discussion with justice stephen breyer. during this interview, he talks about how the court works and reaches decisions in cases. he served on the highest court since 1994. later this hour, hour interview with justice clarence thomas. >> justice breyer, what room is this in your chambers? >> this is were quite a lot of work gets done. we have messengers and they are here for one year. i have for clark's. everybody in the building has four clerks. they do a lot of work. >> what does this building mean to you? >> this is the last neo- classical building built in america.

. . >> he said this building is so laverock, it would cut their heads. maybe he was right. it has become, over time, a symbol of the court system and

the need for stability, rule of law, which is what america stands for. >> as you know, the public knows very little about how the court works. what can you eliminate on that subject? how it all works, how to the cases come here? >> what is it i do every day? first, keep in mind that law in the united states, 90% or 95% of all law as made in the states. every state has a system for making law. it has legislature, government, a court system. i asked school children, where is the law may? it is not washington d.c. well, over there, congress is a block away. they do pass a lot of laws.

those are federal laws, but then make up a small percentage. those are the federal laws in those books right there. >> a technical question, how do those books and up on your shelf? >> we all have copies of them. anybody in the united states could write to the federal government. the west publishing co. puts them out. this is the u.s. code of cases. there is a statute book. you can get a copy. it is that every library. this is how you get a request for identifiable records in a patent case. their words in it. -- there are words in it. fontaine pointed out that every word in a statute is a possibility of an argument.

does it mean this, or does it mean that? it contains thousands of words, and each worker can produce an argument. >> are these all the laws that have been passed over the years? >> these are all the federal law still in existence. over there is the actual code itself. >> all that is available -- >> it is federal. it is available in every city or country. it is available on the internet. >> how does a case come to you? >> remember, there are state laws and federal laws. they are in state systems. looking at the case in the federal system, it is complicated.

maybe three or four are in federal courts. it can involve a federal issue of law, what does it mean? or what does the constitution of the united states mean? we decide just the federal questions. what the constitution of the united states means. in cases where people are disagreeing about it. the trial, appeals, and finally, by the time you get to the final appeal -- maybe there are 80,000 cases or 100,000 cases that have questions of federal law. what does this word mean? what does the word "liberty" in the fourteenth amendment mean? assisted suicide is a case we have. it could be an important case. of those 80,000 cases, 8000 as

test each year to hear the case -- ask us each year to hear the case. that is 150 requests to hear the case per week. >> this is for this week. what we do -- >> we read through these. we look at all of them. and then we vote. we meet at conference and we vote. if there are four of the night of us that want to hear any of these cases, we will hear it. this one is a petition that i picked at random. this is a person can't afford to pay for printing. if he is a criminal defendant, the government builds this. >> does this have to be a certain length? >> yes, it does.

it is usually 15 or 20 pages. this is 21 pages. >> that is in a booklet. >> here is the lower court. they asked for a petition. please take our case. here is why we should take it. here is the response, please don't take it. how could i read all of these in one week? i would like to say that is because i am so clever. what we do with these, since it would be impossible for all any one person to read all of these, one of the things these wonderful clerks do is have a pool. there are about 30 clerks, and those clerks will divide these. they will read five or 63150 is

about 56. -- five or six. 30 into 150 is 5 or 6. maybe he is right. if i had read 150, i would not necessarily find that. but by reading five or six, they are going to find out whether there is a case that we should hear. what we really received as a pack of mammals like this. -- is a pack of memos like this. it is how we decide what to hear. think of these memos. i go through that stack, probably in a couple of hours. how could i go through that? it is 2 to 10 pages, maybe 20.

i will end up with a small stack. these are the ones that i really think we might hear. how did i get from the big stack to the small stack? once that they the criteria i am using, you will understand. -- once i tell you the criteria i am using, you will understand. taft said that we are not here to correct mistakes of the lower court. already, that person, everyone of them has had a trial, one or two appeals. we could not do it if our job was to look through these decisions and decide whether it was right or wrong. maybe they are right. maybe we are wrong. bluenose? the primary job is, said taft, to take the case where there is a need for a nationally uniform

decision on the meaning of the particular law. suppose all the lower court georges -- judges come to the same conclusion? is there a need for us? what do you think? nope. it is already in a form. suppose they reach different conclusions. -- it is already uniform. supposed to reach different conclusions. we will probably hear it. if they all reached the same conclusion, we probably won't. that isn't 100% of it, but it is the basic idea. now you can see how i could do this. now you can see how it is possible. >> let me ask you about your chambers. it seems a lot different than where you used to be over in the senate.

are there to clerks in here? >> and there are two upstairs. >> it doesn't get any more exciting than this? >> i like a pretty quiet. -- it pretty quiet. >> it is a different atmosphere than the judiciary committee? >> absolutely. this, by the way, this is what happens next. the parties, the people that hear the cases. that is 80 a year, out of 8000, 80,000 possible, 8 million altogether -- these are the ones where the judges disagree. >> does that mean there are 80 times that these parties come to

the court room? >> the different parties. those will be too weak sessions. -- two-week sessions. we will hear roughly between 8 and 12 cases during the sessions. they each have an hour argue orally. before i go into the session, we have here march or april. these are the cases filed in april. each one of these boxes is a case. >> what is in the box? you have heard this case already? >> we have heard them all. before i go into the oral argument, i have read these booklets. and this time, i have read them. i go through it. they write memos that i asked

them to do, and we discuss it wants her twice. -- once or twice. this is an interesting case. this is the blue brief. 50 pages or so were the lawyer says why the district court below was wrong. and we have read brief. that tells us why they are right. >> who writes those? >> this case involved a school district. they want us to reverse -- they have a view of what the rule of law on search and seizure is. the other side says no, the lower coat -- court was right. >> is there a link? >> 50 pages. -- is there a length?

>> 50 pages. >> what if they are poor? >> we will appoint somebody to represent you, and it will be paid for. >> how often? >> fairly often. all of those white pieces of paper are all the people that could not afford to pay for it. that is why they didn't print does. if the case is granted, they will get the money to print it. >> what is your feeling on those numbers, 8000, the 80 -- >> we're looking for the legal issues where people have disagreed below. and maybe a few others. if they hold a statute of congress unconstitutional, we will hear that case. there may be some huge issue for the country. what they have in common is that four of us think there is a need in this case to have a

uniform rule of federal law in the country. >> what else is in that box? >> the side that filed the blue brief and filed a rebuttal. the colors help us. the government is always red. >> is there reason for that? >> i don't know. you will have asked them. they are supporting the petitions. -- have to ask them. they're supporting the petitions. any group can file a brief. we have some people in a group filing one side. >> and they're always light green? >> dark green is on the side of

the response. light green is always the side of the petition. so what i will do is read these 12 sets of briefs. look at the number of briefs hre. -- here. as they get repetitive, i may not read them quite as early. but i will look at them. >> does it ever feel like it is too much? >> in the summer, i have briefs. i read at home. they follow me around. >> what about security in an office like this, a building like this? >> they can't hack in, we have a very secure computer system. they can't.

>> you communicate among the offices? >> with judges, is better to communicate in writing. they're complicated, these cases. we may not think we're talking about the same case. if i have to put it in writing, it is a good way to communicate. we also talk to each other. >> after you have read all this, you are on the bench, how often do you change your mind? >> it depends. how often do i hear the oral argument and change or think differently about the case? quite often. 40%, probably pretty high. 30% as a ballpark how often do i come in -- 5% or 10%.

dodge the oral argument matters. >> it does matter. it helps me characterized the case. i see what my colleagues think, and i listened. -- listen. once we hear the argument, we go to the conference room and sit around the table. we talk about it. no one else is in the room. and we vote. the vote is that if --tentative. -- tentative. it is becoming firmer. nowadays, is pretty apparent that is going to come out -- how it is going to come out. that's because peopele don't

usually understand. this is a case involving a tonnage clause. it is important to people that own ships or tax ships. many of these cases are quite significant, but the press isn't going to write about them. they will write about the very controversial issues where we might divide 5-4. i think the division appears to be greater than really is. >> this is where my office is. -- the office is? >> amy's job is to keep everything in order. lots of pieces of paper floating around. each case as it comes up, people began to decide and write

opinions. tony keeps track of the rest of the world coming in here, which in my case, is quite a lot. people want me to give a talk, the judges, who knows. she is the face of the world. >> standing where you are, you can hear the noise of the tourists down the hallways. you get a sense of not many people ever get back here? >> you don't, because it is a secured area. fewer people come to the building now. when i first got here, a million people a year came to the building. which is wonderful. i think it has dropped somewhat, but that is not who comes to these offices. these areas are kept secure.

>> if i am an attorney, representing a client. can i call you up and come visit? >> no. the basic rule of the court system -- that is called ex- party communication. if you have two people suing each other, these two parties are represented by lawyers. the judge should not have anything to do with the lawyers without the other one being present. we have a very formal system for making presentations. >> do you ever have to say to our friend or acquaintance, you have gone too far and asked to many questions? >> it would be unusual that i would be talking where it would could happen. -- where it could happen. if we are at dinner and we start talking about a case, i will

say, you can ask what you want. i am very restrictive about what i can answer. that usually ends the conversation on that subject. >> on a lighter note, i see some bubblehead dolls. -- bobble-head dolls. i don't see one of justice breyer. there are a lot of photographs. >> i was a judge for 13 years in boston. 15 years here. i have had 111 law clerks. 87 came to the reunion, it was absolutely wonderful. they are married, have children, so i feel like a grandparent of a thousand children. >> what is the job of re law clerk -- of a law clerk? >> they go through all the

petitions. and when we hear the case, they will read those breeze, too. i will talk to them about it and ask them to do research. when we decide the case, the next step is to write an opinion. that is divided among the judges. in a particular case, if it is my job to write the opinion, i will get a law clerk to produce a long memo, maybe 40 pages or draft. i will take that memo, take the briefs, and i will read them. this is where this goes on. what i do is, i read them. it looks like i reading the newspaper this morning. having done that, these are the systems. i go over here. this is a computer going to the outside world. if i want a secure system, i

push that button. it is totally separate. i sit here and i write a draft. a lot of my day is spent writing a draft. i give it back to the law clerks. they look at it and go, medium. and they will write a draft based on my draft. i get their draft, i do it again. it goes back and forth. i usually have to spend two or three drafts pretty much from scratch before i am reasonably satisfied that we are going somewhere. and we edit them back and forth. after they are edited back-and- forth, i circulate it. i hope for the judge's ruling. the four other judges join, i have a court. i would like nine to join. >> decides in the first place? >> the chief justice. he is constrained, because he

has to have the same number of opinions. everybody is assigned one, two, three. it will be up to him if he is in the majority. if he is not, whoever is senior will make that decision. it balances out. >> these are some very old looking books. >> they are my own books. very valuable. he spent his life as a plot -- professor collecting different books. he was in cambridge. he was at johns hopkins. he went to harvard and started working the library. did not have a lot of money. >> did you clerk?

>> that is the man that i clerked for. in 1964, 1965. >> what did that do to you? >> it was wonderful. his quirks loved him, it was great fun working for him -- clerks loved him, it was great fun working for him. i was probably recommended by faculty people at harvard. >> and how do you pick your -- >> i have a committee of former clerks. the judge's call me on the court of appeals and say, i have a wonderful clerk for you. we get several hundred applications. between that and the calls of the different court of appeals judges, i might interview tenor

15 and pick -- ten or fifteen and pick four from that. >> there is normally a roaring fire. >> because it is cold. i love the fire. >> israel would? -- is it real wood? >> yes. >> normally, you have robes on. you normally work without a code on -- a coat on? >> yes. >> what kind of atmosphere do you have? >> it is pleasant. people give me odd things. this is an indian tribe stick, it is fun. when you hold it up, people are

supposed to listen. it doesn't work, but i like it. >> what about this piece of art? >> we have the privilege, as many appointees do, of going to the museums and see if there are paintings that are not displaying so that we can have them loaned to put on -- to put up at the office. i borrow them. they can't take them back. -- they can taket hem bac -- take them back. that is a nice one. they're all nice, but that is a famous one. >> what is your favorite thing? >> i like this baseball. this was a great thing for me, because i got an invitation from the red sox to throw out the baseball.

that is not so easy to do. i am not a world pose the greatest -- world's greatest thrower. boston fans are not very forgiving. so i practiced. we have my 4-year-old granddaughter. she threw the ball the grandpa. and grandpa threw the ball to my wife, who was a very good athlete, and she threw the ball right over the plate. she works at a cancer hospital in boston. the announcer said that i was throwing the ball with joanna, but she was doing it for the children. she got a lot of applause for that. >> sit over there, we can continue chatting a little bit. what do people not know about this court that you want them to know?

the average person that does not understand. >> two things. one is the job of the court -- much more a straight legal job than people think. people think that we decide what we like. that isn't true. i feel like i never decide what i like. very often, these questions are hard, and the law in no -- is not clear. the fourteenth amendment says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. what does that mean? you cannot be deprived the right of asking a doctor if you're at the end of life to commit suicide? do you have the constitutional right or not? there are ways of finding out.

it is not surprising that people divide on such questions. that does not mean you're deciding according to your preferences. i am looking for my copy of the constitution. look at this document. it is a very thin document. it has been in existence for 200 years. what i see every day and my job that amazed me first and continues to amaze me is sitting up in the bench. i see people of every race, every religion, every nationality. we have 300 million people. probably 900 million points of

view. people cannot agree about a lot of things. despite an armistice agreement, they have decided to resolve their differences under the law. i see that every day. they don't have that tradition. -- in other countries. they shot each -- shoot each other. here, we dont'. -- we don't. even if they think that it is misinterpreted, they still follow it. that has not always been the case. we had to fight a civil war over that things have happened in the country. over time, people have come to the realization that it is better to follow the law, including interpretations you don't agree with, then it is to

take to the streets. that is a tremendous treasure for the united states of america. people have agreed to follow that document. we are entrusted with its interpretation. >> let me ask you about the proximity of this building? -- building. it used to be inside the capitol. >> if you look out the window, you can see the capital. >> this building, you can look at it two ways. it is surrounded by congress, or congress is looking up at the supreme court. >> the overall impression that i have working in congress is that that is where the power is. we are aa democracy. at that power flows up from the people. you can't work their that thinking every minute that we are responsible directly to the people i remember -- to the

people. i remember coming to my office one day, and someone was looking to the books. i said, can i help you? it was probably a student. she said, i had a question. i thought i would look at these books. shall i be a little annoyed? nope. maybe she is a constituent. you see? that is the thinking that people have when they are elected. and they should, because they are representing the people. what we're doing with this document is not telling them over there what they can and cannot do. we're looking at this as the ground rules. these are the ground rules, what they say in this document is one, we will have a democratic process. we will have democracy. it is a certain kind of

democracy. it exists on a degree of the quality. it insists on protection for fundamental rights. it insists on separating powers into pockets. state, federal, executive, legislative, judicial so that no group becomes too powerful. those things don't say how to live in society. they tell you the ground rules. we apply those through democratic processes. we figure out what kind of cities, towns, countries -- may have to follow these rules. our job is a difficult one. you take what others have done and look at it carefully. we will probably spend two,

three, maybe four months on a case. and then we come up with the conclusion about what it means and whether it is consistent with the constitution. here is the end product. when everybody has written the dissent, everybody has written anything they want to say, there is no strategizing or everything the next day, it is released. in all these books, it is a little essay. here's one i'm taking at random. jones vs the united staets. -- states. there were some people in the majority, there were some people dissenting. there were three people

dissenting, and six in the majority. that is about 20 + pages -- 25 pages. in those opinions, they are giving their real reasons. they are giving a real reasons as to why they think the what is the way -- it is different from congress. they're not supposed to tell you why the statute is on the book. the statute just tells you what to do. it doesn't tell you why congress decided to have to do it. these documents tell you why the judge came to the conclusion, and the upshot is the inside story of the court. >> often, you'll see concurring opinion in a dissenting opinions. to those have an impact? >> i would say yes.

the part that you haven't seen is, the first time i say right an opinion. use a right to dissent. i read what he said. -- you say, write a dissent. i read what he said, and i make sure my argument was as good as i thought it was. the impact will be at least to make me write a better decision. >> you get the dissent before the final decision? >> absolutely. and you will read what i wrote, and he will revise your descent. and ultimately, i hope -- and it doesn't always work this way -- we narrow our differences to the point where i think an objective person would have to say, most of the time, these differences are within the range of reason. nobody has really made a mistake.

it is simply different people reaching reasonable conclusions for somewhat different reasons. but i can understand how people can differ. >> is there a time where there is a deadlock? let's say you have nine members of the court. let's say they all concur and hungry. pooh decides when is the final word typed and we have an opinion that we can announce. >> at the conference. remember, we need the four votes and we go and discuss the case. the first order is always a list of the opinions that are circulated. and what the chief justice always says, and he knows because he keeps track as do we all, is everyone in on this? has everybody joined? everyone agrees that they have nothing more to say, that is when it comes out.

>> what if you can't get to that point? >> we get to it. it hasn't happened. the job is to get to the point. we're not working on works that will never see the light of day. our job is to decide. we decide. >> what is the longest period of time you can remember from the moment you accepted a case to the moment you announced the decision on the bench? >> i know the longest that can be possible would be hearing the argument in the week of october and wouldn't get it out until the end of june. that is the longest it could take. >> it can't go over until the next year? >> no. it is slightly more absolute than is warranted. we have the power to hold the case over for the next term.

i don't think that has happened since i have been here. if you were to find a counterexample, fine. but i do not think has happened. >> let me ask you again about the building. what is your favorite place? >> alike this office. i am a homebody. there we are. the job is reading and writing. i say, the job, if you do your homework really well, you can get a job doing homework the rest of your life. i am reading and i am writing. it is a pleasant room to work in. i like it. every two weeks, i am hearing oral argument, sitting in the courtroom. i very much like that, too. i can't say they're like the exercise, but there is a track

down theire. this is comfortable. i like it in the winter. i like it in the summer. there is a very nice view. it is a great privilege to be here. >> you often read that there are nine different law offices. is that the way it works? >> to a degree. it is somewhat of an overstatement, because the suggestion is that we do not talk to each other. we do talk to each other. we have ways of finding out, sometimes directly, what other judges are thinking. it is an individual law office in the sense that what i am writing an opinion, i have my draft, i have my law clerks. they will do the research necessary. it wants to know something, go look it up.

the library is fabulous. it is connected to the library of congress and the whole world. if i want and what the french statute of limitations is in some kind of commercial action, i can ask them. the next day, it will be on my desk. they're very good. >> how often are you on a point he can't resolve and you walk down the hall to one of the other justices offices? >> sometimes. the first thing, i want to know from my law clerks, what is the answer. there are a couple of different kinds of questions. what is the statute saying on this? i will go as clerks or as the library. i see that, i wonder how i should factor that then. i am having a problem here. you can't do it all the time, or you will not get the work done.

but to say you would never do it would be an exaggeration. >> you had something to do with the courthouse. you were right into the architecture. >> we needed aone -- one. we spent a long time trying to get a decent building built. it is a nice building. ellsworth kelley produced this. the light the design of the building. he put his paintings in there. harry cobb was the architect. selecting the architect and finding the painter and the decoration -- we probably spent, my guess would be an afternoon a

week for three or four years. meeting after meeting after meeting. it was not easy. harry was fabulous in getting the money. i hope you look at some time. the theme of that is that it is a public building. the judges are part of a community. the building should be used for community activity. we want to bring people into it. there is, in fact, a staff there that does nothing other than trying to get the lawyers to bring high school class is in. order bring public school -- class'es in. or to bring public school students in. the jury room is used for meetings of all different kinds. >> what is the difference in the field you have in the courthouse

and the one here at the supreme court? >> that is a district court, trial court, and court of appeals. the court house on the strand -- that is a feeling we wanted. the public's business is being conducted. it is not a procession to the throne or the judge sits. it is a marketplace with an architectural feeling, ideas going back and forth carrying on the business of the clients. the judges, in a sense, are part of the furniture. here, it is not quite that feeling. this is more of a processional -- it is viewed as symbolic. it is a very important building. do i like the activity more? i worked at the senate.

this is a different job. >> if you could do it again, would you do the same way? >> i am not architect. the person who designed this building was a brilliant architect. i was happy when there were a million people a year visiting us. >> why hasn't gone down? >> i think the general concern in washington. people are slowly, bit by bit, doing a heating system. and air-conditioning system and air conditioner -- an electric system. it was built in the 30's. the appearance want change, but the insides will. j>> just a couple questions. you are moving out of this office, and your -- they are

going to work on it. are you going to come back? >> of course. >> is there any other office you want in the building? >> no. i was very lucky. this is a great office. right before ginsburg was appointed, i was the most junior. when i was appointed, nobody wanted to move. that is fine with me. >> when you come back, is your fireplace going to be here? >> i certainly expected to be. i certainly hope so. we will be all right for a year. that's fine. >> market, anything in the? anything you want to say about anything? >> have i forgotten anything? >> this is our first one. it is a terrific start for us, exploiting the system and how it works.

>> is there anything you find interesting, the justices getting together for lunch? >> before we go into the oral argument, it is usually attended 12. we gather at five minutes before 10:00 -- it is usually 10:00 to 12:00. five minutes before 10:00, we go put the roads on and come back to the conference room. we always shake hands with each other before the conference. i was the most junior member of this court for 11 years. when we had our conference, i had the special job of opening the door in case somebody knocked. somebody forgot a paper. once, there was coffee for just a scalia. -- justice scalia.

i have been doing this for 10 years, and i have gotten pretty good at it. he said, i am not sure. we have fun. >> do you have lunch every week together. --? >> not everybody always comes to launch, but when we are in session, we usually have lunch in the dining room. >> on the conference itself, is there no staff in there? in a recording device? >> no. but we take notes on what each other says. two very good customs and rules. everybody takes notes. if i am writing the opinion, i better know what you think. if i don't know what you think, you will not join my opinion. we keep track of everyone's tentative vote.

one of the best rules, and i think it is true for any group, the rule of that conference is that no one speaks twice until everyone has spoken once. i think it is a very good rule. the other rule that is absolute is what i call, tomorrow is another day. we are not the greatest allies in the world on this case. those who disagree with us are completely wrong. we are going to convince them that we are complete allies. the case is over. the next case. we are on totally opposite sides. the fact you were my ally in case to has nothing -- in case one has nothing to do with case two.

that's goo, too -- good, too. it produces good human relations. if you disagree, you know that tomorrow, we may agree. >> we will continue with the supreme court interviews in a moment. visit our web site for information about the nine justices and read about the history of the court at c- span.org/supremecourt. now, more information on this week's series on the supreme court. >> that is not the business judges are in. we do not sit here to make the law, decide who ought to win. we decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. >> a rare glimpse into america's highest court threw unprecedented and on the record conversations with 10 supreme court justices. and thursday, sclali -- scalia and ginsberg.

get our copy of the supreme court on dvd. it is part of the "american icons" collection. it includes programs on the white house and the capital. one of the many items available at c-span.org/store. >> now, our conversation with justice clarence thomas. he has served since 1991. we met with him in the east conference room at the supreme court building. this interview is about 15 minutes. >> justice thomas, you were sitting in the supreme court conference room for this conversation. do you have a memory of the first time you ever walked inside this building? >> gosh. well, i do. i was a hill staffer in the russel senate office building in the early 1980's.

it may have been 1979. i love this city. i would walk over to the library of congress, the then-new madison building. i poked my head in this building monday and was overwhelmed by what i saw, and immediately left. i only got as far as the great hall. >> why is that? dodge the supreme court is special. it was special when i was a kid. it is special for what it has done and what it symbolizes. the supreme court was awesome, in a sense that it was someplace maybe i am not supposed to be here. i was young, and it was my first

foray intot he building -- into the building. i did not come back until years later. and just briefly before i was nominated, one of my former law clerks took me on a brief tour of the building. that was about it when i came. >> any of those visits, do you remember feeling aspirational? >> goodness, no. this was not something i could look forward to or think about. i had actually not thought about being a judge. the irony was, i had been approached about considering becoming a member of the missouri supreme court in my early 30's. i thought that was far too young. i did not know whether or not i wanted to be a judge.

>> wide is a matter? -- why does age matter when you are a judge? >> i think we mature at different rates. but the decisions that we make at 40 or 50, we would not make that 20 or 30. i think you have judgment that comes from having experiences and experience that you do not have in the early years. >> i was interested in the two our your former clerk took you on. where do you take people on tours? >> i don't do tours. >> not even for friends and family? >> not really, but the whole building is special to me.

every room, special. the various gardens are special. i think thati f i had -- that if i had to envision what a supreme court would look like, this is it. i would not change anything. there were times in my early years late at night, he did not have this connectivity -- we did not have this connectivity. you get trained, tired, wondering, why am i doing this? i would leave the building and go round front and look at this institution from that side. it is hard not to get goose bumps. it is hard not to realize that this is much larger than me.

i remember when i first got here and i was relatively young. justice powell and i went to lunch. we were returning, and he looked at this building. add that time, he had retired from the court -- at that time, he had retired from the court and had questionable health. we loved to have lunch and chat. he looked at this building as we approached and said, once you think you belong here, it is time to leave. this institution, what it represents, what we do is much larger than us. it says each of us that it is much larger than us. >> can you speak a little bit about how you said it was the perfect building?

you visited both state supreme courts and courts in other countries. what is it about the architects -- what is it about what the architects captured in this building? >> i am not architects, and i am not an artist. >> but it appeals to you. what is it? >> that sense that there is something that transcends the mundane part of the job. there is something that is beyond the day to day back-and- forth. the disagreements, the opinion work, the reading of the briefs. i remember when i got here, senator danforth came over when chief justice rehnquist was wearing the and. he looked-- swearing me in.

he looked at the robes, and he said that it looks really boring. it might be the mundane part of it is, but it is for good reason. this building. i just look at it. it the architecture. the rooms, the atmosphere. how quiet it is, how serious it is. it says to you that the work is important. i think the danger is that sometimes you could come into a building like this and think it is all about you. . .

maybe sometimes there are so many problems that come our way, issues and questions that come our way, that we have a larger role than the framers envisioned. but it is certainly one of the three branches of government. beyond that, deciding in borden things about our society -- i do not have a particular view that we are larger than life or anything like that. >> can you tell me about your job? >> which part?

>> well, describe what you do. there is a lot a process that goes into it. >> there is, you are right. and that is the mundane part. i remember years ago that there was several television programs about the court and they were supposed to be sitcoms. i wondered, who in the heck is going to watch that? because most of it is rather sedentary. you come in, you sit, you get your work done. when i first got here, justice wright said that you have to get a system. you develop a system to approach every case. because there is nobody to tell you when to start, there is no game plan that is set out by anyone, there is no timeline. you know when the seedings are, you know when the cases are going to be built -- you know

when the sittings are, you know when the cases are going to be dealt with, and i usually divide the work into three categories. you have to decide which cases come here, you decide those cases, and then you write opinions. and you agree or does a bit -- and you agree or disagree with the opinions. that is set. you continue throughout the year reviewing the search positions -- cert petitions. most people that they -- and think that they have a right to come to this court. normally you do not. maybe the state courts of appeals and a course that do not have discretionary jurisdiction. the courts of last resort, maybe they have a right to go to those. but here most of our

jurisdiction is discretionary. in an otherwise -- in other words, we decided you come. we receive about 9000 requests a year. in the last few years, we've taken around the cases. there is the process of sorting through that. i like to go through all of those requests. we do that in short memorandum, they are not social. they're called pool memorandua. two of the judges -- justices are not part of that pool. but that is just a regular pool. you do that almost every day. i like to have that done on the weekend before the conference, which is normally on friday. that is a part of your work day, that you do not normally think

about. it is routine, like brushing your teeth. and it is continuous. as far as preparing for argued cases, those are the ones that we have said we will hear, there are two wait to argue. there is riveting and then in the courtroom, the oral argument. -- there is writing and then in the courtroom, the oral argument. most of your job is reading their written arguments. we have done this before and a lot of these areas we have worked on before whether it is the fourth amendment, fifth amendment, whether it is the first amendment -- you are getting another iteration of an old problem. you're getting another view, another aspect of it, but it is not brand new. it is not perry mason. it is not some mysterious thing

going on. we know where the law is going and this is just another part of it. you read the briefs, and i have what i call with all my clark's eight clerks conference. we debated back and forth -- we debate it back and forth. then we write a desperation -- dispensation memorandum. we have all this before the oral argument. sometimes i think they're far too many questions but we all learn differently. some members of the court like that interaction. it helps the learning process. what they have been thinking of. i prefer to listen and think it through more quietly. but each to his own. after oral argument, i go back and meet again with my law clerks and think about if there

is anything new from oral argument to add to the equation. usually there are a few things but nothing that totally changes what we have done based on the briefs. after that, we finalize our disposition memorandum. we go to conference, the cases that we hear on monday are decided on wednesday afternoon the cases argued on tuesday and wednesday are decided on friday morning. i go to conference with this disposition, and that is the explanation for the vote. the senior member in the majority vote is normally the chief justice and he assigns who writes the opinion. you get the opinion. now i already have an outline, together with my notes from conference. just like we were taught in the eighth grade, you have an outline for your essay.

we have an outline for the draft opinion and that is basically the process. you go to the draft and is circulated and then it is finalized. >> can i pick that up part of a little bit more to learn about the process? about the cases that you will decide here, but volume versus the number selected, it seems as though the cases heard continues to lower slightly each year. why is that? does the court hear the appropriate number? >> it takes four members to decide whether we will hear. when i first came on the court. we had 120 -- 110 or so. i like that number. i think that is a good number. >> what is the difference? >> 8 keep you busy.

you hear four cases a day rather than two. it really pushes the process. the problem is this. we only take what we call cert- worthy. there has to be some confusion in a lower court. there may be one or two that i would quibble with per term, but there is not some huge list to make up the difference. the number reflects what is cert worthy. maybe the courts of appeals are in agreement and maybe there has not been major legislation that changes the landscape. we had the bankruptcy act when i first came aboard, you had erisa. but there are not seek changes going on out there.

are mandatory jurisdiction has been eliminated or is minimal. you do not have that big pocket. i cannot explain it and i do not think anyone can. anything we said would be speculative. there is no desire to reduce the numbers on my part or to my thinking and anything i have seen on the part of my colleagues. >> some of the other justices have particular areas of reviewed that they find more interesting and intellectually challenging. do you? are there certain parts of the constitution that you love to dig into a and get another opportunity to visit with a case? >> it goes against my nature to want to make big decisions about other people's lives. that is my job and i do it. so i cannot tell you that i look forward to wading into these certain areas.

i look forward to watching my nebraska cornhuskers, but i am not going to say i look for it -- this is about our country and our constitution, and i get my game face on. this is our job. the cases i am most excited about are the ones that have the least impact on people's lives. the relieve you of the burden. the way i try to do it is not to get some exhilaration from it, but to be faithful to the constitution, to be faithful to the oath that i took to uphold and interpret -- and the exhilaration i get is at the end of the term to say that i gave it my best shot. >> when you talk about the recognition that your work affects people's lives? what you just said -- the cases

that you prefer, that do not directly have an impact on the way people live their lives. why is that? help me understand that. >> when you look at our country, some of the decisions that we make in interpreting the constitution, people went, people lose, and it may have tremendous impact. you have changes in the constitution. you have cases involving tension, execution of other people are sentencing, the criminal justice system, the first amendment, what can be seized from other human beings, our fellow citizens. i do not get joy at of making decisions like that. what i'd do get up fulfillment from is living up to the oath to

do it the right way. to know that on behalf of my fellow citizens, i have tried to be faithful to their constitution, to our constitution -- that is where the exhilaration come spirit living up to the oath that i took and the obligations that i have under article 3. >> let me move to arguments. you wrote that you listen to the argument. we've read and heard from other justices is that the arguments are used for the justices to communicate with one another. to telegraph their opinions with a type of questions. t find that happening a lot? >> i have no idea. >> you get cues from other justices? >> not really. i guess i'd you oral argument a little bit differently. i think it is an opportunity for

the advocate, the lawyers, to fill in the blanks, to make their case, to point out things perhaps that were not covered in the briefs or to emphasize things or to respond to some concerns -- that sort of thing. in other words, to flesh out the case a little better, to get into the weeds a little bit more. i think that we're here, the nine of us -- and we can talk to each other any time that we want to -- so i would not use that 30 minutes of the advocate's time to do that, to talk to each other. but as i said earlier, we all learn differently. my bride will learn in school

that she is more interactive. i was never that way. i do not learn that way. one that they -- when i first came to the court, but court was much quieter than it is now. perhaps it was too quiet. i do not know. i like it that way, because it left big gaps said that you could actually have a conversation. i think it is hard to have a conversation when nobody is listening. when you cannot complete sentences or answers. perhaps that is a sudden fame, i do not know, but i think you should allow people to complete their answers and are thought, and to continue their conversations, i find that coherence that you get from my conversation far more helpful than the rapid-fire questioning. i don't see how you can learn so much when you have 50 questions in an hour. >> let me move to the process of

conference. it still feels mysterious. >> it should be. >> all behind closed doors. can you tell us what happens in that room? >> it should be mysterious. i can still remember the first time i set foot in that room and those doors closed. it is pretty daunting the first few times. that is where the actual work and the decision making takes place. it is just the nine. there is no staff, no recording devices. we both in descending order of seniority. -- we vote in descending order of seniority.

normally when i was a staffer, you always had assistance around. people are engaged. they actually talk about the case, they actually tell you what they think and why. you record the votes and there is some back and forth -- there is more now with -- and when chief justice rehnquist was here. he moved along very quickly. now there is more back-and-forth and more discussion. we normally have one break and there is more discussion off to the site about cases. and to see people who are trying their best to decide hard things and feel strongly about their view of it, it is fascinating. the thing that has been great -- and i just finished my 18th term

-- and i still have not heard the first unkind word in that room. you think what we have decided. life-and-death, abortion, executions, war and peace, financial ruin, the government, the relationship with citizens -- you name it, we have decided it. and i still have not heard the first half, and then in that work -- the first ad hominim in that room. it is an example of what i thought the decision making would be in all parts of our country. >> what ensures that decorum? >> the human beings on this court and that people do in one way or another, one degree or another, understand it is not

about them. it is about the constitution, our country, and our fettle -- our fellow citizens. they do not take themselves as seriously as they take the work of the court. >> we've learned a lot about the many traditions this court holds, passed down from court to court. some of those happened in the court room such as that handshake. how important are symbols and traditions to the process that happens here? >> i think the handshake -- whether you are in sports or church or other activities, it means something. it still means something. we can sense when someone is phony and don't mean it. these people in this room are genuine. it is warm and professional.

there is always a handshake before we go on the bench. when we see each other, the first time during the day, we always make sure that we shake hands, whether in public or private. there is a sense of courtesy and decency and civility that is a part of it. on the days that we work, whether on the bench or we are in conference, we get lunch together. in the early years, when i first came here, we had that lunch in a small room off the main dining room. justice o'connor insisted that we have lunch every day when we were sitting. "now, clarence, you should come to lunch." and she is very sweet but very persistent. i came to lunch and it was one of the best things that i did.

it is hard to be angry or bitter with someone and break bread and look them in the eye. it is a fun once, very little work is done there. it is just nine people, eight people, whoever shows up, having a wonderful lunch together. so the traditions, i think, are important. it is like traditions and our society and culture. they develop over time for a reason, and it helps sustain us in the other work that we do. they help sustain us. >> the chief makes the assignment as to who will write the opinion after the initial round of voting. he told us -- i cannot think of a better word, but judicious -- in handing out the assignments. do you ever have a sense of indicating or lobbying that this

is one that you would like to tackle? how does that work? >> no, i do not. i think chief justice rehnquist approached me and said years ago that i have not lobbied him for anything and was there anything that i wanted. and i said, this is a missouri sales tax case, i really like that. but i really believe that the chief justice is fair and what he does -- in what he does. it is his job to make the assignment. we are on the same side, i write the opinion and i try to be faithful to the conference. but i do not lobby. the only time i would ask for assignments was if i had worked imbalances in my chamber. but otherwise i do not lobby.

or i think i am the best person to write it -- there might be one where the court as a little fractured and i think i have a way of pulling us together, but that is not an ego thing that is let us get this done and maybe we can get everybody on board if we tried this way. and if you cannot, at least you have given at the college try. but i do not really lobby for anything. >> do you intellectually approach to writing of majority opinions the same as a dissent? >> oh, yes, you're an agent of the majority would you write the majority opinion. that is the way i approach that. and what you try to do is -- let us say for example that -- i will put it numerically so it is easier to follow -- let's say i would go the same direction but

i would go 80 yards, but the majority only ones to go 60 yards. 60 will decide the case as well. i would write the opinion to go 60. and not say anything about, i would also go the other 20 yards. now with four -- i were writing a concurrence or dissent on my own, i would write the opinion in a way that reflects i would go 80. i could not write an opinion that went in a direction that was different from what i actually thought we should go. but you do have to make adjustments in the approach to the opinion to reflect the views of the majority. and if you cannot do that, then you should not write the opinion. >> de read the major and longtime reporters covering the court? ever take a look?

>> i rarely read anything about the current of its about the court. >> i was wondering about what you thought about the quality of the reporting. >> there is a reason i'd do not read it. i think they are wonderful people out here to do good jobs and do a fantastic job, like jan greenberg. but i normally do not follow her. i might look at a few things at the end of the term that were brought to my attention, but i do not want to get distracted. it is like a lot of the really good athletes do not read press clippings. i do not read the ups and downs. my job is to decide cases. people can write what they want to write about it. that is up to them. but my job is to decide cases. >> staying out of current events in the years since you have been appointed when a new associate justices of for confirmation, did you follow that at all?

>> only what i cannot avoid. i do not have a bond experience out there. -- i did not have a fun experience up there and i do not wish that on anyone. and also, something justice white said when i first got here has stuck with me. it does not matter how you got here. it matters what you do after you have gotten here. that has always stuck with me. the members of the court were appointed by different presidents. when they walk on this building, they become a part of the nine. and we work with them. the most important thing is that they are good people who are conscientious and try to do the job in the best way that they can. and i respect that, i have to

respect that and believe that they will do that. agreement is not in consideration. that is why we have the luncheons. you do not have to agree with me because i am not going to agree with them just to be agreeable. but i do not really follow that. the boilers that courts are about to welcome a new associate justice. when you have watched the new justices come on board, how long does it take before they get it? >> i do not know. i think we all learned different paces. when i came to the court, i asked that same question because it was very important for me to figure out when what i get my sea legs. the common number was five years. justice white was also say it takes about that long to go around the full horn of all the

cases, the kinds of cases that we get. out of their number. and that may be about right. it does not mean that you cannot do your work. it just means that things are still new for the first five years. you may not have had as many our original jurisdiction cases involving water rights or boundaries. you may not have had a lot of admiralty cases. you get all of that. it was chief justice rehnquist, when i was complaining that, oh, my goodness, what am i doing here, my first year. i looked around and see people like him, who had been here at that time almost three decades, you see justice white who was let in lerwick, justice o'connor. he said, "well, clarence, and your first five years to make you wonder how you got here. after that, you wonder how your

colleagues got here quotin." i do not know what that is true but that five-year period was fairly well accepted as the break-in period. >> what a fax to the tenor of any particular court -- what if that's ifeffe -- what effects to the tenor of any particular court does the chief give? >> cheap request -- -- chief justice rehnquist's file was differed from chief justice roberts. there is quite a difference and a lot of things. he was more, let's keep the

trains running. chief justice roberts does not push like that. as far as the composition of the court, you are bringing an -- in this work can be over use -- you are bringing in a new family member. and it changes the whole family. it is different. it is different today than when i first got here. and i have to admit, you grow very fond of the court that you spend a long time on. there was a period there would chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor when we had a long run together. you get comfortable with that. and then it changes. and now it is changing again. so the institution, the ninth is different. your reactions are different for you get to learn each other and start all over.

>> your reference justices within you have served. are there any in history that you find you referred to frequently as giving you a good guidance, good intellectual direction who are particularly significant on the operation of the court? >> i find people that i have served with and a member of the court i refer back to is the first justice harlan. i find his dissent and plessey v. ferguson, where he admits his own biases, and that i might have of particular view, i might have a bias, but not this document. that to me is judging. to it met -- to admit that you may have a weakness and a problem but you cannot put that

into this document. the two are separate. the members of the court with them i have served have been wonderful. you learn from people. justice o'connor is a wonderful friend. there is knows sadder day are around here than when a member of this court, then when justice souter announce that when he was leaving -- remember, i served 18 years with him, almost 18 years. he becomes your friend. you do not have to agree, but he is your friend. when you hear one of your colleagues is sick, it is one of your family members who are sick. so much is made of whether we agree or disagree. can you think of any human being with him you agree on everything?

larger small? it does not suggest. it does not happen. -- it does not exist. it does not happen. but you feel a closeness and you have done it in no way did you think has been respectful to each other and to the institution and to your fellow citizens. >> let me move to the court and the public. we just recently conducted, with the help of the washington public opinion firm, a survey of more than a thousand americans on the court. it was interesting that when asked to name any sitting justice, a majority of the respondents could not name one. is that appropriate? >> i think that may be a reflection on the way we teach civics.

but i do not think that everyone has to know who we are. i think i would prefer that they know few of us who are making big decisions that are affecting their country and our lives. when i was a kid, we took six and we were required to learn those basic things. -- we took civics and we were required to learn those basic things. it may not be the best news but i would prefer that they would know little bit more about their court. >> doesn't speak to the level of disability that the court has? >> i do not know how many of those people also knew who their congressman. >> we did not ask that question. >> i do not think the court should necessarily fit into everyone's -- every aspect of their lives.

maybe people should know who all the federal judges are in their district. maybe we shouldn't be any more visible than we are. we are not politicians. i don't think we have to be back public. we should do our job and we speak as an institution. the supreme court, they are aware of the supreme court. maybe that should be enough. i am the 106th member of the court and i think sometimes that we make too much of who is here now. when you go back, it is hard to remember who was here before. name me 20 dead members of the court. that would be hard-pressed, even people who consider themselves core followers. >> to that end, a minority of respondents who could name of justice, three were named.

you are among the three. are you frequently recognized? the bars of, yes. the anonymity is gone. that is probably one of the more difficult things to except. the lost anonymity, the ability to walk down the mall and noticed or to go to home depot on notice. >> is that because of the confirmation hearing? >> no, that was 18 years ago. i am the only black eye appears so it is easier to recognize. justice o'connor was the only woman, so it was easier to pick one person out. maybe that is part of it. i've enjoyed such positive press and notoriety, i think that may be a part of it. i have no idea.

>> what are the interactions' like? >> they are always very pleasant. they are nice people, good people, all of this country. one of the things that happens up here is that we tend to be very heavily northeastern in our mentality. eight of the nine of us are from ivy league schools. this court does not represent all regions of the country. there is a tendency to almost be cliquish in that way. i like the idea of getting out and being around the real -- the citizens, the other citizens of the country, the people and make it all work, the people to build our homes and fight our wars -- i like being around them.

i also liked the idea that their kids could come up here and clerk, that they could be a part of all of this. i lost the anonymity and i would prefer to have that bad. but that is not going to happen. but the good part is to have people come of regular people come up and talk with you, and talk to you. there's some wonderful exchanges. pagoda gettysburg every year, and a person came up out of breath. he had a maritime case. he had this parchment paper. he said, would you sign this for me? i said, why are you even reading this opinion? he said, that is what this is about. the maritime commission case. for some people will say thank

you for writing your opinions in the way that you can understand them. not that he agreed with it, but that he could understand it. that the loss of his constitution are a sensible to him. that is what we try to do -- to make sure that those people do come up to you have a part of this institution and feel a part of this institution. it is not all mysterious, as you said the conference room is. >> so you get into that motor croats -- motor coach, and that is intentional? >> that is one of the reasons. i wanted to ride around. someone said the nicest people in the country are an rv parks. in 10 years of doing this, i have found nothing to disagree

with them about that. they have been nice, they have been neighborly, they have been friendly good people. we seem to be at each people's throats in this town. they're still bunch of people out there that you can sit down and have a cup of coffee with and talk about the game with the whether or how good the country as, the problems that we all have and maybe be more civil with each other. >> the you'd judge differently as a result of those trips? >> i think my focuses more on the regular citizens when i judge and on our fellow citizens. it is not who rights law review articles but is on the guy who came up to me at gettysburg or the man you run into at home depot or the person just returned from a war or the person who teaches york said.

these are the experiences and demoted in the rv parks and that truck stops, the rest of us, the things that stay with you. you ask me about opinions that you are exhilarated about, what exhilarates me is meeting those people and letting them know that this member of the court enjoys the same things they enjoyed, and this member of the court is willing to be where you are in this part be parked in joining the simple things about this country -- this rv park in jollying -- enjoying the simple things about this cumbersome -- this country. >> thank you for this

conversation. >> that is not that this is that judges are in. we do not decide who ought to win. we decide who wins under the law that the people has adopted. >> are rare glimpse into the supreme court threw are on the record conversations with 10 supreme court justices. thursday, are interviews with antonin scalia and ruth bader ginsberg. interviews with supreme court justices, 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. get your own copy of our regional documentary about the supreme court. it is part of the american icons collection, including programs on the white house and the capitol building. one of many items available at c-span.org/store. >> you can watch interviews with supreme court justices byron thomas again tonight at midnight eastern time.

up next on c-span, all former strategist for john mccain talks about the 2008 presidential campaign. and later, a discussion on taxes and debt in the u.s. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," a reporter from the farm policy magazine talks about who will end -- influence events in 2009. an update on politics and news. and later, a reporter from the washington post on what is ahead for federal climate change legislation in the new year. "washington journal" begins every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. now, sarah simmons, the former strategy director for the mccain presidential campaign. she talks about absentee and

early voting in the 2008 presidential race. hosted by the campaign management institute at american university, this is about one hour and 10 minutes. shows that bipartisanship can exist in washington d.c.. let them have it. >> thanks for having me this morning. i want to say that if you are serious about working on campaigns, this is the best piece of education you can take with you. i occasionally -- you have better bound books than we had in and 90s. i occasionally go back of i am stuck with a task i am not familiar with to review the course materials i had. there are a lot of great speakers that come through here, people you will remember for a long time. i will talk about making voting work for your campaign. part of what i am going to talk about is from the arnold schwarzenegger example.

the john mccain campaign may have the worst reputation compared to the obama votes. some of that was funding, some just the regular challenges our campaign had that was more global. it was not specific tactical things. i have some good examples from john mccain about why early votes helped us make different decisions or inform us on things we did that may not be logical. but why we made the decisions we did. had the tides changed the way we hoped it would work to our advantage. i want to tell you what the tactical things are that you can do that will work for you. 40% of the vote will happen before election day. almost half of the people are voting before election day, this will impact how you deliver your

message, whether you put something in someone's mailbox for a volunteer tries to contact them or you put radio commercials up, all those things. if you underperform, you can lose an election on the margin. one of the things the bush campaign is famous for is turning known supporters into early voters. they did what we called banking their vote. we tried to get those people to vote early so they knew it was in the bank and there was nothing last minute, a bomb drop was not going to affect those vote because they were already cast. in a close race you could impact the composition of the electorate. the makeup of the voting population in your favor. our california model, one of the things we do is the number of republicans who voted in the election, predominately the

majority of the electorate in california is registered not with a party. we are trying to move the number of republicans up from 33% to 35%. if you move that up by making more of them vote than anyone else. if average turnout is 60%, if you turn out 75%, you will change the composition of the electorate. does that make sense? that doesn't make sense to you? i didn't mean to pick on you. banking your votes early, make sure your operation is more efficient and easier. if you know you need to turn out a million households on election day, you can get 250,000 of them to vote early, that is fewer doors you have to knock on or phone calls you have to make.

you decrease the universe by $100,000 that you can put on tv or if there is a group of voters who are getting shaky because their candidate said something inappropriate to a woman. it changes your resources. on that same line, things happen. votes are cast before they can do something detrimental to themselves. say you know there's something out there. if you can get those votes passed before that piece of news drops you can limit the impact on your campaign. this is one of the areas that is most interesting. if you are on top of the race, one of the things early voting can help you do is encourage the hotel affect. part of what we were able to do

was help republicans across the ticket because when we were trying to change that electorate we were able to make it easier for people. we turned out 90% of republicans or 65% of republicans, we turned out all those voters, that makes it easier. of the republican has a ballot, more likely they can check that box as they erase secretary of state where in the grand scheme of things when spending $90 million on tv you might not know who the republican candidate for commissioner of insurance or statewide elected official who may not have the resources to put up a lot of television commercials. does that make sense?

alright. this is california. i have been doing a lot of international presentations. this is on the left of our country. california is an aggressive vote. is not oregon or washington. it is everybody. it is not that dramatic. there are counties in california where the entire county votes by mail. when you are looking at these places down here, huge numbers are voting by mail. some of these places the digital not a lot of people -- 321 voters, that is good because they all know of a vote by mail. if they need to communicate, that narrows down the window of

when to do that. it doesn't make sense to do tons of commercials because they have their ballot for six weeks. one of the things you need to pay attention to is the most important thing is getting your name on the ballot. the research you are going to do -- state law really matters. state laws are very liberal. you can change how people vote. that is 40% of the electorate. they will vote by mail or early.

in terms of making them vote early, one of the things you need to know is the eligibility to vote early. you don't need a reason. most places are going that direction but in virginia you had to be out of state or have an excuse. you want to know when people register. anyone know you might know when people will register to vote early. when you are going to have volunteers go out to register people to vote early. why might you want to know the votes to build the register? [inaudible] >> you have talked about direct mail? you will not know the answer.

part of what you are going to want to know is the register of voters or county clerks, the largest universe of people who are early voters. it will be a data question. you want to be able to say every person we know is voting early. when are we going to make these crucial decisions? when will we know how big that file is? california, as easy as it is to become a voter, you have to follow pretty specific guidelines if you're going to register voters. you need to make sure you sign back in what you didn't use. all those things. you want to know how you'd do it. set up a table in front of the

grocery store or identify your organization, and someone a piece of paper. when can you start ignoring groups of people, all the way through election day. you can walk your ballot in through 8:00. how long -- do they have to have them in the mail by a certain day because that will affect what you tell people. we know you got your official ballot, joe need your vote or arnold schwarzenegger need your vote, phone that in today because if you don't it is gone. when do ballots have to be returned? how can they return them? can they mail them in person?

some other person collect them. in oregon anyone can take them in. do you know that? it is possible you can send volunteers to turn these in. in a lot of places that is not legal. in other places it might be invalid. i was sitting in headquarters in california and sacramento and very rarely was spending my time in the neighborhood with my volunteers saying don't touch that ballot but every time i talked to my staff 70 people on the field, we drilled into their heads that if you touch a ballot you are screwing up the system. tell your volunteers -- the second most often thing i said was if you're caught with beer in your car and 65 of our opponentss sign i will fire you.

i mean it. that is what you need to keep in mind. how does this impact building a strategy? the best thing you can have in politics is a strategist. it also means nothing. it is kind of fun. you want to think about every aspect of the campaign. your message timeline and delivery, every campaign thinks this out. the first thing we are going to do is go into some issue positions and a series of rollouts. plans on taxes and how to fix the budget mess and what is he going to do about puppies and rainbows? then we start tracking our opponent. this matters because you want to make sure people are getting the right information when you want them to get it. if you wait until the last five days of the campaign to say my opponent was a business partner of bernie madoff you might think about that if people are not going to have their ballots and

the voting. the second thing i want you to think about is a identifying your voter groups. who are these people who are going to vote early? is it a state like california where you don't do anything about it? is a state where you have to register people every year? what kind of people might vote early? democrats are really good at going after senior citizens. i like the background noise. democrats go into a senior citizen home and you have a bunch of people who are not able to drive themselves. those might be good targets to have vote early. i saw a great program in california of young republicans and professional women. if moms are a great group of

early voters you think about the average mother's day peepers little they get up and make lunch and feed everybody breakfast and load the kids into the minivan and have ten minutes to get one kid to day care and they go to work for eight hours and on the way home stop at the grocery store to get dinner, pick of the little one from day care and meet the other kids at the after-school place and find their junior high school kid. get home and make dinner. there is no time to squeeze in a voting. they did a handwritten letter campaign to very targeted women and found women who work outside the home and have kids and targeted them to be permanent voters'. is really successful. not only did we get them to register but they attract the whole thing and 95% of the people they registered voted early.

you want to think about your plans to call these people on the telephone. all you -- affected by who votes early. polling. can anyone think why we would care about pulling in the early vote? go ahead. [inaudible]] those key supporters who are going fgoingr >> this is one of the things i will talk about and a little while. your early voting behin