>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by niall we're joined this morning by nile -- who is a white house columnist

for the hill newspaper, and he's here this morning to talk about how controversial issues are playing out in state legislatures. now, good morning. >> good to see you. >> you recently wrote a column in the hill newspaper talking about how the culture wars in the united states are playing out at the state level. tell us a little bit about why we're seeing this. >> i think it depends on the specific issue. abortion, obviously, has been a culture war issue forever. clearly, that's been moved to the states by the supreme court decision -- about 11 months ago -- roe v. wade. then, you have other additional issues like so-called senior team -- that have come to the floor as a matter of debate, much more recently. and then, in addition to that, you have, frankly, some politicians, and presidential ambitions caught in this as well. governor desantis in florida has quite clearly and quite ostentatiously been inserting

himself into some of the debates. six-week abortion ban, so-called anti woke act and things of that nature. >> why are we seeing this being dealt in a slate legislation years rather than in washington, in congress, at the white house? why are we seeing this coming up in governor tory hill and legislative at the state level? >> i think a couple of reasons. one, in relation to gun laws, for example. obviously very salient this morning for very sad reasons. there hasn't been a lot of federal action on that area. the pro-gun control groups have been increasingly focused on state legislatures, and have, by their lights, made some progress there. that's one part of this picture. i think, also, there is the fact that our politics have become increasingly nationalized. these big issues that excite such passions have become

dominant even in state level races, and as you say, governor tory races. sometimes even at a more hyper, local level like swart elections are now being fought on security issues and things like that. >> is this a good thing, or is this bad that these are going on, same conversation going on in different places, likely coming to different solutions? it is a good thing or a bad thing? >> one of the experts i spoke to said it was a good thing, and his argument was that it is, in a sense, the job of the states to experiment a little bit more. he put it that the federal government is there as a guard if things go completely crazy, but state legislature and other state bodies can deal with these issues at a level, by its nature, that's closer to the people. and so, a law that you might want in alabama, is not necessarily the same kind of a law you want in vermont. and so, having those state

level disparities is not necessarily a bad thing. >> does that, however, especially when it comes to high button issues like gun control, abortion, does that mean that americans face different laws in different states? and may or may not know what jurisdiction has which law? >> i think that is a really important point, particularly on those two topics of gun laws and abortion laws. we really do see very dramatic differences. obviously on the gun quest, and there's all sorts of questions around reciprocity and whether one states wash should be recognized in another state. in the abortion question, -- a region of a nation, primarily in that -- prohibiting or coming close to prohibiting abortion completely. and the northeast and the west coast, taking an entirely different view, really going out of their way to protect reproductive rights. so, does that contribute to the

sense that we are, in some ways, two separate nations? possibly, but it's also reflective of the voters in those places. >> speaking of the voters in those places, there are some people who say that there is a national move, a national group, that's manipulating these state legislatures by trying to push through the same laws in different states, using lobbying, using their political power. is that what we're seeing, are we seeing these shadowy national groups pushing through laws that states may not have moved on their own? >> so, i want to be a bit careful with answering that one. a think was a different laws and different states reflect different political cultures in those states and different views on the parts of voters. that said, if you want to nefariously affect things, you can do that and get more bang for your buck, honestly, in state legislatures or even more

localized areas. those races don't typically come with big budgets attached, certainly not the way a presidential election does or even a senate race. so you can impact st. louis liters, certainly school board elections, if you wish to do so. much easier than you can do on the national level. >> are we seeing that -- more lobbying money from larger groups focusing on the state legislature. i think we can both agree, congress is pretty much it deadlocked. you're not going to get any controversial or big name issues through congress. do we see these groups moving their one e away from congress untoward state legislations, where they can get changes they may want? >> i think in broad terms we do. we certainly are seeing an increased focus and an increased recognition of the importance of these issues, for these matters. you look at something like the debate over critical race

series. 18 states and i have passed some form of restriction or prohibition on what might, broadly, be called seniority. defining seniority is a whole other battle, as you know. abortion, again, we talk about 13 states with -- about the same number with really tight restrictions. i think those kind of pivotal issues do encourage groups with interest at play to involve themselves to a greater extent. >> i want to get -- before i, do i want to remind our colors that they can take part in this conversation. we're going to open up our regular lines. that means democrats, you can call in at 202748 8000. republicans, your line is going to be 2027488001 -- dependence, you can call -- keep in mind, you can always texas at 202748 8003, and were

always on social media, on twitter, at and on facebook and facebook.com slash c-span. i want to dive in a little bit more today about the gondolas in the u.s. because, of course, we had that tragic shooting yesterday in austin, texas we see different states with different gun laws and we see a whole plethora of gun laws trying to be pushed through in several state legislatures. what does the, what's the landscape that we're seeing out there, right now? >> i think there are a number of states that have passed more stringent gun laws very recently. you look at michigan, for governor whitmer recently signed as something that basically increases the storage requirements for guns. and washington state's governor signed an actual assault weapons ban them and a number of other restrictions. colorado, governor polis, the

point that i'm making with those, those are all democratic governors. we are not seeing those kind of moves made in places like texas, despite these catastrophic events that uvalde massacre, as well as what we saw yesterday. there has not really been traction for gun control efforts in texas. in fact, if you remember, the last gubernatorial election, we had governor abbott who is a strong advocate, shall we say, of the second amendment. quite easily defeating -- the democrat, who had been pushing for much more stringent gun laws. >> how does one states decision to be more stringent on gun laws affect the next state across the border? are these laws just entities onto themselves? >> i think they affected, but in a fairly nebulous way. they affect the general

perception of what may be politically possible. for a very long time, there was his perception that any man shush -- vie for democrats and good for republicans. that, i think, has been eroded in a number of the states, but it's not a universal rule, and there are these big differences between states that are much more resistant to gun control laws and those that favor them. so, does it have an impact? it has a sort of abstract impact, but not always a very concrete or specific one. >> you said earlier that state legislatures and state law have a greater chance to experiment, especially when it comes to these high button issues. don't they have the supreme court and the entire court system looking over their shoulder saying, well, i know you want to do this in your state, but it's against the constitution. >> yeah, they absolutely do, and they also have state --

that intervene themselves to take a very obvious example, we were just talking about the six-week abortion ban in florida. i'm not sure that the media has done a great job and pointing out, that is not in effect yet because the courts in florida are looking at higher comports with the state constitution. then, on top of that, you do have, of course, the supreme court. pretty short distance from where we're sitting right now. that can weigh in on any number of things, matters and declare state measures on constitution. >> let's let some of our viewers take part of this conversation. we'll start with mark, who's calling from florida on the democratic line. mark, good morning. >> hello, good morning and thank you for taking my call. since we're talking about culture wars and the role of state legislatures, what does your guest know about the culture warrior texas state representative brian's layton's little upset there.

>> not very much, is the honest answer to that. i don't know if you want to enlighten me or otherwise, but i'm not very aware of mr. sleet and selectivity's that you're alluding to. >> i think they have dropped off. all right, so let's go to, i actually don't know what he's referring to as well. we'll look at up and see if we can find it. let's go to gary, who is calling from livingston texas on the republican line. gary, good morning. >> hey, good morning. i just wanted to correct what you said a while ago. the shooting that happened yesterday was in allen, texas and not austin. thank you. >> did either of us say austin? i don't think so. >> i don't think so. but if we did, it was an allen, texas. let's go to luis, who is calling from -- on the end of --

luis, good morning. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. could you discuss the difference between bribery and the influence of forces with congressman? >> that's a great question, and that could be a long discussion. the influence of money in politics is something that has been an issue for decades, but seems to be intensifying as an issue. at what point is the purchase of influence illegal? there is no say in the thing that is -- what is illegal. obviously, a lot of politicians, both parties, are very dependent on getting financial

donations. they would argue, universally i think, that that does not affect the votes they cast or the positions they take. i will leave it up to you and the rest of our audience to adjudicate whether you think that's true or not. >> one of the things that we have seen, especially as it comes towards the next presidential election, i think is we talked about earlier, that some governors seem to be using these culture wars at the state level to, let's just say, increase their national standings. is one, is a democratic party, the republican party, or any party, particularly benefiting from having these local, state level culture war battles in their state legislatures? does that give the republicans an advantage, does it give democrats an advantage? >> i don't think it is really that clear cut, and it is a great question.

i think that there are some areas in which it does benefit the republicans. to your point about presidential ambitions, we mentioned governor desantis earlier on. he, very clearly, has used his state powers legitimately to promote or gain prominence for a particularly conservative position on these culture war issues. but does it ultimately benefit one party or the other? i think, for example, advocates of gun control would argue that they would have more success at the state level -- it has benefited the liberal side on other issues like abortion, i think it has primarily benefited publicans or conservatives. >> one issue that has popped up at a local level, that we haven't talked about yet, is the gender affirming care issue and the transgender issues that we've seen, all of a sudden, that seem to be talking about in quite a few state legislators. where do you stand with that? >> where we stand with that is

that there are a number of legislators either considering or trying to pass the bills -- on that. but that gets to your previous point about which issues benefit which party. it is noticeable that there is a poll just a couple of days ago in the washington post that indicated that, broadly speaking, the american public fever, well, the more republican and more conservative position, that was a poll that found that the majority of americans believed that gender is determined by the sex assigned at birth, at large, -- where opposed to trans women or girls being permitted to compete in sports with people who had a female sex assigned at birth. i think that in that issue, that is one where, clearly, it seems to me -- whatever term you want to use, have got out in front of the american republicans. >> when you say out in front, you mean the --

it is not instep with where the american republic are. >> how does that affect what's going on at the state level, though? does that mean that republicans can use this issue and try to pass laws that will put them at an advantage in the next upcoming election? >> yes, is the short answer. and i think that is because you can use was at the state level in the literal sense of trying to prohibit things or trying to encourage things. but you can also use was at the state level to promotes or amplify a particular issue. so, on that issue of what we might probably cole trans rights, if republicans calculate, it seems to be corrected, looking at the data, that the public is broadly sympathetic to their position, then they can push these bills in the state legislatures as a means of keeping the national spotlight on those topics, and then there is political advantage to be gleaned from

that. >> okay, let's go back to our phone lines and let's talk to richard, who is calling from verona, missouri on the democrat line. richard, good morning. >> hey, just wondering, i talked a while ago -- i was listening in a guy was wanting to know about bribes. he -- supreme court justice, i never thought you could, but it makes you kind of wonder sometimes. another thing, guns and a portions down in texas, they, it's a republican -- guns in abortion, now. i was old enough to remember when abortion was illegal all over, and women went to back alleys and places like, fall down steps and taking coat hangers and stuff like that. so, you can pass laws, but it's not going to change peoples way of doing things. now, guns and abortion, i hope

that'll be the death of a republican party this coming up election. because, i'm tired, i'm afraid to even go a little over -- scared i'm going to get a shot. so, church, to want to church if you're going to get shot. it's pretty disgusting. it's been a long time living and seeing history, what these people are talking about, but i've lived through all that history and things are better now than they would've have been. i'll go with it that way. thank you, sir. co>> yeah, i mean richard raises a number of interesting points there in relation to the supreme court. obviously, the current controversy around justice thomas's, i would say, adding a few to calls -- a code of as the ex for supreme court. justice is, not at the moment. on the point of abortion, richard, the point that you raised about how things were in

the past, when abortion was illegal, i think is an important one. and certainly, there are republicans, more moderate or centrist republicans, who have expressed concern about the party as they see it pursuing too hard a line on it. congresswoman nancy mace of south carolina, for example, has suggested or inquired or demanded that the party should try to find some middle ground on that issue. we'll have to see if those calls are a success. >> let's go to rachel, who's on from 40 texas, on the independent line. rachel, good morning. >> good morning. i was listening to someone on c-span the other day, and they were talking about what the -- they could sell military rifles that, right after that, the cartels were angled to get military rifles.

that's when we started having problems with people coming over from mexico, and we had problems with illegals coming over here. and it's time, when -- let this brady bill expire, only 80% was a against military rifles. but they had fox news and conservative radio lied and said that the sale of the military rifles was going to help fund the iraq war, and that's the reason why so many people allowed the brady bill to expire. why isn't fox held accountable for the lies? >> i am not exactly sure what the point in relation to iraq, rachel. obviously, the assault oppose ban that you said did expire. there have been calls, not least from president biden himself, to try to resurrect

that ban. there aren't immediate signs of that happening in congress anytime soon, but it remains alive political issue, just one that there isn't much chance of any instant action on. >> since the caller brought up fox news, i'm wondering, how much effect does the statewide and local media have on the laws and the coverage. it does their coverage affect these issues being fought at the state and local level, the way we see congressman being covered by the national media? does the same recitation ship exist at the state level? >> probably not, but for a reason that you and i would probably find quite dispiriting, which is that at the state level, the media has been hollowed out to a very considerable degree. one can look at, basically, across the nation, at the -- how many fewer correspondents there are, whether it is with

state newspapers or state broadcasters covering what goes on in these legislatures. i would argue that that goes to the other point you raised earlier in our conversation about whether lobbyists and money interests can affect things in state legislatures. broadly speaking, look, we both know the media has its faults. we're not perfect, but broadly speaking, the less scrutiny there is of anybody in power, the more at liberty they feel to do shady stuff. and so, i think that that's a bit of a problem. >> and for our viewers, i want you to know, we didn't forget. our wonderful producers have found this story in yahoo.com -- i want to read to you about the lawmaker that our first color asked about a house committee in the texas state legislature on saturday recommended the expulsion of state representative, brian flinton, who reportedly -- a 19-year-old intern with alcohol in his apartment.

had an inappropriate sexual conduct with her, and then gave her a loyalty test to try to pressure her to stay silent. that was the lawmaker that the first color was talking about. we didn't forget about it, we just wanted to make sure we brought it to you and you have anything you want to say about this? >> i don't, i mean, i literally wasn't aware that allegation until you read it out. my working assumption is that he denies that he did those things. >> that would be my assumption, as well. >> so, i don't want to get too far ahead of what the facts are, but obviously, if those facts were -- that would be reprehensible. >> now, our other national groups who, specifically, push legislation at state level that we can look at and see, that these are groups who are pushing these issues, hot button issues, at state levels. other groups who specialize in that? >> i think there are groups who are increasingly concentrating on that, so on the liberal side,

i think -- the pro-gun control group, it has, in combination with it -- an organization that is affiliated with, has very much empathy size the capacity to change laws at the state level. now, on the conservative side, there are a number of groups that clearly -- there were a number of groups, i think, affiliated with what used to be referred to as a kook brothers, but there's only one who brother particularly active in these things anymore. they, clearly, saw a purpose in pushing laws at the state level. >> let's go back to our phone lines and talk to michael, who is calling from sterling virginia on the democratic line. michael, good morning. >> hello there.

thank you so much, c-span, for taking my call and also providing this forum. also, i'd like to mention my respect for mr. -- and his willingness to take on an issue like culture wars, which i'm sure is wide open and quite frightening from your perspective. i want to go back to something you said about the difficulty in determining where the line is when we try to determine whether someone is fundraising or actually being influenced by money. i thought, i never really thought about it much, but when you talk about, it you caused me to think of something. and so, i wanted to ask you to expand on it. how crazy is the idea to completely poll public and, not

public butts free money out of elections and the base and that type of thing, and just purely have it be taxpayer money to pay for that stuff. and then maybe even possibly require some of the media forums to provide some space. and then also, to have taxpayer money ensure that journalism is clear and transparent and up right. well, i just want to know how crazy is the idea to fully disallow any kind of money into campaigns, and just make it all taxpayer money. these people are working for the taxpayer, anyway. you know. so, i'll just take your answer

off line, thank you, sir. >> thank you, michael, for the kind words. i'll give a brief answer. it's not a crazy idea, the problem is that you need to get lawmakers to vote for it before it becomes law. there are all sorts of examples elsewhere in the world of public funding of elections and the banning or severe restriction of private funding. but, can you get such a law passed here. i think that's really the question, you also raise a point about journalism and transparency in journalism. that's get into a more tricky area, because then you get into government funded journalism, and people have, i think, understandable concerns about that. >> at what point do the state movements on these hot button issues turn into constitutional issues? where states are now involving themselves in things that the federal government should be

doing. one of the biggest examples i can think of immediately is the border states and immigration, and their complaints that washington isn't doing anything. so, they have to do something. but can they? >> that's a great point, and we haven't got into it. immigration, until now, which is on -- there are real serious constitutional issues there, because it is the -- responsibility of the federal government to make immigration law, but then you have states, including texas, that say, well we just can't, we can't tolerate the current situation of thousands and thousands of people coming across the border. so, in that issue, there are clearly constitutional issues. there are clearly issues of federal power and the federal law is a shun of the system here. and, when you have also governors, as was the case with governor abbott, sending people to the border, state forces.

then, yeah, you get into constitutionally deep waters on that one. wouldn't >> the same thing over gun control, for example? since we've had the, the second advancement, the interpretation of it, of the second amendment, is in the constitution. >> yeah, it could, i mean, i guess the scenario there would be one in which, as state legislature passed a very restrictive government gun control law, could so-called gun rights groups then protest against that and take it to the supreme court? i think they could, if they could make a compelling case that had actually violated the second amendment, and of course, the supreme court right now, it is currently constituted, it has a clear and conservative majority. in that hypothetical scenario, those gun rights groups might find quite a favorable hearing, i would imagine. >> and, i know that several of these hot button issues sometimes go to states with an

expectation that a conservative state will do this. illiberal state would do that. but sometimes, there is a surprise, like what happened in nebraska and south carolina and their attempts to pass -- abortion laws talk about that. they don't always do what they do in presidential elections. >> that's a great point, nebraska and south carolina, they had an attempt to restrict abortion, both are states that failed in both those legislatures, despite the fact that they are conservative states. i think that really goes to this, that really -- naughty question of abortion on the politics of abortion. we've seen that almost as soon as the supreme court -- roe v. wade. remember, there was a ballot initiative in kansas that the liberal side, or pro-choice side, the abortion right side,. one we've seen that pattern repeated in a number of places on the same day as the midterm elections last year. there were ballot measures on

the state -- relating to abortion. the liberal side won all five, including in kentucky and in montana. states that are not -- for their liberal leanings. >> so, is that the state legislature not being where its constituents are? or maybe trying to get ahead of where the constituents are? >> yeah, it can be, i can also be the whole scenario we've seen over and over again in politics here, a politicians worrying about a primary challenge from their right flank, if the republicans, their left flanks, if they're democrats. sometimes, we will see politicians propose these bills, as happen in south carolina. -- a near total abortion ban that was being proposed. and actually, the reason that failed was one or two or three slightly more moderate republicans who said, i, myself, and personally conservative, but i can't vote for this. that was an interesting

development, >> let's go back to our phone lines, and let's start with tom, who is calling from redford michigan on the republican line. tom, good morning. >> good morning, gentlemen. so, i do have a comment about gun control and you did bring up how governor whitmer just signed into law the new gun control laws for michigan about storage and stuff like that. now, with michigan, it seems like the prosecutors are enforcing the laws that we already have on the books. the shooter -- he actually -- he got fine with a concealed weapon -- and he went through the process of going through the court and everything. then they ended up charging him with a misdemeanor, carrying -- illegally carrying a weapon in

this vehicle, rather than a felony gun charge. now, because of that, he was able to purchase guns that he then used to do the shooting in the -- now, if we have all these laws, it's all well and good, but we're not enforcing these laws to begin with, and it seems like the criminals that appropriate these guns will end up not following the laws, anyways. i'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that. >> i think it's a valid point. tom and i think that it's one that comes up a lot. there is a push, on the liberal side, for all kind of gun controls. you don't need me to repeat them, you know all the various measures that we're talking about. but oftentimes, when something tragic happens, which it does with a depressing degree of frequency, frequent do know that some of these changes don't seem to match up to the actual nature of the shooting. so, with a certain change in the law actually help prevent

what happened, as you mentioned. what happened in l. and texas, yesterday. you know, that is i think, a valid point, even though i also think people have valid concerns about the sheer number of firearms in this country and their ease of availability. the point about laws not being forced and so far seems to -- illegitimate point to make for sure. >> we've seen a list of culture war issues show up in state legislatures like reproductive rights, the gender affirming care. you don't hear as much about crt, but it's still out there and gun control. as we move towards the presidential election, do you see any other cultural issues that you expect to see pop-up at the state legislative level? >> that's a great question, i think you have hit most of the main ones and what you just said. >> now, we are talking a moment ago about immigration. immigration in a sense, is a culture war issue, because it goes to peoples sense of security. it can also go to people sense

of a changing american culture. there are all sorts of different strands within that debates. there is, clearly, a very big divide between liberals and conservatives see that issue. i think the main ones are the ones that you mention, the abortion debate, the gun law debates, the crt debates. governor desantis is in a battle with dizzy, but i'm not sure that's going to go -- i mean, it's national because it's such a big case, but i'm not sure other states are going to start attacking mickey mouse. >> okay. we'll take another call. let's go to phil who's going from pelosi park, illinois, on the independent line. phil, good morning. >> good morning. okay, i find it incongruous that state legislatures want to protect the life of -- up until it's birth. but then, they do not want to protect that same life by

allowing high capacity, semi automatic guns to be owned, so that the same children, now, can be killed in school. >> yeah, sorry, phil, i wasn't sure if you are adding more to that. that is a point that i think is rightfully raised a lot. and, you know, the sanctity of life is something that is cited all the time by opponents of abortion and there wasn't much sanctity of life in texas yesterday, unfortunately. so, i think that that is a valid point to raise. we you know, that, i think use the word incongruous or incongruity, i think that incongruity is certainly -- primarily on the democratic liberal side to raise on that particular topic a lot.

>> as we've seen more of these culture war issues play out and state legislature, were we also see more state legislators protest and take actions inside their state chambers, like -- so we zephyr in montana. do you expect to see more f that as these hot button issues start showing p more and more at the state legislative level? >> i think so. i thought that the tennessee three case was particularly important. and emblematic of some of these bigger issues. it started off as a debate, of course, about gun control. that was what sparked, excuse me, the original demonstrations for which those lawmakers. -- stated. now, the fact that the two lawmakers who were expelled were black, clearly played into that discussion as well. in a state that has, how do we put it diplomatically, a checkered history of race relations in the case of

tennessee. so, that i think was a point where you saw these very explosive strains in american life, issues of racial equality, and issues of gun control and violence, come together in a very combustible mix. i think that's why that particular controversy got so much national attention. seemingly coming from nowhere, -- political debates, to being this central, national story. i think we could see that happen again in the future. >> okay. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to -- who is calling from houston, texas, on the democrat line. kate, good morning. >> good morning. yes, i was calling. is the culture wars, i'm not really on to that, but -- do we need to be stronger?

>> more stronger on what. tell us a bit more about what you're talking about, kate. >> meaning -- this governor has weekend the law to have all of these people in this space to do, it's like it's a wild, wild west. and, it's maddening and it's out of control. >> you're talking about gun laws, i think? is that what you're referring to as a wild wild west? >> yes. yes i am. >> right, yeah. i mean, i'm not here to express political -- but, clearly, [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible]