death penalty cases before the court. and later sarah garland discusses the segregation of the kentucky town in the book "divided we fail." >> and why you dialogues hosted this form. this is 90 minutes. >> and everyone hear me okay? i'm the executive director and this is the fourth in our series of democracy next forms that we have been pleased to do. i am so happy to welcome you here to the global site for this very important discussion on the impact of women's

representation. this is the fourth event in a series. we are posting all the forms of democracy.com. so this is a live screening and we are also being joined by c-span today. you can see everything and every form that is taking place and it has really been an exciting series so far. we've had members of congress speak about this just right after the voting rights act was talked about by the supreme court. everything is an important topic because of something that is at the heart of our democracy. we have the chair of the

representation 2020. please welcome cynthia. >> hello, i am cynthia and i am on the board and i am also the new chair of our representation project that seeks to broaden the discussion of measures to increase the number of those in elected office by an acknowledging the work that is being done by groups and individuals and also highlight three areas of structural changes that we think demand more attention. the first of those is encouraging political parties to recruit more women to run for office. the second is promoting legislative processes in elected officials and allowing more women to win in the first place. i worked for many years on

campaigns for state and local and national offices and i learned firsthand the challenges that all candidates, particularly women, face in the process of being a candidate, securing a proper nomination in the papers and so forth. i learned firsthand that these stem not only from societal norms and stereotypes against women, but also from the basic structure of our voting system. we will talk more about that in a moment. representation 2020 began last summer when some of us begin to think about the centennial of the 19th amendment and ways to celebrate the momentous that momentous occasion. it didn't take long for us to realize that the best way to honor the decades long struggle for suffrage was an energized push for representation. our motto was born, infantry from suffrage to parity. to that end, we sought funding and created a website, formed a leadership circle, fashioned a

6.2020 pledge and decided to release a report also come which is the subject of today's forum. we will release that report on the anniversary of the ratification and passage of the amendment. we are have a great time and i because sunday was the anniversary of when tennessee became the final state necessary for suffrage to be a legitimate reality for women in this country. on monday we celebrate women's equality day, which acknowledges that transformation where half the population was able to join the world as suffrage and citizens. and so we really are keying in on this report to highlight the best practices and have a deep

discussion about how to get more women elected. we are also doing a little fun media work and we have a video that some have helped us put together that we will show right now. >> democracy is at its best when we all have a seat at the table. but in america, there is a big gap. we need more women in office. men hold 82% of the seats in the house of representatives. today we are 92nd. out of 50 governors, just five are women. that is 10% come in the same percentage as the number of women mayors. out of more than 7000 state legislators, fewer than one in four are women and that is barely higher than it was two decades ago. at this rate, women will be underrepresented in the united states for another 500 years.

inspired, we take on this challenge for women. he must have parity for women in office. that will happen when a woman is just as likely as a man to win and in any given legislature, women will be just as likely to hold the most seats. i found where we trained thousands of women to run for office. it is essential, but it's not enough. it's time for a new vision and for new approaches. our vision is simple. let's not settle for anything less than parity. we support the full spectrum of activity, promoting election of more women with their 2020 pledge.

it advocates solutions to the problem and party should pass rules that institutionalize a commitment to recruiting more women and legislatures should have family-friendly policies to ensure that more women can rise to leadership. our elections need to be more inclusive and we should change rules that we have more than one representative. states with multimember districts elect more women. more than half of voters today are represented by a woman. join us in celebrating a century of suffrage with a commitment to parity join us to help us sign the pledge and make history.

>> i think the regis did a great job. thank you again so much. give her a standing ovation. [applause] so in keeping with our goal of deepening the conversation, we have a graphic panel here today. we are so grateful that all of you are here today. patricia hart, and andrea from representation 2020 staff are going to be presenting each part of the record and then panelists will have a chance to respond to the specific than us sections. so let me turn to introducing our panel which will be moderated by the famous marie wilson. she is the founder and president of the white house project and

ultimately for the presidency. in addition to significant research, she is a cocreator of take our daughters and sons to work day, which started in 1993 and served as head of the foundation for women, a national advocacy group dedicated to women's rights and created a fund in honor of her achievements. in addition to being a renowned speaker and writer and leader, she has the distinction of being the first woman elected to the city council as a member at large in 1983. joining her is one of the nation's foremost experts on electing women candidates. american politics calls her a super strategist or better yet,

the godmother. working women say that she is arguably the most influential woman in her field. this includes many individuals. she also worked for nancy losey, the first female speaker of the house. in 2005, she and kelly conway published what women really want i'm pleased to say that we invited her to join us today. and i think that she might well have been here except a scheduling conflict prevented her from attending. and the council of senior leaders, expanding leadership and establishing a network of resources for high-level women

leaders and provides a forum for the group to continue and shape the international issues as a society. she cofounded the white house project and her cool and trim work was the inspiration to change the cultural message and from 1992 through 1996 as director of the women's leadership project, this would identify her as part of the women heads of state and she interviewed 15 current and former presidents and prime ministers, which is chronicled in her book documentary. her latest book is the loudest duck and is a business guide that uses parables and anecdotes to examine traditional workplace efforts and innovative strategies to create truly effective workplaces for all. also joining us when we get to the part of the discussion a

supporting women candidates is just macintosh. we are very glad that she's here with us today. and now it's my pleasure to introduce andrea, who is the reports chief orchestrator extraordinary she will provide you an introduction to the report. [applause] >> hello, i am a research associate at representation 2020. when we were complying misreport pummeling on a bullpen in two ways for the first was what did this mean and how far away are we from parity. also looking at new methods and older methods that can help improve the representation of women in government. i would like to start off by telling you how far away we are from parity. we currently rank 92nd in the

world. twenty-four states have never elected a woman at the governor. in 1993, 20% of the state elected officials were women and we are now one percentage way from now. about 20% of legislators are women and now we are at 24%. by now we only have 20% women's centers and 18% women congressmen. so we clearly have a long way to go. what i would like to start our panelists on is what he think that we are at this stagnating level of women's representation over the last 20 or so years,

and what are the main things that we need to do to improve this? >> i am so delighted that he started it. three of us have worked a lot together to hear the facts. it is unfortunate. but i think it's very hard for all three of us who try to explain to people what is holding the united states back in when we rank so low i think that what surprises me is the year of the woman became the year of our downfall. in essence we have legislated this fen/phen. i think i would start with you. so we have all of what is behind the stagnation of democracy.

>> that's an interesting question. there are so many things we could do in terms of answering some of the questions. but there are three basic barriers. one barrier is illegal interesting data in some of the most vivid data and this includes the men and women in the pipeline that had this for organizations, people who were chamber of commerce members, and 73% said yes coming you should run for office. 72% of the women said no, no one has ever said that to me that you should run progress.

out of that came the efforts included in really getting at the grassroots efforts. but even with those efforts, there's a lot of things in our society that reinforces our ambition of every delegate to look in the mirror and see u.s. senator and president and delegates to see themselves running nonprofits and the more profitable than politics. if i could add one thing to that list, i would add campaign-finance reform. it's not that women can't raise money. because they see this and others. women can raise money. but the problem is that they don't want to spend their time doing this.

they don't want to raise money to run for office. if they raise money commitment to deliver something else like the girls club. there's a lot of money that is spent on political office. women now dominate 51% of technology purchases. we are the vast majority of charitable contributions. we only have a quarter of political contributions, women do not by politics. even when women write a check, they usually write it at half the size of men after the same income level. and then women candidates don't have the money networks. some sit down and they have all these high-powered lawyers and etc. and the women have their best

friends and they don't have the money networks there. women have have now said that parity without that said that the number one thing is not just training the networking. they know how to raise money. but they don't have the rolodexes to raise it. and i think there is a third factor. that is the combination of family. the data really reveals astounding data in terms of men with young children not running. we have marked the history of some a woman running in new york city, but she's very brave because when voters see a man with young children, they never have any question as to whether you'll be able to take care of

the job and the kids. for the women they say, who will take care of the kids. otherwise, they ask if they would have a crisis, who'll take care of the state. so we still find that there are a lot more questions. questions about women, how we manage this. house should she manage this for her family. on the other hand, voters have a great appetite for change. but i think it is a smart point. it was the beginning of our decline. they don't represent the same amount of change that they use to represent. we've got women, we have sarah palin, we have hillary clinton, i'm not going to vote for a woman just because she's a woman. and if i had a nickel for every person who said that i could donate for free, a focus group say that they would vote for a

woman, and she's qualified. and the men have done such a bang up job on these questions and qualifications. so what are voters putting in that package? the barber reef foundation has done some very interesting research on what qualifies for this job. >> i think that qualifies it. >> nearly some of the things i do headwinds and the tailwinds. the fact is this double bind issue that you're talking about, which is how women are perceived as leaders versus how men are perceived as leaders, and the

likability versus the leadership. and that there is a man that shows us a sort of leadership. and she's considered likable, she is not considered a leader. you know, sort of putting on hold on the telephone and have this double bind. this include some of the reports that look at this. but clearly as you look around the world, the structural issues are critical. that is why this project is so very important. because in the early the systems that you look at in other countries they are the structural issues. clearly we have that to change

this so they change this from the unthinkable to be impossible to the inevitable and we are trying to push us along a little bit. also in dealing with the corporate world, 4% women ceos exist for fortune 500 companies. the parallel is quite prevalent with what happens with women in the political sphere. obviously the family issues and catalysts to have done a lot of research on this. but that is another big point is why women don't become ceos, governors, some of the research shows that men have broad and shallow networks and women have narrow and deep networks and if you're trying to raise money, you need a broad network of people and in addition from the networking, this includes the

opportunity to have the kinds of leadership roles and the operational roles. often women don't get to those kind of operational rules either. finally there are the issues of the gender stereotypes that exist about who should be doing these kinds of things that you are referencing. my new book is called the seed in the soil. both of these are at play in this particular issue. so i think the questions, i think it is really making a good effort and can we get to some of these structural issues and can we get them to understand that changing this will actually help the changes for the better and

because as he reflected, they don't look so good right now. so can we make that argument. people change for fear, self-interest, et cetera. however we have to play these three elements is getting people to understand that if we keep getting done this road, is there a way we can actually gain from these changes. now a contend that which happens to women in these dynamics are clearly the same things that happen to other historically represented, underrepresented groups. they are hitting others as well. >> they are hitting all of these representative groups among women as well.

people in this country believe that we are in power. you cannot say these numbers often enough. you cannot say enough of them. just getting a report out and saying, you know, we haven't made in terms of these numbers. and we used to go into state that we would say we want to come in and change your men and women. and they would say we have this program. but i'm not kidding. because we need programs that are training thousands of women. in any audience you have, i have been doing this a while. if you have heard this presentation today in the next 24 hours you don't call a woman and say i thought about you today, you should run. think about this. you know people that do this.

if you don't do it, i can promise you that i am magic and something awful will happen to you. [laughter] and so that is the threat. all right, moving from that, i think we should get pimlott, care. or patricia. it is good that we know the names. patricia has done an amazing job for this project. >> my name is patricia and in the last several decades women have made great strides entering the political office. but we still have a long way to go. i want to tell you about my first political experience and i was actually in grade school. i was watching the television and the president of the united states is on the television. it was bill clinton at the time.

i looked at the screen and i saw a man who had white hair. he seemed very important. but i was not fixated on a person. i was interested in the woman whose standing to his left. i was excited to she look like my mother and my teacher and she looked like me. later when i was in college, she was actually running for the presidency herself. that was hillary clinton. she got the most delegates that and the other will woman candidate has gotten for a presidential nomination. that is progress. but we still a lot of progress to make. organizations are doing incredible work. they are leveling the playing field as far as funding goes. they are making women feel like they can run for office.

women and men with the same credentials, they are half as likely to believe that they are very qualified to run for office. they are twice as likely to feel like they cannot run for office. these are the people that have the same credentials and that's something that we need to change. and i want to it and be somebody who is doing great work on this topic. jeff mcintosh will give you more information on this. [applause] >> thank you, patricia. thank you for having me here today. it is exciting to be in a room full of smart and strong women who are working on promoting women a large. my name is jess mcintosh. undergraduate and i am part of

emily's list, we recruit and we train and we support pro-choice democratic women up and down the ballot. i will try to take off in person had a talk about the need for women to be better represented a trend represented. so i'm hoping that we can have a really great conversation about moving forward. one of my favorite things is the way that we have approached structural problems for our organization's history. we have identified what seems to be the biggest obstacle in the way of having women in office and we have attacked that particular one. historically we started 20 years ago in 1985 there wasn't a single democratic woman elected in her own right. ..

which is exactly what we need. we have a lot of really good women doing that now. so the second thing that we identified was that these women needed strong campaigns. man had been working since the dawn of time probably but at least since the dawn of the republic. women have really only have

about 40 years, 50 years, 40, 30, somewhere in there, to talk to each other about to get ahead professionally. what are best practices. best practices for women. what does that apply? we can talk a lot about mentors to programs which is something that is being discussed, which is fabulous, but we need to be able to tell the women who were considering a run for office within needed to do first, how could they assess and find out what advice he could get in terms of hiring a strong staff, building a plan. men have been doing this for a long time. they're is playbook. i think the third piece -- and this is actually representative of a lot a progress. we saw some sad statistics. they don't exist anymore. democratic women are seen as viable candid it's. consultants are having to work with them.

people are happy to donate money. at least on our side of the aisle voters are happy to turn out for them. was the problem now is that not enough women are running. so we have to talk about recruitment. i love what patricia said about women being less likely to identify themselves as qualified because it allows me to talk about my favorite statistic. a really great job on this. cst group of men and women to self identified as unqualified to run for office. among the man himself identified as unqualified to run for office , more than half of them was still considering a run. women's brains don't work that way. the upside is that when we run we're to believe really qualified to do a really good job. the downside is weak a lot of us don't ever take that for step. what it did was develop the political opportunity program which goes into communities and recruits fabulous women who want

to have been asked seven and eight and nine times already to run for office that they haven't we will find women who are partners of the law firm, on the pga. the rays of the expansion for the hospital wing and they teach sunday school. have you considered running for office? well, no, what a fabulous idea. if this were a man everyone and his father went in telling him to run. finds these fabulous members of the communities, particularly focusing on communities of color which is important. and we then train them. we are talking about trade thousands, not 12. this big, burly operation because this is a big, burly job the other thing is target open seats which is specifically important. i know you guys will talk more about how women are likely to run for a seat when it is open and they are not challenging an incumbent. a really hard look of what seats are coming up. people term-limit it.

you want to make sure whenever there is an open seat there are fabulous women who are stepping up to run. that is how you build the pipeline. we will never have more governors unless we have more speakers to month legislatures, building of pipelines. the final piece of the puzzle is women voters themselves. so a program or we target female voters. we research them, find what they want, what they're doing, what is motivating them, communicate with them and do our best to make sure that they make to the polls because when women vote, women wind. this is the truth. in 2012 we saw a historic gender gap favoring democrats. a lot of women shut up to the polls to vote on behalf of women and families. so it turned out to be the mandate. when it turned out to vote, they voted a lot of women into office to be, to make sure that we are capitalizing on the enthusiasm. continuing the conversation and we're talking about, we might

even be hinting toward 2016. there is a lot out there in terms of people who want to see more women in office. until the so many people and having that conversation. thank you for letting me be a part of the. [applause] >> really hard to been one of those first women. you were the first a lot of history. a lot of what we are talking about in this report has to do with how we fuel female political ambition, how we really look at how the media treats women still. the stuff that puts ambition down. nobody knows more about that the new. this is someone that if anyone were to run for office they would just say, give me three angeles the day.

>> that's very generous. well, i think there have been absolutely fabulous. the study as well. all of these pieces, i see denise, head of the woman's vote project. on one technology as well. i think he laid it out very well one thing i would say, one thing i would add to the equation is that we often, and very careful of language saying it's a good year for us. it was a good year for democrats , now a republican women. and one of the challenges that we face is, when you have someone of the stature of olympia snowe deciding not to run because of what she will face in a primary, as a woman and as a moderate we all lose. one of the things we have seen is that thanks to her and the

number of other forces we have a lot of recruitment going on on the democratic side. not fast enough, but a lot of strategic recruitment on the democratic side. but we don't have enough going on the republican side. and the average democratic woman , tend to win the primary. fifty-six and 59% voters in the primary, on the democratic side are female. the same is not true for the republican women. and then when you talk about moderate republican women or per chose republican women, those who would have a women's agenda as well, you're talking about people who are having a very difficult time getting of the republican primary. because of the deep affection, either one of these, not positive about women on the republican side.

so one thing that we have to think about is, there seems that will be won by republicans and democrats will win. we need to be sure that we all work to get women nominated in those republican seats as well to make sure that the full range of women are represented and voices are represented and then will we get a democratic women in they have someone to work with across the aisle. as we know, women do tend to work together more and they do -- there is a very fascinating chapter on the decline of women leaders in neckline of women's caucuses and the report. at think it's a very and a noted and important factor that you all pointed out. give you someone to work with on the other side. someone that did cross the aisle and that you could meet those differences with. that said, i think he should come down.

think there were some very important things said. and it leads to the third part of this report. when she found that the white house project, it had two parts. and it had a structural part as well. i have to say that i was enthusiastic. will never going to get the rules changed. the presidential system, they come around. there's just no way we can make the kind of progress we need to make without the structural changes. when you have 98 percent of incumbents returning and you don't have multi member districts, proportional representation and everywhere else, particularly. and then we really have a

problem. think perot with the most important chapter in the book because the place with these understand have been distorted. the structural chapter, always identified. many today we announce the nyu. the proportional representation. it's hard to imagine. the progress without making some structural changes. the and the parties have been good for us. harder to get the women nominated with the decline of parties. term limits, without term limits might help. they'll put him people, latino candidates. they have not helped with women are african-american candid it's a pity they have taken 25 years to build the and decimated it.

more than anything else, explaining the stagnation with state legislatures because now every six years we have to rebuild from scratch. so i think that the next biggest problem is the structural issue, and it's a hard one. i have some voter data on that. upturn in our my colleague. >> i wanted to say that one of the things that happens with the issue like this, i want to remind you that we have tried for 200, three in the gears to fix woman. if we just did women to run right to my dresser, the structural issues that we took on a yet to have numbers of women because on the numbers actually do away with gender and puts people to look. i think we're dealing with structural issues. one of the things i also want to remind you of is working across

the party lines. i see that as a structural issue i love it when gail collins and the new york times writes about patty murray being able to pass a budget because women worked across the party. we have to address this in terms of republicans. i have a piece of the picture about mccleskey on the front. on sorry. on the new yorker. she was saying to john mccain, senator, please go home and read this thing so you can vote intelligently. he went home. and i think the only person that could time to go on. anyway, this is the reason we have to have it done. so much experience with this in other countries. >> i definitely want to echo this issue around the structure. even though is probably the highest hurdle to deal with because, for example, some

research from the kennedy school where she has identified that no country has gone to critical mass in parliament, the national body without some affirmative mechanism in place. and over 100 countries have some affirmative mechanism. it is not necessarily a quota. that may be what they call the zipper, every other position, every other nominee. fascinated by the swedish parliament. the swiss parliament, for example, would gallon tubs and a pocket night, and a pocket night commitment. then they get to critical mass of women in the swiss parliament relieving a six. of course there was critical mass. they have enough women to do it. most of the men with throat. it was the archetype for men to be able to say we want to leave the 6:00.

there were through when that happened. there were data points that were showing what happens when you get to a critical mass. one of the ones that fascinates me in the corporate side of things is that norway now mandates that 40 percent of corporate board seats must be have the opposite gender which is how the law reads. because there were so few women it means 40 percent women. if the public corporation does not get to 40 percent women on its corporate board it is on listed from the norwegian stock exchange. so they could not find any women before the law. amazing how quickly they found when after. what is interesting to me, whether you actually agree with that. the research that is now coming out now that there is a critical mass. a couple of things happen that they have observed. first off, women read the board materials. [laughter] what can i tell you.

second, more of the board decisions are being made within the board room, not night club golf course country club. transparency levels are going up in the process. three women as more questions, which is a dynamic that women often do, but is an interesting one. men will have a tendency to look at the short-term impact of the board decision. man live a tendency to look at the long-term impact. now, of course, the best like a short-term and long-term which is why you need this balance. they have also reserved the men will have a tendency to look at the shareholder impact of board decisions. well among have a tendency to look at the state will turn back to board decisions. stakeholders, employees come environment, communities. again, shareholders and stakeholders. it's an interesting example of what happens when you get to this sort of control experiment of critical mass.

and so i think these are valuable. what happens to me to these kinds of things. i think also in terms of what someone was talking about, great presentation. there you are. terrific presentation. around this whole issue of ambition or how women perceive themselves. necessary dreams, talking about the fact that men and women have the same level of ambition. but what is hard for women is to express that ambition publicly. in other words command of women write down with their ambition is is is different than what they said their mission is in front of others because of the social negative consequence that you get by showing ambition publicly. and so that tells me that women have that ambition.

they're just not able to reflect on it. then it about things which are called disarming mechanisms which had things like ritual modesty in mitigation. crass example is a moment will say after she has been in the office 20 years, well, not the expert, but i have an idea. that's a ritual mitigation, -- must comment. she is saying this issue of could social negative consequences and blow back from other people about being too ambitious. so they have social dynamics going on the referenced. in addition, the media issue is really an incredibly important in getting more and more. the media is the largest purveyor of archetypes that we have, and it's getting larger. if any of you have seen the film misrepresentation, will talk about that, of women are represented.

geena davis and their immediate foundation is doing some really excellent work. looking at general goals and race schools, who is the victim, who is the perpetrator, who is the hero. lots of different research privileges elected 2000g rated movies and found the crowd scenes, expect to be 50 percent women and 50% man approximately 86 percent men and 46 percent women. now, that is on consciously telling you who is entitled to be in the public's fear and he should be in the private sphere. it's telling you that. the top 200 movies just recently released, women had 28 percent of the speaking roles. so you start uncovering this kind of thing, it should not be surprising to you that you have some of these kinds of social construct a we have, with these of the kinds of things that really actually need to be looked at which is why the report itself includes this

whole issue of gender stereotyping along with the importance of the structural changes. >> i do want to say that one of the things we specialize in, the white house projects which can be done in any community is to really bring in different movies, to bring in things that showed women as leaders and use culture because we went off and beg abc to make something. finally they make commander in chief. it's hard to get one on there. there are more things. documentary's. we need to think about how in every community you could start a documentary film festival. i want to run on. get to one of the most important parts. >> thank you for your introduction on structural reform. we think that there are multiple

approaches to increasing the number of women in the elective office. we have to deal with the pipeline until it getting more women recruited in running for office, but we also need to do with election structure. recruiting women. so i will start by telling you a little story. renta 11th in the nation for the percentage of women in the state legislature and 903. today is 44. there are a lot of reasons that could have gone into that among but in 1992i your redistricted. multi member districts, one multiple legislators represent one district a single member district was will we see. one legislator represents one district. and when you looked at different things across the country, multi member districts are used to collect and they tend to rank pretty well. at the top 11 states. six of them use multi member districts. so six of the ten they use multi member districts are in the top 11 states which is good.

also overall you find that legislative chambers to use multi member districts tend to have 31 percent women sitting in seats. in single member districts, it's only 22 percent off. so we think that this is incredibly important to discuss and to expand into the conversation about increasing women's representation. so we're interested in incorporating multi seat districts that are using ten different states, but also using a fair voting system because we believe that people that -- every run should have fair representation in government. we try to combine multi seat districts with fair representation. the finex political and racial minorities have multi member districts. the role the political parties

plan record one every their benetton of studies. define the political parties are more likely to encourage men to run. women are more likely the take encouragement seriously. you find that men are much more likely to be self starter. when a party official probs a woman, she seriously considers a one thing that we are interested in is looking at what countries do abroad with affirmative mechanisms by political parties to give more women recruited. a lot of parties abroad have more control over who was nominated by their party, whereas in america we use popular primaries. political parties have a lot of control over who their record to run. we want to see party setting goals for how many women never crew in meeting those goals and then potentially being rewarded for it. lastly what we are interested in

is looking within the legislature is the what the legislators themselves can do and what practices of legislators and implement it would be helpful. you heard issues about women who were not pleased with their hours of the legislature meeting. we won the state legislators to look at that, like and how many of their activities might be biased against women and also interested in looking at how women can help each other. once women get to office they can really springboard off into positions of and become effective legislators. so talk a little bit about how they see the electoral structure as important. how they think that might apply to american government. >> i just want to say that there are amazing women. this is a radical form.

i would appreciate -- >> really well done and well presented. down to that things that i think it make an enormous difference. this is really a piece of history that we are here discussing because very few people in this country are talking and other structural changes. this is a conversation that could change our democracy. on not talking about changing women or men. changing our democracy to be a real democracy. the will start with you. >> the expert. >> start with you. >> mitigation. ritual mitigation. >> we can recognize. >> they are all. >> wait a minute. [laughter] >> this is what we're trying to

see. actually yes. tried to give structural changes. what if we called it -- would you feel better? but there has to be something. >> there definitely has to be changes because the current structures that we have in place seemed to be moving further and further away for women and other groups. in addition, we have not even talked about it, nor will we, but voter access. the voter i.d. loss. certainly a chilling effect on represented groups. all of these things are heading as in the wrong direction. and so the real question becomes , what will the leverage point for a speech. in other countries these

leverage points have occurred. people say this is just not working. we need to change the system. often you will find the heads of state. currently there are 48 presidents. most of them are in systems that are structured differently. when you called proportional representation system our parliamentary systems. our system is very unfriendly to historical out of power groups to get in because if you have to do that 50 plus one winner-take-all system it's much harder than getting into coalition. the 30 percent of votes with other groups. i'm not sure we will get that far, but i think it's helpful to look at what other countries are doing to get ideas around this kind of thing. in addition, there are some fundamental elements. talking about the fact one of the major impacts of women wanting to run it is the average

distance from the legislative place. i was reminded when they interviewed margaret thatcher it was definitely not much of a feminist. she told me that, you know, for women it would be ordered to run for office when every member because it would want to be taking care of their children and they would not be running for office, not realizing that she is just embedded in discrimination because the parliamentary system is security based, as is most systems. so she imbedded not. quite efficient. but other leaders, for example, mary robinson, the first woman president came to her position struck the because it was a one, two, three voting system that they had placed. so i think that we are absolutely -- fair vote.

representation. the people who are working on in our spot on right to look at the structural issues. i don't think we can disregard the of the dynamics that are going on, particularly this whole issue around what the parties can do in the kind of pressure that can be put on to parties and the women's caucuses , or the carcasses of support because of someone is telling you what the un rules are as you come to office and someone is not telling someone else would the hon rules are, the person who gets the have written rules is likely to be much more effective as a legislator. unfortunately the people who tell the other people the un rules are like to like. if you like me unlikely to tell you these kinds of things. if you're not, i'm not. so why should we then be surprised that they don't do so well? and what we seek -- and i think we're seeing this also be recently in the corporate world we're seeing that it is not an end to a problem.

wenner coming into the corporate system. in a think we see some of the same dynamics going on. >> i think that's true. you have people trying to get in the corporate world. it is more discouraging. >> i would say a couple of things. first of all, this is the one area. we have done some testing. at think there is to be a lot more exploration. voters have learned some basic principles. they know, you know, majorities' rule. then no one person one vote. in of the presidential system, and they believe that this is the american system. nothing could be better. even when we pull some arguments for change like this one of more voices being heard, people of

like, we don't want that. excuse me. packwood's even trying to defend the existing statement. but that is just -- it's also a very interesting time to have this conversation because it is in some ways the best of times and some was the worst of times. in one way it is the worst of times because people think america is done generally. so we're going to have the best voting system no matter what. we tested messages around voter i.d. in some of these other forms going on we don't have the best democracy in the world. way to live up to the ideas. we are still going to maintain. we will insist we have the best democracy no matter how many faxes share with us.

is start a different conversation going about what kind of we have and what kind of system that serve that. other changes we can make. certainly the right has done that, because conservative forces have done that. they have prompted a conversation about voter id. many will tell you in most state there's not much of a fraud problem. this is the solution, the garbage can model of policy

making. a solution looking for a problem. people decided what they wanted in the system, then latched on to other dialogues to make it happen. the second thing, i think, is that we ought to start a conversation with young people. people in our education systems really do talk about -- they really learn some core values. they don't learn much about the third branch of government. the judiciary system is taught when people can't wait to get out of school. as kelly ann researched more people that knew snack, crackle, pop, than three justices on the supreme court. that said, kid are learning throughout our system what if we went to social studies teachers. what if we went to the early educators and our boys and girls club and said loathes dry different dialogue and voting

and sphee we can get a conversation going among young people about the different kind of systems and approaches here. the third thing i think there are two structure features i would love to have added to your report. if you get funded for the second chapter of your report. the first is campaign finance, which i already mentioned. the second is culture. there's no greater expert than marine. i think if with change this conversation, it is the cultural change that happens much, much fasters than the political change. and i think all of this works at "the white house project" did. and i'll never forget coming in and talking talking with ma -- marie and said how about can they talk about the pressure bashar bashar barbie.

and got that presidential barbie and girl scout patch to run for president and girls and boys club. we need to think as a structure feature about how to change the culture conversation and i love the fact that you said mtv came before a woman senator. maybe if mtv was talking about a woman senator we would have had one first faster. think about where we talk about the cultural conversation and the structure feature. and certainly the conservatives are very aware of this. but i think progressives are less to thinking about how do we use cultural when there's so many channels and social media and documentaries, movies, independent films that access the cultural channels easier than we used to be able. we are having a hard time. we don't have a really vibrant.

we have lifetime and o but not the women's networks nearly what we would have liked to have women. women dominate the early morning today programs. i'm sure if we went -- if you said let's talk about hillary for president that would be a great today show. it with we said talk about proportional representation proportional what? are you sure that's legal. is that a pornography? what is that? [laughter] try to think about how we have a cultural conversation. i would love to see the next report go on and think about particularly i think in the hands of young women they're going to promote the cultural conversation more than anybody can. >> i agree. cultural comes first. it reaches people here. it reaches them from where they're afraid. i'm going bring cynthia up. i want to say a word while she's coming up about the area.

they have been working on this for a long time, actually. it's a time really has come. it's not one of those things that is easy and popular which is why it's great to get it out in popular culture. but there's these things that we talk about in term of fueling women's ambition, and changing women and et. cetera. automatic of these things that have been hard for us can be solved. if we don't change the structure and don't do what fair vote is doing we'll never get there. there's no way without changing the structure it will happen. and so i think we should applaud them for being i near. s. this is one of the things that later people will say oh my gosh who were those people? [applause] [laughter] [applause] >> they were all of you and us, it turns out. here together. thank you so much. fabulous panel, and i am

assuming some people will have some good questions for them. in closing a little bit about representation 2020, i wanted to reaffirm it is to talk about all partisan reform and how leveling the playing field and election system means that everybody has access to have a representativation and proportion to their share of the lek trait. we are glad they were able to speak on behalf of kelly ann con way. we're looking forward to engaging with people from all part of the spectrum of political thought. obviously it's a wide spectrum. it's not one aisle that separates a and b. there are many part of the spectrum. we're glad for the conversation, and i want to also mention that we're very glad for the important work of many

organizations andrea and patricia drew on great research done by key academics and key organizations. but perhaps the single most important souse of our report is the center for american and women in politics. our hats off to them for collecting this data. year after year, compiling statistics on women and elected office, and in multiseat districts in this country and what we are hoping to do is el grate the conversation. all the great work being done gets more attention it will have a whole segment on proportional representation. hopefully. we'll put it on the agenda. i'll start this fifteen or ten or fifteen question, beard a question to the panelists. which is what reform would you look for in the coming year? and as we count downtown centennial of suffrage in 2020.

we're hoping to start really measuring our success and progress. what can we put in there that emerges as a positive development. >> well, i think that's really hard. it's hard to change them. so if we were thinking about something we could get done in a year, i think that perhaps what we would do is come together and i can't think of anyone besides you and marie leading this more ably. i think we can implement some cultural awarend in the next year. i think we can sit down and with social studies teachers, for example, and gate different community-based l. --

we could have a first rate class and first grade introduce introduction go this and way vote this way. maybe an educational change and maybe cultural change. sitting down with writers in hollywood and some film writers that talk about. i think it will be ripe as we prepare my favorite but prepare the woman president. i think we could have a lot of cultural interest in some things maybe a little bit better than the clinton episode. 1992 did the same thing. 2010 laid ground work and had record of democratic. i think in the face of republicans at perhaps the hillary clinton i guess i'll a

women vp they will nominate a lot of women. they'll be afraid of the force and losing in those numbers. and i think that there -- there might be some cultural things we could get going in the next year or two that wouldn't as hard to sell. i think the last thing i wouldn't say is i think we need some serious polling and message work on structure reform. we know how to convince people that a woman is qualified. we know how to convince women to write a bigger check for women candidates. what we don't know is how to sell proportional representation. multimember district to the public. and we have done enough research to know it's a tough sell. it's something that is popular to reporters. the rest has not been. of course, the pulitzer would suggest i think we need a research project to figure how to message to the public. >> building on that, i think we

forget and reminded every time i'm with the four of you it's happened before. recently there have been states that -- there have had and they worked. and so i think we need to actually talk to people about. it's not like look what the people are doing. but look, this is common sense. why if get we away from this. people are not amused about what is going on right now. >> right. >> if they see something that can make a difference in term of what people run differently being able to run differently. i think we should go to somebody like frank who writes. it's funny but it would be, you know, it would be town see him talk about it's a terrible way to vote. even if it was funny. "house of cards." get it mentioned only some shows about funny or not where it is. we could do that. i think we talked about something that has to do with caucuses that could get done.

that if we try to look at whether there are caucuses so women have a bigger voice question get it done. >> i would definitely agree with the whole issue of awareness. we're all aware. people out there are not. i would think even some testimonial from the average voter who is has voted the rank order. >> that would be great. >> talk about, you know, this is confusing to me at first then i saw what happened, et. cetera. it was the average voter who can appeal to others to understand that. i think that education needs -- >> great idea. and new jersey, of course. have the election this year. we could have a testimonial about it. great idea. >> we know where they are voting exact my. because they have been working on the kinds of things. i think the awareness turns out to be -- >> great idea. >> and then, of course, is a whole issue of encouraging --

i mean, you were doing this. you know, encouraging women to run for office. but maybe getting a commitment to pledge, if you will, from some of the women in the legislateture to say, yes,ly identify them. i will ask -- >> i agree that. >> to run. because, you know, one of the most important almost -- element of the whole thing is the power of the mirror. knowing as you can be by who it is you see -- >> that's right. -- >> it struck me when i interviewed the president of iceland. she was president for sixteen years. after she was in office for eight years she talk to the children. once of the thing she noticed from the children under 8 they thought only a woman could be president. [laughter] and the boys had to ask if they could to be president of iceland. they never seen it. they have never seen a male president. the power of the mayor is essential. of course, that ties in to the cultural things that you're talking about. >> right.

>> great. yes? >> i think you need to wait far mic. and i would say try to keep questions short so we can have as many as the few minute in possible. there will be more time to talk at the brief reception after wards. identify yourself quickly and -- [inaudible] in the violence prevention field we have an effort to engage the employees to bring them back on board in pushing and seeing it as not a women and girls issue. what would you say is the analogy for engaging women and boys to see greater gender parody as also an everybody issue and men and boys issue as well. and a couple thing we nope. first of all we know -- by the current resolve or lack thereof. if you are talk about articulating change and the number thing people want are legislative body to come more

together. and one of those number one thing that women provided more consistently. i think if would be an interesting thing try to promote too. the second thick, i think, is that what male they did interesting research on this. when male legislators are asked how things are run with women in the legislature they say better. they like the 6:00 hours. they like "lets get down business." the more cooperative. the more basis on that such as three-state party positions. et. cetera can we find common ground and take this part of the bill and pass it. they also say that women bring in more representative of the constituencies.

whrim bring in more of the voices. that's incredibly powerful. ic there's a lot here that can work. and the republican formula is you can't alienate the women as much as 2010. that's kind of the way they amaze it now. i think appealing to younger voters and women voters. i think both parties will become more active any recruiting women. and sarah palin, to her credit, she ask recruit women. the problem is they make it more through the democratic primary that night republican primary. >> yes.

until women studies class in college to learn about women's lives. and i think why can't we do a report on the president and why can't we just do a report on -- why do we have to do a report on a women? why can't we do a woman? scrolled been a woman athlete, you know. because they don't have the context in the lower grades, you know, you need to be sending out lists to the lower grade teachers because that's where the kids, you know, get their basic, basic things.

and also, we need to be look at the ebbingography of 6 our society. if you look around 99% of the statutes in the d.c. area they're all white guys. we need to, you know, we need to address that as well as the crowd in the mu have a and the cartoon characters. >> thank you very much. the major structure changes that have been talked about pr and voting for institute one could argue it could have a bigger effect on the political parties, and create more opportunities for independence and third parties, which i strongly in farve of to emerge. i wonder if you speak to that and the role of women leading us beyond democrats and

republicans. >> yeah. that's a really good question. and it's something that people are very hungry for. it's more independent and third party. there's a lot structurally in our system that forces them in. the third party have not been great about nominating women, actually. this is interesting. the green party has been the best. and the green party has been quite good in europe as well. i do think that is exactly right. it would allow for more independent and third party voices. and that would probably help also increase women's parmings -- arms. and other point of view participations. >> i think that's an exception to your point you sell the two points which is in the for men and boys. which is a lot of people don't want to have to vote to the extreme. they want to be able to vote more in the middle or independent, if you will. but the current system is

pushing us further and fourth the extremes. and particularly around the primaries. and so to that extent, it would help familiar ate the issue. you raise interesting underlying question, which is that you know what is in it for me, which is what am i going lose? all right. part of the problem is when you change the structure, you are actually potentially diminishing the power of the two major parties. >> and -- [inaudible] [laughter] i know. that's an point. but make sure -- [inaudible] you understand where i'm coming from in term of that. >> right. yeah. and some people have a great deal of power. i think what is interesting about it it would be good to shake it up. a lot of people like a -- we need something to shake it up. >> excellent. i think we have time for one more quick question.

this person had their hand up for quite awhile. >> i've been writing about women in politics for thirty years. [applause] when you look at canada that -- there's a party gap that is developed in the last twenty years. we seem to talk about women getting to the legislature and more representation than question generic problem. women have been making steady problems in the democrats -- in the republicans they peaked, flattened out, and declined in the 2000. i'm not going give you at love data. i'm sure those at the front of the room know what i'm talking about. you also know historically go back enough decades it was the other way around. what i don't understand why no

one is willing to talk about the party gap. bush over it and it's not really there except a minor mention. i think examining it would lead us to interesting intight the party are not identical intrinsically or the way they treat the women. they have different culturals, different structure, different social. there's quite a bit that is different and understanding the party gap and women have done in the democratic and republican party whoa have given a lot of insight. why don't we talk about it more? >> i want to say as a historical figure -- we have in the room and thank her for her work. i think you are absolutely right. i think it's hard talk about it because it's the central conversation that is unsaid and happening right now. i'll be honest with you we ran a

progressive nonpartisan project. i was one of the -- there was not that much difference between the party and social and some social difference. it wasn't the kind of differences we have now. what i think we have to start talk about. how few republican women in office how many republican women would say i'm looking far place to be. i'm looking for are place to be. we're to have that conversation. i think what we don't want to do is to turn women against each other. turn against group of women i think are looking -- who have a different perspective but are -- i often think there are many women in the republican party who are, quote, not necessarily happy about this. but i think republican women have to do the work to some

extent. i think you refrained it for me. i think it's an interesting question. and that is structurally let's look at the two parties. why are, you know, people are getting out of the democratic primary and women aren't getting out of the republican primary. why are democratic women and emily successfully in wish list

in trouble. i think from a structure perspective and on the democratic side we joke and say we come from no organized party we're democrats. the republicans pride themselves on the organization. so, you know, is it something there in the structure does that suggest something about third party nomination -- i think you suggest a frame that is easier to have a conversation when it's ideological. i worked for the bipartisan women campaign when i first came to washington. my first political job, but that's a hard -- there were a lot of pro-choice republican women. we supported them. they don't exist anymore. and it's really hard all

research showings you more i can version you have in people and ideas the more likely it is you come up with the creativity. we all have a vested interest in voices getting herd. [applause] coming up tonight book t in prime time featuring after words interviews on books about the supreme court. first karen on "chasing gideon ." later sara garland discusses her

book "divided we fail." the story of an african-american community that end the era of school segregation. live on c-span every day eastern.

very quickly people -- leaders promised a public process to receive public input to generate a master plan. to the lease to the office space and running the court authority. they believed in the importance of the commercial space that was destroyed. they wanted to make sure that lower manhattan remained an international financial hub. they believed in order for it to remain the reputation they had to rebuild all the commercial space. booktv's after words featuring journalists. author of "chasing gideon."

a book looking at the anonymous supreme court decision granting free legal counsel to defendants. she's interviewed by guest host of the national law journal. this is about an hour. >> host: it's a pleasure to meet you. i enjoyed your book. i thought it was apt it was published on march 18 which was the 50th anniversary of the supreme court decision. i thought we could start at the beginning. which was clarence earl gideon? >> guest: yeah. he was a chap living in florida, and he broke in to a pool hall there with accused of breaking to a pool hall down there and accused of stealing some change are and a couple of bottles of

wine and arrested and brought to court there in florida. he approached the judge on the day of the trial and said, i'm not ready to go to trial. i want an attorney and the judge said can you afford an attorney. he said no. and clarence said i'm entitled to an attorney. the constitution guarantees my right to an attorney. the judge said, no, it doesn't. so you to try yourself. and the judge very kindly coaxed gideon through the trial, but gideon lost, and, you know, was fairly inept. the laws are very complicated. going to court is complicated. selecting a jury is complicated. he bumbled along and lost the case. from prison he hand wrote in pencil a semi literate letter to the u.s. supreme court saying my right to an attorney has been

violated. i deserve an attorney if i'm charged with a crime in this country. and the supreme court had kind of been waiting for a case like this to come along, it seemed like. the timing was right. there have been several other cases that come along that reed and accepted his case. in some ways it's interesting because they kind of stacked the deck in his favor by appointing him this attorney called -- a very, very high power d.c. lawyer at the time. that was really to gideon's benefit. they need a subtle thing from the u.s. supreme court they were really interested in this case and were young going help him out in some ways by giving him a powerful attorney.

>> host: i thought it was ironic the first and almost the last time that the defendant had really any advantage over the state of florida. because as you wrote in the book, the lawyer representing the state of florida very young, inexperienced. never argued the case before the supreme court. and wasn't working for the latter part of the case. which i guess -- had to argue before the supreme court a cay or two before he appeared. he and his memoir had written i didn't think to bring a pencil before when he stood before the judge to jot down the question or any of that and restroomly flustered. he's frank in the years since and since become actually an

outspoken advocate for public defenders and public defense. at the time, it was a very mismatched case. gideon ended up winning his case in 1963. that was a radical shift for the judicial system in suddenly all across the country and anyone accused of a crime couldn't afford an attorney was entitled one. >> host: did the justices seem to give much conversation to the cost for state and local government of giving free lawyers to poor people accused of crime. how much did it seem to wig in the calculation? >> that was part of what they anticipated as a pushback from people. they themselves -- it sounds like debated it and worried about it. but ultimately decided that

sthfs a constitutional right. and that the state or counties or cities were going have to find way to absorb the cost. they basically gave this mandate but didn't fund it. they didn't say how states would go about funding this it's a very complicated house of cards in many ways. in some places it works. some places it doesn't. you may have a very good public defender if you're in the city of new york. if you drive two hours knot and up state new york you may have a

it's never been worked out very well. >> host: you 0 quoted during oral arguments gideon. he sounded almost cavalier about it saying i see no real difficulty with funding it. and it's different now than it was when gideon was decided. i think at the time there were about 200,000 people in prison. now there are about 2.3 million people. what happened in the -- >> guest: what happened there's been a flood of arrests and clients coming through the system thanks to the war on drugs, which has -- mandatory minimum sentencing. pretrial attention, and underfunded public defenders officers which mean that people are languishing in jail for longer. so all of that has created this tremendous crisis in the court. and as you say, you know, it's

jumped, you know, even in the last thirty years from 300,000 to over 2 million today. due to those changes in what we're arresting people for and what we're arresting them and how long we're holding them. it created a flood of people and the numbers of people needing public defenders have skyrocketed since the gideon decision was handed down. >> host: right. that's one of the main theme the crushing case loads that public defenders face. you wrote, there are all kinds of problems with the patch work system of indigent deafen in the united states. by far the most -- and the first chapter of your book you really dig to this by telling the story two of case. one involving an 18-year-old young man who was charged with vehicular manslaughter and another 12-year-old boy charged with molesting another child.

i thought we could talk about that. maybe the case involving the 18-year-old first. what happened to him? >> host: this is a story about a young man named sean. who was arrested when he was 18 years old. he had just turned 18. just got his first used car. and he was driving it. he hadn't -- actually on the way to cash his paycheck to go pay for car insurance. he was in a car accident. and he was not at fault he had the right away and an elderly man and his family pulled in john and he hit the car. the elderly gentleman was taking to the hospital, and about nine days later he died. and sean was charged with vehicular manslaughter, and he had a public defenders in washington. a woman named carol who went to

bat despite her crushing case load. she was carrying about 101 cases compared to the prosecutors who was working opposite her who had 36 cases. so she was pushed to take this case to trial before she was ready. she had done several trials in the last two months, she said to the judge i need a little more time. the judge said no, you have to go ahead. and, you know, it was a friday. she decided to go to court on monday. she decided to refuse and take a stand and say it would be ineffective assistance of counsel if i were to represent him on monday when i'm not prepared far trial. and due to the crunch of money in their office and there was limited investigators. limited ability to call experts, et. cetera, she really was like i need more time. the judge threatened to hold her

in contempt of court. ultimately she was gavin few more weeks to prepare for the trial. which turned out to be a good thing. what she discovered when she -- the elderly man who had been hospitalizeed had been operated on for a hernia which was a preexisting condition. his own doctor had known about the hernia for a long time and declined to operate because the man's health was fragile and afraid he would get an infection in die. in fact that is what happened. ultimately sean was found innocent very quickly by the jury. but two years of his life were spent really just -- nefs hell with the fear that he was going go to jail. and he's a skinny little kid. he was trying to lift weights and, you know, beef up and try

to prepare for the rough prison life and, you know, even know he can't have a driver's license. it's been many years down the road. so it really had a huge impact on his life. and yes, he was found innocent bus -- because the public defender took a chase. in that same chapter and same area. i write about another county an hour away from there. grant county. where public defender made different choice about his client. and this was the story of a young man who -- a boy 12-year-old boy, who was accused by a neighborhood boy a 5-year-old of sexually molesting him. he said the 5 yermd said the 12-year-old put his hands down the pants. the 12-year-old denied it. police came and questioned the 12-year-old and the cop wrote in

his book, you know, the 12-year-old wouldn't meet his eyes and cried and probably guilty. therefore guilty. >> host: oh. >> guest: who doesn't cry? when you are stopped built cops. i almost cry. anyway so his case he got a public defender who had 460 other cases at the same time, and the public defender didn't call any witnesses, didn't -- plead guilty his parents were like it's going to be, you know,

labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life. the public defender is a no. i'm sure 18, 21. in fact it didn't. and it stayed on the kids' record. and so the kids rushed in to court. pleads guilty then the parents found out he would it on the record. they found out that he would be -- they would be required to have someone shadow him at school every day. that he would be tested for hiv or other sexually transmitted diseases, and that he would be required to go to sex offender counseling therapy group where he had to confess his guilt regularly. they ended up appealing this case. so i really want to show sort of the difference even in a close geographical area, the kind of public defense you can get. one of the big differences was

with the 12-year-old, his public defender worked under a system called a flat fee contract. so he got $16 2,000 to represent all indigent -- all poor people that came through the court in that county. any expenses that he had such as hiring an investigators or an expert someone say an expert in child abuse or whatever. sexual abuse all of it had to come out of his fee of $162,000. there's no incentive. or take a case to trial. the incentive to spend as little time as possible and get a plea bargain. >> guest: pass people through. get them through. keep the docket moving. >> host: right. you call the chapter due process. you write it a great phrase. people are dressed up like lawyers and standing next it a client. they are not really advocating.

it seemed to be what happened with this poor young boy. that economies, to my understanding with was appealed to the washington supreme court and lead to some fairly significant reforms. i'm wondering do you have any sense -- of course maybe you could talk about the reforms entail. do you have any sense it's been not quite a year. any sense if it's making a difference? >> guest: i think it's too soon to tell. one of the most interesting things that washington did on the heels much -- of that was to make the lawyer themselves the public defenders when they go to court prior to each case sign something saying they have no more than 150 cases.

that's the question and they have -- hasn't really happened yet. it's happened in ore places. like, it happened in new orleans where will have been so in cuts to the public defenders office that people are sitting in jail for months and months. one young i spoke with had been in jail for 16 months without an attorney. >> host: the clarence jones? >> guest: yes. >> host: that's a shocking

story. there two people in louisiana just in jail for months and months sort of languishing simply forgotten about. i found shocking. >> guest: yeah. it's shocking. what is interesting about new orleans and the situation in louisiana and why i choose to write about that was that their budget crisis. it's something being experienced across the country in the last five years, but with shrinking budgets, you know, one of the places that on the chopping block fairly early in the process is public defenders office. so in new orleans, what happened was the public defender the chief public defender was forced to lay off a third of lawyers. one whole division, which is called the conflicts division, and con flingts means if there's two people arrested for say

robbing a seven eleven. one gets public defenders' office. because they might be accusing each other, being the one who fired the gun or whatever. you need a separate lawyer. and so in new orleans, they had a conflicts division. it was a separate division. they completely got rid of that in the budget cuts. so anybody then that came in with a multiple arrest or accomplices they had no attorney. they were sitting in jail for months and months and judges were making pleas to private bar. they were scrambling. threatening to let people out of jail without trial because it was a clear violation of the right. it was a fiasco. >> host: in that same chapter, what you call a "perfect storm." you talk about grig wright who spent what was it 27 years in jail for a murder he didn't commit. and in telling his story you

sort of ran through -- told the story of the trial. i found apaypaling how little his public defender seemed to do to defend him. didn't call any witnesses, didn't present an alternate scenario for the murder. didn't look -- which i guess there was one. drug deal gone bad. didn't i didn't talk about the lawyer. he is deceased. i looked at lot of court documents. the lawyer was actually a judge in louisiana in new orleans himself and very friendly with the judge who he was trying the case before. and they did, you know, the whole case, as you said, didn't

call witnesses. they had no opening argument. they had no closing argument and the murder trial which had two defend began and ended in two hours. if you look at the transcript the judge based on the time to read the transcripts. then greg was sent to prison for 27 years. kept saying i didn't do it. i didn't do it and kept trying to appeal from jail with his sixth grade education trying to educate himself, try to, you know, get access to police records even that took years and years. and then he finally got an innocence project lawyer to take up his case and they discovered that all of his appeals and all of his letters to the court were appearing going before a judge the same judge who actually was one of the prosecutors in the original case.

he had been promoted up to be a judge and he was basically being asked to weigh in on his own prosecute misconduct. of course greg never, you know, got his appeals heard or, you know, never really got in to court. so, you know, he was finally freed after 27 years, thanks to the work of these innocence project lawyers. >> host: yeah. my understanding is that he had tried -- one of the initial grounds for appeal was ineffective assistance of counsel. i think that is the court -- that didn't fly with the court. illustrates how very hard it is to successfully claim ineffective assistance of counsel. i think that praises of any lawyer with a pulse would be deemed effective. do you think, i mean, should be easier to plead ineffective assistance of counsel. >> guest: it should.

what complicates it is the strikeland v. washington decision which basically says that it's not enough to prove your lawyer was ineffective, but you also have to prove that the lawyer was so ineffective that case would have gone the other way. >> host: yeah. >> guest: and the challenges of doing that, as you know, are that, you know, by the time '02 appealing it, witnesses have disappeared, or forgotten things. evidence doesn't exist anymore. skid marks on a road have disappeared. lightening have changed. buildings have disappeared. it's very hard to prove the case would gone a different way without having a trial on the case a proper trial. so it's almost impossible to get this ineffective assistance of counsel, really. >> host: i wonder sort of you know what is the role or what should the role or responsibility of the judge be

in these proceedings? in louisiana you talk about a certain crohnyism or instances with the judges are the ones who control the appointment of the public defenders. what kind of problems does create? >> guest: one of the problems when the judges appointing the public defenders. the public defenders' job is reliant on their approval. and judges are judged on their efficiency often. how fast do they process cases? how quickly do they get through the docket? so they're going want a public defender that goes along and gets along. that does their bidding. that's a challenge. in new orleans for a long time the system was also that one public ceivedder was assigned to one courtroom and the same judge. they were always arguing before the same judge. and the problem with that is they were then kind of trading clients in a way.

like, okay, you know, my private paying client, you know, if you kind of let me spend little time and take his case to trial, okay, i'll persuade this client to plead guilty. there was a sort of trade-off going like you could cash in your favors only on some of your clients. and it really made for a very corrupt system down there. >> host: yeah. the other thing that struck me i've heard stories. i'm sure so you lawyer showing up drunk in court or falling asleep in court. that hasn't been enough to prove ineffective assistance of counsel. and then i think, i mean, a federal judge in san francisco who was sanctioned for not wearing a sports coat which was eventually overturned. the judge made it very clear he wasn't going tolerate anything except the most professional conduct in the courtroom. i think the lawyers have a very high standard is expected from

the judge sometimes they will rise to that. i wonder how much more judges could do to help improve the system. >> guest: yeah. i think there are some judges out there that are very proactive and to go back to kind of new orleans situation, even there when all of these defendants were being held pyre trial. one of the judgeses started calling in prominent local lawyers, you know, poll fissions who have -- politicians who have law degrees. publishers of the newspaper and appointing them some of these clients really try to draw attention to this crisis to say, look, you have to do something. these people's constitutional rights are being violated. i'm going have to let them go. it's not speedy trial. they have no attorney. there are some judges who are very active in trying to make

the system work, and, you know, that is a good thing. it draws attention to the crisis. it didn't solve the problem in new orleans, but it certainly drew some attention to it. and got people focused on some reforms there. >> host: yeah. in, i mean, my sense how you describe the system in louisiana. i was wondering as what you see as some of the best or worst areas jurisdictions in term of provide indigent defense. which tend to create the worst systems? there are definitely some good model. the federal defenders system is pretty good. they are general viewed as better funded. they have access to the experts investigators safety and adequately staffed and case

loads are management. definitely considered the creme day crème de la creme and that has a normallistic approach. there are pockets of other places like cross defenders, et. cetera, where in different places across the country they're trying a more holistic approach where it's not just a lawyer. it's a lawyer who is first of all going stay with a client from a very beginning all the way to the end of their case. if they are out on parole and rearrested and come back to court on a different charge they get the same lawyer who knows their history. which can make a big difference. then they have social workers on the staff and psychologists and one of the things they are trying to look at is some of the root problems. if the person is being arrested

and has a problem with drug addiction. let's get them to drug counseling waiting. let not make him sit in jail where he's not going to get any help pretrial. let get to a drug rehab program. let get him sober and try to address some of the problems that bringing that person to court in the first place. that's an interesting approach being tried. there is some resistance from public defenders when someone comes in and try to shift the model the cultural of the culture challenge i think with can challenging. part is because they're being asked to make the changes and do the approach without all the backup they need. the money to hire the social worker. >> right. >> guest: there are really great models out there. they know how to fix the problem. there seems to be a lack of political will.

>> host: they know how to fix it. is it money or not -- because that especially no is probably not realistic. what else? maybe a different organization but, i mean, what other things can be done? >> i think there can be three main things. one a better funded public definitely system so the case loads can become more manageable. also, there are, you know, larger organizational programs and issues regarding as we were talking about the judge appointing a public defender. it doesn't cost anything to change the system. that's another thing. the third element is the culture of public defenders office and rethinking what it means and what solving these problems mean. there is three avenues. one is money.

that required some rethinking about what is at stake here. >> yeah. and, i mean, i think you make a point in your book that for the criminal justice to system. the sides need to be evenly matched. kind of like game of tennis. you are most likely goat the which each side is making a strong and vigorous argument. i found it disspiritting when

you write about the public defenders asking the state supreme court for relief from excessive case loads and the state attorney general weighed in against them. where prosecutors have come down and the indigent. i talk to some bheem have said they think some prosecutors may like this system as it is. because when public defenders are overworked and did it makes them easier to win the cases. i think this seems to be the prevalent attitude, for sure. and of course, you know, when you get to playing the game of trial chicken, you know. if you only have five trials coming up this year, you can more aggressively pursue this compared to the public defender

drowning under some 100 cases. there are some prlters out there that reck these and joke spoken about the system not fair. it make my job harder. if they are constantly delaying things. it doesn't help, you know, their work. they want to have the trial and get through and see justice done. there are people that reck these that our system is designed to be aned aer have czarrial system. in order to function both sides have to be equally matched. and they could believe they could all do their job better if that were the case. there is some movement among district attorneys. prosecutors to see this change. eric holder has been outspoken about supporting reform. the nation's top prosecutor. i don't know what extend it trickled down.

>> guest: he has been a champion of this which is great. , you know, that him speaking out on the topic is in a way gets license to prosecutors to similarly speak out in their jurisdictions about these issues. the most obvious is case load when i talk about it in washington state the prosecutor has 36 cases and the public defender has 101. also it's subtler than that. they have access to the police resources you don't think about. if they want something investigated they have the police. and crime labs to run tests, and

investigators and experts which is not insignificant if they had the noun hire experts part of the best experts are busy and have to book them in the advance. if the prosecutors' office has a ability to do that but the public defender office doesn't have the ability to do that. it tilts the playing field in the way that makes it very hard for those accused of a crime to get a fair trial. i want to dig a little bit to the notion of what an appropriate case load should be. i know for many years it put the number at 150. in some ways it seems almost i don't want to say arbitrary. you mention they thought it should be 100. another florida public defenders office said 200. i wondered how do we know what the right number is? and i'm also thinking there's a

according down who has described an effort by the missouri public defenders office to start billing their time. six minute increment with the they arely it would give real data for the case management. i thought that was to help justify funding. i'm curious your thought how do you know the right number of cases or when is too many. >> guest: it's hard to tell. it's been a very complicated conversation, as you indicate in term of trying to figure that out. yes, the data doesn't really exist. it's something like using that bill able hour in order to come up with standards would be good. but it's, you know, i think one of the challenges they faced in doing this is they have come up with such complicated systems, you know, should be 150 but, you know, it can be weighed if it's this kind of case and count more

if that kind of case. you know, they try to come up with all kinds of formula. and it is arbitrary but seems reasonable. >> right. >> guest: it may be too much for the new attorney just starting out. very experienced attorney may be able to handle more. the conversations in public defenders office reinvolve around that. how might the numbers be shifted to reflect experience, et. cetera. >> host: of course the most time consuming cases are those involving the death penalty. one of the stories you tell in the book is about rodney young who faced the death penalty in georgia. can you talk about him and his case? >> guest: yeah. he was accused of killing his ex-girlfriend's son in a very brutal murder in georgia. he actually lived in new jersey. they went to new jersey and brought him back to georgia for the trial, and what was

interesting about his trial was that he was in georgia if you're mentally tarredded you -- retarded you can't be executed. they were trying to argue that. which was a good case he was in special education his whole life. they ended up losing the case. he's on death row right now. with his public defender who was trying his first death penalty case before a jury. he really felt like the office was so strapped for money they were really triaging cases. the ones about to go to trial got all the resource. everybody hells to -- else had to sit tight and wait.

and travel tbowjt go to new jersey or book the experts like i was saying to book way in advance all of that money that you need to properly do a capital trial just was not available according to jay in georgia. he was so dispierted by the end of the trial he ended up quitting which is another problem with public defenders. so you great, bright promising people who are so committed and excited about their work and they burn out. >> host: right. >> guest: it's so much work and so unsupported. that you lose some of the best people that way. displois sure. actually reading this, you know, you wonder why did they become a public defend piers. the pay is pretty low. it seems to be in maybe the $40,000-ish rain. maybe a little bit more. maybe a little bit less. you compare to associate at big

law firm which makes $145 ,000. it's a huge disparity. and the work isn't necessarily valued by society where people will say how, you know, how can you sleep at night differenting those people? what is your sense of nearnlt lead people to become public defenders? >> guest: well. a lot of the ones i was writing about really were committed activists. really committed to seeing justice done, you know, vested in their client. working huge long hours. it took a toll on all of the ones i wrote about in the book were not doing it anymore. i only reported the book for a year and a half. it became one of the theme in my book the system is hem aging good lawyers. >> host: yeah. >> guest: it's a really, really big problem. i think that you mention sort of

the society response. that's not insignificant. i think you right. they go out to a party and their friends are like how can you defend the guilty people. . >> host: if they weren't guilty how can you did they get themselves arrested? it's tough. some of the public defenders it's a penalty trait i have seen many of them have is sort of antiauthoritarianism more of a feeling like we're guarding against -- guarding people's liberty against overreaching by the government. they see themselves as important defense not against individual person but against -- >> guest: definitely see themselves as a check on the unrestricted power of the government. that's important to them. nay are wonderful spokes people for that idea.

and that's part of what try to convey. invite to people to a dropple see which is at stake. it was interesting to me when i was reporting too, i'm not a lawyer. i have a six month learning curve. try to get oriented. i had an epiphany i said this is what it's like from a client's perspective inspect is how complicated for the legal system coming in. i'm a well educate middle class woman. i had many more resources than these folks in term of access to information and internet. i was struggling. then i started to think why don't i write the book from the client's perspective so i can see and other people can see why the good public defenders matter. why good representation matters.

why you need the good to get you through the court. that was a hess lesson for me. given the evidence and the fact against them. even if his lawyer had time or money would he nicely have gotten a different result. he went to college for two years and he, you know, there wasn't iq tests from when he was in high school. again the defense game hiv an irk q test he tested above the -- 70iq threshold. they didn't use it as evidence. i'm wondering what more could have his lawyer have done? did the jury get right? separately from whether -- how you feel about the death penalty based on the evidence

presented was it a reasonable outcome? >> guest: well, i think that if they had had, i mean, some of the experts they called were not the best at explaining what the range of mental retardation was and what that could mean. even how people could, as they got older acquire basic skills and acquire a bigger have -- vocabulary. in his case, he worked a job with had an apartment in the basement of his aunt's house. he was a fairly independent adult. but, you know, his job was putting on label in a canning factory. he had done it for years and years and years. his life was very routine. i think if they had had frankly better ex-- expert to explain it to the jury they would have stood a better

chance that his mental capacity was very, very limited. then i think the, you know, i haven't been able to ask his lawyers this because the case is being appealed and they don't want to reveal it. there was always the question he didn't go on the stand himself. i've never talked to him. i couldn't talk to him. >> host: you were at the trial. >> guest: i was at the trial. >> host: the description is him beautifully pressed yellow shirt. hunched over and not looking at anyone. i guess he's a large intimidating person. i guess it gave a sense. >> guest: again, and i covered another trial in glen ridge, new jersey many years ago a mentally retarded girl. some of the same sort of strange markers you would see. but his whole obsession every day was just what shirt his lawyers had brought him. which color and, you know, been

to the dry cleaners. and these, like, gummy bears he wanted, you know, were his main, like, those were the questions he would ask them. >> host: which makes you -- he doesn't understand. >> guest: he doesn't get what is going on in this trial. >> host: yeah. >> guest: so it was interesting to -- it was interesting to following that case. it was one of the ones, too, i wanted in the book to have one i was following a trial as it was going on. >> host: yeah. >> guest: it was interesting to see and talk to family members on both sides. with the trial every day to see how, you know, ordinary justice plays out on a day-to-day level in the courtroom in a small down in georgia. >> host: how did you find the stories of the people in the book? >> guest: randomly. [laughter] mostly. that one was another reporter friend i know had a conversation with this lawyer for the capital

defenders project. she's working on an interesting case. you should talk to him. other ones surfing the net, talking to people, dropping in on courtrooms, you know, a lot of them were really random, you know, and they were not cases that got press you, you know, the death penalty case there was a local newspaper called the "coughington news." they covered it and nobody else did. and the case of the 12-year-old in washington state, no press covered that. >> host: that was current. >> guest: not a single news article about the case as it was going on, yeah. ..

>> and with the states all across the country but nobody had done anything. people kept trying to solve the problem but it was stalled. i started to think about how you take that conversation outside the criminal justice

system to the general american public? i do think it is interested in issues of fairness and parity and justice and constitutional rights, , etc. but just not aware of the death -- the death of a problem. >> host: it is different from a the status quo but who does this work for? >> guest: in some ways you could argue it doesn't work for anybody. i guess the prisons get more but ultimately that cost taxpayers a lot of money also. even basic things like some free trial programs being

introduced around the country so people can get out instead of sitting in jail waiting and that is important because those that are languishing in jail even if they are found innocent two or three months later they have lost their job, sometimes their apartment, losing custody of kids, they lost their car because they could not make payments and has a huge repercussions a and it is hard. >> host: who ever did killed apple way they never got punished. >> that is the best argument >> that means the bad guy is still out there.

i am wondering the the way people kid get involved or what they can do. >> guest: it is a concerted effort nationwide with many organizations to use the 50th anniversary of the supreme court decision to focus the lead on this issue a and to really push reform. i see my efforts as the public conversation in the next time up politician says lock them up a and throw away the key some vague questions him on that. other people working on class-action in people

working at the state bar association to get reforms passed in the state supreme court is working on this issue. of everybody is trying to address this problem and the hope is with the 50th anniversary would give it traction and the reforms can actually get past as it was originally envisioned. >> host: just because someone doesn't have money to pay for a lawyer do they necessarily have to be a passive consumer of legal services? is there something that they can try to do to make the system work for them as well as they can? >> host: if your son is in jail with a public defender what it can you do to get the best representation

possible? >> it is tricky you're usually randomly assigned as a public defender student evening gets a choice if you have the best and brightest or the worst you really don't have a lot of choices. but families can educate themselves and their our advocacy groups that are starting to call last to speak out. in some ways they are a very powerful voice for reform and a lot of times the people who has been accused were have been found guilty come a day are ashamed and don't want to be the spokesperson that the family is are a little more outspoken will leave to go to bat to push for reform.

>> host: finally what would you like readers to take away from your book? at. >> guest: and next time a politician says lock them up a and throw away the key to call them on it or not to a vote for them to take a good look at this issue what fairness means and what our constitution means because right now the government power is of limited. >> host: thank you for being here. the name of the book is chasing gideon.

>> host: joining us is michael cader founder of

publishers lunch. tell us what that is. >> guest: and lots of things publishers lunches and e-mail newsletter that tells people in the publishing business was going on everyday and publishers marketplace.com is the web site to use the tools with the information they need to find each other or report deals to get business done. >> host: why that name? what is your baked -- background? >> guest: allies time is when people exchange information so the internet came along we invented of business we tried to find a great metaphor and lunches what stockout a and i came up with publishers when jim people automatically knew what they were getting in the business before they saw the newsletter i have been in the west's professional life and ran a small publishing company and

worked back and '80s it is a great industry i am happy to be a part of may even though the times have changed. >> host: 2012, 2013 how has that been for the book industry? >> surprisingly positive. in 2012 there was a couple of hits on their games which carried over into other adult literature and 50 shades of gray brought people that don't read much into bookstores and digital box have become very popular and have given access to books they may not have had previously so statistically speaking the industry grew and by most accounts holding steady in comparison to what was a good year for people. it appears to be alive and

well. >> host: we are here at the annual trade show if i am holding in my hand a book that he essentially does not exist. buzz books 2013 put together by publishers allege. what is it? it. >> guest: a big fat simpler pre-publication exurbs of 40 interesting books coming out this fall and winter meant to be something for readers everywhere to replicate the experience here that they get samples of new books and free copies that are not available to regular readers. so resurveyed the publishers and collected exurbs now everyone can get the convention experience to see months from now. >> host: where is available right now? >> it is in the e-book form

on every major platform. would ever won platform view like you can download for free. >> host: buzz books 2013 alan weisman the countdown? >> i read it this morning because i like it so much. originally a best-selling author that speculated what would happen with the humans went away and how quickly would return? so those competing with precious resources how does that work? what we have so those that like to have big families for different reasons.

israel is a desert so to travel around to 20 different countries to found out how these play out in different places. and here is the first of a series that she brings to bear her life experience but is freed to be surveyed from those who she used to work for because it is in a fictional context. >> host: the next one is a young adult category the president has been shot by scholastic. >> guest: people may remember him but for man hunt looking for the search of abraham month lincoln right after his death know he has written about the assassination of g of day simultaneously publishing for the adult version but we have a sample of the young

adult version. >> host: michael cader cader, what are you excited about? >> guest: the key to finding things i like that we have all different stuff. authors that people know and love we have a great debut section and last year when of the first people to tell people about kevin powers book that went to be on one of the best recognized books in we have another 67 this year so it has a lot of everything with regular fiction in young adults working in some nonfiction. one thing that might to be fun for a few words was johnny carson longtime lawyer and confident -- confidante in the shadows of but carson called him his best friend may yet he has

stories did insights into a man that every betty new so well but not all. >> host: publishers lunch lunch, but michael cader was cited as publishers marketplace. this is booktv on c-span2. >> host: i want to talk to you i find the topic matter is incredibly important with an important dialogue in the united states. the first question is what compelled you to write this

book? particular experience? as a journalist? at. >> guest: with so many cases everybody focuses on the legal issues as they should but the stories behind those are compelling. that is true with death penalty would have been to it during a crime and before the courts decision and often didn't after words which is a fascinating story >> the more that we dug-in it takes you from the scene of the crime and in many of those cases shows you the up position. >> we are storytellers. the most exciting part is having something to say. 10 of 15 cases had us put

five through four in those that would read like novels. >> i completely agree. one of the posts that i found i especially liked was from a congressman that said it is hard to believe you have a nonfiction books that you cannot put down from i felt it was appropriate because it was different that every death is reid and went to the humanities side of it. >> guest: not also restores but the important book that it tells you how of the choral works. there are so few books to explain what is the process process, how old do they decide cases? we see them a split the

court so it is a book about the court operates. >> host: when you dig but that of what is available in a lot of stuff. but i am not by in one town they have reservations. >> guest: and there was a lot of research on this case. >> deal loved like the supreme court decision could did make a second attempt when the execution when bad? when you look back it has all kinds of ingredients. 1946. louisiana has a traveling

electric chair going -- chair going parish to parish in the there would invite the kids to make a field trip don't do bad stuff because it is waiting then they would take the chair inside pocket of to a generator and mandate the victim into the chair but in this particular case willie francis a 17 year-old black man who killed a pharmacist during a robbery was drafted and electrodes attached to his ankles and head in one witness told us the executioner said goodbye willie and he did not go anywhere. malfunction. smoke and sparks he had minor burns but they took him back to his cell that was a celebrated supreme court case was a double jeopardy to put him in the electric chair again?

the court said it is accidental and you could put him in again but the justice that voted for the execution because he felt constitutionally mandated to do it he was so disturbed when behind a fellow of justice is the back very literally and urged him to do everything he could to stop what he thought was a travesty. they did attempt to stop it and he could not and willie francis died one year later and then they took his body away. >> guest: if the justices were split even those that favor in excess of -- in favor of the execution but the wisdom of going through with it. with the united states supreme court from the 1950's on to uphold a death

sentence even though they felt it was wrong they felt in a democracy this is a decision that people must make and it is not for us to decide. >> host: to look at the unique research that you did and that the willie francis case was interesting but you went to see gas chamber and actually saw the electric chair in the want to hear about your experience. >> know many inmates have sat in as many electric chairs as we have. [laughter] but it reminds you of capital punishment that life is being taken away and you think about it more deeply and incidentally there is so many questions a difficult one is whether to have that

but once you decide to have it, how would operates what are the rules? we cannot say the book will provide the answer but i do think if it does help with the question. >> guest: there are two major theories it is the abomination and it is an instrument of justice. if we shake any knee-jerk theory to cause people to think of will decide the book is a success. >> host: that is an excellent point* to this has been a huge contribution to that discussion. just to touch on what you said, with the industrialized democratic countries and still practice

capital punishment. >> guest: the only one there is another of western democracy their proxies the death penalty. >> host: is this related to the road we will face? >> that is a tough question. i don't know the answer but i think our culture is a little different with crime and punishment than most other western democracies. guns are more readily available here than any other western democracy with countries like the united kingdom the yet we have one of the highest murder rates so we have capital punishment and find in those states that have the death penalty they also have the highest crime rates camera rarely in the south than those that teetwo -- do not have the lowest crime rates.

i don't know what comes first? the chicken or the aid? because they have such high murder rates or the other way around? it may depend on who you ask proponents look at it another way and what we do find is in this debate when you looked at the crimes and criminals as we do in this book you find a great deal of sympathy for the death penalty. it is easy but if you looked at the system, and throughout his career supported the death penalty later said it was a mistake and it doesn't work the way it is supposed to be. >> host: and then a lot of

sympathy and so i thought that resonated with tehran atkins and i thought that you did into with his mother but not so much about the content but. >> period -- jack kitchens by state law is mentally because most of the time the killers are not the brightest lights in the house of should they be spare for that? who should make that call? the united states supreme court but in this case but

this was a cold-blooded murder stopping a guy outside the convenience store may kim drive to the atm checkout a couple hundred dollars then shot him dead and left him there. justice scalia right seeing an opinion sounded like a prosecutor. the supreme court ruled it but have do define that? three juries said he qualifies for capital punishment under virginia law a and then sends it to a forest one to determine but they found before a verdict there was prosecutorial

misconduct years earlier and the judge finally threw up his hands to say he gets life without parole so the inmate who brought this case to lead to the landmark decision was not affected at all. it is an amazing story in the twists and turns in that case and by the way to help people understand the crime we have q hour codes and the books martin is a little more technological and i am but it is a unique feature to make it more appealing to our readers. >> guest: what is helpful is the technology take the smart phone or the tablets and wave it overdoes it tablet -- of the code. >> one is if you have the death penalty with two

denials' this was a 17 year-old but token elderly will lead to a bridge in have pushed her off and she drowned in and picked him up at the fiscal the next day he gave a tearful confession to police but if you put your phone over the code you can see it yourself. >> host: i thought those were a neat way to almost takes "the reader" into the book what was the thought behind that so is this the direction that nonfiction would be headed? because it creates a great opportunity. >> i did not even understand what it was.

[laughter] that blew me away the. >> i don't know if it will go that way because who knows but for me, to not only see but pull up the information you can see that confession but then the police take him back to the average city to show where he threw the woman off a bridge so that literally takes you to the scene of the crown with the emotional impact. >> not on that evening used? but this is the real thing. >> if you were going to get involved we all have a stake but the fact you may have the answers is perfectly understandable because it is a tough question you'll have

to have the answer but if you look at these crimes, it helps you to understand what it is all about. we talk to judges, philosophers about capital punishment i think the loss debate may be the view of the undertakers hatter there they see firsthand what happens. >> we have met some of these animals in those in my opinion are beyond redemption. people are a greek anc's in animals are there i and understand it the feeling of desire for retribution. >> one thing we also found is the debate over the death penalty, but there is no convincing evidence.

with the new breed don't know. so we find the rabil support comes out of the name of deterrence and retribution some college revenge but it is the same thing and perfect the understandable. i spoke to loved ones that were left behind. in a way the person killed in gets off the easiest because he is gone but for the family it is painful and they've never forget in some relatives actually crusaded and against capital punishment. what about the person who killed your father? will you take a pitch for clemency to spare the person? i cannot do that. perfectly understandable.

>> and that you had thought about writing about this it was just the matter of time and readjusts curious of what started this conversation. >> ended from washington to new york that we shot but the more we talked the more we thought about it between delaware and new york city that we had to write the book yet we have a lot of other things on our plate and it took a long time to get there. >> we're world-class procrastinators but we're not clear. [laughter] but we did put it off for a long time we are both semi retired tavis may be doing

more work now that i was at abc news but not being paid as well but it is worth every energy. i want to run into you saying we should have done a but it was your fault but it is a worthwhile project and an important issue. we had stories to tell and legal principles to explain and also with this story teller i have been doing legal analysis over 20 years and it was a marriage that worked out very well. >> host: i am curious as to where you see how does this book fit into the larger discussion with the likes the innocence project? due to the dna? where does this fit into

that? >> guest: that is a very good question as recent events brings to light because the prospect of prosecuting the innocent is always a concern and an argument and what we're finding is much more real a and a large. >> researchers from columbia law school found a case in texas that is almost a mistake of execution certainly there often challenge find us a real case of a truly innocent person but this is probably it. with eyewitness testimony gone wrong you people in the wrong place at the wrong time but if you look at the man who was executed and the man presumed to be guilty you have a hard time telling the difference.

our book does not take the advocacy position it is not for or against capital punishment that we do have some conclusions how the system doesn't work but we're not here to tell you if it is right to or wrong. >> with the risk of executing the innocent to draw a strange reactions from the justices that say you it may help your cause a few would point to one but even then and and that no one ever said this is perfect will we do away with all punishment because mistakes do happen? no. with there will be mistakes here and in bet then everything is gone.

he said that there was a very basic disagreement between justices that are concerned of moresque but that does not affect the outcome if you have it or not. >> host: to take a step back, it was interesting you have very similar a and different backgrounds. i want to talk about but how that turned out to work. [laughter] >> guest: it is a miracle we're sitting in this same room at the same table. [laughter] it was a delight for 90 percent of the time. >> guest: the other 10% was 100 percent not a delight.

>> the most popular used phrase was you can say that. but having a friendship of 40 years to build on helped us to survive the bombs. >> but we divided up most of the chapters and so we worked on together but there was a respect for one another's work to say i would make this change or that change but you have the final say for recommendations and they were all done i felt all changes were beneficial i the ink that he helped my copy and i like to think i helped his copy. >> you did. >> but at the end of the day be reached a solution of what we thought was best. the disagreements we had yielded much more links than

heat. >> host: but your title choice period reed's like a thriller wondering if you did that purposely. >> we were looking for a theme just to do about capital punishment has been done before but i said we want to tell stories and explain the law. but in that 20 year period we could not agree how about the cases or the crimes that made the call law? all these crimes you do not think of them as breaking the law but this is the current supreme court used to shape and define the law of capital punishment. then that is it the

publisher changes it to legal crimes of landmark cases but the fact we agreed >> there is improvement. >> i don't know. [laughter] coming up with that unifying theme we have for starts. >> there is another book called murder in the supreme court that is a novel. we were concerned about that. we we're not going to do let that gets in our way how it is appropriate. but these are all lethal crimes and to produce a landmark decisions and i

think this opens it up to books not necessarily nonfiction readers. did you know, that would be the outcome? >> guest: i think from the get-go always having a difficulty of abc news of the terrific story. they never said no to those who brought the case which was amazing liberty but i would come back. i have the decision from the supreme court that you want to but a fabulous human interest story that you want and they said we will give you another five seconds. it was so frustrating to have these great stories and i said we could save more about the decisions not just blood that was about what

went into it and martin as a storyteller that resonated with him and we had worked together with death penalty stories of 2020 which was the treat for me to go out with you to work from the death penalty in the opportunity to explain the issues with that detail, tell the stories behind that case, was such a treat. you had the luxury of the time but it was a treat for me. >> guest: that we would take another five minutes. >> you have no idea what that meant to me was a very good experience. >> host: i think we will go to a break now. thank you so much.

>> host: what is on your summer reading list? >> guest: i am working on a screen play of the novel to figure out how to make the screenplay work because it is a very complex story of romance with the protagonist from south

dakota. my greatest achievements in might entire career talking to this guide mentions my novel. but i heard about it. and i said why did you lose? he said i know every person in that woman's family. i met all of them. he said there are some that were not even in the book. [laughter]

>> no novelist could never have a better phrase they in fact, but to believe the characters so that is what i try to figure out how to translate. . .