>> thank you. >> so it has spread for us and other communities. people would find what we were doing and they would come and visit with us. and so we would actually have other jurisdictions come and actually help us, you know, in terms of our own thinking about it, but they also really wanted information because they wanted to do the same thing. they wanted to get those programs together and actually figure out how to do it. but i think to your question, is there a network, are we doing this across the board? is there somewhere in the country. i don't think so i think that's why we're delighted to be part of this conversation, because there is a lot that we can do, i think if we were to connect the dots. there are other programs that are happening. there are faith programs. there are the communities who are doing it on their own, thinking through their own strategies, but how do we connect together, not just in new jersey, not just here in the district, but across the country. so we certainly would be open to continuing to dialogue to figure out how we can make those bridges and connect them. not just locally, but throughout

the country. it is very needed. >> thank you. >> my name is audrey mcdowell. i'm an associate minister at east friendship baptist church. and a student at wesley theological seminary. my question is, in light of the videotapes we have seen, you know, where they are shooting people and basically just leaving them on the ground to die, i would like to know what are the legal requirements for police regarding giving life saving means when they have shot somebody. in the walter scott case, they lied and said that they had provided, you know, cpr and there is no evidence of that on the video. what are they legally required to do? or are they supposed to just leave them there to die so as not to mess with evidence or whatever? >> i was going to ask mr. crump, who stepped out for a minute to handle that question. [ inaudible ] .

>> mr. crump, the question was posed, the question is -- repose your question. >> in light of seeing all the videos where the police are shooting people and basically just leaving them there to die, what are the legal requirements for police regarding using life saving means, you know, when they have shot somebody? are they supposed to just leave them there so as not to disturb evidence or supposed to, you know, attempt to save their life? in the walter scott case, they lied and said they used cpr and there is no evidence of that on the video. >> in the same with tamir rice, can i have my co-counsel walter madison address this really briefly? >> sure. >> we deal with the same issue in cleveland. >> i'll be very direct with that response. each state is governed by their own commanders for training and qualifications. one of the things that probably should be done and bring us some

cohesiveness on that issue is there be a mandate, nationwide, because humanity is the real aim. and as part of the earlier question, about the body cameras, wonderful idea, but there should be no requirement for a person to have the simple humanity to say that child or person wants to get home safely, just as much as i do as the officer. so in the spirit of humanity, the standard should be the same. some states require and give -- make it mandatory that they do that. california is one. san francisco they have the -- all the first aid equipment in the vehicle. ohio is just poor in that regard. very, very poor. and we see the lack of humanity in that video as attorney crump referenced earlier. >> thank you. >> the only other thing i would add to that is i would think we have two civil lawyers who are involved in these type of civil

rights cases, as prosecution civil matters, but if a video shows a live person on the ground injured with no aid administered by law enforcement, does that do anything for damages? >> absolutely. i think one of the things we're vetting in tamir rice's case as the new york times wrote, very vividly, this whole notion this kid is laying on the ground, dying in the snow, and the officers are kind of moping around, they're looking for change on the ground. and it is just hard to watch when you think -- you know you just shot him, but you don't do anything to help him. >> i would think as an issue that if a jury were to receive this case, one of the issues that lawyers would argue is that the pain and suffering was enhanced by the fact that there

was no aid injured. one of the questions we talked about earlier is that -- how is it that you caused society to recognize these issues if passing of laws doesn't do it? and the answer was -- >> and i don't know exactly what -- yeah, we sue them. and -- because you know johnnie cochran said something deep to me. he said that you know, he lost a case where he had 50 witnesses. and it is true because perception becomes reality. and he also said, you know, you go up there with your client, and the only thing that is black is you the client and the judge's robe. and the judge is -- he dismiss you and nobody know about it. you better go and tell the media

and the world what is going on so when they go and dismiss your case, he got some repercussions from the community and so forth. so that's what we try to do and thank god that i want to believe the media is finally starting to listen to all these black lives being taken with no consequence. i mean, i can go state by state and give you ten in every state and i know because we representing most of them. >> yes, sir. >> good afternoon. my name is aaron king. i'm a member of the macedonia baptist church. we've heard this theme of organizational or cultural change within the police department. and i think we all know that organizational culture is not established at the bottom. it is established at the top. so in an effort to change the culture of an organization, we have seen historically one method that has been effective, especially for african-americans in the civil rights movement was economic withdrawal. my question to you today is centered around the idea of what i'm going to call economic corrective action. this would be established via a

mandate that would compromise four things. when a county executive, legislator or mayor and police chief take office, it is mandated that within three years they reduce the number of deaths via law enforcement by 50%. if they don't reach that goal within three years, they're terminated. in addition to that, they do not receive any pension. that's the first thing. the second thing would be the mayor and the police and, you know, legislators who are at the top of an organization, once they have looked at the previous year, and they have not -- they see, okay, we had 100 deaths, we have three years to cut that by 50%. if they don't reach that goal within the first year, their salaries get reduced by 20%. once we get to 51 or 52%, each

member of the law enforcement community, their salary is reduced by 2% and then after each death it keeps going up 2% 4%, 6%, et cetera, et cetera. the next thing -- that's, one, two -- the third thing would be -- >> let me ask you a question because we're trying to get the expertise up here. >> sure. i understand the theory that you're giving us. can you pose a question -- >> can i respond to that? >> economic corrective action with mandates that are backed up >> without the details, as a concept. what i want to do is get past the numbers -- >> the concept -- >> -- to the concept, which is critical. he's talking about reincentivizing the way in which we reward law enforcement in the criminal justice system. okay? so that i serve on the executive session on community corrections at harvard university, it's a think tank where we work on how do we redo probation, parole.

community corrections is a euphemism for probation and parole. so do we incentivize parole officers by how many people they trail, nail and jail or do we incentivize parole officers based on how many people don't residivate? do we incentivize police departments based on the number of arrests they make or do we incentivize police departments based on approximate public safety becoming better in the community? okay? through the practice of de-escalation practices that attorney crump was making. so the concept is brilliant because what it attacks at its core is the current incentivizing of overarrests, overincarceration escalation of dangerous situations. all of those things right now we reward.

and what we need to do is we need to reward the exact opposite. >> the reason i thought it was a concept -- [ applause ] >> the reason i thought it was a concept that it would be an issue to raise is that many budgets of police departments are based upon those raw number of arrests. so that's why i thought in terms of discussing the concept, i thought you had some -- i think people may disagree with you on the numbers but the concept is an issue. >> yes, ma'am. >> my name is cynthia ward, i'm an howard engineering alum. i'm not a socialist or a theologian. i didn't have a request, i had a request and i'm going to defer my question to a howard student who got up at the cutoff point and let her ask the question. my request was going to be that as we close out i would like to have a fervent honest sincere prayer around these concepts and issues for resolution. particularly around ending the mortal victims in the moment, in the movement. i'm sick of seeing the victims.

and healing and those types of things, again, i'm going to defer my question to a student. >> although she says she is an engineer that was a lawyer move. >> yeah. that was a lawyer move. >> yes, ma'am. >> good afternoon. everyone. and this could be for any of the panel. i'm actually a wesley theological seminary student and i'm all for prayer, i believe prayer changes things, but i believe especially in this time and day and age that action is necessary. i just feel that there is -- i guess my question would be what would be the danger of not doing anything when especially as young black people you see that when you do something it produces either little to no results or negative results. so what would be the motivation for taking action? >> ms. moore. >> well, you know, i think two things. one is, you know, there are obviously a lot of things that

you want to accomplish and things that you've done and it happens to be a national issue that many young people are looking at. and one of the things that we struggle with, quite frankly, is making sure that we have youth voice in what we do. a lot of things happen at the decision level, you know. how can we get those voices which i believe are the authentic voices and really a part of the equation and if you exclude those voices you're never going to get to it. so i would ask that you make sure that both you and others, and particularly other young people are at the table and that your voices are heard. because if your voices are not heard, we don't get the full story. how do we get this right without the full story, without understanding what are the needs, what are the issues and how can we help? right. so it's absolutely critical. but i also this i that there is hope and that you do see -- you can see change. you know, we experienced that change a lot because we're working in the community, we're working with young people, i get

to hear the stories of transformation and i mean real transformation and that's what drives us. that's what keeps us motivated. we see young people tell the story. there's one in particular i didn't have a chance to share with you today. i will share with you, it's a group called youth build that we've worked with and put a lot of effort and energy as well as funding behind but the transformation of those young people who tell their story is really where it is. really where those changes are. so if you wait i will make sure that i share that with you could you can see it. but we've got to have your voice otherwise we're they ever going to get this right. >> thank you. >> same spirit as sister moore. we are seeing things change. attorney crump just mentioned the fact that in ferguson, missouri, where 8% of all blacks voted in municipal elections up until this year, 8%, we got three city council people. that was young people stepping up and doing that. the fcc last august, we had

three victories in the four-day period in august of 2013 when the fcc capped the interstate phone call rate for federal institutions, in new york stop and frisk wags judged to be illegal and when attorney general holder announced the sentence reduction. we've got the smartest sentencing act that's right before congress right now, we've got the second chance act that's coming up. we have a momentum going right now that you can either -- the only people fighting this are the folks making money off it and basically that's the criminal justice system where it's incentivized improperly like brother king said, especially prosecutors, okay? and then the companies that are making money off of the slave labor in the prisons and the private prison companies. they are the only people that are fighting this. i was at a summit two weeks ago the two keynote speakers on changing this stuff were cory

booker and knut gingrich. okay? there is bipartisan support for this stuff. the only people who are fighting it are the ones who are making money off of the current system and then the only reason that's not moving faster is that more of us haven't owned this as an issue. >> thank you. we have one final question. please introduce yourself and let us know what your question is, please. >> all right. thank you. hello. my name is isatu young. thank you so much for your time. on behalf of my classmates at howard university i would like to thank you very much. >> thank you for coming. >> thank you. my question is pertaining to the community policing. this is a conversation that i've had in one of my classes. do you think, yes or no, this is the question in class, that community policing, like the -- the relationship between black communities and police

departments can be mended? do we think that and that's what our professor asked us. and the question that i want to ask you all is do you think that it's a good idea for us to move forward with -- with implementing implementing community policing -- increasing community police structures in especially black communities? do you think that it's a good idea despite the fact that we haven't received any kind of repayment for police brutality against our people? how can we really open up and trust just willingly without receiving some kind of repayment? and i know it may seem unrealistic to have our hand out, i really like the idea that i heard about having police turn in their badges just from where i stand a question that boils inside of me is would i want to engage in community policing, having police officers in my community because right now

where i'm from in bed-stuy, we see police officers in our community all the time but i don't believe it's part of the community policing structure and if it is, we haven't been informed. i'm just wondering is it really a good idea where the psychological issues passed down from generation to generation, can we trust the police as black people? you know, we haven't received something that says, hey, we surrender, like cops surrendering to us. no one was done that but we're getting down on our knees and surrendering to allow them willingly into our neighborhood. and, sure, it's better to have a relationship than none at all, i guess. but what do you guys think? >> thank you. [ applause ] >> sorry about the microphone. i know we're supposed to touch it here but he touched it already. >> hold this. >> so i just want to share with

you a story and i showed you a little bit about fugitive safe surrender we didn't have time to walk you through it. so what happens in this scenario is we bring people who are all wanted, right, with hundreds of those of us who are in law enforcement and the courts and the judicial system and coming together and what happens at that moment when people are there to really help is this very miraculous and even transformative need to help one another. and we talked earlier about humanity and in that scenario what you saw is you saw officers running for hot chocolate. because people were waiting outside in the cold, you saw people waiting outside in the cold throwing all their change on the ground because they wanted to get in and you had people coming together in a way that you have to witness, you really have to witness this process that we talked about. when that young man told you he had a new destiny, he meant that. it really was because the church was there and you have to understand that the clergy is also there, they're not just

opening the door, what's happening you have a guidance there, spiritual guidance, social services there, you're so the church then becomes this hub of great things that can happen. once you witness those kinds of things you understand that it is possible and that all things are possible. on the second part of your question i just want to flip it just a little bit because one of the things, you know, i've done some work in the past with drug courts they would say the operative word this drug court is court and the operative word this community policing is policing, but there's another piece to that that i would challenge you to help us think about and that is what the role of community in community policing? that is our question to decide. what is our role in that and how do you do it? i think that's what you're saying. what is the role of community in community policing? that's something that we have to sit down and really work out together what that looks like and how we then determine what

happens in the neighborhoods and have control and have a place where the same mutual respect that we see in our initiatives happens. you know, one of the things we say all the time, and we expected nothing less in all of the times that we did this event and we have thousands of people. we're moving a lot of volunteers. it's a tremendous effort, it takes a lot of work. at no point did we have one incident of any vandalism, of any trouble. that's because we all walked through those doors of that house of worship knowing that we were there to come and help one another and that is where it turns and that's where you see humanity. don't give up. help us figure out how we can make this happen so you, too, can see it. [ applause ] >> professor, i know that you have put some thought into it and i want to save the last issue for you and you get the closing remarks. professor, as our last comment from the panel, would you -- did you understand -- do you remember the young lady's question? >> yeah, i did. i did.

i have a lot of respect for ms. moore's comment because one of the issues that we're working on at harvard on the community corrections piece is precisely what is the role of the community and there are several of us, myself, mike nail who is over probation and parole for the state of georgia, sandra smith who is on faculty at cal berkley we're working specifically on defining the community's role. because right now community policing doesn't really have a role for the community. it's one of those initiatives where they've said this is what we want you to do, as opposed to negotiating with us because there are not a lot of people like ms. moore who will say we really want to hear from you, not on the government side. so we've seen examples, however, of effective partnerships and i

will just point to one in the city of boston, massachusetts, between july of 1995 and november of 1997 there was a 29-month period without a single juvenile homicide. 29 months, no juvenile homicides. and it was a partnership between the community, the faith community, law enforcement, probation and parole and part of -- and this goes back to the comment earlier about changing the culture of law enforcement. what changed some of the culture of law enforcement in boston was the catholic church. because a lot of the white cops in boston were roman catholic and the roman catholic cardinal of boston bought into the strategy. so it wasn't just about mobilizing the black church, but it was mobilizing congregations, faith communities in which law enforcement officers served to help them get a different understanding of what their role might be. you had policemen in boston climbing the steps of the hancock building, whatever the big building is in boston, i don't know boston that well.

boston is hancock, isn't it? either boston or chicago. they're climbing the steps of the hancock building, getting job applications for young people to have summer jobs, cops were doing that. but it came because the faith community of the law enforcement officers themselves were part of the strategy. so this isn't a black problem. okay? this is a community wide problem. so our communities need to be strengthened, their communities need to be transformed and we know what works, it's just a matter of having the will to get it done. >> thank you. [ applause ] as i turn this back over to quame i would like to end with a quote from charles hamilton houston that i think addresses these issues and the role of the lawyer on civil rights issues. he says, and i quote, a lawyer

is either a social engineer or he is a parasite on society. a social engineer was a highly skilled perceptive sensitive lawyer who understood the constitution of the united states and knew how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering conditions of the underprivileged citizens. that quote i believe was around 1929. we are still looking at those issues. as i turn this back over to you, quame, i think we've had a panel discussion today on issues that are relevant. even if you do not have children, if you watch the news you see what's going on in our world. and i think ms. rice, the fact that we were able to put a face and a mother's thoughts and a mother's pain before this audience has been helpful and

people understanding that this is not a theoretical or perceptive issue, it's a real issue and it affects people. so kwame, before we put it back over to brother crump would you like to -- [ applause ] thank you. >> next a discussion on the relationship between the police and communities of color from washington journal, this is 40 minutes. it's our regular spotlight on magazine segment this week. "black lives matter," the "time" cover story. looks a it the shooting of walter scott. joining us is justin worland of "time magazine." good morning. >> good morning. >> could you tell s the latest of where we are on the shooting of walter scott? >> we really have not seen too much come out in the days since

the video was released. the agency that took over the investigation is a state law enforcement agency in south carolina. they've been pretty mum as you would expect if an investigation of this sort. it might be days or weeks before they hand it over to the prosecutor. in recent days we heard it sounds like that perhaps it is not a case where they would be pursuing the death penalty. but we really do not know. the case is still in the hands of the investigator, the state law enforcement agency, and they have not said much. >> one of the things you explore in your story, the relationship between the police department and the community. how would you describe that relationship? >> i think there is lot of tension. the police department has changed a lot in the last decade or so, and in 2002 they brought in a new police chief who came in to crack down on violent crime. he did a great job of it. the violent crime declined by

about half during his tenure. but at the same time there have been a lot of allegations of racial profiling, profiling, and some other measures that have led to, may have allegedly have led to police brutality. there is a lot of of tension. i think having said that i think most people in the community are pretty satisfied with what they've seen in the last week or so, sort of immediately after the video was released -- or rather immediately after the shooting the north charleston police handed the investigation over to s.l.e.d., which is the agency i mentioned before which is a state agency and said take over the investigation. we do not want to be in charge of investigating our own officers. and the officer was arrested and charged with murder right after the video was released. i think most people down there are actually pretty satisfied with what they have seen thus far.

>> we will continue with our question on the shooting in south carolina. justin worland is joining us from new york. as your story shows in one of the cover pages it's the video that made the difference in this case. you had a chance to talk to walter scott's brother. how did that discussion reality with the cell phone video. set up that story for us. >> sure. we talked sort of right after the murder charge came about. he told me about how he first saw the video, which he was at a vigil for his brother. and he said -- this is anthony scott, walter scott's brother, he said he never really bought the story as it was told to him originally. he did not think his brother would be one to confront a police officer, so he was sort of skeptical at that point, and he was approached by a man who said he had something to show him, and he pulled him aside and

showed him the video that is now infamous. at first the man did not want to go public with the video. he hoped the police would tell the full story themselves. and then walter scott -- excuse me, anthony scott -- stayed in touch with him and he did release the video. that is sort of how he came to secure the video. but i think the interview it was, of course -- he was still shocked by what happened. as you would expect and i think -- he remembered his brother as sort of a good family man. yeah. >> the man who had the video, why was he hesitant to release it? >> well, he told -- anthony scott told me that he was -- that the video -- the man with the video basically was hoping that he -- he didn't want to be thrown in the spotlight. he was concerned about retaliation, potential police retaliation.

it's hard, i think even s.l.e.d. put out a statement saying, we understand if you witness something like that you might be scared of what the police might do to you. i think that is what he thought. >> did the law enforcement division conduct its affairs of what happened afterward, based on what happened in ferguson, missouri, and new york city? do you think that affected the investigation? >> i absolutely think it did. i think the mayor and the police chief in that city did not want to have another ferguson on their hands. they did not want to have protests and violence in their city. and i think that's why they handed it of immediately over to the state officials. i think they were absolutely aware. i do think, though, it is different -- different from most of the other cases we've talked

about, ferguson or even the case of eric garner in new york, just because of the video itself. it is hard to imagine that this video would not have prompted this kind of outcry, even if they had -- even if it had come out before ferguson had happened. >> justin worland from new york of "time magazine" your first call comes from andre in georgia. you are on with our guest. >> how you doing? >> i guess i just wanted to make the comment in regards to the shooting. the black community, we realized that these things are happening. not all officers are bad, but it is these kinds of instances that happen. because of the video yes, it was brought to light. but i think we feel like there are much more instances where there are no videos. one of the news agencies did a report and said how they would

have had to report these incidents if the video had not been released. i think that is what happens much more often in the black community, when there is no video and then the officers wind up getting off, and we have to rely on forensic evidence. and you know, sometimes those things can be adjusted to make it beneficial to the officer. definitely glad that the video came out. definitely glad that the leadership, they went ahead and charged the officer. but i guess now we just need to see what's going to happen as far as the trial. excuse me as the trial goes on. thank you. >> mr. war land? -- worland? >> absolutely. you make two good points. we have to wait and see what happens. a video is a video, and it is sort of amazing that the video came to light in this case, but we really don't know what happen will happen when it goes to trial and how things might be spun differently. when i talked to anthony scott,

one of the things he said is yes, he is happy with the way things are going thus far, but he really is skeptical until he sees or hears "guilty as charged." that's one thing. and you're right. there aren't many videos in other instances that can be similarly as tragic. one of the things that a lot of the police departments are doing and i think that addresses the issue is police body cameras. there was the killing of eric harris in oklahoma. this was caught on police body cameras, and the officer was immediately charged. this is something we might see going forward that hopefully will address what we are talking about. >> donna from washington state. hello. >> caller: hi. i just want to say in south carolina for example the whole police department is responsible

or culpable because before the value came out, everything was just this business as usual. when do they balance the facts he said he was fighting for his life defending himself, yet when you look at the evidence the distance of the bullets, from a csi look the distance of the bullets and where the bullets hit him doesn't match the police report. they didn't say anything. that means the police department supported -- and a shooting that police do without checking the evidence. and i think they should go through every file every police shooting and match it with what they said, what the police report said compared to the evidence. if someone had shot from that distance in the back and you say you are defending yourself, it just does not match up. but because of the video it's been brought to light and they have to deal with it. so they are responsible.

they should all lose their positions, all the higher ups, and just redo the whole police department in that area. and probably any other police department. if there is a shooting there should be a second party looking at the evidence compared to the written report. >> i think that is a very good point. i think the interesting thing in this particular case is as i noted, that s.l.e.d. took over the investigation right after the shooting and even before the video emerged they say they saw these inconsistencies between what the police report said and what the officer michael slager said, and sort of what the evidence was. i think this is an extraordinary case where the man was shot in the back several times. i think you are absolutely right. i hope that they do when there is clear evidence, that they do sort of make that effort. it is difficult to say what goes

on across police departments across the country. >> have we heard any reaction from the justice department on the shooting? >> the justice department has opened their own investigation. as you would expect they are not really commenting on it at this point. i think the role of the justice department is an interesting one. there obviously is a role for the justice department to play. but it is sort of by nature an after the fact sort of thing. they are look into it and i'm not sure what they can really do because of their role as a federal organization. >> lamant is next from princess anne maryland. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. when we look at what happened to the brother in south carolina this is an ongoing thing for the last 30, 40 years in america in black communities.

i'm a former resident of north virginia where there were incidents of police misconduct. in all of these cases, the wrongful death suits. wrongful death is not justice. as a citizen, if i shoot somebody in the back, regardless of what is going on, i am charged with murder. the man in tulsa oklahoma, 73 years old was too old to be on the police force. okay, we talking about terrorists in other countries and the disenfranchisement of people are mistreat. black people have been mistreated in this country for 400 years. nobody talks about the casual killing act that was implemented in virginia in the 1700s that stated if a white person shoots

and kills a negro he will be exonerated of all charges based on the corrections of the negro. but all these instances where white police officers are correcting black people as they say so therefore they get off on all the charges. we need to go back and rework the criminal justice system. >> mr. warorland, go ahead. >> i think you make an excellent point. there is an entrenched problem in the criminal justice system. the question is, how do we deal with that? that is tricky. naturally, there is going to be some leeway for police officers who are working and discharge their weapon in the line of duty if the evidence is unclear. and i think that's sort of what they get for sort of putting their lives on the line. but absolutely, there needs to

be change, and there are too many incidences where we see the situations like this. the question is, what is it that we can do to reform? and i don't know. we'll see. >> nashville tennessee, here's rose. hello. >> caller: hi good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have a couple of points i want to make. first of all, the mantra of "lack lives matter" is really getting old because all lives matter. and i don't understand why in certain communities and particularly the black community there is little respect for the police and for the law because in my generation we were taught and brought up that if a police stops you for any reason you are supposed to be submissive because they are the law -- they're the authority. they were put in place to protect us and to serve us.

nowhere was i ever taught to charge a police and try to grab their weapon and try to run away. my feeling is if you do those things and if the police shoot you, you deserved it because you have not submitted to the police authority. and the second thing i want to say as far as "black lives matter" it has been proven that in statistics that the majority of babies that are aborted in the country are black. do those lives not matter? they are just important as people who are born. thank you. >> i appreciate the comments. i think i can go through quickly as far as "black lives matter." of course all lives matter. the point it is making is that there are a disproportionate number of black lives being taken at the hands of police. and i think that's what -- that's why the slogan and the

cover story is called "black lives matter." of course all lives matter but there is a segment of the population that is disproportionately losing their lives. i think with regard to the question of what is submitting to the police, i think the bottom line really is that nobody deserves to be gunned down when they pose no threat to a police officer. i think that's really the bottom line here. and i think to say otherwise is just simply not true. i think -- i do not really have much to add on the third point. >> from byron in minnesota, you are next for our guest. >> caller: hi, thanks. i just had to call in and say i agree with what the woman who was on just said. completely. the "black lives matter" slogan is completely inappropriate in this day and age. there's been a complete role

reversal with minorities in this country and there are white people who are murdered every day and there is no publicity whatsoever. and it's really getting bad that every day in the news you hear black people are suffering there, latinos are suffering this asians are suffering this. what about the white people? all lives matter. why focus on one group? get over the stereotypes and the bias. it is a new age. you need to get back to everyone matters. that's basically all i had to say. >> i would agree that every life matters and i think that the black lives matter slogan sort of speaks to a group that is disproportionally affected. i think that you're wrong. i think that the media does cover white lives in addition to lives of every shade. i think just because we in the media and sort of the time or

whatever outlet looks specifically at black lives because that's sort of what's in the national mind at this moment. i don't think they don't care about every life. >> mr. worland there is a piece in the "washington post" this morning. i will get your thoughts on it. the police officers who shoot and kill people rarely faces criminal charges. does your reporting bear that out? expand on that. >> absolutely. that is certainly the case. it is hard to get a sense of what the numbers really are because of police reporting requirements and they just aren't required to report all these numbers. but in south carolina there was a report in the state newspaper there, 209 shootings between 2010 and -- between 2009 and

2014. in three of those cases they were accused of wrongdoing and none of them were convicted. that is absolutely the case. two reasons -- you have prosecutors and the people of law enforcement and the criminal justice system who are reluctant to take on their colleagues at the police department. and that's tricky. how do you address that? the other problem or the other issue is really that people are reluctant. people on a grand jury or a injury are reluctant to take any side other than the police officer's. part of that is fair. we have asked police officers to put their lives on the line. you do want to grant them some leeway. i think it is pretty clear in many cases that we have seen recently, maybe there is too much leeway and maybe things have gone a little too far. but that is a fair point. >> here is john from bristol, virginia. he is on with justin worland from "time" magazine. >> i am a conservative republican and i tell you something, i was watching fox news this morning and i seen a

cop run a guy over. he was just walk. and that's how he stopped him? some of these guys need to be taken off the force. i do not think the government should get involved with this too much. but i think in a state level they need to do mental evaluations on these cops. some of theme are out of control. you do not see the man -- you do not shoot a man in the back! . it is stupid! that cop did not have no remorse in his eyes. if you ask me, he did it out of vengeance. i do not know what is in the man's mind, but i think he did it out of vengeance. the black cop comes over and helps him try to cover it up. i heard it on fox news yesterday that he might have been helping the guy cover it up. there is something going on and needs to be done. i don't think body cams need to be done.

a lot of these cops are racist. i am a white man, and i get pulled over because my hair is black, i think. i have cherokee indian in me. i have been pulled over for nothing in this town. so i'll take your comments off air. thank you, sir. >> body cams re not necessarily the only answer. i think -- thinking about how and who you hire and how you evaluate them is a valid question. i think some police departments are thinking about right now as well. >> charles windsor, ohio. democrats line. go ahead please. >> caller: good morning. as far as this guy getting shot in the back, you have to wonder is this an isolated incident or has it happened so often it is so common that it was inevitable that sooner or later somebody was going to catch this on tape.

i also feel vegas was taking money on whether or not would be if he would be convicted i think he will not be. 50 some cars in ohio a few years ago chased down a couple and executed them in a parking lot. one cop who is on trial now for manslaughter, he shot 49 times, stood on the windshield of the car, emptied the gun and reloaded. now they charge with some of the cops of dereliction of duty and doing other things wrong and as soon as this happened they put all these cops working together. if someone else commits a crime, three or four people they separate them. they put all the cops together and get their story straight. so now they are trying this guy in cleveland, and all the cleveland police department, all these lieutenants and captains or whatever they're charged with dereliction of duty. they all come up and pleading

the fifth so they don't have to testify against this giechlt -- guy. the other cops that did get charged with these smaller offenses, that all got overturned. so they all got paid vacations for their trouble. >> charles we'll let our guest respond. >> right. i think there is a question, which is how often do these things happen and how often do they never come to light? would we ever be here without the video? i think those are all good questions. i think the sort of cases that you bring up are unfortunate. i think body cams are one way to perhaps address that. there's also -- i mean, the justice department in some cases when a police department is not functioning or is brutal or is doing thing they shouldn't be doing, they can sort of mandate and come in and sue or get them to agree to make substantial changes. these are things that are happening or hopefully will

happen more. it's hard to say. we do not know without body cams or sort of video evidence. it's hard to know how often these things are happening. >> what s the trend as far as police departments switching over to body cams, in light of these shootings? >> it is definitely happening. there's definitely a lot of police departments that are making that effort. in north charleston, they are going to add 100 and they are committed to ordering 150 more. i think there are a lot of people who have been convinced by this. i think the former new york police commissioner, ray kelly, said this video changed his mind about body cameras. i think you are seeing that across the country. at the same time there are a lot of reasons why a lot of places are reluctant. one of them is the privacy issue. another one is the cost. body cams are expensive. you don't just buy them. you also have to store data. in south carolina, they estimated it would cost $20 million to outfit all of the officers in south carolina with

body cams. that's just to buy it not to store the data of the constant footage they are taking. things are moving in that direction, but there are reasons why things are not necessarily going to change overnight. not going to change overnight. >> wayne is up next from georgia. go ahead. >> yes good morning. i wanted to ask, how much transparency have you guys -- do you think there is in the training of the police officers, training of the police force? and by that i mean, what is it that they are being trained to do exactly in these situations that they are in? does that training mirror the way that they perform their jobs? that's one question. you know, perhaps we can look into that. but the other thing is it seems that the police force is trained

to treat all all stops as potentially deang potentially dangerous and all of the black men that they encounter could be harmful to their lives or thugs. but not all of them are thugs, just the same way that not all police officers are bad. so not all police officers are bad but not all blacks are thugs. >> i think it's worth noting that of course, no police officer is trained to shoot someone who is fleeing. that's been -- the supreme court has said that's unconstitutional since the '80s and certainly no one is trained to do that and to treat a fleeing suspect the way that walter scott was treated. i do think that oftentimes what you hear, though, it's not so much the formal training but

oftentimes what is being exchanged between police officers sort of the informal training, the conversations that they might have with one another about the way that they conduct their job. and that's something that is a little bit harder to grapple with. i think absolutely you could go in and look at the formal training and see that this is not something that they are being taught to do. i think that you make very good -- you've raised very good questions going forward and i think that there's things that we should look into more. >> louisville kentucky, is next. this is ann. go ahead. >> caller: yes hi. i was just calling because i agree with the woman that called earlier, what we've been taught about police officers when we were younger. but i would never say that someone deserves to get shot by a police officer. i would like to say that, where is the responsibility on the individual who has actually committed the crime in the first place that they are getting stopped by a police officer like

michael brown you know? no one wants to talk about the fact that he went into that store and he stole in that store and he also roughed up the clerk in that store. and the fellow that you have on, your guest he talks about the disproportionate number of blacks being shot by police officers. well, what about the disproportionate number of crimes that are being committed percentagewise by the black population? i know that here in louisville, kentucky, there are so -- the percentage of crimes that are committed in the black neighborhoods is unbelievable. you can go and you can look in the zip code areas and see where these crimes are being committed. and what's going to happen next? i mean are we not going to even get to the point where people even want to go into law enforcement because they are going to have fear of, you know, this -- are we going to become a vigilante-type where officers

won't be able to do their job because of fear of that or fear of retaliation? what about these individuals that are committing these crimes in the first place? you know if they don't want to be stopped by a police officer, you know, then why commit the crime? don't do it. >> well, i think -- i can't speak to what is going on in louisville, but i do think that it's -- there's -- the job of a police officer is to apprehend a suspect. the suspect is innocent until proven guilty. they take them they are charged, they sit before a jury of their peers. their job is not to take law into their own hands or rather to take -- to sort of make a ruling on what has happened and i think some people would use the word execute in this situation over what, in some cases, is a petty crime. certainly in cases of self-defense, that's what they can do. but the idea that police officers -- that somehow

somebody who is fleeing or someone who has committed a petty crime is sort of all of a sudden you know, free to be shot i think is sort of a bad road to go down. >> from georgia, go ahead. >> caller: hi. i just wanted to let people know there was an article on the internet about two weeks ago, roughly, that the police in oxnard, california, were getting tattoos for every shooting and there was a skull and bones and the nose was a barrel of a gun. and if you killed the suspect, then you have smoke coming out the barrel. anytime you have people here on the police force running around with guns and badges you've got problems. there's no if, ands, or buts

around it. i don't care if they are guilty or not. you are taking pride that you are shooting people down in the streets like that like it's nothing. and then you're going to be wrong about some of them and then some of them are like this guy, walter scott or the other guy in south carolina who was murdered in his driveway for not pulling over at a traffic stop. you know, for no reason, you know. no reason to kill these people. >> that's a great point. i think it goes back to sort of what i was saying earlier. there's -- sometimes not always -- i don't want to sort of color the police community in any way but there are sometimes these pretty awful examples of cultural things that lead to problems. and i think that what you point out is a -- i wasn't aware of it but it's sort of a very sad, sad

example of the way that sort of time -- sometimes police communities might sort of encourage behavior. sometimes. i say that very, very -- with a lot of -- a big caveat. >> mr. orland, there's a lining in the piece that you participated in and it goes like this. the anguish over the troubled relationship between police departments and black citizens in national in scope. but there is little to do about it. can you expand on it? >> sure. it's hard. policing is a local issue. the way that the justice department does that is by you know, doing an investigation like they did in ferguson and at that point they can come up with an agreement with the community, with the local police department and say this is what you have to

reform or they can sue them. as you might be able to tell this is a costly process. it's a process that takes a long time and it's a process that the federal government, the justice department cannot be expected to do in thousands and thousands of communities. it's pretty unusual that a place like ferguson got this treatment. it's something that happens in like los angeles cincinnati, new orleans. these are places where there have been consent decrees to reform the police department. but it's not something that you can expect the federal government to do everywhere and that's on top of the fact that many people are resistant to having the federal government come into their backyard and tell the police what to do. >> for justin, this is charles from tampa florida. go ahead. sorry. let me push the button. charles from tampa florida, sorry about that. go ahead. >> caller: yes. >> go ahead. >> caller: i want to make the comment that we're sick and tired of the media itself making african-americans look bad in

the public and it doesn't make any sense with what is continuing to go on with the police department. >> do you have any response? >> i don't -- i think there are a lot of questions that that raises. i think it's something worth raising. i don't have a concrete response there. i think absolutely in situations where people are covering crime i think somebody mentioned this earlier, a caller, it's hard when you don't have video like we have in this walter scott case to write about something because all you have is the voice of the police officer who will say that walter scott beat him up or he did whatever. rather, he fought over the taser. there are people who it's hard to write about that. i think you raise a valid question. >> marilyn you are up next.

>> caller: hi. i'm helen. i'm calling in reference to black lives matter. i have two sons. i have lived with the fear that someone is going to shoot my kids. and they are grown men and they are good guys but they have been stopped multiple times. also on the issue of south carolina, the police department the mayor and their issues there, in the end i felt they did the right thing. if the video did not come forward, the story told by the police officer would have vindicated him. he seemed to be reading from a script. these officers seem to have a script. they all say the same thing. fear for my life reaching for my gun. if someone is reaching for your gun, then that should tell you that that person does not have a weapon on them. multiple officers choose to beat, shoot and kill these black

children of ours. i see that they could restrain that person they are chokeholding beating them in the head. what happened to the handcuffs? and you also mentioned the judicial system. if there's a crime committed by the person, they have a long record, that should go back to the court system. and the court should be doing their part. you're not only losing your child, you're losing your family. that whole family is caught up in it. and i feel sorry for the people that are involved. please stop destroying our family units. thank you. >> i think what you said make as

lot of sense and i think there are a lot of people who feel the same way. when we see cases like this, the walter scott case is really tragic. i think you've said it perfectly. >> let's hear from jared in michigan. you are next. go ahead. >> caller: hi. i just wanted to comment on -- i guess mostly the woman from tennessee who called up. you know basically saying, you know, to be submissive to police. you know it's real easy for someone to say that when you're white. it's the concept of white privilege. when you're walking around as a white american you generally are not profiled by the police and how other callers want to link all of this crime and suppose statics to the black population. the black population in this

country is 13%. so we're supposed to believe from these people that 13% of the population is committing the majority of the crimes? more than white people? i find that hard to believe. and, you know, it's embarrassing for me to hear that. and, you know it's a gap. it's a vengeful emotions that we get as americans a lot of times and, you know, these people to me are nothing more than red coat loyalists. so those are my comments. thanks. >> yeah. i think sometimes hearing those kinds of sentiments is kind of startling, to me to be honest. right now i think we're talking about a case where a man was shot eight times while he was fleeing. it really doesn't seem appropriate to make this a conversation about the crimes that black people have committed. i appreciate that comment. >> we have ron from springfield.

independent line. you're on. >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just want to say that i think the solution here is to expect police to follow all laws from traffic laws to all the way up to murder and we as a society have so much tolerance for police abuse at all levels, such as you know, we all see police every day running red lights speeding parking illegally, all that kind of stuff. and it's almost like a broken window solution as they did in new york to solve crime. we need a broken window mentality to solve police abuse. i come from l.a. and i'm white. what the police does is universal. there's so many bad cops because the wrong people are hired to be oftentimes bullied and we need to sfoptop abuse at all levels.

and thank you. >> i think you are absolutely right. i think most people would absolutely agree, we should stop abuse at all levels. i think it's a question of how. you mentioned your friend in l.a. l.a. is one of those cities where the lapd is notorious at one time for some tragic sort of cases of police abuse and then they have the justice department come in and sort of revamp and take over or rather they agreed to a consent decree to do what the justice department asked them to do. that's a case of how things could move going forward in other places if the justice department is more active. but i think it's hard to see exactly how you get to where you're going or where you say you would like things to go. >> "the times" cover story is "black lives matter." it takes a look at the shooting in the carolinas. justin was our guest, a reporter on this story. thank you. >> thank you. coming up on c-span 3, the

national conference of independents. then a conversation from the cato institute on the tax code. and later, from the brookings institution, a look at how technological advancements are affecting the workforce. >> at age 25 she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies. during the revolution, only in her mid-40s, she was considered an enemy from the british. later she had become our nation's first first lady at age 57. martha washington, this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of the first lady and their influence on the presidency from martha washington to michelle obama. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3.

c-span's new book, "first ladies," presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women, providing lively stories, these women creating an illuminating inspiring read. it's available through your favorite book store or online. up next, the eighth bi-annual national conference of independents in new york city. they discuss changes that could be made to independent candidates. >> so i have the pleasure of introducing our distinguished panel here today. of course, let's welcome back to the stage paul johnson who is such a wonderful voice on the panel this morning. [ applause ] next to paul is rob richie.

rob is the executive director of fair vote since its founding in 1992, which is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that advocates for a nonpartisan redistricting revoting and establishing a national popular vote for president. he's really just an inspiring and outspoken advocate for some very, very important political reforms. rob, it's really really great to have you here. [ applause ] next to rob is a dear friend and colleague, michael hardy. meek michael is a practicing attorney since 1988. he's a leader in the movement for social and criminal justice for many many decades. he's a founder of the national action network and serves as executive vice president and general counsel to the national

action network. please welcome michael hardy. [ applause ] next to michael chad peace, who is here all the way from california. chad is an attorney and he's the president of independent voter contact media llc. he was one of the leaders and movers and shakers really of a behind the scenes architect of the successful effort to open top primaries in california. [ applause ] and we thank him for that. he's the national legal strategist for end partisanship's efforts to bring a very, very important lawsuit in the state of new jersey which we'll hear some about during the course of the discussion. he's also the managing editor of independent voter news an online platform for political news and analysis from

independent-minded authors. chad peace. [ applause ] >> then the final two gentlemen at the end of the couch are home boys. [ laughter ] so to speak. harry kresky is counsel to open primaries and independentvoting.org. he's protected the rights of independent voters on the issues of primary reform. in 2002, he served on the new york city charter commission and appointee of michael bloomberg which considered for the first time the issue of nonpartisan elections and also the national legal adviser to end partisanships new jersey litigation and he most recently won dismissal of a lawsuit that tried to dismantle south carolina's open primary system. our general counsel harry

kresky. [ applause ] and last but not least, john opdycke is the president of the open primaries, which was founded in 2014 after being incuein incue bathed for many years. open primaries advocates for open and nonpartisan systems and participates in the building of state, local and national open primaries coalitions. john was the dr. formerly the chief of staff for independentvoting.org. we've been around the world together and continue to do so. john opdycke. [ applause ] okay. so welcome. thank you all for being here. and joining in this conversation. here's where i want to start out. why should the american people

care about political reform? put in a slightly different way, what's going on? what's the state of play? what's the state of affairs in this country that makes it the case that the american people should focus on concern themselves and become involved in issues of political reform? let me open it up to the group here. >> i don't mind starting. i think they are concerned about political reform if you just look at the voters. by the way, can everyone in the back row here me? all right. great. they are concerned about political reform and all you have to do is take a look at what is going on with voter registration and recognize it. a large segment of the population is giving up on the two parties. they are reregistering as independents through no organizational effort whatsoever. they have become disgusted with what they see is happening politically. they are disconnecting and disassociating with them. the reason they should be

concerned about architectural reform or structural reform is because as those voices leave the parties we are leaving a more distilled ideological basin side of both of them that now is increasingly insisting on not compromising with the other side. that's having an effect on us congressionally and legislatively and our ability to give people who have different points of views to sit down for the common good. the whole concept out of the many one is it's evading us. we're losing it. >> yes. yeah. thank you. >> and i think what the mayor says and what we heard this morning, you know, underscores the point that -- i'll do the backroom check. can people hear me okay? okay. so -- which is granted the fact the way that elected officials are behaving isn't just personal quirks and characteristics. it's the incentives that flow

from the current rules that we have. of course, some people rise above that but the general pattern of behavior is grounded in structures and rules that they are responding to the incentives within those rules and acting in certain ways that if we don't change, we're just going to keep seeing this same kind of behavior. and we're in a time of necessary change that is when we've had certain regimes and certain facts about the american people that have been evolving and changing but we have old rules and old structures and they just don't mesh together and if we don't change and update and modernize the rules and structures, we're just going to get into a cycle of problems that, of course are bad for the country. >> thank you. >> one of the -- one of the interesting experiences in the wake of the oregon campaign for

top two last november was that open primaries did a set of focus groups after the election. and we got shellacked in the election. we got just under 33% of the vote. and yet in these focus groups, six out of ten democrats and republicans and seven out of ten independents. so my first reaction to this was perplexion. we just had an election on that and we lost and here we are with the fundamental structural reforms. and in a series of conversations and in thinking about this and reflecting on this part of what occurred to me was that people care deeply about these reforms. what they want to make sure is in some ways, the we -- they want to see a fighting real diverse coalition of people that

are committed to making it happen. and i actually think our challenge is not promoting political reform. i think our challenge is promoting ourselves, promoting the movement. showing the american people that they can trust -- they can trust that they can move forward on this. [ applause ] >> if i can explain where i'm coming from as a successful effort in california we change it with a fundamentally different approach. what people didn't understand was that in california we started months more than a year before the election doing nothing but voter education. what this is is it's not a campaign and not about us. it's about the way we elect our representatives. if we put it in a historical context, we have direct primaries to get the selection process out of the back room. and so where we've gotten today

is a process where we have 10% political participation across the country. we have 50% of people who don't feel represented by either party. but the first stage of our process is one conducted not for the purpose of electing representatives for all of us. the stated purpose in the laws is to elect somebody who best represents those political parties -- you don't have to run a poll. you don't have to go talk to people. you just walk into a restaurant. everybody recognizes that the party is not serving us. it's not a promotion of ourselves but it's to educate the people around us that this is not about independent voters. it's about all of us and about having a system for every individual voter. that's not members of the democrat party, not members of the republican party it's not independents. it's everybody and in the right to vote derives from the citizenship, not from joining a

political party and it's that party that we should be promoting. [ applause ] >> i would say the american people have to care about political reform because we are being locked out, denied and given nothing. we have a generation of people that are essentially going to be worse off than the generation before them in so many ways. and if you look at that, and if you look at -- in new york city for instance, i think there was a report recently that showed that new york has one of the most segregated public education systems in the country. many urban areas are more segregated today than they might have been right after brown versus board of education. you look at jobs and the unemployment rate, people were talking about it earlier today, the wealth gap. well, all of that on some level becomes a function of government and when government is defined as two parties then you have to

begin to look at the structural issue there and say, what is happening and how come people are not allowed to participate? and i think that we have to figure out that there is a way for you to participate and we're going to show you how. [ applause ] >> i found the panel this morning both very helpful and very painful because there is a need for cultural change but really since the 1960s there's been a huge cultural change in this country but the policetical system is operating as if that didn't happen. we elect the first black president with a new coalition and, lo and behold for the next eight years it's politics as

usual. americans are unhappy. americans want things and our political system simply doesn't allow the changes that actually are happening on the ground and among the american people to manifest themselves in government and in politics and sometimes something has got to give. [ applause ] >> all right. let me see if i can tie together some of what was said here in this first go around and see if we can push in a little harder on this. so paul says well, one of the things that's driving the country towards political reform is the mass exodus of american from the two parties creating this huge, new group of independents and that is leaving parties in a situation where they are more controlled by narrow interests by organized interests and that given the

power that the party has, that's setting up a dangerous situation. chad, you're talking about the importance of overarching political principle, which is very tied to the history of this country, including all of the difficulties that we've had in fully realizing it but mainly that every american should have the right to participate in a political process without being required to join a political organization and that's the premise that we operate from. and michael, you talk about what is happening happening to people in this country as a result of a decaying and corrupt political system and that we need to reform this system because of those things that are going on. so i hear these things and i embrace all of them and this raises the question for me of are we tieing these things

together enough? do we have to tie them together from an organizing point of view, from a political point of view, from a coalition building point of view? how do we connect these things and does connecting them -- do we have to connect them and does connecting them make the movement more powerful? i would be interested in hearing your thoughts. >> i think it does, jackie. i think -- if i may, i think two, maybe three years -- no i guess maybe four years ago you and dr. noonan did one of your talk sessions at this conference and i think the point that dr. newman made during that discussion said, you know, out of all of the things we could organize around democracy and in a way and politics and reform is one of the most difficult. it's just like you know there's so many sexy issues out

there to organize around but politics is a difficult one and therefore, it takes a certain amount of courage, if you will, to do that, to go into that because it's not easy. it's not sexy. and so i think when you think about that and then connect it to the tradition, at least of progress in this country, i come out of a movement that is deeply engaged in social justice. we believe in the traditions of dr. king. and so we just came out of this celebration of 50 years of selma and, of course selma -- i think the gentleman -- i forget from which state -- he just quoted johnson's speech when he decided that they would move in the congress -- a congress, by the way, that did not want to pass the voting rights act to vote to pass it by saying, you know our cause is just the time is now

we shall overcome. well, i think when people saw "selma" and saw the organizing that went into bringing that issue to the forefront of the stage of america then people felt like yes, this is a reform that we need and they felt like they could be a part of it and we got the reform. so as difficult as it may be, we have to have the courage to do the things that may be necessary to make this kind of reform sexy to the american people. [ applause ] >> that story is a perfect segue into this and smith v. albright decided you can't preclude someone voting in the democratic party on the issue of race. it was one year before the civil rights act and what the court recognized was the only meaningful avenue of participation was through the

democratic party at that time. so the effect on governance is what it's doing in california right now. the top two is forcing accountability across a broader spectrum of people. we have just as many democrats as republicans in the california legislature today because the change was not about party. it was about who they are accountable to. when you start the first phase in the process in the '60s, now they are accountable to african-americans and now in 2014 they are accountable to everybody, you get legislators acting in the best interests of each other. today i think we have a serious situation that frankly, it's not that the representatives don't want to listen to us. it's that they can't. and they get -- the consequence is a new term to this political

discourse and they get primary. >> one of the interesting things that is helping to tie all of this together is ironically, the actions of the parties themselves. for the last 20 years the parties have engaged in an assault on states that have open primaries, have convinced the court that their private associations, therefore, should prevent the people who haven't signed on the dotted line to join them to participate in primary elections. independents -- and our lawsuit says, if there's private organizations y. is it that the state is funding and paying for their primaries and, secondly, a fascinating case was argued in the supreme court coming out of arizona, all good things and bad things come out of arizona. arizona state legislature sued a

decommissioning who remedied the horrendous gerrymandering that takes place in arizona and elsewhere. the state legislature sued the commission and the supreme court agreed to hear the case and the state legislature took the position that the constitution says that only the legislature can decide matters pertaining to congressional elections, not the people. so what ties this together hopefully, and that people will begin to see is that this is a matter of sovereignty. if the people don't govern if that's not the source of power if the legislature can see measures and reforms and issues that go directly to the people can be nullified by the courts or by the legislature, then the very fundamentals of democracy are called into question and perhaps that is what can tie all of this together. [ applause ] >> if i canned a on to this,-- can

add on to this, it was the state of california that tried to open up a partisan system. the state said you can't infringe on the right of a private political party and force them to accept the independent voters into their primary. what's unique about the case that harry and i are working on together and sam somewhere in this room in new jersey, the state of new jersey instead of taking the side of their voters has literally put itself in the position of the voters saying we're going to reject this is ba. it's a very interesting development now and i think we're going to get, you know, decisions on each side of the aisle across the country. but that's an important point that harry has made. they've really replaced themselves from the world of voters. >> there's a history of the

american people being mobilized around processed issues often tied to new developments with candidates and politics. in 1912 teddy roosevelt for a second really shook up politics in a lot of ways, brought a lot of new ideas, especially with the progressive era into -- you know, that much higher that the conversation and it wasn't an accident that we changed the constitution in just a few years ahead we -- direct election of senators, we haven't been able to elect senators before, women suffer suffrage. and the -- out of that we also had process issues that included the 13th 14th 15th amendment, african-american suffrage.

so process issues can rise to that level. but also it's often associated with candidates and people and independents third parties. our founding co-chair was john anderson who ran for president in 1980 and was representative in a sense of a republican party that left him in a changed direction with ronald reagan and so he ran -- he had an important place in a discussion. and i think it's -- we need people like them on the ballot and the conversation that we ultimately need to have when we get to what the reform needs to be to achieve the ideals that we want, we have to make the general election in november representative and matter and we need to make our representative assemblies representative and matter and that means running the general election along with the primary election.

[ applause ] >> one thing i think about, jackie, with your question about connections, in connecting, i think about -- and we've talked about this many times, george washington. you know as he's leaving office, warning the country don't let there be official connectors. stay connected but don't. don't let there be parties and about 4 1/2 hours after his speech made its way around the country, the parties were embedded and we had the most partisan election ever in 1800. i guess part of what i think about is the importance of recognizing how our very understanding of connecting has been so shaped by the parties. they have been so overdetermined by how the democrats connect people and how the republicans connect people. and they do it in this very sophisticated, slick way that plays off mutual benefits but

also antagonisms and it's very per pernicious. so part of what i'm excited about is the opportunity to connect in ways that don't mean we have to fit together perfectly or we have to smooth over things or end any kind of disagreements. i love connecting in ways that don't resolve our disagreements but use them creatively. i think that's so important and that's what this movement is doing. >> uh-huh. uh-huh. [ applause ] >> early on, chad and john had a slight disagreement. i would just say that i think as it relates to this question that they are both right. chad is talking about really all politics is vocal. people make a decision because of how politics affects them personally. so knowing that you're going to be empowered or that you're not being empowered under the current system has a big effect

on how people vote. but make no mistake, people giving money from the outside or being involved from the outside can have an effect as well. in our particular case in arizona, the koch brothers spent about $2 billion at the end of our election, we were up 68% and that money had a detrimental impact on our ability to be successful because they raised doubt and the doubt was just enough. that's all you need in an initiative. in fact, afterwards we polled it and we found that the public still supported the measure by and large but the doubt caused them to vote against it. what john was talking about, the connection about the national party, or the national group you know the parties really came about because of national politics, national political leaders trying to create grassroots organizations as a modern technique as a modern device at the time to try to expand their influence. well, if we're going to be

successful as a group, if we're going to be successful in moving this effort forward, we are definitely going to have to have a national base that talks about why it's important from a national standpoint that gets other players engaged at a national level to take part and to help finance it and oftentimes to also subscribe to the public about why that is happening. why is it that people like us are engaged in a campaign in oregon or a campaign in illinois? and the only answer to that is because what unifies us is what's happening in our congress today, what is happening at the national political level. oftentimes the efforts that move these open primaries forward is focused on the legislative process. but what we also need to do is focus on the dysfunctioning happening nationally and why this should matter to them from an economic standpoint, a jobs standpoint as well as a national defense standpoint. >> okay. yeah michael, did you want

to -- >> i would just say again circling back to the mayor's point, i also think at the end of the day, i think people -- you know you ask can we make reform popular with the american people? i think people in general become excited about things that they actually can really truly participate in. and so i think part of the connecting that has to go on is a connecting that has always gone on in some respects. i mean you have groups and organizations that are -- you know, they are doing the legislative work around voting or you know doing the creative work around building new coalitions. and i think we have to also bring in sort of the social movement aspect to it that people are gathering for a

reason to confront the institution that is stopping them from being able to progress and prosper. and i think, you know, if you can imagine what it would mean somehow, if you really thought about voting voting really has to be a social justice right. it has to be something that you are so passionate about and that the people are so passionate about that the idea that they cannot participate in a meaningful way is something that they are going to go hit the barricades on, metaphorically. and then practically making it how do you bring organizations together and make that kind of social justice movement happen which would make everything that is happening in the courts on the -- in the discovery rooms, in the concept rooms all come

together to bring the kind of opportunity for change that the american people need. >> all right. well, let me ask a question then, to build off of what you're saying and also to refer to a comment that, rob, you made at the very beginning when we talked about the importance of modernizing the electoral system and i want to ask all of you a question about -- this is maybe a question about modernizing not just political machinery or the design of elections but maybe this has to do with modernizing or post modernizing for some people certain concepts that are at the core of what we're doing. and i'm thinking about the issue of choice. because, michael, when you talk about voting being a social justice concern, it seems to me that part of what you're raising in that is not just having the right to vote and being able to

exercise that vote but having meaningful choices along the way. now, a lot -- the question of choice, in my opinion, gets reduced to kind of a set of low levels, well, we just need to have more candidates on the ballot or whatever. not an argument against having a whole bunch of candidates. i've always been in favor of that. i think that's one of the strengths of the top two primary open systems. it puts everybody out there and let's the voters choose the two finalists. but it -- maybe this is a philosophical question more than anything else. what is choice? what is choice? how do we think about that? how do we think about that politically? how do we think about that legally? how do we think about that inspirationally? what is it? what is it now? >> we just had a national

election in the midst of, you know times where we have a lot of problems on the table. about 36% of eligible voters felt that vote was worth casting and went out and did it. 64% did not. a lot of people were not registered in the first place. that was another problem. that was the lowest turnout in the midterm election since 1942. in the primary elections open primaries, closed primaries alike, we had the lowest ever turnout in more than half of our states. in that sense, a sense of choice being something that people feel there's a meaningful reason to participate. there's something meaningful for what they are doing. they are -- the choice they make matters to them and matters to their lives and so it's not just a matter of having a mix of candidates, though i think that is essential to what we need to put as part of the mechanism of our reform.

but it also means that they have to believe it matters that -- so choice has to have meaning for impact and then quite literally it has to be more than one. i'll just use as a mechanism, because i've been alluding to mechanisms without saying what they are but i'll use an example of what i think is a meaningful choice, is that the state of maine -- i know there are some people from maine here. next year we'll vote on whether to have voting in the november election. they've had a whole series of elections for governor when they have more than two people running and in the last 11 races for governor, only two were one with more than half of the votes. in fact they would have had more winners but angus king won. that has put stress on a system where they can only vote for one so a movement has come together to put right choice on the

ballot. here's my first choice but here's my second is cho. if my first choice is a weak candidate and finishes last the ballot goes to my second choice and so i have more choices and the candidates have more incentives to talk to more people. they not only need your first choice, they need your second choice. with that little change, we've sort of expanded the opportunity for voters and for the candidates to create this whole new candidate is a swing voter. it is showing how the mechanism can connect to meaning and to choices. [ applause ] >> i'll try to address what i see as the philosophical side of this choice question. in my mind, at least, the problem with choice -- and americans have lots of choices. you go into the supermarket, you can have 37 different kinds of

food. the political process surely does that with the consultants, with the ads, with the primaries and americans rarely have the opportunity and have been disorganized from the choice or the creative activity of what kind of a political process do we want? what kind of a society do we want? what does democracy need to be in 2015? what happened to the promise of the obama election? so maybe we have to revisit the issue of choice and transform choice or change choice into the activity of people who are working to create something new

together. [ applause ] >> in light of mr. johnson's observation, maybe i stepped over a crack that wasn't quite there, what i meant in referring to referencing this john is that we have to resist the danger of becoming another choice another partisan affiliation. that this is somehow independents versus democrats and versus republicans. i think in terms of choice to say it's grounded in education we need to understand there's differences between this democrat, this republican there's difference between your party affiliation and the choices should be whether it's a voter or a person representing that voter looking at individuals for what they represent and not for just a flat party affiliation. >> i find it so interesting that we don't represent just as you say, independents. we represent the majority of people having a choice.

you have 435 districts in congress today. 400 of them arguably are not competitive. meaning, the decision is made in 400 of the 435 in the primary where the majority of voters have no choice whatsoever when you get to the general election. this is about giving more voters the choice in the system. and today, it has become effectively a tyrannical system, where a small group of interests can control the majority party and by controlling the majority party they alleviate the choice that the rest of us have in a general election. [ applause ] >> and see i think in that respect that you want people to i guess learn that they have some choices. and so it just makes me think of harriet tubman. harriet tubman said i could have freed a thousand more slaves had

they known that they were slaves. you can say the same thing about all of these voters who were locked out in different ways, who are refusing to join any party because they feel like it's not a choice. we have to somehow convert that to say you know what, there's an underground railroad that can take you to the homeland and we've got to build that and make it happen. >> all right. something else i wanted to ask you about this comes off of a comment that joan blades made on the panel this morning where she referenced very briefly -- she was referencing some dialogues that she and i have been having over the last year about which she termed panic in a progressive movement. she was saying -- and again she referenced this earlier, that a concern of hers is that

progressive-minded people are panicked. and that they are -- that causes people to act in defensive kinds of ways. and one of the issues that we have found over the years is that some of the strongest opposition to democracy reform, particularly with respect to the primary system itself comes from progressives comes from people who are at least historically politically associated with being pro democracy and in the forefront of social justice and opening up the political process. but at least in the most recent period they've been against some of these kinds of initiatives

that brings more voters in and so forth. and i'd be interested to know what each of you think about that, maybe some of what your experiences with that has been and how you accounted for that. and also, i ask that in part -- speaking now as a progressive myself -- i'm concerned about this position within the progressive movement and i'd like us to find ways to impact on that and to bring them along in this democracy movement. but i was interested to hear how -- how you see that and how you feel about that. >> if the goal of open primaries is to bring people together in arizona, the one thing that we pulled off fairly well is an opposition by the democratic party and the republican party. they found one area that they tended to agree with. here's what's interesting. in arizona, we didn't have a

single rule officer that was a democrat. they are all republicans. legislators overwhelmingly republican. their ability to win is pretty small, candidly. a very, very tough race for them. but you will find the interest groups would prefer to have a magnified voice. and i don't see interest groups as necessarily evil, although i think all of our interest groups including mine at some point in time, come in conflict with the common interest. it's a natural thing that happens. but their concern is losing control in the power structure that they understand. it is a natural instinct. they have been in those parties for a long time, they have built up loyalties in those parties friendships within those parties and they are so based in it that to step outside is difficult. the only success i found is this. if you talk to an hispanic elected official who wins in an hispanic district because the

district is jeremy district is gerrymandered, if you go to the people that elected him and say, are you winning anything, how are you doing on education, how are you doing on health care, how are you doing on poverty reforms we've had bills that are anti-his anti-hispanic, anti-gay, what are you winning? the answers then become a very different answer. the progressives, the people when they start looking in at least our state at what they are losing because of a closed system is an easy change but not for the groups that represent them. because their power comes to them from the power that is in place with the parties today. [ applause ] >> one of the attitudes that i've come across frequently when

engaging with other progressives and democrats is kind of a philosophy that's been expounded over the many last couple of years within democratic party progressive circles, which is namely the demographics are in our favor. that the country's becoming more people of color. it's younger. there's more immigrants, more latinos. we simply have to wait here, and they will come to us. and speaking as a progressive, i think that is such a problematic politic that is -- plays right into the hands of the far right wing and leaves people paralyzed and leaves them in a position progressives where they have to advocate against structural reforms. and against changing the system. because the underlying message of that of we just have to wait

here for the country to become 2% more latino and then we'll start winning elections is keep the system the same. keep it rigged because it will work in our favor in a couple more elections. that is such a bad politic for progressives. to say we're going to -- we know it's rigged. they all know it's rigged. we need to keep it rigged because eventually it will help us. and that's how we're going to be able to defeat the republicans. that politic drives me crazy and it's very prevalent, and i think we have to challenge it. >> we don't realize that the right wing left wing, up wing down wing, all the wings of everything as part of the same movement that will never be successful. if we view this as a movement for the progressives on for the right, i can tell you i have very close ties to a lot of very adamant libertarians. what's my message? that the ultimate to right to

vote derives from the individual. you should look at candidates as the individual. it's a libertarian message, a democrat message a conservative message. what's the state doing funding a process that serves two private parties? so i think we shouldn't look at it as this is somebody's movement to get there. this is about all of us and how do we have a better way for us to come together and form a government that resolves the natural differences among all of us? >> you know jackie, in terms of the panic issue you know i think that -- and, you know, i don't care what you say. a lot of people, you know, you can criticize barack obama. but there are millions of people, and in particular, african-americans who felt like their world changed when barack obama was elected. and, you know, he's not going to

have another opportunity to run again. and this nation has been different as a result of barack's election. and so now the question is -- and so now the question is, as we approach 2016, how do you avoid not being completely marginalized? because at the end of the day, and you guys who are much more expert in this part of it than i am, at the end of the day, we would not have had barack obama but for the open primaries that existed, had it just been a closed primary system he never would have won the election in 2008. and so if -- if that was any progress -- and i firmly believe that it was, and i certainly think it created a new foundation for where we can go as a nation in terms of forming a more perfect union then i

think we have to really think about how we make these things work because, you know we will have some sort of choice in 2016. americans will be electing a new president. and i think we have to make sure that all of the voices that are eligible that can participate have the most possibility of having a voice. and that means having a voice in the choices that end up as the choice for the american people. >> yeah. and i just want to pick up on that. that choices of the choice being a key point. and by that i mean that i think that some of the proposals have moved quickly without necessarily bringing together people before hand to say are we actually putting the reform on the ballot that can bring us all together. and i think that paul, if you're moving forward in arizona worried about people opposing you, you know, now is the time to bring them together, as i'm

sure you are, but now is the time and say are there ways we can make this proposal bring you in? and i think, like, for instance specifically on the top two primary, there's different ways of doing it. and before one sort of picks one approach, look at a way that might bring as many people as possible. and that's you know there's different approaches. just as one example, louisiana, their model of top two is put know on the ballot in november. no one doesn't get to the november ballot. everyone gets to the november ballot. and then if no one wins the majority, you have a runoff afterwards. maybe that's not as good. maybe it is better. but it's one that puts everyone on the november ballot so it doesn't feel like it takes something away which some people can feel about and the november ballot does. those kinds of conversations, the right time to have them is when you're making the proposal. you never get everyone. but you might get more people by bringing people in early.

>> i think a challenge to the left in this country, and this has been true for a long time. is to be less concerned about outcomes and more concerned about democracy. i think a big problem for the left -- and i think the american people, on some level, understand this. is that the left doesn't trust the american people. because they're afraid that if things happen democratically without the guidance without the control of the democratic party, for example that things that the left considers important, like the safety net, despite the fact that the safety net really doesn't keep people very safe, might be taken away. but i think the obsession with outcomes keeps us on the defensive, keeps us locked down and doesn't really give the american people the opportunity to express their decency to express their passion, to express their concern for fairness and for everybody.

in the -- he wasn't the only person -- that on the beaches at normandy, you didn't know whether the guy standing next to you was a democrat or republican. it didn't matter. so we've got to give up on controlling outcomes and invite the american people as a whole into the process of deciding what kind of a country they want. >> say one of the dangers, in our experience with top two is that once you are successful with an initiative effort, your work just started because you just created a whole legal situation for yourself because everybody's going to come out, you know and there's some people in this room that have spent a lot of independent money defending top two system which we believe is an enormous process of getting us to think about elections in terms of people and not parties. but one of the inc. das of bringing a lot of people to the room who have their idea of how

to construct something is that you construct something one, that politically can be challenged because somebody like the koch brothers are going to come out in arizona and challenge just a small part of it, right. and they're going to find the weakest part of it. and then after it's passed they're going to go in the courtroom and challenge just a small part of it and find the weakest link. so part of it is understanding from the front end that you have to be disciplined enough to not look for the best possible answer you could ever have. you have to look at the possible answer that you can sell to the people that you can resist an opposition from somebody like the koch brothers or whoever it is opposing it and then you can -- and then it's narrow enough that when you get in the courtroom, can you defend it. and luckily we've defended top two against three separate lawsuits. one of them is still ongoing. i think there's going to be a long process until we really get there and we get you know efforts passed in other states that are really bulletproof from all the different opposition that's going to come. >> i think that is spot on. the very first issue any effort

has to look at are the legal issues. you have to pass both u.s. and state constitutional muster. and if you don't do those two, don't waste your time because you're going to be challenged legally. we have seven lawsuits on our effort, as you know. the second thing is you need to poll it. and simpler is better. the shorter and simpler you can make it, the better off you are. what we know in ours last time we had the libertarians opposed to us because they wanted rank voting. and then we had the top two. what's interesting is our group and their group both genuinely disliked the existing system. we both believed that it should be nonpartisan. but we got into the weeds on the exact detail of how that works. now, i'm not certain how to completely pull out of that, but i do know that when you start dividing up your majority, you're no longer a majority. >> right. right. exactly. >> let's open it up to the

floor. now, so if we could have house lights and we have our microphones in the front and i invite you to come and offer a comment or a question to our panelists. all right. we'll start over here. >> hello. my name is lateresa jones, and i'm from florida. i'm running for u.s. senate in 2016. my concern -- i actually came here today because i am going to run as an independent. and i came because we need a support system behind us strong enough to help us because some of us do strategize. i like a lot of the people are fed up because a lot of us i believe in ordinary people because that's what this country was built on, ordinary people. and that is the reality of it. people are hungry out here.