2. READ: Lost Children Archive. A novel by by Valeria Luiselli.
4. READ: There Goes the Neighborhood: How Communities Overcome Prejudice and Meet the Challenge of American Immigration. A book by Ali Noorani.
5. READ: What the first 24 hours on U.S. soil looks like for detained immigrants.
6.LOOK: Our 2018 photo essay in the midst of a rally outside the gates of Tornillo, Texas.
This interview with Dan Hopkins, Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Pennsylvania, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
What were the original assumptions in the Constitution about state-level loyalty versus national government loyalty?
It's a good question. The Constitution is now far enough back in our collective memories that I think it's really valuable to start by having some sense of what the U.S. was like at the time. There were some scholars who argued that the Constitution is well understood as a peace treaty between sovereign states about how they were going to govern their affairs.
In 1776 and even in 1787, when the Constitution was drafted, the U.S. was a collection of 13 quite different colonies. It took the Georgia delegation six weeks to travel to Philadelphia in order to participate in the Constitutional Convention. Different colonies had very different economies and different religious heritages. This was a quite diverse country and, thus, the Constitution was designed to protect substantial levels of state-level autonomy. I think it is really important to recognize that at the time, many of the people thought of themselves as Americans, but also to a certain extent, as New Yorkers or Virginians or Pennsylvanians.
When do you start to see a shift towards politics in the U.S. becoming more nationalized?
To some degree, it's an ongoing process that has unfolded in fits and starts over our 200-plus year history. I do think that the Civil War is a critical turning point. In the run-up to the Civil War, you see many more implications of state-level identities. I'm a Georgian, I'm a Virginian. And obviously, the Civil War pitted state against state.
It's generally been the case that the Republican party has been more likely to invoke federalism. Of course, the exemplary issue is the issue of civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. Even in more recent times, the Republican party has advocated for there being less of a role in the federal government asserting itself to protect the rights of African-Americans, especially, but not only in the South. I think it's fair to say that if you've heard a state rights argument in the last 50 years, it's more likely to be coming from the Republican party.
There's also an element in which as power shifts, we see changes. When the Republicans control the federal office, sometimes it's Democrats who say, "Hey, it's important to let California write its own laws with respect to clean energy or car emissions standards." At the same time, the extent to which we see Republican states moving to block sanctuary cities, for instance, is surprising.
If you're a principled federalist, then presumably cities shouldn't be punished for diverging.
In general, I see very few principled federalists in American politics. I think that all too often in contemporary American politics, federalism is just the clothing we use to dress up certain arguments instead of being a principled approach to a range of policy problems.
What factors contribute to a nationalized political landscape?
I actually think there's a relationship between the transformation of campaign finance, the transformation of voting, and the transformation of what's getting covered in our newspapers. There's a unifying element to all of this.
Let's look at campaign finance first. In many of the most competitive 2020 Senate races, large majorities of money came from out-of-state donations. What does that do to the candidates, and how does that affect the way constituents perceive elections?
I think that the nationalization of the campaign finance structure is an example of our nationalized set of divisions. What we're trying to do is refract these highly nationalized divisions through our federalist system. And the result often distorts representation in critical ways. One of the key facts about campaign finance has been that as late as 1992, two-thirds of all donations to federal candidates, to members of Congress, were coming from within the state that they represent. 20 years later in 2012, only one-third of all dollars were coming from the states that people represented.
The danger is that the representatives and senators increasingly have one constituency where they get their votes, but a separate constituency from where they get their money.
That is not how our system was designed to work. It was not designed for members of Congress to spend four hours a day raising money from people who are not their constituents.
And simultaneously, there has been a collapse of local media. I wonder how the decline of local news plays into this landscape?
When the internet first became a sizable presence, there was a hope that it might actually lead to a proliferation of local news. With the internet there are very, very low production costs, so, theoretically, I could put up a newsletter about my neighborhood. But in fact, as you said, the rise of the internet and the rise of cable television led to this dramatic concentration of our attention on a very, very small number of nationalized news sources. Partly that's because the news media would target us based on where we lived. The Philadelphia Inquirer targeted a set of people who wanted to know about life in and around Philadelphia.
But more recently we instead see that the business model for many media companies is to compete based on who voters are and who readers are and who consumers are, rather than where they live.
Rather than providing me with information specific to Philadelphia, they will identify me as someone who likes the National Football League or cares about politics.
That has led to the fragmentation of our media environment. One of the real losers in this has been people's attention to state and local politics. State and local politics have never been on the top of people's priority lists. It used to be that if I were reading the Philadelphia Inquirer, as a by-product of learning what the Eagle's score was, I also learn a little bit about who my mayor was or who my governor was. And nowadays, since I can go right to ESPN or I can go right to Fox News, I can skip over all that state and local information.
In a world where state and local politicians want to be well-known, they're much more likely to attach themselves to a lightning rod federal issue than they are to actually dive into the challenging, complex issues that face their local community.
Which really allows issues to be manipulated. When we focused on immigration, something I found interesting was how much immigration was used as a campaign tool in Ohio or Maine. It’s easy to make a border terrifying when you don’t live near one. Do you feel like campaigning has changed based on the ability to take issues that don't have anything to do with your constituents, but are made to look like they have everything to do with constituents?
Yeah, absolutely. One of the real challenges with a nationalized political environment is that it encourages attention to issues that are evocative and emotionally charged and often have to do with specific groups of people, but ultimately do not have clear policy effects. I think one prominent example of this is not long after President Trump was elected he attacked football players who refused to stand for the National Anthem. I think it's a very instructive case because he wasn't proposing any policy. This was purely about symbols.
I worry that in the nationalized political environment, it's very hard to put together a political coalition that speaks to auto workers and nurses in the suburbs of Detroit, and retirees in Maricopa County. This is a very diverse country. One of the easier ways to knit together a political coalition is to reach for these divisive, identity-oriented issues, even if that's not actually what's going to motivate the policies that you're proposing.
I do think that there's been a real connection between the way in which our politics has nationalized and the way in which our politics has become more identity oriented.
It's these kinds of identity charged issues that can have an intuitive meaning to people in places from Montana to North Carolina.
Has your work clarified your opinion about how national politics should work? What do you advocate for moving forward in terms of policy and campaigning?
I certainly think that voters do better when they have the information that they need, and I think that we are missing an opportunity to really use our federalist system, because there are so many different kinds of issues that face the different communities in our country.
If we are trying to force all of those issues onto a single divide between Democrats and Republicans, we're going to miss a lot of critical issues.
I think some of the disaffection with contemporary politics stems from the fact that many of us deal with problems in our day-to-day lives that are not represented by the Republican-Democrat divide.
I do want to be wary of nostalgia — or suggesting that some earlier period of history was markedly better. Yes. I worry a lot that today's voters just don't know much about state and local politics, but state and local politics wasn't always vibrant and democratic in previous generations, right? As a social scientist, I think part of my job is to lay out trends. I do think that nationalization is something that we should forecast as being a major part of our politics moving forward.
I also think that there are some policy changes on the edges that I would advocate for that I think would help reinforce the connections between places and voters, and to make better use of our current federalist system. For instance, I think campaign finance matching, so that every dollar you get locally is amplified, is a great idea. I think that could encourage politicians to lay down roots in the specific communities they represent and to spend less time trying to raise money from Manhattan or Dallas.
I think we should also do everything in our regulatory capacity to help promote, protect, and foster high-quality, non-partisan coverage of states and localities.
As a country that is hemorrhaging reporters who cover states and localities I do think that given how many important decisions are made at the state and local level, as a society, we have a real stake in the quality of local news media. There are fewer statehouse reporters, there are fewer city hall reporters, and there are fewer people who are tracking state and local politics to hold our politicians accountable. I think that has been underappreciated, and one of the real dangers in contemporary American democracy.
interviews
In Conversation with the Sisters in Law
by Sisters in Law
October 12, 2020
This interview with the Sisters in Law, Valerie Baston, Alisha Darden, Maryellen Hicks, Lakesha Smith, Delonia Watson, and Karen Williams, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
Can you describe what the Sisters in Law is and what your goals are?
Lakesha Smith: We are six African American female attorneys who decided to fill a gap in our community — the gap being the absence of African American female representation in our Tarrant County district courts.
In Tarrant County, we have never elected an African American female to a criminal district court or civil district court. The only African American female we've ever elected in Tarrant County was Maryellen Hicks, a Sister in Law, to a family court in 1981where she served for ten years. Judge Hicks was the first and the last African American female to serve at the district level in Tarrant County. We are ready to add to that list.
Photo via Maryellen Hicks
We value diversity and feel it is critical to create a more diverse judiciary in Tarrant County, especially considering we have such a diverse population. The county is no longer a majority-majority county, it is a minority-majority county. We need more diversity to reflect the makeup of our community and to ensure we have diversity of thought and experiences in our courts.
There are six of us and together we make up the Sisters in Law. We’re excited about what we offer Tarrant County as a whole.
What positions are you each running for?
Lakesha Smith: Karen Williams and I are running for criminal court in the district. Karen is the candidate for criminal district court number 2 and I am the candidate for the 213th district court. Delonia Watson is running for justice for Second Court of Appeals, Place 6. Everyone else is running as a candidate for civil district courts: Alisha Darden is running for the 153rd, Valerie Baston is running for the 342nd, and Maryellen Hicks is running for the 348th.
What has the campaigning process been like?
Valerie Baston: I'm not going to lie. It's been very difficult to campaign during this global pandemic. We've been relying on social media and on tapping into our networks and organizations. We do try to get to events that observe CDC guidelines so we can meet people and let them know we're running. We want people to know who we are and what our platform is about because it is so important that people know that they have a choice in this election. Normally in Tarrant County, you don't see anyone who isn’t a Republican running for office.
But, Tarrant County is a diverse county. The state of Texas is a diverse state. We have different ethnicities, different races, different religions, and gender identities. I feel like it's time for Tarrant County to have a judiciary that actually reflects the community.
The RNC is dumping money into Texas. What do you think that indicates?
Valeria Baston: When Beto ran for US Senate, Tarrant County went blue. Beto came to Tarrant County, put in the work, and as a result, Tarrant County went blue.
Right now, the polls are showing that Trump and Biden are very close. Republicans are concerned and they are right to be concerned. This administration has not taken COVID seriously here in Texas. Our local Republican leadership hasn't taken COVID seriously. Republicans understand that even their base doesn't like where we have been going as a state, and as a nation.
Republicans don't want to lose Texas because we have a lot of electoral votes. They don't want to lose the House or the Senate seats in the Texas Congress, and they definitely don't want to lose the judiciary.
Lakesha Smith: In addition, the governor is up for election in the next cycle. As Valerie said, Beto won Tarrant County, which was huge. Alarm bells are going off because Democrats are threatening their power structure.
Governor Abbott has an interest in maintaining power in places like Tarrant County. When you see a presidential race pouring money into Texas, you know the Republicans are worried — and that is exactly what we are seeing.
The appointment process here is a testament to the existing power structure. Right now, Republican judges step down early, so that Governor Greg Abbott's power is triggered and he can appoint the judge. Then, when these judges eventually go on the ballot in subsequent races, they are on the ballot as an incumbent. It gives them an advantage.
Maryellen Hicks: There are no Democrats on a district-level court, which is the highest trial court, or the appellate court that Ms. Watson is running for.
Right now, the courts are packed with Republicans, many of whom are members of the Federalist Society or are closely aligned with the Tea Party.
Are you worried about voter suppression on election day? Texas notoriously has had horrible gerrymandering and broad strokes of voter suppression that are very obvious, but are there things in Tarrant County specifically that you are looking for?
Karen Williams: We are definitely worried about voter suppression here. We are constantly reminding people to register to vote, and pushing people to vote in the early time period. We have two weeks of early voting prior to the general election, so we are encouraging people to go out and vote early.
We want to make sure that people get out and vote early. And in any case, whatever day that they choose to go and vote, we want people to know not to expect to go in and get out in five minutes. Be prepared to take some time so that if you do have to wait, you can wait.
How do you make sure people feel like they understand their voting rights? And what do you want to see from the media, in particular?
Delonia Watson: The Biden campaign has hundreds of attorneys ready to make sure that every voter's vote matters, but it is a very real threat that some of these issues will go to court. We have to make sure that we have a judiciary that is independent, and will not permit their ideology to control the law, but instead will apply the law fairly.
Lakesha Smith: In terms of the media, I don't think it's so much the media’s responsibility to take a side as to who's right, and who's wrong. But right now, I think it's very important to get out voter education and allow the voters to understand the issues that impact leadership in their local elections. When people hear about these things, they can come to their own conclusion about how the government is usurping the rights of the voters. Voters need to understand how the government has found a way to manipulate elections.
Are you paying attention to polling? Can you see where voter registration and enthusiasm, especially for nonwhite voters, stands in Tarrant County?
Lakesha Smith: Texas has registered over 2 million new voters. I can't speak to the demographics, but I feel confident based on conversations with voters that there’s enthusiasm to vote. Our base has been energized, unfortunately by the actions of the president. People are encouraged to get out and vote.
Delonia Watson: We are seeing a significant amount of excitement from people. People are galvanized. People are posting things about us, people are passing out flyers for us. People are excited about seeing a judiciary that looks more and more like them.
Karen Williams: Voter registration and voter turnout are up this year from the last presidential election. The Democratic vote and voter turnout were up by 14% in our primaries this year. In Tarrant County, the Democrats out voted the Republicans. Since the primary, there has been a lot more voter registration and the polls are saying that a lot more people are planning to vote Democratic. It goes beyond the people we are talking to.