. brown: you mentioned the race where h you were the last man standing against bill clinton. so you understand the bernie diehards. you mention the race were your the last man standing against the clinton. so you understand the bernie diehards. gov. brown: i understand when you raise a lot of money -- it's hard to say stop. i was only kidding. vote for the other person. it takes a bit to turn. you do not turn the ship in the ocean.
it takes a while. gov. brown: the "sacramento bee" at a headline -- sanders exit has comparison with jerry brown. so you understand how he feels. the "sacramento bee" had a headline. >> let's talk about your home state of california. tell us about the race and why she is the best candidate? mayor de blasio: she had -- gov. brown: she has local and state government experience and i have worked with her. represent thell state knowledgeably and well and
that's why i endorsed her. >> who is going to succeed you as governor? iknow you like -- gov. brown: know you like prophecy. >> but you are a prophet. gov. brown: no, i'm a politician. meeone wrote a book about and they said high priest, low politician. but not a prophet. >> who would you like to succeed you? going ton: i'm not express likes and dislikes at this point. why would i do that? just to give you a little news flash? it disrupts things. different people run, they have their constituencies, and let me give you a basic lesson of politics. it is about addition, not subtraction. >> you can add to the conversation, right? to theown: you add
conversation, but you subtract the allegiance of all the people you did not endorse. it's better to keep things up in the ground for a wild. brown,en: governor california a leading indicator to what will happen to the rest of the nation on many issues, your provided leadership on income inequality, climate change, immigration. you are supporting a criminal justice ballot initiative. we have had good discussions about political reform, including alicia keys. what about the ballot initiative that aims to stop the revolving door and prevent recidivism. what is the biggest goal of that? gov. brown: putting it simply, california had something called the indeterminate sentence for 60 years, and in 1977, i abolished it with the idea that we needed a certain punishment,
and a punishment that fit the crime, not the criminal, whereas the indeterminate sentence said you are sent to prison five to life or one years to 10 years and when you get out is determined by how you behave in prison. and the parole board will decide that. at the time that was criticism, particularly from the left, that some groups, individuals were kept longer because of discrimination. of might summon the spirit black lives matter. ok. it turns out that was a mistake. that was not smart. the reason that was not smart, when you have a fixed term, you are in for eight years exactly. you know when you are getting out. there is no incentive for not getting in the game.
prisons are dens of iniquity. gangsters, dope, violence, mexican mafia, the aryan brotherhood, the black guerrilla family. it's not nice. you need an incentive for an inmate to avoid that, to go to class, to take drug treatment if .hey need it, get involved you can get out a few years earlier if we think you have rehabilitated -- that makes the prison safer, it makes the individual when they are going back, a lot readier to be good citizens. so, the idea, the ability to rehabilitate in prison and get out earlier is a safety measure. it makes california safer.
the recidivism is much higher than under the indeterminate sentence. you're eligible for parole after you serve your primary sentence. what does that mean? in california since i signed to that law, every year in hundreds, even thousands of instances, they change the walk, usually making it tougher. 100 separatehave criminal offenses -- remember, we have the 10 commandments. still only 10. have 5100nia, we laws, and on top of that, complicating it, we have 400 answers -- if you use a gun, you can get 25 years or more, if you
were in prison before you get another five years, if you were in a gang, you get 10 years. you pile on these and enormous sentences that are fixed. when i'm saying is, this whole .ess, we are going to lead this we are going to try to create the opportunity of parole if you have been on the nonviolent list and the ability to create what i educationalitative achievements. this is earning milestones. it makes you eligible to go back into society. .his is a safety measure and it is a human measure. because it treats people as if free will. when you have a fixed sentence, you have no control over your life. when you can earn the date of
your release, you have power over your life and that power is exactly what you need to learn how to handle. opportunity to make california safer, reduce and haveecidivism inherent capabilities to do good as well as bad. mr. allen: another ballot initiative raise taxes on the richest residents. has become ality flashpoint in silicon valley. how do you see that being defused? gov. brown: i didn't hear you -- mr. allen: defused. gov. brown: oh, defused. that makes it so much we are going to defuse the issue, but not solve the problem. >> how are you going to solve the problem? gov. brown: the problem is you make more money than the average
person in america. that is the problem. we can make you have less or make them have more. >> my bosses are here, so don't say that too loud. [laughter] the stratification in america has become really bad in my opinion. in some ways, obscene. the people at the top, the owners of your company's, they are making huge amounts. they made this 30 years ago. the average ceo -- there are various ways to measure it, but times more0 or 40 than the average person that works for them, in many cases 300 times. boss 10 times better now than 30 years ago? there's a lot of reasons for that, technology, globalization. people think the guy at the top is doing it. in truth, we are all part of an
enterprise, and we all are worth our contribution and how we measure that is a political question. it also a moral and human question. how we do that, we set a $15 minimum wage. but actually getting at this i'll knowtification, of anybody who has a real answer to that. , youpeople get something are making $20,000 a year. this point.ble at i don't know whether it takes another economic disruption or what it takes.
in the big sense, we have created a lot of inequality. we to make sure the minimum wage is decent, make sure everybody has affordable health care. make sure our cities are places with state street. to attackg to be hard what is global. ins true in china, it's true new york, it's true in arkansas. we have growing inequality. in california our 13% tax does that. the top 1% -- the famous top 1%, 60% and half of our general fund revenue. that is fair. makesintended consequence
the system very volatile and virtually impossible to manage. between fairness and practicality fall the shadows. we are doing a lot. not enough from a human and moral sense. we will do more as the opportunity presents. -- i'men: governor sorry. >> we cannot let the governor go without asking if he will run for public office again. gov. brown: i figure there's at least two more offices i can run for. of [laughter] governor, before we wind down this confession, you have warned that we as a nation are on a sweep in nuclear weapons. gov. brown: well, we are. i would say there are not three people in this room, if that, that know the power of our nuclear arsenal that is ready to go today. determine anbomb,
order to drop and kill many instantly, many more later from radiation. america has 54,000 times the firepower that was dropped on hiroshima. and most in congress think we need more and better. i say that is insane. it's certainly not human. we've got to be cutting that back. the modernization program needs dramatically changed and reformed. that is not happening yet. by the way, russians have the dropped on times we hiroshima. nuclear materials are loose in many places. if the islamist fanatics it a hold of it they can drop it.
this is serious business. it takes a real change in america. it takes working with putin and xi and other people in the world, the leader of india -- we've a lot to do. virtually no conversation about this and it is damn dangerous and you really ought to wake up about it. you all better wake up about it. we sayen: governor, as goodbye, your family has had such a long history of service to the nation for a largest state. you are first elected governor in 1974 when i was 10. at mr. allen gov. brown: you have come a long way. [laughter] thatbrown: i can relive 1974 campaign. i had a full head of hair -- mr. allen: me, too. gov. brown: i had young ladies
at chasing after me. [laughter] ourallen: is it possible home state will ever be two states are more than one state? gov. brown: if it is, i would run for governor of what ever the other state was. term limits would not apply. >> it would be a loophole. gov. brown: we have a movement of the state of dust this movement. which is interesting -- where i have my ranch in northern california, some jeffersonians think i could become the governor. no, that is not said seriously, so -- mr. allen: you would not rule it out? gov. brown: i would never rule anything out. we had a famous politician saidd jeff unrh, and he you have to hang loose so you can swing it whatever comes along. >> what book should we read? gov. brown: i have been reading
"sleepwalking: how europe got into world war i." very interesting, all of the stupid things so many smart people dead. the question i want to leave you with -- what stupid things are all of the smart people doing today? you have agovernor, passion for family history. what is something you have learned about your family that would be interesting to our audience? my grandmother, her father came from prussia, and i had someome of those money. after woodward to, they lost it all. the road to family here, and they asked for help and they never heard. three years ago i came and knocked on a door in germany and met a man whose
great-grandfather was my great-grandfather's brother. wrote this mother letter to you back in 1945. i said, well, i'm here to help. we look forward to your speech tonight. have a great convention. [applause] mr. allen: thank you very much, governor brown. what an honor. our stage the to campaign manager for hillary clinton robby mook. robbie, i've have heard this is your last one of these. is that true? robby: no, never true. mr. allen: the headlines --
first woman, clinton wins historic nomination. historic nominee, congratulations. robby: i think last night, she was excited, overwhelmed, and just great old to everybody. and where was she? robby: she was in chappaqua with her supporters there, and they were elated as well. the coolest part about that -- we flash the pictures of the president, all of our previous 44 prisons, all men, and she popped on the screen and the glass shattered on the whole crowd just lord. it was great to witness. of allen: campaign manager
the nominee, where are you during the big speeches? robby: it is dependent. most of the time i am in our staff workroom. i was up there and then she came on the screen and i was therefore the rollcall. >> what is a day like for you here? it starts really early, it goes really late. morning, either doing press, i just did to delegations this morning, and then over the last two days, there was a lot of work we were doing with senator sanders' team, just to chord nate and make sure our floor programs were working together and we were coordinated on how to move
forward on things. ithink the next few days, will pivot and that sort of thing. mr. sherman: you've had an interesting few days. what has surprised you most about what has gone down? robby: what has been great to watch is how these delegation teams have worked together collaboratively. the sense that i have, the delegations i was in, people are charged up, ready to go. i think people were really theired last night about stories that we told about all of the things that secretary clinton has done and i think president clinton did a great job. we heard from victims of the 9/11 attack, the eagle academy in new york, where young youth are going
to college -- these are really people whose lives have improved hereople will be focused on leadership to get this economy. welcome our c-span viewers, our viewers and livestream land -- they view the posters from last night -- stronger together, fighting for this 1 -- "do the most good." what is the message of that? robby: it is the methodist credo that secretary clinton learned growing up. i'm going to butcher this. do the most good you can -- mr. allen: you are not methodist? not methodist, no. do the most good you can, wherever you can, so on and so forth. that has been the driving force
in her life. they're talking about every .uncture of her life so, she has always done the most good she can everywhere she can her whole life. mr. allen: secretary clinton will win if what? robby: secretary clinton will win if we do two things. first, we have to make the case to voters that secretary clinton is going to be able to do three things -- first, bring this country together and do something about the partisan gridlock that is stopping us from addressing real problems. who can --candidate
donald trump is always been out for what makes him richer. and lastly she is the candidate who can keep a secure at home. donald trump is temperamentally unfit to lead this country. we need to turn voters out. -- and upsetd stat story by the great nathan cohen --what is that graphic demographic and what we do to win them over? robby: i think we can win any demographic. i think donald trump has been walking around saying these midwestern voters are his for the taking. here's why that is going to fail. because these are the voters getting hit the hardest, working-class folks in the midwest -- they were hit the hardest by the economic downturn and they are hit the hardest by how the system is rigged and the economy is not working for everyone. the problem for donald trump,
you look at how he has conducted business, he has always been about what is best for him. he has a choice about where to manufacture ties, shirts, suits. where did he do it? overseas. when he is campaigning, he says, you have to outsource jobs -- we have to stop outsourcing jobs. you can't trust him. he built a big casino, lots of jobs, a take success. theot out right before whole thing crashed. he left other people holding the bag. he did not pay contractors. he did not pay low-wage workers. we saw thousands of lawsuits. all americans, but particularly working-class americans need to be very skeptical. that is why this is not going to pan out. mr. allen: have you met donald trump? robby: no. he called me a loser two days ago. mr. allen: and what medium? robby: on tv.
i guess that's an honor. i guess? wereherman: mike and i talking to some republicans who say, if you put them on truth serum, which we like to do, they say there are several things you need to do to win a campaign. in need data, you need to be the field, you need to be on television. donald trump does not seem to be doing any of those with a concerted effort. what do you make of that? do you think that's what you think the strategy is behind this? or is there one? robby: i don't know. obviously, you would have to ask him. a mistake is making in taking the peoples but for granted. we talk about staff, all that stuff. all of that is in service of reaching out and talking to voters. that is what matters. you have the conversation you are delivering. and that motivation you are providing. using your time
efficiently with data, you are taking the voters for granted and that's a mistake. the clinton orbit is famous for having a lot of cooks and their kitchen. is it being the one starring the proverbial pot? robby: i think that's the wrong way to look at it. this is a team effort. anyone who has run any campaign, let alone a residential campaign will tell you -- you will never have all of the answers, and you certainly cannot run every aspect of the campaign. the needs to be a structure where there is clear command so decisions can be made and that thatof thing, but the idea you shut others out, that's a mistake some people make. in fact, i think the job of a campaign manager is to level or all of those folks so
it's the best, smartest campaign it can be. mr. allen: how often do you hear from president clinton? robby: we talked frequently. mr. sherman: by phone is is preferred -- robby: yes, by phone. talk about a team, talk about a partnership -- he is a joy to work with. he just has a brilliant mind. .olicy he is april and communicator. he has a way of distilling ideas down that is just incredible. learned as much from him alone as anyone else on this. mr. allen: you might call him the head chef? robby: he is definitely right there in the middle of the kitchen preparing the meal. people say that you manage and lead by positivity and magnetism, not by fear. how would you articulate your
leadership, management stuff? robby: you know, i think first of all, you can't ask people to do anything you are not willing to yourself. , think you have to always always ignore your purpose. there is a purpose to this campaign, to make life better and provide more opportunity for more people. touchstonet is a around everything we do. we are working really hard. plan, goodood strategy. internsn: our fabulous
-- we have a lot of young people , and a lot ofspan those young people want to be you. what was your first task on your what is yourn, and device to a young georgetown student who was to be you? robby: that's a good question. i do not know that my parents would endorse people taking this career path. they were very concerned for a number of years. it worked out ok. first experience -- my family was not particularly political, but where i grew up in vermont, there is no municipal garbage removal, so you have to bring your trash to the dump. the entire town goes to a very efficient place --
you go to the garbage dump, you get the petitions signed, you have literature. my first exit was kind of cool. internship -- i went to work for pat leahy's reelection in 1998. i rented an apartment for two months, and actually the woman who gave me that internship, i saw her yesterday. so, yeah, it's a pretty cool experience. beadvice to anybody would don't -- you know, people come to me and say, i want to come to the brooklyn headquarters. don't go to headquarters. go out and do the work where it happens. what matters in the campaign,
those interactions with workers. campaigner, talking to voters, learning to ask people for things. asking them to contribute their money. if you learn those skills, you can go out, but go where the work is. don't go to washington dc. >> you are guy. what metrics do you obsess about? robby: that's a good question. the things i care about, how many voters we are registering, how many people are signing up to vote as -- vote absentee. how many voters are committing to vote. those are the things i care about. mr. allen: who are the right voters? robby: that is what her data tells us. who are likely supporters are. we other thing is, sometimes are registering people who are already registered.
if it's duplicative, we are not adding people to the voter rolls. >> tell us how hillary clinton absorbs information. what is her method of taking it all in. -- what is her method of taking it all in? i have to say, she is such a good listener. tryingomething that i am to study. -- has a tremendous capacity boy, does she know a lot of stuff you're in mind is so sharp, so quick, it is truly impressive. it's impressive thing to see. mr. sherman: how often does she
get a speech and kick it back to you guys with revisions? revises every speech. sometimes she will kick it back and say this is not the direction i want to go. she is very thoughtful. particularly on matters of policy. she's a very precise individual. her ability to, -- what i just did not do, she speaks in full sentences and paragraphs. i do not. is the speech for tomorrow night already finished? is largely finished, but i'm sure it will continue to evolve. mr. sherman: what should we be looking for tomorrow night? what is the headline out of that speech? robby: she will be bringing this whole case together, both talking about the motivation at the core of why she does this, and we talked about do the most
good -- but also real plans for how she can accomplish these goals she has set out. one of the problems for donald trump at his convention was he had great platitudes, great platitudes, but no specifics there. you don't win voters over with policy minutia. however, you do need to have a plan and a realistic plan. i think she is going to balance both of those things. -- will talk about why as i said before, voters have a choice between someone who will fight on their site and someone who will fight for themselves. we want folks to understand that choice. the bulletin --
kremlin denies interfering in election campaign. what are your experts telling you? the experts have to speak on this and i know journalists have been spending a lot of time on this. i am only observing what we are reading in the paper. we have seen the fbi is in fact investigating a russian intrusion into the dnc. that data was stolen. said since the russians have this data and it seems to have been released in a manner that would damage the campaign that it was deliberately released for that purpose. i think it is troubling that in the last few weeks we have seen the republican platform change to remove aid for the ukraine. i have sensed no movement in the -- it strangety
that happened. i think it is troubling that vladimir putin in the context of assassinating journalists. look, the stuff, the whole picture raises a lot of troubling questions and the experts and journalists will have to continue to work on this to get to be bottom of what is happening. but the totality raises a lot of troubling questions. mr. allen: what is the trump connection? robby: we don't know. all we know is trump continues to praise vladimir putin, to talk about how nato should not intercede if the russians make aggressive acts toward eastern know or we are being told that the russians stole this data and potentially released it for the purpose of hurting our campaign. experts have to connect all of
those dots. you assume there will be more trenches of hacked e-mails? robby: we just don't know. it has -- been promisedhas by wiki links and they have delivered on their promises. robby: they have not delivered on their promises generally. sometimes when they release information and has been doctored, altered. we have to see. preview this bus tour you guys will be on? where will you go, how will you try to get across? robby: we talk about the different hinges for voters in one of the most important ones is the economy. secretary clinton and senator kaine will be going to pennsylvania and ohio. they will be visiting towns with manufacturing facilities, manufacturing facilities themselves that provide good jobs in america. they will talk about how they best jobs in
manufacturing among other things. about donald trump manufacturing overseas and that should be troubling, frankly. locks down tar heel territory -- t's in that.of 538 says that trump has a 62% chance of winning with carolina. is north carolina the new ohio? think north carolina has become or is about to become a true battleground state. we have seen it wavering within a tiny margin. it is one of the states that has moved the least. it is changing demographically in a way that is helpful for our
party and hillary clinton. i think we have a real shot of winning. it's going to be tough. but president obama won their i a very small margin in 2008 and i think we have a shot at that this time. mr. sherman: tell us a state we might not be focusing on you think you have a chance in. is a reach,nk it but nebraska's second congressional district, another place president obama won in 2008, and i think we have a chance of winning it now. economically prosperous area changing demographically in ways that are favorable. mr. sherman: how about arizona? robby: arizona's tough. it will become more of a battlegroundtate every year. we have a team there and will monitor it. agree with: do you ron brownstein and others who say if you win florida you have one? robby: if we win florida it's very hard to put together the math for donald trump. mr. allen: how do you win
florida? people up,igning registering a lot of new voters and taking advantage of the early voting system there, and again, making the economic case, inspiring people to come out to elect the first woman president. mr. allen: what do you do about virginia? robby: i think virginia is looking better and better every day. i think adding senator kaine to the ticket was a big boost. northern virginia continues to grow to change the political dna of the state in a way that is very helpful to us. story in: the lead politico this morning -- is tim kaine liberal enough? do you worry? robby: i think tim kaine has an outstanding progressive record. mr. allen: not all progressives agree with you, as you know. robby: not all progressives are going to agree on any topic.
let's be clear. you saw progressive groups across the spectrum rush in to praise his choice of tim kaine. he took on and one on a discrimination case. as governor oft, virginia, created a lot of new jobs there. his record can stack up against anyone's. ap out of outlook or key says clinton campaign seeks to make the most of kaine's spanish. what role will it play in the days ahead? is where theatters candidates and on the issues. secretary clinton and senator kaine are firmly on the side of latinos in the issues. but the fact that senator kaine can communicate in the people's first and second language is a real asset to the campaign and we look forward to taking advantage of that. mr. sherman: last night,
virginia governor terry mcauliffe said that eventually hillary clinton will be for the transpacific partnership. he walked that back. character are you have worked for. what is his political gift? robby: you know what i am so proud of with terry mcauliffe? he is one of the nicest reform the world, takes such good care -- not just his nuclear family, but his larger family and community. he invited all of his staff to a the governor'sn mansion. we had a great time. what i was so proud of, virtually everything that he promised in that campaign, he followed through on and he has stood up for people again and again. he got clinics reopened, clinics that republicans tried to shut down, he has been a champion, protected the voting
rights of hundreds of thousands. on everythinged you said and all of the staff are incredibly proud. theallen: the skybox in wells fargo center -- we are talking about the fact that hillary clinton's brand is experienced and steady, whereas consumers, they typically want new and exciting. robby: i think what voters want is someone who can actually get things done in a hyper gridlocked, tough political environment -- mr. allen: but is that what they want? robby: people want better jobs, they want their wages to go up and they are frustrated because the political system is delivering absolutely nothing for them. hillary clinton has a record of working with both sides of the treaties,her it is
the children's health insurance program, of working with republicans. she has the steadiness to be commander-in-chief. people recognize how dangerous and complex the world has become. they do not want someone unfit and inexperienced in donald trump. mr. allen: what is the biggest story about this campaign? robby: that's a great question. say it is thely pace of change is self in technology. so, one thing -- actually david weff said this to me when first got this endeavor started and he said, technology will change more from the beginning of this cycle and the end of this cycle than it did between 2008 and now and he's absolutely right. there are media platforms today that did not exist when we started this campaign, and so, i think one of the challenges for
-- from a campaign management perspective is how to manage that change, what to embrace and run with. mr. allen: we have a last question -- jake, did you have anything else? mr. sherman: actually i was going to follow up, uber in 2008 a certain number of cars and now -- there is a difference. what will hillary clinton highlight? robby: the investment in jobs -- mr. sherman: infrastructure? robby: infrastructure, green energy -- he has talked about making america the green energy capital of the world, tax reform. you were crazy days going from hr to the field. you stay fit, how?
robby: that is making an assumption. you try to eat decently well, and i have a standing desk. i get winded, i do run up some stairs for something and i was more winded than i should have been. i would not say i am in shape. you are more bullish -- robby: i have a smoothie in the morning. i like smoothies. mr. allen: i like cards. mr. sherman: i think we will get the hook. mr. allen: before we do, i personally want to thank our amazing politico is in colleagues, our friends at c-span, our friends at bank of america. and i think we will welcome savage to thea
stage for briefer mark. be thathese guys will the later with john podesta. we will have a deep dive including panelists's. at 1 p.m. we have another deep dive on energy with clinton's energy adviser and two sitting governors. we also have two panels of swing state lawmakers to talk about how those issues are playing in battleground states and at 5:30 p.m., we will be back for cocktails in conversation with 3:00 johnie after the podesta. thank you for all of these conversations and stay tuned for more. areallen: thank you, and we always on snacks and usually on boost. good interlude. thanks to all of you in
livestream day. thanks to bank of america for making these possible and to many more years of partnership. again, please join me with john podesta. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tomorrow, democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton and vice president nominee or genia senator tim kaine speak at a campaign rally in columbus, ohio. our live coverage against at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.
>> did you miss any of the republican or democratic national conventions? you can go back and watch every moment. go to c-span.org to find every's beach from both invention -- every speech from both conventions. here is how. find the convention highlights near the top and scroll down and browse through every speaker. click on the speech you want to watch and you can clip any speech and share on social media or e-mail. www.c-span.org is your most comprehensive guide for any convention moment. c-span, created by cable, offered as a public service by your television provider. three-judge, a handle on the fourth circuit court of appeals in richmond, virginia unanimously struck down north carolina voting laws. the court ruled that voting
restrictions passed by the republican-controlled legislature were a neck did with a racially discriminatory -- were enacted with a racially discriminatory intent. rt heard oral arguments in june. this is 90 minutes. >> good morning. we are happy to hear arguments in the north carolina -- -- if you can get to the most important things to say, we would appreciate it. thank you. with that in mind --
>> good morning. anna baldwin representing the united states. of the presentation this morning i will be representing the section to claim under its intent and results prongs. ms. harris will be focusing on the results prongs, and my colleague will address constitutional claims and also questions about implementation. >> ma'am, -- ma'am,loyd: [indiscernible] that is not the case. due deferencee question mark to me that is the core of the case? baldwin: certainly, your honor.
to start with the intent analysis -- there are critical errors in the legal analysis in the district course's and analysis of the intent claim that frames the analysis. we have to start with the fact that the north carolina haltlature acted to african-american political power just as black north carolinians began to experience real political gains. carolina, the best predictor of voting behavior is not party registration, but race . tent analysis would require the court to consider whether the passage was "aivated in part by troubling blend of race and politics." to district court failed analyze the frame set out by the supreme court. intent you speak to the
claim, are you referring to section two or the 14th amendment, and is there a difference? it is the same standard, and the united states is pressing its claim under the guise of section two, but the standard is the same, the question is was the legislature's action motivated in part by a racially discriminatory purpose -- : you're presenting a constitutional argument here. should we read that one first? ms. baldwin: your honor, we think understanding the section , itresults claim is helpful is helpful to look at the intent claim and the parties would ask the court to look at the nature of the relief we are seeking.
>> and your colleague is going to explain that also, right? ms. baldwin: she will be addressing the andersen verdict constitutional claims. she would read trigger under the section three, and that is why that means to be made under the intent claim. looking at the legal error -- : we understand. i think my colleagues question in the first reef, you did the intent claim first and in the second brief, you did the intent claim second. which is first? ms. baldwin: your honor, we think both are very strong claims. typically we do not go to a constitutional weston if
we can resolve it on other grants. pursue that, or you would like us to go for remedial reasons to the constitutional question, but shouldn't we start with it? baldwin: in terms of what is practical for the state, for the parties, we are all aware of the fact that there is an election upcoming in november, so the importance of having a remedy in place, a reversal and injunction, that can cleanly be done under the claims do this court will simply correct to be error -- correct the errors. motz: it cannot be done under the intent claim? ms. baldwin: it can be done with the size of the black electorate, the significance of turnout -- i think we
understand those arguments. basically what you have done in your first presentation is go over your brief with a spirit you can rest assured we have read the brief. we are more interested in the specifics. for example, did you present a trial and the expert data predictions on what the between the voter turnout would have been without the statute? ms. ball one: no, your honor. that is nothy possible. to predict what 2014 turnout would have been, not to do the simplistic turnout the disregarded, you need more elections, more states, more data -- we know what it was under the statute. did you have an expert try to reject what it would have been? baldwin: you do not even need expert testimony.
uncounted ballots could have been counted. we know -- i believe it is 2000 voters who registered. takenvoters would have advantage of same day registration. the notion that it did not impact the number of voters able to vote -- that simply not true. there are thousands of voters on uncontested, factual records shut out of the process under this bill. what the district court did in its results analysis -- the critical error there is looking at two numbers rather than the numbers of voters shut out of the process. said theict court
turnout from 2010 and 2014 -- as everybody testified, you cannot measure the impact of an election law just by a $10 million senate race. of course that is going to have an impact. in looking at turnout, the statute prohibits an emerging affect and outright denial. we have clearly proven outright denial but it is wrong to set the standard where you have to show that voters are concretely shut out and don't take extraordinary efforts to overcome that burden has the record in this case shows that there were extraordinary efforts organized by churches to counteract the effects of this law. judge motz: i have another factual question. you talk about the 72 new early voting sites. is there any evidence in the record in terms of whether they
were located in black or white communities or republicans or democratic areas? ms. baldwin: your honor, one thing i'd like judge motz: i'm interested in your explanation but is there anything in the record about that? ms. baldwin: i don't believe so, and if i'm wrong, i'll correct. one thing i think is important to clarify in the early voting challenges. united states is not challenging the only portion of the law that defendants have asserted a rationale for, which is equalizing the locations within counties. we are not challenging that. we are challenging the number of cut backs to the days of early voting. that is something for which the defendants have had no rationale. judge motz: maybe i misunderstood your argument. was voting -- one of the problems was the board of elections was given this authority to move voting sites around, and they could in that way discriminate against minority voters. is that not part of your claim? ms. baldwin: that is not part of
our claim. in fact in the reverse, the state has relied more on the fact that the locations of early voting centers, and arguing that they were used to benefit africn american and democratic voters. we're not making a claim about the location of the early voting centers. if anything, we think the state's reliance on that argument is basically an admission of what the facts in this case show, that race and party are really tied together in north carolina. judge motz: that's what i'm asking you about. ms. baldwin: we're not claiming that the new locations, the old locations discriminated against african american voters. what we're claiming is the cutbacks to early voting, eliminating seven days, and particularly eliminating the ability of a sunday, where the record shows that in 2008, 49% of the voters who used that were african american, and 2012, 43%. that's why the disproportionate
impact is it's cut to the number , of days. we're not challenging the location issues under the bill. >> so the answer to that original question was because you believe there was a legal error. we do not have to afford district courts ms. baldwin: no. the critical facts before the court aren't contested, even the district court toward closing said, you submitted a lot of this case by stipulation. we agree. it's the inferences the district court drew from this fax in the framework put it wrongly adopted given it's elevating turnout above every other kind of metric. where to say that as long as aggregate turnout goes up. as long as more black voters voted in 2014 than in 2010, you can't have a discriminatory burden. that's simply not the case. with something like same-day registration, we showed what the
discriminatory burden is. it is not just disparate use statute. it's that african american voters are more likely to use, -- use that and because of reasons connected to a history of discrimination and the removal of that. disparately burdened and disparately amplifies the affects of that discrimination because of the literacy deficit. that's not just speculation. the best evidence of that is in the incomplete voter registration queue that you see that -- see in 2014. that the voter registration applications, you know, failing to check a box or something, they're disproportionately african american. and taking away same day registration where you had an opportunity to correct those errors is going to burden african americans. so that's a way in which in particular, the burdens are cumulative and greater. you take away a week of early
voting. you take away the opportunity for african american voters to use same-day registration during that period. the more you take away that early voting period where voters can show up to any precinct, the more likely they are to end up at the wrong precinct on election day. judge floyd: judge wynn: what is your evidence connecting that burden to the historical discrimination? ms. baldwin: i think the test that this court set out, properly, is that you start with the discriminatory burden. so we show that through the disparate use and we also show that through the socioeconomic effects of discrimination that amplify the fact it's going to be more difficult for voters to navigate the process in north carolina without those mechanisms. so as an example of a voter like gwendolyn fairingten. i think some of the individual voters bring to light the
uncontested numerical socioeconomic and disparate use , testimony that, she's a voter who works six days a week, 12 hours a day. she had voted early in 2008 and 2012. she didn't have time to vote early during the compressed early voting period in 2014. she voted near her workplace because she worked on election day from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and she couldn't have gotten to her correct polling place in the time allotted because she had to pick up her adult children. like 27% of african american, three times higher than whites, there are transportation difficulties in her family. where multiple adults rely on one car. you see the same example of caroline cunningham and the ways in which the burdens in this case are cumulative. she was a first-time voter who used souls to the polls. she works three jobs to make ends meet. she didn't know her correct
poling place, so she voted close to her job. even if workers had told her she was in the incorrect precinct, she wouldn't have had time because she risked penentially -- penalties for being late to work. judge motz: your red light was on. ms. baldwin: thank you very much your honor. , >> may it please the court, i am penda hair. i am here on the state
conference of the naacp and other plaintiffs in that case, many of whom are here in the courtroom today. i will primarily address the section 2 claims, but hope to comment briefly on the racial intent, and we do the, the north carolina naacp is asserting both a constitutional and a section 2 racial intent claim. judge floyd: your comments will focus on section 2 insofar as results? ms. hair: yes, i plan to focus on results. your honors, the plaintiff after being with you in 2014 went to trial, actually two trials. and in those trials we applied from the jingles case and women voters case in terms of how to prove a textbook section 2 case. miss baldwin talked briefly about that, so i just want to summarize that and then i want to talk about the errors that the district court made that
that cause -- the inferences drawn by the district court to be tainted by legal error. her the league of women voters case we proved three critical , case sets of fact. one, african americans disproportionately use same-day registration out of precincts and the other eliminated practices. and disproportionately do not have photo i.d. and in the case of most of those practices those , disparities were proven to be statistically significant. which means they are not random. which means under all of race discrimination law, statistical significance and disparity tells you need to look further, not that you prevail, but you need to look further. and that's what the second prong -- second and third prongs of the women legal voters tells us. judge motz: can i stop you for just a moment about these
statistics? do you believe that section 2 results section claim has a deminmous threshold? for example, if out of precinct voting only impacted 20 people, would it be a viable claim? ms. hair: i'm sorry, 20 people, but racially disproportionate? judge motz: this is your section 2 results. right. 20 people. ms. hair: 20 people are affected and it's racially disproportioned? i think you would need that first, i don't know 20 people, whether there's statistical significance to us -- tests that would be possible. but you might meet the disproportionate use prong, but you probably would not succeed on the rest of the test. particularly when you get to the state's justification for what it is doing. if it's eliminating a practice
that only affects 20 people, i think that in the totality of the circumstances, that claim might not succeed. ms. hair: judge motz: so there is some? ms. hair: i think you have to apply the totality of the circumstances and all situations. but as a voting rights lawyer looking at that i would not expect a claim to succeed, unles there was some unusual fact that i don't know about here. judge floyd: would the answer be somewhat different if we were addressing section two as opposed to the section two results? ms. hair: yes. intentional discrimination requires -- that's the end of it. the law is invalid and needs to be enjoined if it is tainted in part by racial intent. yes.
so let me proceed to the second and third prongs, which is once you have disparate use, that is all contrary to some of the , claims of defendants. we also proved a connection between the state's racial history and its current impacts or vestiges of racial discrimination that exist and impact of african american and latino voters in the state today. and some of those connections are described on i think pages 12-14 of our reply brief. and in terms of the case critical fact that the district court found, the district court did find that connection between the vestiges and the eliminated practices. for example, the district court said it's easy to see a connection between certain
reasons for ending up in the incomplete queue and literacy. and the district court then found that african americans are vestige of discrimination is literacy and the benchmark electoral practice which is same-day registration produces virtually no incomplete registrations. that is the emulative interaction that the league of women voters test shows us a classic case of section 2 violation. now what caused the district court, once you get to those three critical facts, and we proved eight of the senate factors, what led the district court astray in not ruling in favor of plaintiff. and the first thing that the district court did is it created a new causation requirement. that's not been required in any section 2 case or any governing law. and that causation requirement,
instead of looking at the connection between the vestige, the eliminated practice and, yes, the vestige and eliminated practice. the district court said you have to prove that the eliminated practices caused an increase in registration or turnout. that is not the causation requirement from legal women -- league of women voters or any other precedent governing this case. for example, the district court said on page 347 of its opinion plaintiffs failed to carry the burden of showing same day registration is responsible for the african american lead over all other races in registration. that said the same thing on page 355 about turnout. that is not a causation requirement in the case law. and that is the primary mistake that the district court made. and then it --
judge motz: i'm sorry, tell me what it should have said instead. ms. hair: what the district court should have done. we established the 3 prongs of league of women voters and when , we proved eight of the senate factors and in those circumstances the district court should have found judge motz: i understand the bottom line of what you want. but of course it there was really so, you would have moved for summary judgment. so there were factual disputes, right? ms. hair: i think -- judge motz: it's really going to an easier question for you. i won't make you explain why you didn't go for summary judgment if all the facts were in your favor. but what i would like to know is you were saying they made this causationa analysis. which should be analysis have been instead is the question i'm asking. ms. hair: i will answer that question. at the beginning there were facts and disputes. the district court found the critical facts in our favor.
and that is -- so what the district court should have done, i mean it is judge floyd: judge wynn: this question is relatively, i think a separate question. that is, you're saying the district court described what i think is described as a hyphen causation standard. what she is asking what should he have applied. that's pretty straightforward. ms. hair: and i think that the confusion is he did both. he applied the correct standard and he found all of the facts that lead to a section 2 violation. and then he went -- and that was enough. that plus the senate factors, that is the only causation requirement. so then he, instead of moving forward to the next step, which should have been sign the violation, he veered off the road into a new causation requirement. so there was nothing more that the district court needed to do other than apply the legal women
-- league of women voters test which he did and found no facts , -- those facts in our favor. and i think that the district court -- the veering off the road is exemplified by the district court's reliance on the 2014 turnout data to essentially trump the actual evidence that plaintiffs had of both burden and of a connection of the burden to the vestiges of discrimination. judge wynn: so let me ask you this question. if we, even under the rec test as you indicate here. and the same question i asked the earlier attorney. what would be your best evidence to show this connection between this burden and the historical discrimination? ms. hair: that evidence is set
on page 12-14 of our reply brief. and we presented evidence on each claim. so for same-day registration, we showed literacy disadvantages as well as transportation disadvantages. all connected to that same-day registration helped to ameliorate, because you only have to go once to register and vote. and if you have any literacy issues, there are people there who will make sure that you don't leave something out, forget to check a box and are not -- your registration is not processed then. and we did that for each of the claims and different evidence to connect the eliminated practice to the vestige specific to that particular claim.
i know i don't have much time left so i would like to make a couple of comments on intentional discrimination, if i may. there what i would say is -- judge wynn: section 2, intentional discrimination? ms. hair: both. my comments go to both. and what i would say there is that plaintiffs, the evidence shows that plaintiffs proved the arlington heights factors. it's said in a brief. we proved all the changes made after the shelby decision did -- disfavored african americans. and we also proved that virtually all of the reasons that the legislator stated at the time, in the legislative records, were simply not true. we proved pretext. and the legislators in the face of that record asserted
legislative privilege and never came forward and put their credibility under both behind any other reason that they might say what they did that they did in this bill. therefore we believe that there's only one conclusion that can be made on this record in terms of racial intent. and that is that all of the evidence supports and requires a finding that this law was enacted for racial intent. judge floyd: if that's true, doesn't the burden shift to the defendants in this case? ms. hair: yes. they would then be able to try to prove that they would have done the same thing without the racial intent. but they never made any effort to do that, and they specificaly said that the amendment to the photo i.d. law, they were not claiming that that cured any racial intent that existed in the original. judge motz: where do they say that? ms. hair: they said it -- it's
cited in a brief. when we were introducing a piece of evidence that would have carriedat the intent forward through the amendment. they said we're not making that claim, and then the evidence, we withdrew the evidence. it's in the record. judge motz: before you sit down, so what is your view of the timeline for implementing or dismentling each one of these mechanism? dismantling any one -- ms. hair: what we would say is that it starts in july --judge motz: >> that's all right. talk about whatever you want. ms. hair: thank you. i just want to mention in my four seconds remaining that we also have a claim regarding latino voters and in addition, we made that claim through the same types of evidence. it's not highlighted as much in the brief, but the evidence is in a footnote, and the fact that
the district court said are missing with regard to african americans exists in a huge way with regard to latinos. which is that their registration and turnout in north carolina is extensively lower than for either white or african americans. thank you. judge motz: thank you. s.lison raikes -- rigg i will be discussing the remaining constitutional claims. anderson verdict 14th amendment and 26th amendment claims and answer any questions you have about implementation. judge motz: maybe you can answer that question. ms. riggs: absolutely. there's ample time for this court to remedy the flaws in
house bill 589. out of stay and precinct are the law. none of the infrastructure has been dismantled. so there's just no problem with same-day and out of precinct. with i.d., early voting and preregistration. there's still ample time to set up those systems, set up the systems for early voting and to educate voters about these changes. judge motz: ok. i understand ample time, but i'm looking for a little bit more specific information about time. ms. riggs: certainly. judge motz: we are now dealing with a longest day after the longest day of the year. but we're getting to shorter days. ms. riggs: the counties early voting plans are due july 29. that is not a hard and fast deadline by any stretch of the imagination. the state board of elections continues to review early voting plans, through august and sometimes even into september, asking them to change their early voting plans if there are problems. additionally, at least 70% of the counties use as the early voting site their county board
of elections site, or an in lieu of site it's usually in the same building. so if we implement 17 days, not only do the counties have time to come up with an early voting plans that puts that into effect, but they're going to use for the most part at least one of the same sites they have in place. so it's just opening it up to voters for an extra seven days, although they only really have to do it in the weekdays. with photo i.d., there is an opportunity to educate voters about the change, that they will not be asked for photo i.d. a voter guide goes out. it goes to the printer at the end of august. that's again not a hard and fast deadline. but the great opportunity for the state to educate voters that, just like the last 3 elections, same-day registration and out of precinct will be available to you. here's the new early voting schedule and you won't be asked to show a photo i.d. when you show up to vote. these are some of the key deadlines. but they're flexible.
they get changed. 72012 the early voting today was so great that the state board of elections during early voting ordered county supervisor extra time. judge motz: so the same amount of time is necessary to either confirm the district courts? ms. riggs: if you're going to reverse the early, the district court on the early voting and and photo i.d., the sooner you rule, the better. whim the political process. you do not need to show i would like to temporary thing to the constitutional claims and note that under anderson's verdict the state is not free to just give and take away at when mechanisms for
participating in the political process. this is a general claim you are making. both need to show discrimination to get there. but we did not adjust it in the previous and the u.s. is not suing this claim. -- pursuing this claim. i'm thinking in terms of the proof because essentially what you are dealing with is the non-affirmative type measures. and in that context i do not know what is addressed in this particular context. courts and the sixth circuit have been active in addressing anderson verdict claims recently. since 2012, two 6 circuit cases within the next month, to that we said that reach both claims andy anderson verdict claims. it was not as important in the pi stage, but this is on the merit.
in the plain language, if we if we could get -- a finding of a 14th amendment violation. this is a 14th amendment violation. judge wynn: we do the same remedy as he would on this particular -- ms. riggs: i think we can. the question is does it justify equitable relief and in the fact this case it does. judge wynn: is the discrimination allegations stronger than a general allegation on the 14th? ms. riggs: they are both very strong. it goes to different remedies. the intentional discrimination fax are hard to dismiss. the district court didn't try to do it but they are really stunning. yet we see a decade's worth of voting laws expansion created a situation where voters relied heavily on those expansions. and the state of north carolina takes them away with no good
excuse and that doesn't comport with the state's obligation under the 14th amendment. on the 26 amendment claims, despite not having much time to discuss them today we do not , waive them and evidence when viewed as a whole raise, leaves no room for conclusion. other than this. young voters were targeted from exclusion from the political process by a number of provisions that were applicable only to them. and they were targeted for exclusion because of the way they were voting and because of how they were exercising. this is not constitutionally permissible and the court should reverse of the 20th of the men. thank you. judge motz: mr. farr, can you tell me what you regard as the timeline on each of these?
mr. farr: fortunately for me, mr. peters will adjust that question. judge motz: i want to be sure that he does. mr. farr: no, no we spent a lot of time on this and mr. peters as their representative of the board of elections for some time. i think he is good information for the court. is tom farr my name and representing the defendants today with my partners. mr. bowers is representing the governor. and alexander peters representing the state of board of election. i think the most informed point i can make is that we disagree with the plaintiffs position that judge schroeder did not apply the test of this quarter to give it in its preliminary injunction hearing. we believe that he religiously applied that test. then he made extensive findings of fact and concluded that based upon these extensive findings of fact the plaintiffs had not , carried their burden.
by proving either of the prongs 2 testsection to test -- the court laid out. judge wynn: my understanding is helpful, to specifically indicate the claim that you are talking about. are you talking about section two results, or the general claim? i get your point in terms of the overall view. in terms of the analysis that we take here and what was presented on the other side, at least from my perspective, to get the position on those. mr. farr: yes sir, your honor. i am talking about the section two claimant this point. judge wynn: you're talking about section two results? if i get to that, i will talk about your but i think