the microphone -- you will get there first. take the first question. when you come around, we will let you be number two. >> hello. a little short. >> hello. a little short. my name is brittany. i'm in the graduate school of political management. zac, you were in our summer class. my question is, someone who is young and interested in doing what you do, i'm always being told that you are young, you should be on hill. that's great and i love my experience. wanting to do what you do and especially wanting to do it in the 2016 campaign in some capacity, do you still recommend doing the hill or trying to get in the private sector in. >> did you ever work on the hill? >> i would never work on the hill if i were you. >> i appreciate that. >> if you want to do campaigns, that's the problem. sometimes the hill people think they're good at campaigns. i know i'm not good at hill stuff.

you wouldn't want my writing your policy. so i think if you want to do campaigns and that's what you're passionate about, you have to do it. there are opportunities if you're doing things in d.c., you can work at firms that are assisting campaigns. when you're here, you're safe. the lights turn on all the time. there's food. there's water. air-conditioning for the most part. you want to go somewhere where you're in the back of a grocery store many ohio being like, this is what it's really like. if you don't go through that experience, that's one of the challenges with digital, i did ten years of toiling in the field before doing this. >> what was toiling in the field >> i ran victory programs across the country. phone banking. door knocking. child car. whatever it took. i ran the most efficient child care possible. it was all about relationships. that's what the bush/cheney model is like. if this is what you're passionate and you want to do, you have to go do it. there are ways in d.c. i think there are firms to work at but i think you really want to get on a

campaign and go do it. you're making a huge commitment to do a campaign because it's a different type of life. >> michael, i would like you answer that but also keep in mind that we have a c-span audience and national audience, lot of people who aren't in washington who would like to get in politics who are already using social media. i wonder what your advice would be for them on that same question. >> i agree with zac. i never worked on the hill. >> most people don't come to washington. >> so there's a big difference between campaigning and governing. if you want to work in government, work in government. if you want to work in campaigns, work in campaigns. they're not the same. they're not the same skill sets. there are some people who do both and do both well, but doing both well is actually pretty rare. and i think zac's point about being involved in a campaign at the field level and seeing what campaigns are really like is really important. i started in politics not working in digital. i had a career doing graphic design and digital development and sort of digital content and strategic communications all

these kinds of things then i went and worked in politics and campaigns. i was a field director and volunteer manager and bunch of other pieces and i sort of put those two pieces together when digital campaigning became a thing. i think the advice -- if this is what you want to do, find a way to do it. there are campaigns everywhere all the time. right? there are always -- almost -- if you really want to sort of be a campaign person, there are off-cycle states you can work in. many mid-term cycle, like now, there are places anywhere in the country to get engaged in. there are opportunities to participate in the process everywhere. both physical ways and digital ways. and i think increasingly we see good campaigns blurring the distinction, right? that we should just be talking about engagement. i think the idea that we're talking about digital campaigning, this is probably the last time we should talk

about that because the reality is -- right, if we think about the progression from 2004, i have a friend who worked on the kerry campaign who tells this joking story about the campaign managers sort of yelling about don't let the guys in the computers get in trouble. then in 2008, joe reported directly to david pluth. that was a huge shift, right? not only has digital been elevat elevated, but it's not subservient to communications. but it was called new media because it was new. now it's not new anymore so we call it digital. what's the difference between digital and communications? i don't know anymore. and so at some point we're going to stop -- like having a digital director and having a communications director becomes redundant and strange and uncomfortable depending on their skill sets. this is just campaigning, right? that includes online and offline actions and we blend it in a seamless way.

if you're here in d.c., find ways to get engaged in campaigns that aren't -- if you want to do campaigns, get off the hill and go work on a campaign. and hill experience is great. that's where i started in senator durbin's candidate office in office. that was my first job in politics was opening the mail for senator durbin. and it taught me a lot, actually. it was a very important experience. i didn't learn about campaigns until i started working on campaigns. >> thank you very much. let's go to the next questioner. >> thank you. >> hi. how are y'all doing? >> how are you? >> i'm student. >> i'm shannon. so first off, thank you for your efforts because you've given me so so much great material to study and i really appreciate it. so my question now is i'm studying now sort of what i've called sort of self personalizing. so candidates using social media to either share personal details about their lives to framing policy or campaigning through a personal lens. relating to their own story or own lives.

i see a range right now of anywhere from some candidates doing 0% up to 30%. this is me talking about 2014 gubernatorial candidates. i want to know from you guys, do you see these kind of posts drive engagement? is that something that you view as a successful strategy for the candidates or is it more of a detriment? >> i think it's incredibly successful and i think it's really important. the reality of most of the interconnectedness in the media landscape we operate in are driven by platforms that were designed for humans to have relationships with other humans. right? these are not broadcast mechanisms. these are not designed -- facebook was not designed for national, political campaigns to build multimillion person communities. they were designed for people to stay in touch at college. right? so the more human we behave in using them, the more effective we tend to be. that's really uncomfortable for brands, political campaigns,

being human, being fallible is also something we tend not to allow leaders or candidates to be, which is an interesting challenge between voters' expectations and demands and the requirements of using these systems well in a personal and authentic way. i think authenticity and meaning and being humble and aware of your humanness and sharing that is something that these tools are incredibly useful for. i think doing that well requires a candidate to be comfortable with that kind of exposure, right? that kind of exposure is very different than being on tv everyday. these sort of scripted kind of exposure that we are comfortable with as leaders or professionals even. this is a very different kind of exposure for me personally than a different kind of -- any number of different conversations. you don't -- i'm not talking about my personal life.

i'm talking about some experiences and it's -- this is a very comfortable public position to be in. if i start talking about something more personal, it changes the nature of this conversation completely. right? and i think there's an opportunity there if we want -- if candidates want to build real relationships, being human is a great way forward. >> are you saying in response to the question that candidates -- that running for office because of these very trends will become even more personal, more invasive in some ways? >> i would love it if it became more human and that we allowed our leaders to be human, which we don't generally speaking. we expect them to be perfect superlative entities that never make mistakes and never cuss, which is [ expletive ] ridiculous. >> sorry, c-span, for my friend. >> let's hope they have a video delay. >> i forgot about c-span for a second.

>> they won't forget about you, michael. it's been a glorious, if short, career. >> i think, you know, it really also -- you have to take into consideration is a comfort level. i think people know when you're faking it and that's really the challenge. i think all these things are true, but it has to be because that's where you want your campaign to go. and i think you can't kind of fake it and dip your toe in and walk back. it's kind of like, i always tell the campaigns we work with, if you don't really want to know what they say if you ask them a question, don't ask them the question. there's no worse than asking a question and there's no feedback. tell us what you think and nothing shared. there's no followup and it's just kind of like -- done. the committees all do quite well. tell us the four most important things and never follow up with the four most important things and they never follow up with them the four most important things, i think, because they're working this fast turnover world. with candidates, a lot harder. and i think michael is exactly right about social media and these platforms. they build these massive audience. they can quickly be produced

into something else. i look the at hilary rosen moment on twitter. but what was most powerful, within three days we had 400,000 moms for mitt. became our best volunteers and were sharing their stories. to try to cultivate that and us to think about how do you change the image everyday to be someone else standing for you, how do you make that a greater part of the campaign knowing that that has probably no tangible effect at someone of the strategy team can say i know what's going on, for us to know that was so powerful for us for what we were trying to do recruit volunteers. that's where the disconnect will always be the hard part of blending the coms director and the digital director. it almost means that the digital director has to become the coms director which i think is very difficult. if you don't have that background and that skill set because it would be very hard to teach someone all the digital elements. >> people will come with different -- the reality of the campaign staff that you're going to put together is people will come with different levels and intensities of expertise, right?

>> yes. >> did that answer your question? >> it did. thank y'all very much. >> thanks. >> yes. go ahead. >> hi, my name is also shannon. i'm an undergraduate student and research assistant at the university of delaware and i'm studying mass communications and political science. and with that, i've noticed there's a kind of splintering of the definition of participation in terms of politics. there's this old school kind of donating and volunteering to a campaign and also this kind of new communicative form where you're liking a candidate on facebook and you're sharing them and you're talking about them with their friends. so i was wondering as kind of coordinators of digital campaigns, as a person -- as a constituent myself, what are you kind of courting noting that there's limited resources. which one do you think is more effective in helping someone vote for your particular campaign? >> well, i mean, i think the

more tangible -- if you look at them as continuum of tweeting something or liking it and giving an actual donation your address is being the other end. that's the most easy to measure as you go through. this is really powerful because it goes to the point that michael opened with in saying you're reaching people indirectly. a third person validater to say i agree with this. that's why the obama campaign saw this, sharing negative content in facebook didn't go very well. people are very tough on twitter. can be very harsh and can -- but on facebook it's very hard to do that. it's very difficult. so different contents. you have to look at each platform differently and communicate with people accordingly. it's very hard the presidential level because you do a post and get 10,000 comments in five hours to go through all those is a huge undertaking, right? it's a real challenge. but at the local level, it's very easy to do. it's something that every campaign needs to do. that person can become not only a donor but much more and can become -- you've reached out. when someone donates or gives their e-mail is a different expectation.

they expect you to talk to them. on social, when you reach out and make that connection that is really powerful. i think that's hopefully where campaigns are going. again, you answered little bit about the scale of resores. do you have enough time. that's where you can use volunteers who aren't on your u. do you have enough time. that's where you can use volunteers who aren't on yours. do you have enough time. that's where you can use volunteers who aren't on youcs. do you have enough time. that's where you can use volunteers who aren't on youes. do you have enough time. that's where you can use volunteers who aren't on your campaign to do that outreach it's a bit of a challenge. the tools are getting better to have these longer conversations and filter them and have better responses but you have to decide. we're in an era of big data and small content. we haven't figured out ho crack answer all these questions. someone might ask a thousands questions and we only want to give them six responses. we have to figure out where to put them. that's a real challenge. campaigns just don't feel comfortable, i don't think posting like incorrect answers or limited answers. >> i think the other aspect of the gradient that zac is talking about is really important, think

about this a both/and question not a neither nor question. we want to give people easy low-barrier entry tasks that are simple for them to do to start finding their way into the community and becoming active. right, something like a retweet or a like is easy to do. do it at distance. you can do it mobiley. it doesn't require a lot of time or energy or commitment. something like volunteering at your local field office requires a whole different level of commitment and you want to build people's relationship over time. one of the great things about -- you're blending online and offline in this gradient. one of the great things about social and digital tools is it offers more low barrier entry opportunities to more people at a distance. it doesn't require people who want to participate in a campaign to come to an office. which means their are whole groups of people who couldn't volunteer in the past who now can, single moms, for instance. right, this is a group that overwhelmingly -- people look at our campaign and digital tools and assume it's all college kids. college kids love to volunteer.

single moms can't. they want to participate so they can use online calling tools. they can volunteer from home. i'm making big generalizations here obviously. but the opportunity here is give more opportunities to engage and participate in a relationship and you can decide the nature of your relationship. and whatever you decide is great. we want you be part of this in the way that makes you feel -- that we've inspired you to be and we want to keep deepening that relationship and have you be more active. all of the kinds of actions you're talking about are generally really talking about supporter actions. this is the other distinction i want to draw. the relationship between those things and voting. most of the things we're talking about are talking about ways we activate supporters, who we assume are voting for us, mostly, right? generally speaking the people on your e-mail list who are donating money to you are going to vote for you. so thinking about social in terms of those individual

actions like retweeting and likes as activations for supporters and the voters that are getting touched that you need to persuade are the second circle beyond them. this is a really important strategic principle that became really important in the second campaign when we had this massive facebook audience of tens of millions of people was that meant the first circle might be tens of millions but the second circle was basically the entire voting age population in the united states. what is the opportunity to have you, who are interested and passionate and have decided you like the campaign, you want to be a part of us, how are you influencing the circles around you, right? and that's where you start talking about voter persuasion engagement that's different from supporter activation. >> that's good. >> was there something that you did, whether you could point to,

as the most effective way to get to that outer circumstance? >> we built a whole platform around this to try to help make sharing behavior better than random. right? so you see brands and campaigns constantly talking about sharing things with your friends. and we use online tools for all kinds of things, whether it's content delivery and sharing, whether it's activations like donation or list acquisition or online voter registration, for instance. but if we ask you to share a voter registration with five friends, we don't mean any five friends, we mean your five unregistered friends in ohio. >> but you have to convey that. you have to say that. >> so not only -- >> because you have to provide instructions. >> there's two ways to do this. we can tell you. share this with your five unregistered friends in ohio which by the way you don't know which of your friends are unregistered -- >> or. >> or you can tell us who your friends are and we can tell you which ones of them are unregistered. >> how many parking tickets they have outstanding. >> that's less deriving of a voting detail. >> i joke. i joke. thank you very much.

>> thank you. >> another question? yes, sir. >> hi. thank you. phil howard, university of washington in seattle. i'm wondering if you guys could look ahead and maybe talk about bots -- >> talk about? >> bots. a growing number of political campaigns and democracies around the world that are using automated scripts to solve the problems of volume of content or realtime is not fast enough. are candidates in the u.s. going to start using more automated scripts, they'll lose that personal face to face interaction, but they'll solve lots of logistical challenges, right? >> i think out mating engagement is dangerous. the likelihood of it ringing false and inauthentic is incredibly high and the risk is very great. using automated tools for listening and monitoring and seeing conversations and being able to listen to your communities at scale are really important and there are great tools for this now.

but my experience with automated response, unless it's something as trivial as thanks for your notification, we'll get back to you that's very clearly automated. if you're trying to impersonate personalization, you're in a very risky territory. i think generally speaking i think it's not a good strategic decision. i think using automated responses to give people a sense that there's a process and that -- we heard you, we're going to get back to you and set an expectation about when, that's fine. that's clearly automated. it's transparent to the user. you start thinking about the user experience of that feeling comfortable. if you send a response that feels like a robot, even if -- or is discovered to be inauthentic in some way, you're running a huge risk of destroying a relationship. >> you agree with that? >> i do. i don't think it solves the content problem because you still are to decide what you're going to say beyond that

component of it. that's the challenges that automated responses the risk/reward is pretty -- not in your favor. >> let's talk about narrative science. >> i mean, you have found -- and what you're saying that there is -- if not a sophistication, certainly an expectation in the audience in the voting public that will sniff through this kind of thing and this conversation now is required and it can't be faked. >> i agree, yes. >> another question. sir? >> hi. my question is, they used to be very vertical and now they're becoming more horizontal. becoming more horizontal, i'm sensing that you lose some of your ability to be administering orders to soldiers. they can do things that perhaps you're against or you didn't think about plus you have to

respond in seconds to whatever the other side is doing. so how do you keep control of your troops? >> this is a really great question. when we work with organizations, political campaigns or otherwise, we talk about a progression of how to design an organization that's going to be effective working in the world that we're in. we think about the progression that goes values, drives strategy, drives tactics. typically most of this conversation is centered digital conversations center around tactics. how do we use twitter? what about the e-mail? how is digital media buying change. those are all important and totally mutable and will change by the time the next election comes around. what is durable is who are we and what are we trying to do? >> if you're clear as part of the culture of the organization, part of how you on board people in the community, how you hire, how you recruit, how you on board staff, how you introduce

people to who you are, people are joining your mission because they want to help and they're going to -- they're going -- if you are clear and vocal about who you are, they're going to be joining you because of a shared sense of purpose and they're going to work in line with where you're going. are they professional, political communicators, not everybody is david axelrod. that's okay. we don't need everybody to be david axelrod. we need you to speak to your friends in a genuine authentic way that is in line with who we are as an organization, who we are as a community participating together. organizations that end up with too much command in control tend to avoid the emotional and cultural work of getting values in mission correct. this is particularly egregious in brands who don't want to have that conversation at all. this is more comfortable, naturally comfortable in a campaign in some ways than it is in a corporate setting, but it's where corporations go wildly off the rails.

>> i think that's exactly right. i think the process you have to have is you can also start where michael is saying unfortunately become very militaristic by the end. they start to clamp down and actually stifles the creativity and to the detriment. using the bush/cheney example, we were very metrics and result driven in 2004. and as a party, it became so numbers driven it became detrimental to what we were trying to achieve because you had a script that had to be done in a certain amount of time and you got that feeling as you went through. a testament to the obama campaign of allowing their volunteers that type of flex to have a little bit more conversation. but also that comes with having the structure to have implement that because what you're talking about is how presidentials do it. how do you do it when you're only six people is completely different, right? but i think that you have to have your north star. you have to know what you want to achieve and think about what tools you can provide to make them better at it. a lot of times the command is

not giving out enough information anyway which is why people go rogue. we're the ones holding it back and people make it up. there's some legal components -- the one problem now with communications that's become very difficult, one person goes rogue, everyone tries to superimpose they speak for everyone. the campaigns are opportunistic. republican operative makes a mistake, the dnc will not let that go. this person speaks for everyone and this is the way it is. that's on both sides. that's why people are so controlling. but i hope that media understanding as it gets better, people know how to respond better. that started -- it's less difficult to deal with now. i remember twitter in 2011 was so difficult because do we have to respond to everything? do we need to deal with this right now? it was like, no. but you knew that because you had been using it for x amount of time. the campaign was working through that process as we went through. >> the the tyranny of now. >> and i think it's a challenge for the reporters too? it's the challenge for them they have to be first. they give you eight minutes to respond. >> we really haven't gotten into

the impact of sort of digital campaigning on traditional media and the echo chamber and all of that. i mean, right? one level the day of the gate keeper is gone. but the day that the -- where the candidates need to gate keeper is gone. candidates go online to announce their candidacy. they don't hold news conferences anymore. >> why would they? >> i could come up with all kinds of reasons. >> we have time for one more question from the floor. >> she's been waiting. >> you get the last question. sorry. grab him afterwards. >> thank you. monica from harvard university. a lot of big campaign fund-raisers will say that for big donors, you want a solid return on investment. you're $1 million will get you this many minutes in tv. this is how you're changing my campaign. how do you sell digital? you say $1 million is this many responses to tweets. how do you do that for your big donors? >> that's a great question. >> i mean, $1 million buys this many impressions in digital

media is a more accurate piece of information than might buy this many eyeballs on television anyway. i would argue with the premise of the question. generally speaking we tend to -- we overvalue this line item nature of fundraising that often we can provide too much detail to people. they want to believe that you have a plan for using resources effectively. that doesn't necessarily mean they want to know the relationship between a tweet and a dollar. this is talking about things that failed in 2008. we built a system around line item fundraising. we wanted people to buy -- we needed seven vans in iowa next week, you're going to buy one and then you're going to buy one and then someone bought seven, that was gone. didn't work at all. so confusing, people didn't care. >> not motivated to buy vans. >> so frustrated by us trying -- they didn't want to know. they didn't want to see the sausage getting made that much.

but we thought it would be really compelling because it was going to fill this need of people understanding the value of their dollar. i think that's a more emotional need than it is a data. so when we think about donors in general, we have a tendency to think left and right brain, right? i think we need to think about them as data has a tendency to convince and emotion has a tendency to inspire and you need both. when we separate this into a pure discussion, people say that's interesting. i'm bored. i'll give my money to somebody else. people see this content about some organization doing something amazing but are concerned are they having an impact? we need to treat people as a whole human in this regard. >> i think on the donor side, flip it. i think now donors who realize they're investigations in digital are investing in infrastructure. they're seeing that they're investing -- you're investing in a candidate and person. if your investing in a cause, a

campaign to do more. you see your dollar -- the return on your investment will be not just like this measurable thing, it's that i'm helping seed an organization. i'm helping start these conversations as it goes through. but i would take that a step further when you look at the long tail when you're doing donations at scale. trying to get a lot of people to participate. if we hit this one hot button item, that's how we'll raise a lot of money. fast and the furious. we're going to do everything we could. paul ryan came out aggressively against it. we sent an e-mail out to everyone. literally we all all of our e-mail list and we raised x. that was okay. five days later, we sent an e-mail for mitt romney being, i can win. here is how many phone calls i made. this is the path to victory and here is what your dollars could do and had 600% lift to the exact same audience five days later because he gave a vision. that was the biggest thing. too often these campaigns are too tactical. they think people are paying attention just like they are.

that's one of the problems. we had to let our coms team stop writing our fund-raising e-mails. they're like, this is what everybody is talking about in d.c. i'm like, no one in iowa knows what we're talking about. it doesn't matter because it's so reactive. you get so caught up on we got them on this one. they want to know where you're going. they want a vision and you need to provide that. campaigns become so tactical to the strategic detriment and that's a real challenge. fund raising is one of the things that will be interesting to watch right now. these campaigns saying the sky is falling. this is the way to go. it's all these shock tactics which are working. the question will be does that work at scale and can you bring on new people as you're losing other people quickly because you're turning off -- it's easy to find when you're in the prospecting phase. when you get to the next phase that will be real interesting to see the scale they're doing it to see can you replicate that. i'm sure that's something i would be concerned if i was looking at how the committees are using the list. if i were a presidential candidate, something i'd be cognitive of. >> zac, i'm going to challenge you both to a three-minute lightning round and call it a

day. in three minutes, i'll ask you a couple of interesting questions, i think any way. one, prediction. what is the biggest single area where you think the technology will change or alter tactics or strategy in 2016? >> audience-based television buying. you will be able to start -- the efficiencies you gain from television will free up the budgets to do everything else. what you will probably get to by 2016 is getting to literally set top type information. >> yours? >> active proximity based mobile community organizing. people being able to organize their own communities based on proximity in realtime. >> okay. in 2016, what will the role be or will there be a role -- of course there will be -- but how change will be for the traditional journalists with candidates now capable of going via social media, via digital media, to everybody, anybody, anywhere, any time? >> i think the whole -- spent a lot of time at the center last year thinking about this with

the folks of the community kennedy school that one of the things that journalism needs to re-imagine is the value of being first. that -- >> it's more important or less important? >> it is almost impossible unless you're talking about investigative reporting for a reporter to be first. so if you're not first, what is your job? and re-imagining that question is something that journalism has not yet done. >> i love that. that's great. >> i think that, yeah, the role -- individual reporters will have a impact in 2016 mostly because they're becoming their own brands and that will be interesting. the campaigns are going to have to figure out ways -- they are try to go around them but the marketplace will react accordingly. the media is not going away. our challenge as consumers we have to understand how to take that information. that's where the disconnect is people don't know what to do with this information, especially false information. that's becoming a real challenge. campaigns will continue to work with reporters, especially as they start to write longer, better pieces. that will be in their best interest. >> i think media is an important

piece of the graph of the way we consume information. it's just different. >> the need for historical understanding is huge. the need for context. last question and the lightning round here. will your client in 2016 be hillary clinton? >> so my company doesn't work for campaigns or candidates. >> when you are recruited from your company, will your candidate in 2016 be hillary clinton? >> i will not be working on the 2016 presidential campaign. >> if you're volunteering in the 2016 campaign, will you be volunteering for hillary clinton? >> if she's running, i'll be volunteering. >> i'm done. >> your turn. >> i mean, we believe we provide a product and service and we would be willing to work with any and all republican candidates. the more of them the better. unlike him, i don't take the

hillarys but i'll take the others. >> fair enough. i would like to thank you both. i would like to thank mark and paul wilson for helping to make this event possible. like to thank mark kennedy and the graduate school. my faculty colleagues who are in the room and our students and graduate students and of course, abseff, who is here in town attending this pre-conference and they're gathering here. for our c-span audience, i'm frank sesno, you've been listening to a fascinating conversation from the jack morton auditorium and i would like to thank our guests here at the george washington university who have just been unbelievable. michael and zac, thanks to you both. good luck and i hope that in all that you do, whether you're in politics or out, whether you're working with the candidates or merely volunteering, that in using these technologies and engaging people, you can put some meaning and some hope and some movement back into our political structure because it's

not good enough to just come here and talk about it. and that's certainly not -- i don't mean that in any insulting way, but what we need to do in this country is we need to get our communication and our citizens and our politics working again. and that's a big task. >> totally agree. >> thank you both very much. >> thank you for your time. appreciate it. thank you. [ applause ]. fbi director james comey will speak at the brookings institution about technology, privacy and public safety. you can see it live at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. and right after that, tom

frieden, the director of the centers for disease control and prevention testified on the u.s. response to the ebola outbreak. he'll be joined by anthony fauci. this hearing held by a sub committee live at 12:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span. be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. it continues with an iowa senate debate between democratic congressman bruce braley and the republican challenger, joni ernst. it starts live at:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. this weekend on the c-span networks, friday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, from the texas tribune festival, a conversation about dealing with undocumented youth coming in to the u.s. saturday night, a town hall

meeting on the media's coverage of the events in ferguson, missouri. sunday evening at:00 on q&a, historian richard norton smith on his recent biography of nelson rockefeller. friday night at 8:00 on c-span2, author rich whittle on drones, their impact on aviation and how they transform the american military. saturday night at 10:00 on book tv's "afterwords," jake helpurn on the questionable practices of the health industry. friday at 8:00, martin luther king's poor people's campaign and the 1968 election. and saturday night, the life and legacy of booker t. washington. sunday afternoon at 4:00 on "reel america," from 1964, exercise delaware. a joint armed forces readiness operation between the u.s. and iran when the two countries were allies. find our television schedule at

c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comment comments @c-span.org. or send us a tweet @c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. in about 25 minutes we'll bring you a discussion on voter i.d. laws and the pro tension impact on the mid-term elections. that will be held at the national press club here in washington, d.c. you'll be able to see it live here on c-span3. right now though, yesterday's white house briefing with press secretary josh earnest. >> afternoon, everybody. thank you for joining us today. we will go straight to the questions. the president, as many of you know, is convening a meeting this afternoon at 3:30 in the cabinet room with members of his team who are responsible for responding to this -- to the

ebola diagnosis in texas. so i'm actually at that meeting so i need to leave here at 3:25. be a little embarrassing to walk in late. so i don't want to be late. do you want to get us started? >> can you give us any more details on the meeting that you said you're going to, what's the president going to get out of it be who are some of the people who are participating and does this in any way affect travel that's on the schedule for tomorrow? >> darlene, the president is convening members of his team who have been responsible for responding to the ebola situation in this country. the president wants to do that because he wants to make sure that all of the needed resources of the federal government will being deployed to deal with this specific situation. we'll have a full manifest of those who are participating in the meeting for you. at the conclusion of the meeting you'll have the opportunity to hear directly from the president

himself about what decisions were made in the course of that meeting. at this point i don't have any changes to tomorrow's schedule to announce. we're obviously operating in a pretty dynamic environment right now. we'll do our best to keep you updated. if there is something that requires a change to the president's schedule we'll definitely let you know. >> can you explain why he thought it was necessary to cancel both stops in new jersey and connecticut, just to stay here and have this meeting? >> obviously we have a second diagnosis of ebola. again this is a health care worker who was working to treat the patient at texas presbyterian hospital, the first individual who had been diagnosed with ebola in this country. so that indication -- that indicates the seriousness of this situation and the president believed that it was important to convene the senior members of his team who are responsible for coordinating this response. the president was not able to

host that meeting and travel at the same time. what we have us a indicated is that the president of the united states is president wherever he goes and that's true 24/7. but what's also true is if the president determines that it's necessary for him to return to the white house to fulfill his responsibilities as the leader of the country and as commander in chief, then he'll alter his schedule accordingly. the decision that we made about today's schedule is consistent with that guiding principle. >> i know this question was asked yesterday, i wanted to ask it again today. does the president and the white house -- is there continued confidence in dr. frieden to lead the cdc at this time? and also, is the administration now going to rethink the idea of appointing someone to be an ebola czar given this new diagnosis? >> the answer is yes. throughout this process and this response dating all the way back to march, i might add, this administration has been guided by the science, by our medical experts who have experience in dealing with ebola outbreaks.

for almost four decades now, the global health community, led by the united states, has been dealing with ebola outbreaks in africa. and as we are dealing with a public health situation in this country, we continue to be guided by the advice of medical experts and scientists who have knowledge in this field and can use that knowledge to protect the american people. as it relates to a so-called ebola czar, what -- i will reiterate what we've said in the past on this. we have designated very clear lines of responsibility in terms of which agencies are responsible for which aspects of this response. we've got cdc and usaid personnel operating in west africa to work with the local governments to try to meet the urgent humanitarian public health needs if those countries. you have a department of defense that is responding to the orders of the president of the united

states to set up enhanced logistical capacity so that the international community can benefit from improved logistics as they seek to move equipment an personnel into the region to try to confront this outbreak. you've got department of homeland security staffers that are responsible for securing or transportation infrastructure and monitoring individuals who are entering this country at ports of entry across the map. and then in addition to that you have hhs and cdc officials who are responsible for koord are natu coordinating with state and locale public health authorities to ensure that the american public is safe. there are clear lines of sport for each of those sets of responsibilities. at the same time, you have the president's chief homeland security advisor, lee isa monac working here at the white house who's responsible for integrating the efforts of all of the agencies and making sure that they have access to the information and resources that they need to do their job. all of that said, we have said

on a number of occasions that if additional resources or if additional staffing is necessary to augment the response, then we won't hesitate to consider it but at this point the lines of authority are clear and the person responsible for coordinating those efforts here at the white house continues to do that work well. >> it sounds like you're not inclined to appoint a czar. >> well, there are clear lines of responsibility that are in place. there is an individual here at the white house highly competent individual, lisa monaco, the president's homeland security advisor, who is responsible for integrating that response. but again, if we determine that additional resources or additional staffing or additional expertise is needed to augment this response, then we won't hesitate to take advantage of it. >> is the president wanting to know how this health care worker was able to get on a commercial plane? >> well, there are a number of things that we're eager to know. the first is -- and this is the

subject of an investigation by cdc officials -- is to determine exactly how this virus was transmitted from the so-called index patient in dallas to at least two of the health care workers who were treating him. that is the focal point of an investigation that the cdc is expediting at the direct order of the president of the united states. the other thing that the cdc is reviewing are the protocols that were in place to protect the health of the health care workers who were treating this patient. it's not clear exactly what protocols were in place and how those protocols were implemented and the cdc wants to try to get to the bottom of that so that they can offer advice to medical professionals and hospital administrators and others across the country about the protocols that are needed to ensure that their health care workers remain

safe. what the cdc is also doing and they're expending significant resources to do this, is to do contact tracing of the two health care workers that have contracted the virus. and that involves, as it sounds, tracing the contacts these individuals had after they got sick. and so you saw the news release from cdc and from one of the domestic airlines today indicating that they were contacting passengers who were on the same flight as this individual to make sure that they were educated about the risk to which they were exposed. now what our medical experts tell us sis that that risk is quite low, but it is important for people to have access to that information so that they can get the facts about what sort of risk they're facing. again, that risk is low. and what steps should be taken, if necessary, in the unlikely

event that they do start to display some symptoms. >> yesterday the president said that if the ebola epidemic in the united states is highly unlikely. is that statement still operative today? >> it is true. it is guided by the science. that's what our experts say. our experts say that because the way that ebola is transmitted is very clear. it is something that's not likely to happen in the united states. ebola is not like the flu. ebola is not transmitted but the air. ebola is not transmitted through the food that we eat in this country, and it's not transmitted through the water that we drink in this country. the only way that an individual can get ebola is by coming into close contact with the bodily fluids of an individual that is already exhibiting symptoms of ebola. that's why in this case tragically we've seen two health care workers that obviously were in very close contact with the index ebola patient contract this virus. how exactly that transmission occurred is something that

remains under investigation. but the risk to which they were exposed was elevated by the fact that they were in close contact with this patient trying to meet that person's medical needs. >> follow up? spl sure. >> the president used the word epidemic. yesterday he used the word "outbreak" as something chances are exceedingly low. is what we've had in dallas now an outbreak when you've had multiple transmissions? >> well, i think there is a medical professional who could probably give you a specific definition of what actually constitutes an outbreak. my layman's understanding that i think the vast majority of the american public would agree with is that we're talking about a situation which two health care workers who were treating an individual with ebola contracted the virus.

we are -- the cdc, our medical experts are conducting an investigation into how that transmission occurred. but that is different than images that are conjured up with an outbreak where you have individuals who are basically in public transmitting the virus. that is something that we think on a large scale is exceedingly unlikely. >> the w.h.o. definition of an outbreak says that it is something that is an occurrence in excess of what normally would be expected in a defined community. and it can be in a case where a disease has long been absent from a population. that may also constitute and outbreak. it really sounds like even if it is not large scale, it is an outbreak. so i guess i wonder if that cause into question some of the reassurance that we've heard in this room. >> no, i don't think it does, mark. simply because what we're talking about here is a situation where there were health care workers who came in to direct contact with an ebola

patient who did tragically contract the disease. we are very focused on making sure those individuals get the treatment that is necessary. and our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families as they fight this terrible virus. but that is wholly different than, for example, the situation that we see in west africa where tragically you're seeing people who live in the same household be -- passing the virus from one to another. or we're seeing a result of unsafe burial practices that individuals are contracting the virus from corpses. again, that is a tragic occurrence. it is an indication of the poor medical infrastructure that exists in those countries and that is something that poses a much broader risk to the population in west africa. that's why the president has devoted significant resources from the federal government to combat that outbreak. but that is obviously a far cry from the situation that exists in dallas right now. john. >> josh, you said that the

president still has confidence in the director of the cdc. let me ask you a broader question. you were pretty strong in defending the federal government's response to this yesterday. now given what we've learned about another given what we've about another case in dallas and the fact that individual was able to -- did fly on a plane while supposed to have been monitored -- how did you -- would you say the federal government's response to this situation has been successful, has been up to the standards? >> i'll say a couple of things about. that the first is dr. frieden himself as said it's unacceptable even one health care worker was exposed to this virus while providing medical treatment to this patient. that's an indication there were shortcomings and that is

something that is being thoroughly investigated by the centers for disease control and other experts. that investigation obviously will also now expand to cover the second health care worker that's now been diagnosed with ebola. so that is a clear indication that -- let me say -- there's a second thing dr. frieden said. i believe earlier this week he said knowing what he knows now about the hospital, he regretted not sending a team of experts to that hospital sooner to assist the hospital as they responded to this specific diagnosis. what you are seeing are from the federal government however is the kind of tenacious response that expects revolving circumstances. dr. frieden indicated that he

would send a whole team of experts earlier this week after observing that he believed they should have been there sooner. what you're seeing after this diagnosis you're seeing stepped up monitoring by health officials in texas of other health care workers responsible for treating the index ebola patient. this is a response that indicates a commitment to protect the american public. there's other way as in which this happened as well. we've adapted to circumstances by beefing up airport screenings for example. at the end of last week, you recall we announced new screening measures that would go in place at five airports across the country. these airports cover 95% of the arrivals of travelers that started in west africa. those improved or strengthened training measures are indicative

of our commitment to constantly evaluating our policies and where possible putting in place measures that would strengthen them. >> why do so many americans feel first of all that there's a real risk of an epidemic in this country and that the federal government is not doing enough to stop it. latest poll, abc, washington post, two-thirds of americans think the federal government is not doing enough on this. are they wrong? >> well, let me say -- let me say this about that. it sounds to me that a significant portion of the american population agrees with dr. frieden that even one trance mission of the ebola virus to one health care worker in this country is something that's unacceptable and won't be tolerated. it's something that prompted a review of protocols and investigation of how that

occurred. people continue to be confident in the priority attention this issue is receiving across the federal government and here in the white house. that's evidence by the fact the president is convening some of the top ranking officials in his administration to discuss that response. but again, what i urge people to do, the other thing that's motivating the answer to that question is something related to fear. this is a deadly, terrible disease rewreaking havoc in wes africa. it's genuinely tragic. because of the way that is transmitted and because of modern infrastructure in this country, the risk in this country is exceedingly low. that's what our medical experts tell us. that's advice that we continue to follow, however, the administration continues to pursue the kind of tenacious

response that will protect the american public here at home but also do what is necessary to completely eliminate the risk to the american public from the ebola virus. that's to stop the outbreak at the source. >> still no consideration of a travel ban from the affected countries? >> that's not on the table at this point. the reason for that in case people haven't heard the previous answer. it's important for people to to understand why that's the case. shutting down travel to that area of the world would prevent the expeditious flow of personnel and equipment into the region. the only way for us to stop this outbreak and eliminate any risk from ebola to the american public is stop this at the source. we're mobilizing resources to make sure supplies and personnel get to the affected region and meet the needs of the region to stop the outbreak there. that's why the travel ban is not on the table. >> the president cancelled a

political travel for this meeting. does he plan to cancel further political travel or is this a one day thing? >> we'll value wait on a daily basis. this is obviously a dynamic situation. if they, i have no doubt the president will cancel political travel to attend important priorities here. whether a change in tomorrow's schedule is required we don't know that yet. when we do, we'll let you know. major? >> josh, couple of months ago when the airlines jet was shot down over ukraine, the president carried on with his schedule. a member of the staff said a dru bankrupt changes to his schedule create a false sense of crisis. did you do that today? >> what drives decisions are the president's responsibilities. i don't know if you traveled on that trip to delaware in new

york, but over the course of that trip, the president called five world leaders including poroshenko, leader of malaysia, prime minister of negletherland the nation that bore the front of that tragedy. the president was able to attend his schedule while also tending to responsibilities as commander in chief. as it relates to today's schedule, the schedule needed to be changed for the president to fulfill responsibilities as leader of the country. we'll value wait tomorrow based on his requirements. if we need to make a change to his schedule so he can do what's necessary here at the white house, we'll change his schedule. i don't know yet if that will be required. >> is today's meeting a decision meeting? you said at the top of your remarks.

does this make it of significant importance? >> the reason this is important, we're talking about senior members of his team dealing with what is a urgent situation in country. >> new methods announced after this meeting -- >> frankly major, i don't know the answer to that. the if there are, the president will have the opportunity to discuss with all of you at the conclusion of the meeting. >> have there been additional meetings the president or his staff have convened here in the past days on ebola -- >> the president has been updated and briefed on this issue. i don't know the if there have been formal meetings convened. there's been a must be of occasions the president has been updated on this situation. >> can you understand that the public watching this story play out can have genuine sense of skepticism or possibly alarm because they hear, we know out to deal with this, we're taking proper steps, all precautions

are implemented. yet someone who has it, doesn't show similarymptomsymptoms, get commercial aircraft. everyone on that plane is now contacted. that creates a low level sense of alarm. everyone on that plane, everyone that knows the person on that plane, everyone who remembers hearing a couple of days ago that's not going to happen. we've got this under control. do you understand how the public is becoming less confident and possibly more alarm as the story plays out? >> people should continue to be confident in the response organized by the government in reaction to this specific situation. the reason for that is simply that we have a modern medical infrastructure in place that has not been flawless. we pointed out why that is the case. one transmission to a health care worker sun escapable. >> good morning. welcome to the national press club. the world's leading professional organization for journalists. i'm myron, the club president.

midterm elections are just the few days away. since the last cycle new election and voter id laws have been put in place in a number of states. there have been numerous court rulings on validity of laws. making it for poor, elderly and physically challenge to cast their ballots. this morning we'll hear from experts on both sides of the issue. mrs. cheryl voting rights attorney with the defense fund and on leave as a professor of civil procedure and constitutional law at the university of maryland school of law. she is a well known voting rights lit gator, civil rights

strategist and author of the book "on the courthouse lawn confronting lynching in the 21st century century." hanz is senior legal fellow at heritage foundation. he's worked as council and senior corporate officer in the insurance industry. he served as council to the assistant attorney general for civil rights 2002-2005. he was a member of the federal election committee for two years. he is coauthor of the book "who's counting, how fraud administers and bureaucrats put your vote at risk." he has testified before various state and congressional committees in favor of the constitutional rights of states to establish procedures for the conduct of their elections. few ground rules. after our speakers make their

presentations, we'll open the floor to questions. let me remind you that media and press club members may post questions. when recognized please identify yourself and organization before asking your question. i'll turn over the proceedings to our first speaker mrs. cherylin. >> thank you very much. thank you to the national press club and news makers. i'm really delighted to be here talking about this subject today. it's particularly fitting we're talking about this issue of voter investigation and voting rights today. just yesterday our lawyers along with a team of lawyers from other civil rights organizations and law firms filed an emergency motion in the united states supreme court asking the court to vacate the state granted by the fifth circuit that keeps in place texas voter id law for this november's election. later in the day yesterday, the

united states also filed a similar motion with the court. what happens in this case in texas involving texas' voter id law, the in many ways will determine how we view cases around the country but the whole issue of voter i.d. itself. every argument that has been made in support of new restrictive voter i.d. laws was made in the texas case. the state of texas put resources behind the defense of this law. this case was decided on a full record with three weeks of trial, with fact witnesses, and ex pert witnesses. in other words, both sides were all in. so i'd like to talk for a brief moment about that case, about the evidence that was developed in that case and what the judge found. to use it as a way to frame the

conversation around voting in this country which i think a has become entirely upside down. rather than engage in what i believe this country needs and what every functioning democracy should want which is a robust conversation about how to insure that every eligible voter in our country can participate fully in the electoral process. we spend most our time, most our effort and recently most of our laws focused on how we can keep people from voting. so we knew in the texas case we had a hard road to hoe. we knew we had to engage in every myth advanced around voter i.d. we did it in that case. i want to briefly talk about some of those myths as a way of

framing this conversation. many of these beliefs about voter i.d. are held not by ideal logs, not by people on the right or left, but they have penetrated the conversation of average americans, things that seem very obvious to people and make people say i don't understand what the big controversy is. for example, very often people will say most people have a photo i.d. mosts people have a driver's license or some other form of i.d. they use. that may be well true, but that belies the fact the issue in this case is not whether you need identification to vote but what kind of identification you need to vote. in the texas example, the state decided to impose what has been called by a federal court the most restrictive voter i.d. law in the country requiring a

government issued photo i.d. with particular forms of i.d. excluding forms that had been used in the past. for example our clients in the case are students at texas universities who in the past were able to use their university i.d. to vote. texas' new voter i.d. law now denies them the right to use their student i.d. to vote. if they have a concealed gun carry permit, they can use that to vote but can't use student i.d. at trial we show had the more than half a million eligible voters in the state of texas lack the requisitei d. the vast majority are black and latin moe. some argue everyone can afford to get the i.d. at the trial we put on a witness that couldn't afford the $42 that it would cost for her to obtain a birth certificate, one of the documents she would need to get the government issued photo i.d. she testified she had

to make a choice between fieedig her family and spending $42 on a new birth certificate. we don't believe in this country any citizen should have to choose between eating and voting. yet texas at shown at trial only managed to provide a free i.d. for about 200 eligible voters. so the federal court in texas found that in fact it does function as a poll tax. everyone has a birth certificate, people say. we put on the testimony of elizabeth golar, born at home, in her 70s now who's birth certificate that was filled out at home was in error. she has no heemeans, no witness no way of getting a new birth certificate. although she's voted her entire adult life, she's disenfranchised by texas new

voter law. texas has also said this is about voter fraud. i'm sure we'll hear more about that today. the state of texas with all resources available to hit in this litigation was able to instigate two instances of voter fraud since 2002. off lmillions of votes cast in that period, this is a problem that doesn't exist, a solution in search of a problem, a fantasy and a phantom utilized to disenfranchise more than half a million voters. finally people say this is not about racial discrimination. if anything, it's bipartisan politics. to that i say the mere fact partisan facts are in voting, this does not discourage its effect. partisan politics have are always been entangled with voting schemes. our organization's first successful voting rights case we

won in the 1940s when we challenged the all white primary used by democratic party in texas. texas fully understood the disproportionate law on voters. this is not used by texas to disenfranchise black and brown voters. poll tax, voter purges. in every instance, the rational offered by texas was the intent to prevent voter fraud. the court in this case found texas has engaged in an unbroken line of racial discrimination in voting. she issued a 147 page opinion with clear opinions based on the evidence, a devastating but essential reading i think for you and all americans to digest. the shelby decision the supreme

court decided two years ago, the voting rights case in which the court hollowed out the preclearance prevision of the voting rights act was premised on the idea racial discrimination in voting is a thing of the past, that times have changed. well times have changed. but the judge's decision in the texas case shows that although times may have changed, the use of discriminatory voting schemes in texas has not. what's at issue? if the stay is not lifted in this case, we'll all bear witness to knowing disenfranchisement of more than half a million, some say nearly 800,000 eligible voters in texas, for this year's election. based on a law that a federal judge has found was intended to discriminate against black and latino voters. just think about a half million

people being disenfranchised. that's the state of maryland, if they decided to disenfranchise every voter in the state. whether you're democrat or republican, black or white, from the south or north. if you're an american, you should be alarmed and appalled by this. this tells us at this moment we must shift our conversation about voting to a conversation about how we enfranchise rather than disenfranchise our eligible voting population. 60% of americans eligible to vote, a approximately 60% are registered. nearly 30% are not registered. millions of voters who are absent from the political process. what voter i.d. laws have created is essentially a

regulatory obstacle course for those who we should want to participate in the political process in this democracy. i hope today's conversation will shift the narrative and help engage us in the conversation about how we enrich voting in this country rather than deprive voters of opportunity to be full citizens. thank you. >> now i'd like to call upon hanz who will give his side of the issue. thank you. >> i want to thank the press club for inviting us here to talk about this. we did this a couple of years ago to talk about this issue. that brings up an important

point. all of the claims being made were made by the naacp eight years ago. we now have the data to show all of these are not true. what do i mean by that? georgia passed a voter i.d. law, a strict voter i.d. law as some like to term it, that requires a government issued photo i.d. to vote. it was first effective in 2008 one of the handouts and a paper that shows what happened in that state. one of the advantages of georgia is because it was one of the states covered under section 5 of the voter rights act, they keep data on all registered voters. rather than the surmises, guesses, and other things going on in these lawsuits including

most recent one, we know exactly how many white, how many hispanics, white georgians turned out to vote after the voter i.d. law went in place. we can compare to prior similar elections where there was no voter i.d. law in place. what you'll see is rather than the turnout for example of black georgians going out, it went up dramatically after the voter i.d. law went into place. it was clearly not suppressed by the voter i.d. law. same thing happened in 2010. in 2012 according to the u.s. census bureau, many of you may know they do a survey after every election. it looks at voters and provide a chart and table that breaks it down by race and by state according to the survey information of turnout. it showed in 2012 elections, blacks voted at a higher rate

than whites in the state of georgia. we recall indiana law went to the supreme court. at the time the court called it strict egs photo i.d. in the country. the court said it was constitutional and required an i.d., not a substantial burden on voters. contrary to what you may think, that opinion was not written by and was not voted on just by the five conservatives on the court. in fact the majority opinion was written by justice john paul stephens, one of the liberals of the court before he retire ed from the court. now we have data on indiana also. in the 2008 election when the

law was in place for the first time, indiana had one of the largest increases in democratic turnout of any state in the country. in 2010, their turnout went up again including of black voters. in 2012 again, this is not me, this is not my opinion. this is the u.s. census bureau. the census bureau reports in 2012 elections, blacks voted at a higher rate than whites in indiana by 10 percentage points. so this idea that it's going to suppress people's right to vote, we know is not true. also on the table outside, you'll find another paper that i published. an article i published a year or so ago in which i did something that i thought was kind of interesting. i went back to the original georgia lawsuit filed by the naacp. by the way they lost that lawsuit. a court threw out the case

saying the georgia voter i.d. law was neither non constitutional or discriminatory under the voting act. one of the problems the naacp had a problem with. they had a number of individuals that came forward as witnesses. all of them claimed they didn't have i.d., wouldn't be able to get one, wouldn't be able to vote. well, about a year agoago, i we and took the names from the court decision of those witnesses, all of whom had sworn under oath they would never be able to vote. i went and checked their official voting records with the georgia secretary of state. i found all individuals that claimed they wouldn't be able to vote had voted and had been voting in election after election in georgia after the voter i.d. law went into place.

now this is a common sense reform that is supported by a majority of the american people. you can look at the polling data on this. it's remarkably uniform. americans support this going across all racial, socioeconomic and even party lines. they don't see it as a problem. why? because they know in everyday life you need an i.d. for many, many things including exercises constitutional rights like your second amendment right to buy a gun. your right to get married. that's considered a fundamental civil right. the supreme court said so in a case called virginia versus lubbing. to get married you need government issued i.d. nothing different than what's going on with voting context. now opponents to this like to

say that there's no voter fraud. well, i wrote a whole book with my coauthor that goes are through and cites case after case of voter fraud in this country. is voter i.d. the only answer to stopping fraud in elections? of course. in fact the end of that a book has a series of recommendations on this issue. this is just one of them. mrs. eiffle referred to functioning democracy and how important the right to vote is. i agree with. that we're one of the only functions democracies that does not require a government issued photo i.d. to vote. the important issue here is as the supreme court said, justice stephens, voter fraud could make the difference in a close election. we have many close elections in this country. that was the conclusion of the carter baker commission which

jimmy carter and james baker chaired years ago. they look at this issue and that was also the point there. ohio, which as you know has been trying to get a voter i.d. law in place. last year in their local elections they had something like 30 local elections decided by one vote. that's where it could make the difference. voter i.d. not only can prevent things like impersonation fraud. fraud committed by those that falsely register in a place they don't live or under a false name. it can potentially prevent people in the country illegally from voting. it can do two other things according to the u.s. supreme court. it helps maintain the accuracy of voter rolls and secondly helps maintain public confidence in the election process which is also fundamental to democracy. my point here is that we now have many years of data on

states that have had voter i.d. laws in place. that data is the official turnout data showing the idea it will suppress people's right to vote is simply not true. texas was just mentioned. on the table outside, you'll find a paper i did looking at texas. texas' voter i.d. law was in place in their state elections last year. now, that state election is comparable to an election held in 2011. very similar issues on the ballot. in 2011 there was no voter i.d. law in place. there was last year. the turnout in texas after the voter i.d. law went in place nearly doubled. if you look at that paper of mine, you'll see i look at turnout in some of the counties in texas that are counties with

very large hispanic populations, counties with large black populations, and in many of those counties the turnout went up even more than the doubling statewide. that's real data. that paper was taken from the actual certified election returns across the state. it's not an academic predictions and academic guess which is what you're getting for example in this lawsuit in texas that was just decided. we know now because this law was in place that in fact all predictions once again that would suppress turnout simply have not happened. voter i.d. has been portrayed by many as part of a republican plot to suppress the vote. well, if it is, which i don't agree with, it seems to have done the opposite. it seems to in some places have

spurred turnout. rhode island passed voter i.d. law. rhode island is a state in which the democratic party controls the state. something like 4-1 against republicans. in kansas which passed voter i.d. law, a majority of democrats in the house and senate voted in favor of the law. this is simply an effort to make sure that the system we have is one that is secure, that is free and fair, and it is not going to keep people eligible from voting from being able to vote. thanks. >> we're about eight minutes ahead of time. we normally ask for questions. i'd like to use the derogative in asking if each of our speakers would like to give a two to three minute response to what they've heard this morning. if we could keep it to two to three minutes, then we'll start

questions promptly at 10:30. >> we have a press conference that's ahead of time? >> we usually allow a half hour for questions. i thought that since we have a news maker without -- instead of having one speaker we have two. i thought i'd give you each a chance to give a response. i thought it was a good journalistic practice to do for two distinguished lawyers. >> i greatly appreciate it. thank you. so where do i begin? i think what you've just heard really in many ways encapsule lates the problem about voter i.d. everything he said is a diversion. in fact, really does not help you understand what this issue is about. i just want to for a brief moment say because i've been this act dem i can't 20 years and also a lit gator, i don't consider litigation and findings of a federal judge an academic

guess. what i learned in law school was that you put on evidence at trial. when evidence is accepted by a judge and found by a judge, it becomes fact. what i described to you about the texas case are facts. they're not my guess, my opinion, my idealology. the reality is at the end of the day, for what are the reasons that mr. vanz himself relates to as what he calls confidence and possibility of election turning on one vote. we're talking about the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters. it's impossible for me to see how that balances out. the issue of turnout. this has been something mr. vanz has written about and talked about for some time. it bears some conversation because in fact turnout is actually not the proper measure to determine whether or not a

restrictive voter i.d. law disenfranchises eligible voters. any scientist will tell you turnout in election is driven by a series of factors. there are many communities for example that in the 2012 wore as a badge of honor the increased turnout they were able to accomplish can despite voter suppression measures. many turned out to vote precisely because they recognized there was an effort to suppress the vote of racial minorities. many of you remember seeing those long lines, people standing in line three, four, in some cases six hours in florida to vote in defiance of voter suppression efforts. to honor the history of those who gave their lives to insure that everyone, regardless of race, has the opportunity to

vote and participate in the political process. the increased turnout numbers he cites are a result of those who have resisted voter suppression efforts and who should be louted and encouraged for that. that tells us nothing about those who have not been able to enter the process because they have been unable to obtain the photo i.d. that would only drive turnout even higher. presumably that's what we want. i hope there's not a cap on turnout. i hope what we want is all eligible voters have an opportunity to participate in the political process. last thing. the crawford case referred to in which justice stephens wrote a majority opinion about voter i.d. that did not involve the same case of voter i.d. we've seen since the 2008 election. most of the laws that have been

passed have been passed since the 2008 election. i'll leave you to find out what the significance of that year might be. crawford at the time was the most restrictive voter i.d. law. it certainly is not today. there was not a factual record of the effect of that law in that case. the judge on the seventh circuit court of appeals who wrote the a pellet decision in the crawford case would say today they did not have enough evidence on the record to see the effect of what that voter law would be. this obscures facts. sometimes cases matter, sometimes they're academic cases. i'm referring you to the case decided last week, 147 opinion, evidence the judge walked through you can find on our website, www.naacpldf.org. read it. if you disagree, fine. it's facts. what we need are facts to anchor this conversation about this important issue if in our

democracy. >> thank you. mr. vanz. your three minutes or within that range. thank you. >> you have a decision from a texas judge, but the majority of federal courts th that have loo at this issue have decided it's non discriminatory. those are in tennessee, georgia, indiana, arizona, and south carolina. let me talk about south carolina for a second. as you all know, the justice department objected to south carolina voter i.d. law stating it was discriminatory under the voting rights act. a three judge panel in 2012 threw that claim out and said it was not discriminatory. the law is in place. it's been in place since 2012. it was not in effect for 2012 election. it's been in place in local elections. you can google search this and

find that there have been no reported problems with it. that is an important issue again which is that when you look at the actual data, it shows there isn't a problem. mrs. eiffle says back when the indiana case was decided in 2008, it was an as applied challenge. those of you who aren't lawyers know that's when you file a lawsuit and it is faced unconstitutional. that is correct. the court said is it's constitutional. let me point out, it has now been six years that the indiana law has been in place. it's now been six years the georgia law has been in place. yet there's been no supply challenge filed against either of those lawsuits. if in fact the effects were as

claimed, then civil rights organization and the justice department would have no problems filing a lawsuit saying that this -- we now have six years of experience, as applied this law is discriminatory and needs to be tossed out. no such lawsuit has been filed. that tells you something about what the evidence is on that issue. >> thank you again to both of our speakers, our panelists. i now turn over the news maker for questions. please identify your organization. as we always say, please keep your questions short, no speeches please. i'm looking for the first question. >> do you need us to come to the mic? >> yes if you could. we'll see whoever is asked a question. i'll step a side and you can

come forward. >> yes please. >> hi. i'm joe sparks, a freelance journalist. when you said the turnout has increased, well, one question -- was that actual numbers or percentages? the other question that i have though is have you done any research, this is for both, done any research about people who are not able to vote because of photo i.d. laws? and i'd also like a comment. there was a recent gao report that come out that said the photo i.d. laws are to keep the vote down. both comment. >> the first part was directed at you. would you like to answer that? >> sure. you can check with the georgia secretary of state, the percentage of voters went up.

the percentage of voters particularly hispanic and black voters went up at a higher rate than the census shows growth in population. on the gao report -- they should be embarrassed they issued such a report. let me point out two things. they look at tennessee and kansas who's voter i.d. laws were in place in 2012. why didn't they look at george yorge and indiana who's laws have been in place six years and there's lots of data on them? if you want to though how bad that report is, you have to wonder. they compared tennessee and kansas to four states. they said delaware, arkansas, maine, alabama. they said they were similar states. they're not similar states at all. the issues on the ballot weren't similar at all. one quick example. kansas in 2012 had no statewide races. you all know what drives turnout

is competitive races. there was no competitive state race. there was no senate race. a competitive senate race this year is in kansas. there was no competitive senate race in kansas in 2012, in maine in which the state is compared to, there was a competitive senate race. as you know the long time republican senator retired and it was an open seat which would mean you have a different drive for turnout in the state of maine. the last time in -- they were basically comparing apples and oranges. the last time in kansas you had a presidential election year with no statewide competitive race like the u.s. senate race in kansas was the year 2000. in the year, the turnout was apparently 66.7%. in 2012 where we have similar conditions, the turnout was

66.8%. the only difference being in 2012 a voter i.d. law was in place. if you look in the appendix of 200 page goa report, you'll see letters there from the secretary of states in kansas, arkansas, tennessee pointing out the major problems with the gao analysis which includes the the fact that as opposed to going to the secretary of state and getting their certified turnout data, and getting an up to date copy of their registration list, goa contracted this work out to a third party who not only provided them with data but apparently the algorithms used for what they called experimental analysis. who was the third party? a company called catalyst. you heard of catalyst? it was started by harold icky.

it says it has needs to service the community. if you want to know how accurate the data is, i suggest you do a google search between catalyst virginia and dogs. you'll find a series of stories in 2012 about how catalyst provided the data to the democratic party and democratic candidates in the state of virginia who used that to then send letters out to people that they catalyst said were eligible voters who weren't registered to vote. this came out because all these people in virginia started complaining to the state election board they were getting letters for supposed people in their homes who needed to get registered to vote who were dead, who had moved out of state, and they were getting letters addressed to their dogs and cats saying they should get registered and vote. that's the kind of data catalyst has. they were the ones providing the

data for this report. you should read the secretary of state's letters. they go through and point out all of the many problems. you have to wonder why did did they compare them to those states as opposed to other states that don't have voter i.d. such as west virginia, hawaii, new york, new mexico. all of whom by the way had lower voter turnout in the 2012 election than kansas. >> mrs. eiffle? >> i'll be brief. so i would direct you again to the opinion of the district court in the texas case which includes some of the testimony about people who don't have voter i.d. and why they would have difficulty getting that voter i.d. i spoke already about the issue of cost of getting the underlying documents. i want to point this out. a lot of states have been thrown out, a lot of state names thrown

out. it's very important to understand that there's voter i.d. and voter i.d. there's different kinds of voter i.d. required by different states. mr. vance for example was trumpeting the litigation in south carolina. in south carolina the reason why the voter i.d. law was upheld was because the state of south carolina during the litigation changed the voter i.d. law, i think three or four times, in order to create a voter i.d. regime that would not disenfranchise as many voters as the original plan did. so south carolina now provides the opportunity for voters to present evidence of hardship or a reason why they could not obtain the i.d. that allows them to still be able to vote. that happened during the course of the litigation. south carolina is not a great

example. when we're talking about different states and what they require, that's why i'm saying you've got to pierce through all the alleged data being thrown out, and get yourself into a fact situation in which you can get your hands around what's happening. i'm suggesting that you use texas because we've just had a trial. it's regarded as the most restrictive. by the way, you know, texas was all in. if there was evidence, here's a state, one of the most populist in our country, with a large minority population, a large immigrant population, and a restrictive voter i.d. law. a state in which the attorney general two hours after the shelby county decision tweeted intention to reimpose the voter i.d. law struck down under section five of the act just a year before. there were passionately engaged in upholding this law in this case. and yet they were only able to

produce two instances of invoter fraud. what about the states mentioned where there's not voter i.d.? where are the rampart examples of voter fraud, in person voter fraud mind you, that would justify the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters? so the question you have to ask yourself is what's the motivation for this? where does it come from? in the texas case, the federal judge issued a finding that is a very rare finding and that sets that case apart from every other case. she found the state of texas intentionally discriminated against blacks and hispanics in the inposition of texas voter i.d. law. that's a constitutional violation. that should be repugnant to every american.

that should never stand and allow a state to justify based on the possibility of one or two instances of voter fraud and the possibility that there may be an election in which one or two votes might make a difference. that should never be justification for that. i have yet to hear a response. i'm a little bit of a student of mr. advance. i read all his stuff. i'm still waiting for the article that's about how we get people to vote. i'm still waiting for the focus of someone who's a legal scholar in the area of voting on how we enfranchise people, how to make this democracy more accessible to people. i would be willing to partner if there are ideas about how we open up the process not how we

restrict the process. >> another question please? yes? >> talk radio news. i was wondering that there's been mention of states with voter i.d. law has offered to give free i.d.s to people that don't have them. i was wondering if all states offered this, what type of i.d. do they offer? is it a special one for these circumstances or is it just redirection to the dmv? >> every state that's passed voter i.d. law provides for a free i.d. for anyone that doesn't have one. it's typically the -- anybody can go to a dmv and get a non driver's license. it looks just like a driver's license. it has your photo. you can't use it for that. in georgia for example you can get one of those not only any dmv office but any county election office and actually the

state also provided when the law was first going in place. i don't know if they still do today. they basically equipped a mobile van. any group in the state doing a voter registration drive at a festival or something like that could call up the state and get the van to come do it. the point is it's a photo i.d., non driver's license photo i.d. in georgia they keep those numbers. i know you've heard numbers. 10%, 25% of americans don't have i.d. in georgia that has 6 million registered voters in the now i think eight years since they've been issuing an i.d. to anyone who doesn't have one, the average rate per year of people coming in for a free i.d. is 1

5/100th % of the registered voters. >> i only say once again that was an issue in the texas case. they had the opportunity to come forward and tell us because they also have a free i.d. program, election identification card. some how they have only managed to issue 200. i would -- i have concerns about the will and willingness of state to aggressively ensue this when we have been talking about voters without this access in hundreds of thousands. it's easy to sit here and say go to the motor vehicle office. you know in texas it's a pretty big state. people in rural areas have to drive in many cases long distances. this is a problem that our students face as well who are in various campuses in texas. if they don't have access to a car. then of course it's the cost of the underlying documents. they're not going to give you

the election identification card. you still have to be able to prove and provide the underlying documentation that they seek. and that has its own cost as well and also can require going to various offices to get the underlying documents like birth certificates and so forth. >> another question? yes in the back. thank you. then i'll take yours. >> hi. i'm mira from time magazine. i'm wondering what your expecting in terms of impact on the midterm elections from the laws that are in place currently, not just voter i.d. but changes to early vote, changes to registration. how do you see these impacting the upcoming election? >> sure. well time are will the tell. in some ways it goes back to my

earlier comments about 2012. the reaction was that in many jurisdictions people decided they were going to come out. there was increased organization which i expect is happening now. increased voter registration happening over the last few months and activism around getting people out to vote. but when you drop early voting as in ohio, when you drop that sunday, that was the sunday soul patrol for african-american voters. when we look at the situation in texas, we'll find out this week whether the supreme court lifts that stay. you know, we're talking about early voting starting october 20th in texas. we're talking about soon. how will people be able to respond and react? in texas if you don't have the voter i.d., you will not be voting. we just had the trial last month. so we're talking about more than half a million people that will

not be able to participate in the political process. what does that mean for midterm election? it remains to be seen in various jurisdictions. turnout is driven by factors. some have to do whether you're registered to vote and have the photo i.d. some have to do whether there's a hot contested race, has to do with organiegoganizing at the l level and the weather. it remains to be seen. in places where you have large numbers of citizens who do not have the requisite voter i.d. or are unavailable to take advantage of expansive early voting periods they had been a customed to, typically people that work two jobs, have children, who really do not have available and flexible free time. it can really make a difference.

>> let's go back to u.s. census. the census does a survey after every federal election. they go out and survey people that didn't vote. they try to find out why they didn't vote. those are interesting and worth looking at. all these claims you constantly hear that the reason people don't go to the polls, reason we don't have higher turnout is because of procedural difficulties that they have in trying to vote. because they can't get to the polls is not worn out by the surveys. the numbers of individuals that site some kind of procedural issue this kept them from voting is one of the tiniest percentages on this survey. the vast majority people give for not voting is frankly a cultural society one which is they're not interesting in the elections. they're not interested many the candidates. they don't think whoever gets -- it doesn't matter who gets elected. they can make a difference in

their lives. that's the biggest reasons people tell the u.s. census for not voting. this whole fight in ohio over the fact that they lowered voting days is ridiculous. early voting with a new phenomenon. this is something many states have just put in. there's a lot of states there's no early voting at all. at 28 days, ohio still had more early voting days than almost any other state in the country. the idea that that's going to somehow keep people out of the polls is not born out again by the data. the center for study of american

l center looking at turnt for those states. the study confirmed by another report just a year ago by a university of wisconsin that early voting doesn't actual increase that early voting doesn't increase turnout, it may hurt turnout. that sounds counterintuitive but what they found looking at all 50 states is in general election where is the turnout rate across the country has gone up, like in 2008, in states with early voting it doesn't increase at as big a rate as in other states. and in general elections where the turnout rate goes down from the prior election, it goes down even steeper in early voting states. they don't really know why, but the theory for that is that, as you know, campaigns and parties spend the majority of their money in a couple of days before election day in their get-out-the-vote efforts. if you have a long early voting period of several weeks to a

month, month and a half, that get-out-the-vote effort gets dispersed and diffused over a much longer period of time and may not be quite as effective. the end result is you apparently have a slight di min wags in early turnout. it's a small percentage, but this idea that early voting somehow will help increase turnout, the studies show that that is simply not the case. >> did you have -- was there one more question from this side of the room? did you have the final one? yes. >> there are different types of voter fraud, and i often think that -- i'm confused as to whether we're talking about voter registration fraud or actual voter fraud. actual voter fraud is somebody who goes in and attempts to vote or vote based on inaccurate

information. whether they're misrepresenting or saying they're someplace else. so what i would like to know is what are the rates of voter registration fraud, what i'm calling voter fraud, and how much voter registration fraud actually translates into people who attempt to illegally vote in an election? >> thank you. we're coming up to the esix min till the end of the news mareks so if you could each give a succinct response in a minute or so. thank you very much. >> i consider voter registration fraud to be voter fraud, and if you want to know how that can be used, just a year or so ago a city election in i think california was overturned when the court determined that enough voters had voted in the election who had claimed to reside in the

city who actually didn't live there to overturn the election. that was clearly voter registration fraud. it led to voter fraud. the miami mayor's race in 1997 was overturned by a federal court because of massive absentee ballot fraud there. and one of the things they found in that case was that there were many people engaging again in voter registration fraud by claiming to live in the city because they wanted to vote in the election but didn't do so. i can cite you more cases like that. that kind of voter registration fraud is something that unfortunately happens. we just discovered 17 individuals in fairfax county, virginia, where i live, who the records show have been voting in both states, virginia and maryland, in elections illegally, which is a felony under federal law. so, you know, voter registration fraud can lee to fraud in the election process itself. >> how is voter i.d. fraud --

>> thank you. let her give her response. >> so i think you've asked a very succinct question because understanding what kind of fraud you're talking about is important because voter i.d. laws, the only kind of fraud that's really relevant to the voter i.d. law is the in-person voter fraud. and that is de minimis. in fact, even the registration fraud that was talked about also does not occur at a statistically significantly high level. you heard him cite a case from 1997. most of the cases i've seen from materials are from that period and earlier. so voter registration fraud is not a rampant problem but in-person voter fraud is even less an occurrence than voter registration fraud. so creating an entire apparatus of voter i.d. to address a problem that does not exist is

really i think the heart of the issue around the voter i.d. laws. and when you're faced with that, when you're faced with an apparatus that's been put in place, a solution that's been put in place that transforms something that's been in effect all this time, i mean, we haven't had voter i.d. laws in texas forever and ever and ever and suddenly we needed them. were all the elections before somehow infirm in some way? all the elections in new york, hawaii, all other states cited? where did this come from? why did we suddenly need this? when we begin to ask that question and start peeling back the onion, we end up located right in the place where judge ramos left us in the texas case, that the purpose of this law was designed to try and suppress the votes of minority voters as other schemes had been designed in texas in years dating back through the past century.

>> i'd just like to ask maybe a naive question. but listening to both of you, you spoke about partnering with each other, and i think, you know, you both have the objective of ensuring that the u.s. democracy fulfills itself to the utmost during elections. i've been abroad and saw that my first election i covered was in the general election. more than 200 voters in the 1967. you spoke about james baker, secretary of state, a republican, and jimmy carter, former president, a democrat, working together. is there a way that the both of you could work together, the aclu and the heritage foundation, to come up with some agreed guidelines on this issue? and with two minutes left to, go i hope that question is appropriate to conclude the newsmaker.

miss ifill and then you. >> there's always a way, i suppose. i suppose i would stand by my earlier offer. i will not refrites from what i am interested in. you know, my organization remains in the tradition of thurgood marshall and goodman chaney and john lewis and all of those who have fought for the enfranchisement of americans, particularly those for whom the vote is their voice. they don't have the money or the power or the influence. that is the way they express themselves in the democracy. and i am of the belief that our work should be focused on how we can ensure that as many of our citizens as possible have the

ability to participate in the political process and vote. i don't understand why an 18-year-old young man would have to go to the post office and register for selective service when he turns 18 but doesn't have to go to the post office and register to vote. i don't understand why the state of north carolina would pass a law that would eliminate prevoter registration for 16- and 17-year-olds. all of the sign, all of the incentives that we're setting out are in incentives against voting. so i'm only willing to partner around efforts that are focused on encouraging voting, on encouraging registration, on encouraging participation, on encouraging people to feel a part of our democracy. if that's the platform, i'm a welcome and willing partner. >> the final word is with you. >> i should mention the fact the aclu and ter tahj are working

together on the overcriminalization issue and have made a lot of strides on that. look, i'm -- i get concerned about low voter turnout, too, because i was taught by my parents, who were immigrants to this country -- my mother grew up in nazi germany, my father was russian, escaped the communists twice, i was taught how precious our vote to right is and how fragile democracy can be. and so i always vote. but again, you know, if you go back to the survey data from the census bureau, what keeps people out of the polls is not procedural issues on registration and voter i.d. and things like that. that's because they're not interested in our political process. if you want to change that, if you want to increase turnout, that is a cull, churl issue that we have to work on starting quite frankly at the elementary school level. i was taught about this by my

parents to the point where as i said i feel guilty if i don't go to the polls and vote. but there are many americans who aren't rayed that way and aren't taught that, and that's what we have to change. like i say, starting in the schools and we're not doing enough to do that. i would be happy to work with anybody to do that and alleges encourage people, i don't care what political party they're in, to work in the election process. the biggest problem election officials have across this country is they can't get enough people to work at the polls on election day. it is a real tough problem. and the average age of election people these days is like 73, 74. and that whole generation that was taught that civic duty is very important and who have manned our polls now, they're slowly dying out and going away, and there frankly isn't a younger generation coming up with that same sense of civic