you closed -- talking about q. how you help that the obama administration does what you want it to do. what is that specifically. in terms of your recommendations? i very much agree on the point pressured allies or managing allies. but how -- from your point of view, how does the united states -- because i think that this administration has worked on it -- it's very difficult gain the leverage that it needs in order to do that. and that's all. > question number six.

here d afternoon, i'm representing shariff who couldn't make it from the nation's mosque. this we know is massive. but the question i wanted to pose to this panel that oftentimes we don't address and professor esposito you did a great job of the great education of the muslims an i would equate that. as the person who accepted a son willingly and freely as a youth and now as an adult, i know this is not thespian talk. every person is educated to know this is not islam. but we never seem to address these individuals who step outside of the bounds of islam and equate them as criminals because that's exactly what their actions are. islam teaches us to look at a person's actions and deeds. but i never hear that being

addressed as much. i'm getting to the question. i'm saying also as person who was under the leadership, we were considered a radical group ourselves. but after 1975, we changed and came into a broader understanding of islam. we became more reform. and many of our members are judges, lawyers and everything else. what do you all see long-term and short term as a way to reform much of the talent as we mentioned earlier that this is an ideological issue -- what do you all see that would change on a short term and long-term basis to re-educate many of these educated people who claim that be muslim. -- muslim? >> michelle, can i start with you? >> on the question whether here's an ideological war with

isis, yes, there is. but what is that ideological con frodgetation? that's what i was getting through in my remarks. some of the allies want to pose this and even there are quite a few people in the united states picking this up that it's an ideological confrontation between islamists and moderates or something like that. i and i think it's a lot more complicated than that. as i said, there's an attempt to lump in islamists who were essentially peaceful, political and soford with those who have been very violent. there is an ideological confrontation and the united states stands for certain things and should be clear about what it stands for but it shouldn't get

the other question on stacy's question about what should the united states be doing? and you asked regarding u.s. allies how can the u.s. gain the receive ladge that it needs? in my view, the united states still has a lot of leverage in these relationships. but it has chosen not to use it. that doesn't mean the united states can force that government to do what the united states wants it to do. it doesn't mean we can make things happen in other countries and so forth that's not what it's about. but we can scrutinize our own actions. we can certainly -- first of all we cannot support actions at we think are -- are unconstructive. in this case, for example, actions by some of our alleys that will build radicalization

and extremism in this region. in terms of actions that those governments take and so forth, look, they're -- many of the governments in this region still depend in the united states at the own the day for their defense. so there is -- there is a lot of leverage there. think at my own experience as a .s. official that very often u.s. officials don't see this or they don't -- they don't conceive of it. and so it's a matter, i think of sometimes thinking more strategically of finding leverage in these relationships and being willing to use it. but the general approach that the administration has had -- of we don't want to be responsible for solving the problems in this region, we don't want to have to be the one to put together the strategies is one of the things that led us into this leverage. it would be taking on more

responsibility than we really want to. >> >> as she addressed your question about foreign policy. i've written about this. but first of all, in 2012 many of us called for military intervention in syria. targeted air strikes, the creation of safe zones, humanitarian corridors along with this serious effort to train and equip main stream syrian rebel forces. that was a very clear policy prescription and it was something that was discussed for quite some time in 2012. it almost happened in 2013 and that i think was one of the key inflection points. it was late but last august we were preparing a launch military strike and instead we accepted a chemical weapons deal that helped legitimize and normal lies the regime.

the administration should not pretend that that was the success. that was the start offer a chain of event where we came to see asset as a partner and we lost any seriousness when it came to confronting the regime. but that's water under the bridge. now $500 million is not enough to support main stream syrian rebel forces. it's a start. but i would actually tell people to check out ken pollock's long detailed very ambitious and provocative proposal and foreign affairs. and he lace it out in detail of building a syrian rebel army. $2 ts the price tag for million to $3 million a year that might sound ordinary to the american viewer which is fine but we can't do a lot of this on the cheap. if we are serious about

defeating ice sys then we have to -- isis then we have to rise to the occasion. there are proposals out there that are truly committed to addressing this. just a couple of other examples and a little bit on the lower nonmilitary scale, we indulged, we have been complicit in with one of the most brutal regimes in the middle east, egypt. and we don't give them brill ons of dollars and we will for the foreseeable future and we had a legal obligation the day after the coupe happened last year to cut our assistance we did not do that. and we sent a message that they could literally get away with murder and we did. what we saw shortly there after was one of the worse mass killings in modern history on august 13, 2014. and more generally and this touches on michelle's point, we have to use our assistance as

leverage. and there was no bold initiative in 2011 to say that we're going to incentivize reform. we're willing to give additional financial assistance to those countrys that commit themselves to a democratic process along specific bench parks. d my colleague peter mandiville propose an endowment for reform which we fund it at $5 million and building enough support to get to $20 million. the basic idea was to say more for more. and to have tailored specific benchmarks for countries in transition. if they met those benchmarks over a period of time, they bowl eligible for massive infusions of assistance. that would just be multilateral support for our allies. you have the world bank and inch m.f. you have a very big part of funding but there were no bold

initiatives coming from this administration. >> it seems to nea an administration that has all of the resources that it has, all of the analysts many of them with great mystery -- i mean, knowledge and has access to academics and others. i can remember anne marie slaughter speaking out. without istration came those coherent policies. the fact that it didn't happen was another thing. sometime it means making very decisive decisions which you could screw up. if you're concerned about your legacy, you always don't want coming off afghanistan an iraq. you don't really want to get involved. i think the administration two or three years ago -- i think president obama wanted to look to southeast asia and not get

into this -- retractable area of the middle east. i think that there are other things that come into play if you're really going to be decisive and my two colleagues here have made some reference it to. some hard stance have to be taken with people who are our traditional allies in terms of hat they're doing and what they continue to do. whether it's egypt -- whether it's israel, whether it's saudi arabia, etc. and i don't think that there's the will to do that or maybe it's also that -- there's also a realization to some of these steps that congress won't go with it. there are a variety of reasons this administration has demonstrated which surprises me because i was a very strong supporter of president obama the very first time he ran. i think this is our last chance to really get some real stuff

done based on his cairo speech. his inable to be consistent has been, you know, from my point of view really surprising and not realizing that they're incredible costs there, that little blurb that i read at the own the paper from grand fuller, i mean, these long term -- when you talk to people about long-term, a number of years ago we were with carnegie and someone from the clinton administration was asking us about africa. the guy smiled and he said presidents don't think long-term, they think short term. >> long-term comes around rather quingly. i mean, it just does. you think back and it's -- i put on a t-shirt today that was given to me for my 50th birthday saying 50 and still perfect. that was given to me 24 years ago. but i wouldn't think that long-term went rather quickly. i think that if we look that

not addressing palestine and israel, if we look at not sardsing authority tarnism, if we look at the message that the e.u. says, we can do whatever they wanted. and what the people that packed them new is write it out. and at a certain point they'll have to deal with you. they'll have to say, we have to deal wit. but then to go and as it were legitimate that state with comments of we're giving them aid, saying we recognize the election. we support, "the will of the people." a lot of the people didn't like the president. as one member of congress said to one member of the obama administration, i could think presidents that wouldn't get percentages. does that mean we think they should be pushed out? >> i think obama's legacy

unless he acts now will not be one that at least puts some precedents out there even if they're not totally successful about the fact that the u.s. is going to take a new look at his relationship with the region which does mean our allies have to be primarily responseable for the rezwhroon they do. which means we are going to be really strong on the things that they do that are devastating. we're not going to look the other day when slaughter takes place of the magnitude that it's taken in egypt and also more recently in gaza. >> we have one minute left in the lightning round. i'm going to take two questions. the discussion on the twitter here is really interesting. i'm going to take two questions from the twitter spear and ask for questions. hat about the question of isis isis recruiting in the state? how should the u.s. be dealing ith isis' competitors like

hezbollah, qaidon. with quick answers we won't have time for those other three questions. >> the u.s. knows it has done some of this. there must be more with local listen communities to begin with. but that said and one can say the same thing in europe that said unless you address conditions and unless the country's policy looks better for some youth. you're not giving them a reason not to be radicalized. and i think that's also part of i. you know, if there's a sense that u.s. policy isn't, you know, is actually part of the problem, etc. then you good situation for, you know, for some to just feel that they must act. i wouldn't exaggerate. we definitely have to be oncerned about terrific in

america. than actually or dough mystic poll lation. it's not that some won't go time-out fight and there would be in our population to do something. but if you take a look at, you know, most polls. the vast majority of muslims is they're so fully integrated, etc. you don't have youth who feel their alienated, don't have a job, etc., in the way that you can have it in europe. >> the last two questions on the issue of isis' competitors. >> i'll just say that one of -- sometimes they're really bad ideas in policy debates. i think one of them and it really takes your breath away, is this notion suggested by some of the administration that if we let isis fight out and hezbollah and the iranian

backers that both sides would week n. but i can't imagine anything that is more wrong. they were both strength and tremendously. this was their training round. they became much better fighters over the court of that. and this was sort of the sarah palin position, let the law sort it out. steven walt wrote a piece which is "let them bleed." the obama administration reads that way and it doesn't work that way. >> twitter is calling this a real powerhouse panel. esposito having it does in his house and it's really being enjoyed out there. thank you so much for coming. this was a very special event.

[applause]

>> this summer attorney general eric holder wrote to florida governor rick scott expressing concerns about new election laws the state has enacted saying the measures may limit voter participation in state. up next, a panel of legal analysts state election laws and the potential impact they could have on voting rights. this was part of an ethics conference in miami gardens, florida. a conversation for questions from the floor. we invite you to participate by first weestions, but

are going to try to work our way sortsh a preset agenda of on the panel. panels a distinguished this morning. i am really excited to be the moderator. the people on this panel, i think, have thought long and and, both in the trenches in the academy, about voting rights and access to the ballot. in roberto martinez, we have a and someoneattorney who has served on the transition state-wide elected officials. in charles zelden, we have a scholar who has written at least

two books on hugely important supreme court cases. one on bush v. gore. at novaes these issues southeastern in the history department. in robert hernandez, we have someone who has worked in the executive department of state government and who, perhaps more than anyone on the panel, has thought about these issues in service with respect to ethics and elections here in the state of florida. and dan gelber who has been both a federal prosecutor, a state of elected official, has again thought about these issues and on lots of levels -- most recently, at least in my

member of thea voting rights commission which held an important hearing here in south florida this year. i think we have a wonderful mix of viewpoints and perspectives, both institutionally situated to have a very fruitful conversation. i am going to start with a sketch of what we would like to talk about with respect to issues around voting rights. the first is an issue that comes thes most recently out of 11th circuit. decision inrecent arcia v. florida secretary of state with respect to the legality of the 2012 purging of the voter rolls for purposes of

purging noncitizens from the rolls. was decidedsion under the national voter registration act, and it was -- the actionhe violated the national voter registration act. i would like to invite our panelists to speak about efforts to maintain the legitimacy of the electoral rolls with respect to citizen participation and issues of access, particularly in light of recent supreme court decisions around the voting rights act. i am going to start with mr. martinez on my left and invite other panelists to speak about the tension between access and

the protection of the integrity of the voting process in the debate and controversy. mr. martinez. >> thank you, by the way. i am not sure i am the right person to begin the topic. we all have an interest in making sure those who have the interest of vote, vote. we also have an interest in making sure that vote is cast by people who are entitled to vote. with regards to the purging of understand, that process has been stopped here in florida and for good reason. apparently the roles that were being used, there was a question of their accuracy. i don't know how much more i can tell you. i thought you were going to talk about the voter id requirement in wisconsin.

>> we will get there. [laughter] >> i would like to add, the secretary of state has simply delayed the institution of the voter purge until the homeland security database is more accurate, according to the secretary of state's memorandum. if anyone wants to address that question and the tensions that rise -- >> thank you. bob was brought here to class the place up. i was brought here to go the other way. purge, a lot of these things really implicate the issue that i think is probably -- it is not new to florida but it is pronounced in florida. florida is a state that is always in play. when you have -- nobody wonders what is going to happen in new

york on november 5. but they wonder what is going to happen in florida. elections,ve close it tends to me much more important. the fault lines are displayed more proudly to the world. we obviously saw that in 2000. it happens with all of these issues. is, whether efforts to promote integrity are simply being used to try to change the outcome of elections. appearingorried about too partisan. frankly, florida is a state where the apparatus of elections is run by the legislature, which is republican. it may be different in states where democrats run the legislature. here in florida, most of the efforts to deliver integrity to the process, whether it is a purge, voter id, most of those generally are intended more to

suppress the vote then to ensure integrity. things like early voting constraints and purging really aren't a lot of people running to the polls with fake ids to vote. there aren't a lot of felons desperately trying to vote. there aren't people out of status. happens, it happens incredibly infrequently and usually by accident. almost all the problems of voting from an integrity point of view are in the absentee area. you don't hear about other cases really. an idea whose only purpose was to suppress the voter population that the governor believed might not be necessarily favorable. most of the election laws to come out of the legislature have an ulterior and mischievous purpose.

this is connected to the issue of voter id. in some sense, there clearly are documented cases of -- even in the 2012 voter purge, there were documented cases of noncitizens on voting rolls. at least 85 people were ultimately removed from a rather large number of 180,000. i guess the question that i have for the panel is, does it matter -- and if i take mr. gelber's comments to heart, he seems to suggest it doesn't, but does it matter that the secretary of state is putting a hold on moving forward to find a better database. to the extend that there were problems with the 2012 effort to

protect the integrity of the voting rolls, what is based upon the mechanism used, the use of andrecords was a bit noisy allowed for the inclusion of too to your does it go back point about what you take to be the intent behind the attempt to clean up voting? somewhatk this is equivalent to being shocked there is gambling in this establishment. we have known for a long time that the databases we have used for voter rolls have been filled with -- to discover, there are flaws here and we need to hold back, is also coming a little late. we knew this back in 2000. we knew this in 2004, 2006. this is an ongoing problem across the nation of voter roll

databases that simply, we don't know, we don't have enough good data. we have problems in which there are errors and mistakes in the databases we are using to check the voters. the end result, you start with hundreds of thousands and in the end, you come down to 85 people. of 7 million0, out potential voters in florida. the problem isn't new. while the decision to hold back was the right one, why were we in the situation to begin with in 2014? why weren't we fixing this, or holding off earlier? >> i am not an expert, but obviously the way in which this whole thing was implemented was rather clumsy.

it certainly gave the appearance. interest in our best to make sure that we don't have people on the rolls that are not entitled to vote. if we have somebody on the roles here but also on the roles in another state, obviously we don't want that. if a person is not qualified to be on the rolls in the first place, we don't want that person voting. there is a legitimate interest in making sure the people entitled to vote are the ones voting. the processhrows into question. i don't think we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. i know it looked bad. i am glad it stopped. it didn't look good for the republican party and the governor. the way in which it was implemented may have been clumsy but that doesn't mean we don't have a legitimate interest in making sure there is integrity in the voting rolls. >> there is a question about

whether or not the state ought to have access to its own database. that is to say, to the extent that the state is relying on a ,atabase of homeland security in preparing for this panel i thought, isn't it interesting that homeland security would say, hey, the database isn't quite ready. partisanship that might be influenced, might influence both homeland security's efforts to get a database to the state that can in fact be used, does it make the argument that the state and government ought to have a database or ought to be able to make recourse to a database that is not perhaps vulnerable to the machinations of the opposite party? floridaat idea except

has been trying to get its own database for the last 20 years. it has been flawed. bmv database is flawed. various other databases. sometimes it is by choice. in 2000, the decision was, make connections that involve the same first name, last name, middle name and date of birth but it doesn't matter what the order is. they knew there would be a lot of false positives. they said, we will go with false positives. they purge to that. this has been an ongoing problem. the databases that we ourselves have in florida aren't very good. when they turn to homeland security, it is because they are looking for a better database. doing it forare political reasons or it is hard for them to get a database, it undermines the process as a whole.

registration, until we have a national registration process, we are going to run into these problems. it is going to be difficult to purge the list. to clean outate the voting list on a regular basis, but if you do it in a way that legitimate voters are be,ed when they shouldn't that question of legitimacy of the electoral process. >> i agree with bob that we shouldn't have people who aren't authorized to vote voting. but i think you confused who is the baby and who is the bathwater. people whove 80 probably shouldn't be on the list and they may or not be voting, you prepared to purge tens of thousands of others that are legal residents, that is the problem. list, realizing

ots of citizens of our state were going to be purged to get up couple of people who probably shouldn't be on the list. i think this is clear as day, that those lists tend to implicate certain types of voters. they don't have a problem doing it. that is the problem with the voter purge. it takes citizens who should be -- a veteran was the face of it. i can vote right now because somebody with my name is also on that list. you shouldn't do a purge unless you can protect actual voters. >> let me just chime in here for one second. there might that have been serious issues in 2000

but we are in 2014. what i focus on is, where are we in 2014? although we are still talking about a purge list, i challenge anybody in here to tell me there is massive purging going on of people who should be voting that aren't allowed to vote because of a bad list. there are lists, there are still problems and they have decided, we are not going to go ahead and do this right now until we have confidence in the list that we have, that people who should not be voting are not going to be voting. about talk all we want 2000 but in 2014, that is not happening. i think that is what we need to focus on. -- are we going to make sure there is a legitimate public interest in making sure that people who should not be voting do not vote. it dilutes everybody else's vote. having said that, we want to make sure that nobody, like the veteran dan is talking about, is

put in that situation. based on everything i know, that is not happening in 2014. >> i think part of the topic of the panel is common ground. can we all agree that we should have a list that is accurate, that needs to be carefully reviewed? is that basically what we are saying? can democrats and republicans agree that we need to have a list that is accurate? it seems to me that is pretty basic. gelbern, if i take mr. seriously, mr. gelber seems to suggest that a list that is accurate is irrelevant in light the attemptt behind to clean up voter lists. that is in some sense the crocs of the -- the crux of the problem. >> why would the governor pushed a purge when he knows the list

contains tens of thousands of people who shouldn't be on it? the governor is a smart guy. he has smart people working around him. he realizes that list isn't capable of really purging people who shouldn't be voting. it is going to include loads of other people. >> does that show that every subsequent attempt becomes suspect? >> suppose we have an enlightened governor, governor gelber. [laughter] suppose that he wants an enlightened republican chief of staff so he hires me. we go about cleaning the list in the right way. i think we all agree that we would want a list that is accurate. >> we all agree that people who shouldn't be voting shouldn't be voting but that is the easy part of this. the part heart -- the hard part

is, if you don't have a list that works, what do you do? just like in the court system, you say we will let 10 guilty go free instead of convicting one innocent. what is the vinegar -- the ratio of voters? 1000 citizens so we can find that one guy who isn't a citizen? until you have an academic debate -- our governor has acted with a bad list. he didn't act with a good list. he did it anyway. there is a history of it in this state. i am sure we will talk about the history of voter suppression in this discussion. i think that is the point. >> i want to pivot to that. in light of the supreme court's decision during the last term in shelby county, in which the supreme court invalidated the

formula, the coverage formula that triggered clearance under the voting rights act, the court seemed to suggest that history at peace onrever be certain political jurisdictions. certain jurisdictions immediately began to move to or move forward with the implementation of voter id laws. the supreme court in 2008 affirmed the state's interest in protecting the legitimacy of the ballot by use of voter id laws. after crawford, iner shelby, with the doj litigation in texas and north

carolina and other places with respect to voter id laws. the conversation that we have just had on wednesday, a district court in wisconsin has thrown out a wisconsin voter id law. it comes back to this question evidence that justifies the state's interest in protecting the integrity of the ballot and the effectiveness of voter id in protecting against the harm identified by the state? again, a project that was affirmed. now, post-shelby, we have got some work to do in lots of places. in light of the wisconsin decision, which seems to look, wecrawford --

are going to take seriously the impact that voter id laws have on some groups within the state, to make the assessment of whether or not these laws --late the voting rights act again, there probably is lots of common ground on this panel with respect to what ought to count as evidence. what counts as sufficient evidence? i will start with you, mr. martinez. >> again, i am not an expert in this area. i think in the shelby case, what the court said is, come back with a different formula. they invited congress to come back with a different formula. i don't know whether the obama administration has proposed one. the wisconsin decision, which a friend brought to my attention, that decision was rendered recently. -- wisconsin passed a

law requiring photo identification in order to be able to vote. if you didn't have one, the state would give it to you for free. was thatcourt held getting that free photo id if you didn't have one imposed an unjustified burden on those people who didn't have photo id and therefore found it unconstitutional. the court also held that the class of people who would be impacted were mostly poor people, including those categories of african americans and latinos. it had a discriminatory impact. frankly, i find the scope of that ruling rather expansive. the court went out of its way to find that the state did not have an interest in protecting the

integrity of the rolls sufficient to establish that requirement. me.urprised we have had photo id in florida for a long time. i don't believe it has been an impediment to anyone's right to vote, nor discriminatory to a particular subgroup, including hispanics which i am in that category. for wisconsin, maybe it is unique. this is part of a movement to ups, perhaps gro that is the intent behind it. as far as being a law that is unconstitutional, i think that was a reach by the district court judge. bit of context as to why people can come to different

conclusions on the same topic. republicans generally have the view of the purpose of an election, which is certainty. the purpose is that we know who won and we are clear and confident as to who won and there is no question as to who won. cleans up the electoral process, that gives us that certainty, is a burden worth paying. believed generally that legitimacy in election involves participation. anything that limits participation of all those who could vote from voting undermines the legitimacy of the outcome. even if that means the results may be a little messy on the edges. these are both legitimate positions to take. this is a perspective towards the purpose of the election. focuses on aive different answer to the question of, what is a legitimate burden

for the state to impose upon voters in the voting process? underneath this is that not so secret dirty little secret, that each little side -- that each side takes a position that will help them. the broader the electorate, the better it is for democrats. the narrower it is, the better it is for republicans. it is just always easier to do this right thing if the end result is one you want. [laughter] part of the reason why we have this difficulty is, we have a district judge in wisconsin whose perspective is on the legitimacy of elections, as access. you have a majority on the supreme court currently that believes the purpose of election is certainty. i know we are trying to find middle ground here. that is a difficult thing to break because of differing perspectives.

while we can say, yes, we agree that we should keep people who shouldn't vote from voting, what that entails on a practical possibility for ground if we understand crawford and the wisconsin as both asking a question about the rohnableness rohnableness -- reasonableness the fear that the process will lack september report fear thisness of the the process will lack broad participation so in some sense the court is saying there is simply no evidence that the i.d. law is the cause of .he burden whereas in the wisconsin decision the court seems to

suggest there is no data to the fear. >> in fact, he argues that -- he goes no great detail trying to explain why there is in fact the courtn, that might have been, you know, might have sid, well, we have no evidence. you want evidence, here is evidence at least in wisconsin are you.ukee and what how one interprets this depends the purposeerceive of the election. >> i have a little bit of a disagreement. first of all, the wisconsin that i will dispute also my friend --

9% of the population about 200 or 300 people didn't have an i.d. so those two points sort of tell you that whether you're on the -- the certainty side or the participation side those aren't the sides of election. when the certainty side is using sort of phony justification to create obstructions to vote. you can anyone in this audience who sat in the line for 20 hours in 2012 or six hours in 2008, they're not going to tell you to make sure there is certainty in early voting. somebody did something to stop the process of accepting voters to obstruct that process to cloud that process because they did not want robust participation that's what's going on. it's a wonderful thing to have an uncertainty and the other likes participation.

the one group who likes certainty is beginning do do it by simp willing -- simply stopping someone from voting. that's not going to stop anyone in aventura down the street there was a line for hours because of an obstruction which had nothing do with an election. >> professor, i became a citizen in 1974 because i wanted to vote. i was paying taxes. i could work but i wanted to vote. so i believe very strongly. i registered as a republican in 1987 after i left the prosecutor's office. i believe very strongly as an american citizen that people should be entitled to vote. it's the people who are entitled to vote, vote. now with regards to the decision in wisconsin, this judge there -- this is the

burden that the judge found. the judge in wisconsin found that the burden was you had to take time to go to the department of motor vehicles and actually get a photo i.d. and that was a hassle the use his word and that was the burr. and by -- burden. and by the way it was free. i find it curious why this judge went to great lengths to find this through be unconstitutional. so i did a little research on the judge. i don't know the gentleman. i'm sure he's an intelligent person but he has this point of slew. a served for 20 years as democratic center. but frankly to hold that, taking time, we all do this, we all have to do some effort to take time in the department of

motor vehicle and have an unjustified burden that that was an unconstitutional hassle. e crawford that if -- groupsit matter which a voter i.d.en of law? should that matter to the extent is athe voter i.d. law law inly applicable crawford, scalia writing for justices thomas and alito and matter,that it should right? differential burdens. burdens.

and wisconsin si said crawford didn't decide that question. it does that the sub group burden does in fact matter. does that -- does it matter? we take no account that there are groups that are going affected byentially this and that those groups that votingnected to the back sodvocates or go some statement about history? should that matter? >> in reading that long opinion i think he found i think he found this to be relevant with regards to the statutory violation of the voting rights act and found that it had a -- a discriminatory impact on people who were pore that they tended to be latly african americans and tonos. im-- and latinos. what theuite sure significance was. i'm sure african americans and go to thee able to department of motor vehicle and figure out how to get a free i.d. it is not that difficult to do.

i found it -- the comment by the frankly tortion be perhaps a little -- frankly, to be a little patronizing with views of certain sub groups. sure i find the reason for that rationale. >> i disagree, surprise. 9 0% of wisconsinians who were voting didn't have the i.d. thatarketplace shows you 200,000 or 300,000 people didn't have this already and i have i disputee d.m.v. and that factually that is an enjoyable experience. disparage anybody who work there's. thank you. the intent of the action if you implement a voter i.d. law knowing this 200,000 don't have i.d.'s and those 200,000 tend to be minority orly overwhelming democratic performing then -- and there is justification for it in that

there hasn't been a documented person whothan one accidentally vote for their spouse who passed away over eight years it goes to the intent of the action and there is any idea legitimate state justification that burden. and we don't know in florida what that does because there are lots of people who don't have vehicles, who can't afford even public transportation sometimes remotely who live on the sort of of the fringes of the economy, frankly those a right to vote also without an added obstruction. >> professor, maybe you know the answer or somebodier who knows the answer. inhad photo i.d. laws florida for quite some time. is there any evidence that that a burden on any particular sub group of voters from voting? evidence? i never heard of it. i have never seen any litigation. i never heard any of our

legislators from either side raising that topic. >> i'm going to pivot to some of the questions that we got from think theye and i are interesting questions and because they touch on some of wanted to talk i about with row spect to access respect to accessect and some of the state level the last legislative session, not the most recent, legislation but the 2013 legislation. questions go to the question of the registration process. and asked why don't we look at the process of registration the problemre begins which is again one of the post 2011 efforts that the state enacted with respect to attempting to clean up the voter

or at least process third-party voter registration subsequently halted by the federal courts. that inlike to touch on just a second. and then another which raises the question about low voter turnout. and again, i think this goes questions about long waits in line, or at least in some sense maybe implicated by respect to how citizens take it tothe exercise of the right be. so let's sort of talk about the reforms thatation were enacted in 2011. again, because they go i think to the heart of the question about protecting the integrity of the voter roles and

under -- voternd rolls and who does that and under what conditions and those are done. they weren't addressed, again, reforms.st recent if -- mr. hernandez? want to address it? >> if i can. i would like to talk about this legislative session but actually on few other things just because some of my esteemed dan especially, keeps talking about the huge long lines which is true. i think we all agree that it but there weree changes that were done and i on miami dade county. i had the fortunate privilege of on mayer jimenez council. it was mid up of elected officials, of lawyers, kendall think is one of our panelists served with me on

that. bipartisan what could we do to the issues. there were a lot of reasons tha nefarious intent. could talk about the storm of different things that happened at once to crowiate the long lines. having said that, i think we did things locally and at the state to try to fix those things so that that doesn't happen again. at the state level the andslature went ahead increased early voting and to allow flexibility in early voting. urban counties with large populations would like to have voting as possible to make sure that as many people voting if theyly so choose. some of the smaller counties the issues with to early vote hadwanting to incur the expense and five

all dayould show up long. now as before when you start on the 10th day -- the requirement on the 10thstart day before and have it at least through the third day of the election. and now you can start on the 15th day before the election and run up to the second day before the election. we increased from eight days to 14 days. and ask interrupt another question of you directly? with respect to the 2013 what do you expect he wouldle see from the imposition onthe requirement supervisors of elections to on their web site with row spect to election -- dayect to election preparedness? that is, to say to talk about machines, to get the information out to the public well in advance of either election?or general fly mean i would think that -- i mean i would think that generally speaking it will be a good thing in reference to

demanding from the supervisors of election that there is, you accountability and there is, you know, in a public way, you know, how are we being know, for the election, for the elective process. and ourdade county supervisor of election that is high pressuring. election -- an election incident after report that was generated that basically anybody interested in, it is interesting and talks about the different reasons long lineshad the and the fixes -- reasons why we had the long loins and fixes both in termslace of the state level and things we were doing internally logistically in miami dade county. miami dade county is doing it i would hope those across the straight follow. there is a provision in the all of thet requires counties to do that. going back to when i was saying, is something that high pressured, the ballot summaries. now we have a 75 word, you know, limit on the ballot summaries. had, you know, five or six

pages of ballots that people dealing with in 2012 which seriously slowed down the lines. any you know, constitutional amendments by the legislature through joint resolution have the same that all other ballot questions have. we now increased -- there was -- definitionanded the of places that can be early voting sites. before you could only be libraries or specific county buildings or excuse me like municipal offices. now fairgrounds other county civicbuildings, other centers expanded the definition. miami date county is in the of expanding the early voting sites. in 2012, it had 20. it is between 25 and 30 depending upon if it as presidential election year or presidential year. there is a lot of things being put in place and i used early voting as an example. there is a lot of things put in the mechanicsve

of elections in florida. think the sky is falling. i don't think are being denowed the right to vote -- denied the vote, certainly not intentional. there is always going to be the issue of access versus the and mechanics and logistics of the process and you balance those two things and want to make sure that nobody is denied access. be integrity in the process and works smoothly and mechanically. i will give you another example we went to touch screen machines in florida after 2000 because we be a goodat would thing. touch screent to technology which was going to be more efficient in theory and special needsith to be able to vote such as the blind or the deaf. a few years later because people lost faith in them because they wanted the aper and what if there is recount issue and there is no paper to do the recount. the countye and spent millions upon millions of dollardollars to go back to the

andcal scan ballot machines that was a public policy decision that was made and so be it. ballothave optical scan machines. it is not a static process. always changing and obviously trying to makef it better. i think you this issue of access versus integrity in anything dealing with elections. i want to speak on -- follow up on that especially in light of our conversation on innesday and i think zeldman to professor with respect to the national voter registration. both at the state level and national level if you take seriously, the evolution from a bureaucratic the department of justice and the sit and evolution from the state to electionservisors of with the kind of discretion

and flexibility. are there problems in that, flexibility? problems?esee onlyspite the fact it was supposed to happen once, it goes right back to bush v. gore and question of equal treatment in elections. the problem with evolving power and more locally is you tend to get more and more diversity. historically that resulted in a very different voting experience depending on which county you were in. best example in 2000 was which machine you were voting on and as a result the level of spoiled ballots that were likely to come about because of those in sheens machines and a close election that matters. equal treatment of the voting process seriously, and i happen to be one of those thele who does take

procurement opinion in bush v. seriously, then while power to the localities has its advantages it also has a danger position us into a once again in which what experience you have voting is shaped by where you are and that or that cand thing be a really bad thing. having people being denied to vote in one ed to vote inowed to another or long lines in one in another.t flexibility is good. it does provide for eight to -- for greater access to the ballot but the danger is this it can be taken historically it was that sort of flexibility which historically in florida going back to the late 19th century constitution the thele who run elections in state were the county supervisors, not the state. in 2000 there was no way to do a

state recount. this sort of locality allowed of abuse of the electoral process. keep a lot of people from voting who majority vote.not to allow to so, in a sort of long way around, it is probably a good that we had the degree of flexibility but the danger is he would take it too far we are few to where we were a years ago with the same problems that resulted in the crisis of 2000. >> the, first of all, the early voting issue is not an issue of legitimacy. nobody -- i mean although actually they did make the it was, nobody ever argued that people are fraudulently as opposed to election day voting. that is not even sort of an issue. the question of early voting and activities is has nothing to do with legitimacy. is no early voting fraud that happens. it is purely a question of access. the last bill and the two bills before that and

the run up before the election did one before befored in 2010 or one 2012 or -- all the legislature artificially constrain the hours and the places. they said you can only vote hours during a day which is absurd. why limit to eight hours art artificially and only eight hours over the weekend which is absurd and limited to libraries and city hall. i think they wanted to make the process harder. i don't think there is any question about that. in fact, the democrats ran will dots saying you this but who wants to be head of so caucus.you before 2012 they did the same thing. in the same ways. went from 14 to nine days. lots of black churches were souls to the polls so they got rid of the sundays. sundays none of this is about integrity.

integrity. it is about access. >> if we take the point that any identification of some number is at the very first instance arbitrary, that is why not 20 days, any identification in the instance is always arbitrary. datais the -- what is the that is required after that first move? that is, if we say look, we want to refine 15 days, what should -- what -- what would have been a legitimate presentation of evidence that the move was -- >> 30 minutes. shouldn't have to wait in line more nan 30 minutes to vote. and in dade county you couldn't you waited in line for hours. there are metrics that can be delivered. reforms and i say use that worde we

purjoratively. the university of florida had an issue there because you can't go to a university campus and vote even though on election day you can. why is that there? >> even with all of the shame come to florida over the last two major elections and it really is shame, the legislature trouble just saying we want everybody voting. and you are not even -- my point you are not even balancing legitimacy with that. it is just an issue of how many people do we think ought to be voting in the election and how turnout to we want? and i agree there are concerns if you were making the point that when you have flexibility at the end of the day if -- if jacksonville decides that two or lines are okay, then that is wrong. i don't care whether it is the it or aure that does county superintendent of elections. and thedn't be that way state ought to make sure that

people don't have to wait that long to vote and there are they can deliver prior to an election to make sure that prepared. dan, whichwith happens somewhat. here in miami date county part of what be did as part of the election advisory mayor wanted us he wants tonal but hold a supervisor of elections and the department accountable that we basically want every voter that comes to go vote to be out the door within one hour. whether that be early voting or on election day. everything that is being done logistically and mechanically to improve the electoral process system in miami date county is you are in and out the door within an hour. in reference to the issue about i believe early is good public policy and

it is something that we had in florida since 2004. it has been tweaked over time. you know, whether you want to ascribe nefarious intent to it me.ot, that is not the point is that it is not something that is at that timic. it is something that changes over time. to try to give some flexibility to the counties because the needs of a large county are different from a small county. and i will tell you, i mean, you know, i think it is good public policy but it also -- it is not a right. it is a privilege. there are 17 states that don't earlyave any type of a voting including new york, massachusetts, virginia, alabama, i mean across the state -- across the nation and you can ascribe whether it as blue state or a red state, really across the board. and so is it good public policy? yes. it in florida? yes. can we improve phone? yes. are 17 -- can we improve upon it? yes. that don't even offer it at all. joe'son't want to make

life worse, i have permission to ask one more question. and it comes back to the question of registration. why not some system of registration. why not some system of opt out registration? day that everybody turns 181 registered or at least same way asn the you might register for the elective service? selective service? why is it so difficult if we take that term seriously to register? and why so many variations? is a question are you say hag anybody who is 18 to citizen ini became a 1974 that would have been an unnecessary act on my part? i mean i think we have to have some thresholds. i mean are you saying anybody is 18 in miami you get to vote and you opt out if you don't want to go?

>> clearly only if you are eligible. >> we have to have certain parameters. have to be a citizen. have to be 18. have to live here. so there has to be some basic requirements that need to be met to safeguard the integrity of the vote. aret some point so those burdens. have to take some steps to satisfy those requirements. ima' not sure i understand the question. i think the state has a valid interest. take -- you don't steps to become 18. those aren't steps. >> but -- low pressure lap. >> yo[ overlapping speakers ] prove that you are 18. speaker]e >> you have to meet certain requirements. >> but the basic thrust of the why so much difficulty? and i think i want -- i addressed the fact to you in some sense because you talk registration. >> simple answer because we

always wanted and used registration as a way to control who can and can't vote. again i'm speaking in a historic sense here. it has always- been a way that the states have controlled their electorate and who they want to vote and how and how they vote. the more complex you make the registration process the more likely to ex-cloud voters on the margins. the easier the process the of thethe pool registered voters is likely to be. i don't know why we shouldn't be to do a national voter tate that base. i think it is a good idea. been in support for a lot of years. it would take away the problem in multipleting states because you wouldn't have the sense of two states not talking to one another. the answer is the states don't want to give up that power. and there are differences between states on how they organize registration. you can register on

day of the election. others months in advance. affects the pool of potential voters. makes a choice as to what pool they want. >> with that, i want you to join thanking our panelists. [applause] >> more now from the political campaign ethics conference. up next a conversation about political discourse. we'll hear from former congressman lincoln diaz-balart, columnist and unit vision fearical analyst helen ferre. this is 50 minutes. exciting conference. political campaign ethics conference. many thanks to the miami dade commission on ethics and public and, of course, to saint

thomas university center for ethics. ethics is such an important topic. don't think we address it seriously quite enough. this panel is called the third rail. ethnic and racial innuendo in campaigns. and to join me in this all-important discussion we have three terrific gentlemen who are indispensable to the conversation. and we start to my immediate left, there is nothing left him, lincoln diaz ballard. congressman. he is an attorney. he is a former u.s. congressman. much loved and thanks for being here, congressman. immediate left is george knox, visiting professor at florida international university school of law. former city attorney for the city of miami. george, great to see you again.

but notcourse, last least, we have a former county commissioner for miami dade county. but today, the all-important city manager of the city of beach, jimmy morales. great to have you. the issue of racial innuendos in political campaigns. isa national level, it really clear and obvious. of race relations is something that we seem to make and then oneward step back. we have the issue if you disagree with somebody it is because of issue of race. if you agree with somebody, it is because of race. ethnicity. gender or on a local level, that also see the race card,

the ethnic card, but maybe not quite sothat is obvious. congressman, people and i was morales aboutmy this before we started the panel, one of the things that we so complex about this is that people are drawn to think and speak like them. drawn to your ethnic group. you are drawn to your racial there are certain commonnallities. what is wrong with that? >> well, there is -- i think with is nothing wrong people being proud of their heritage and their ethnicity and has always been part of our political system. is one of the if i politics,laws of people are proud to have

they feeltives who identification with. now, you know, having said that, make reference other what i call politics. as much as they could be laws physics.ld be laws of and one is, you know, people are heritage.heir and they are proud to have a representative that, as i said who they identify with. now, at the same time, i would is evident that for elected officials you know, officials,elected emphasis this a particular

given obviously has with the interest of the audience. >> um-h'm. >> in other words, if you are speaking at a -- you know, an apac convention, you know, it is -- i mean they are -- what -- they are likely to want to hear elected official or on u.s.-israelws ofations and the security israel. so obviously it makes sense that the leader or the elected official or candidate address issue in that audience. you know, if someone is know, greekyou

americans, they -- you know, you an opinion on and the you know, turkish invasion because that, you know, that -- this is an area of great interest. and obviously in this community to au are going to speak group of venezuelan americans or you better know the current events and have issues related to venezuela or cuba. it is common sense, but sometimes i think it is important to -- >> but, of course, sometimes the message gets manipulated intentionally. let me just,me -- if i may, continue with what i know, ie some, you think they are evident, but you know there is nothing wrong i i just said.at people obviously want to make

emphasis on -- have emphasis on on the interests of issues in the audience that addressing. successful, that candidate or that elected obviously does not change his or her views on issues based on the audience. in other words, one thing is emphasis based on you don't want to bore your audience so you to talk about something that obviously they are interested in. but you don't change your an issue based on your audience. that is something that -- now, with regard to, you know, i wouldn't call it a law of but an observation,

demagoguery sometimes raises its ugly head. in my experience, thisnow, the subject of racialin other words insinuations or ethnic innuendo, counterproductive in a -- in a -- in addition to know,negative and, you certainly indefensible. a is counterproductive in campaign. and fortunately so, as -- electorates become more political discourse you will,ore mature, if you democracy,enced in

such things as ethnic insinuations and things like that become even more counterproductive and i think that is a very important positive. in other words, it is -- you know, we -- i remember, you this community decades of seeing examples me, butery that shocked as a communityy, becomes more experienced in mature theyd more are less effective and fortunately they are less common. know, that is one of the positives of democracy. when -- the more time a lot, you know, it does

recfification. >> it might actually work in a when you campaign and look at a diverse community such as you have in south florida is a microcosm of where the nation is headed there is a challenge. the issue of we go back and congressman was referring to some of the issues of the past. in south florida there was the issue of nelson mandela and his relationship with fidel castro and what that may is implied and a lot of conflict and tension. how do you see the way we are the issue and the

proclivity of racial and ethnic innuendo in campaigns? isfirst, i think that it important to at least challenge congressmann by the that racial innuendo and outright racially charged prevalent on less the political scene both locally nationally. inay's miami herald reported townon a that the commissioner? in in a small place in new hampshire referred to the president of the united states by using the so-called "n word" that is this morning's herald. and his response and i'm quoting

what he said to the official response to the people who challenged him, i believe i did the n word in reference to the current occupant of the house. for this, i did not apologize. criteriaand exceeds my for such. that that ison this that importanted to is there is no this and thet suggestion is that somehow we getting better, i would suggest we are simply getting clever. there was a sarcastic statement printed in a sarcastic statements like the one i just read and mr. clevelandm bundy, the nevada farmer who blacks wereis in slaverytter off

because at least that gave them something to do and, of course, was awas -- this man darling of elements who are who wantedtically his support because he had say things this they might not have been able to say politically correct way. i think that we have gotten more innuendo -- clever in our innuendo. termsatter of fact, if like entitlement are used, terms are social service programs used, terms used, terms like urban center are used, terms like liberty city or little havana are used they conjure up thoughts inside directlyads this have to do with rice in a very subtle way except for those who the lingo.

>> there is a desire to gain having ourthout finger prints ton it so to speak. when i was a candidate for public office county wide one of in what my stops was was then known as little havana. introduced by my host who wanted to make the audience with me as note george knox for those purposes "jorge no"! and the people cheered. [laughter] to usethen i was told hermano ands like hermanas. simpatico. of antonion

marsailles. laws not only a rule, it is a and it happens and we cannot regulate the conduct of people in codedto engage language in order to create an affinity with the audience for the purpose of gaining votes fairly being accused of using racial innuendos. >> but i would say, george, two points. the nevadae of rancher when he came out with statement, i do believe that most who are in the political isld backed away from his support because theymy not have been -- and i thought that was a positive. eliminateoh limb o racism everywhere and you will find some who will be racist but i thought the political world backed away from support after he made those statements, which, a positive.would be when you are talking about in

campaigns when they say, say hermana it is words that are trying to suggest an the community, i don't know that little havana it negatively. people say little havana with pride and a sense of belonging. as being used as marginalizing which is different from what that person from new hampshire said, which tragic because that is an elected official. >> there are two responses. don't disagree. i was trying to point out that castigate conduct because there is a mirror image positive. is to identify with something that is important with another culture as if you row spect it. it enough to emulate it as bad as you possibly can is positive side of the

negative nuance. and so that is why you can't get of it because it can work either way. the second thing that i like to point out in response to your observation is we have to be we have to be careful with words that are used because this is a volatile subject. a cynic said, for example and i'm quoting again there is no excuse for offensive racist one mr. bundythe made when there are so many making the exact point. [laughter] point.that is the and let me with all due respect this conference and the words attributed to jesse commissioner suarez, those of us who laughed knew the co connotation was having disparaging reference to jesse jackson's race. the suggestion was that black a stereotype is

and many grew up with over 50 did can't swim because toy are closer in affinity apes than human beings and this was the innuendo that was clever jokea associated with jesse jackson or three meaningsree meanings depending upon the sensitivity of people who made use of it and those of us who thought it was clever or funny have to examine ourselves whatsk it was that made that joke so funny. based upon our own experience and what we heard around the dinner table and on the schoolyard. we answer that question honestly, then an beauty, the for the beauty and subtlety of innuendo be made even more manifest. it is here to stay. know how to touch the hearts and minds of others

ofthe language and choice words that they use. as a matter of fact, it is called dog whistling. whistling is a popular term essentiallythat means if you know anything about dog whistles, the pitch of it is the capacity of human beings to hear but the dogs can hear it. all right? and so it is with innuendo, the subtlemeaning of it so this only those people that have a connection with it will be it. to recognize and that is both the beauty and the danger of what he would are talking about. -- what we are talking about. a fascinating conversation and clearly ethnic and the ethnic heart gets the race card gets played and it does have an effect when you lock at this -- look at this conversation. what worries you and what -- i

see change in dynamics with the generations. do you see that? if it me first say that look uncomfortable here. in law school i never sat this close to the front. [laughter] >> and i know know why because i culled on to speak after george and lincoln. >> there you go. progress. as a society, the -- the vicious of 100 yearstics ago where you had political parties whose message was, you antiafrican american or anticatholic or antijewish, i ton a point got today where the -- gotten to point today where the blatant beinghe sited goal of anti any one particular group is tolerated. >> which is why perhaps you to use in win toe today to get to use innuendo today to get away with it. >> exactly. which isouched on this

obviously there is a human nature to be drawn to people that we have something in common with. whether that is religion or geographic or some from the same country at some point, whether race, whatever iter, is. and people find comfort if that. an this has been understanding over the last 20 years that to some degree politics is a good thing. we have drawn single member districts that will be more to elect diverse representation. districts in congress and in the to attract -- to mix it more likely -- make it more likely to elect a more diverse group. and so it is a natural by product if you are having an election in a seat that, for example, is in tenned to aect -- intended to elect haitian american you might have a candidate who runs on the basis i'm haitian american and we con from a common root and i issues and i grew

up in the same neighborhoods and i'm the best person to represent tallahasseengton or as the case may be. this is part of politics in this country for since the very beginning. and the idea that somebody because they share something with you might be a better representative, there is nothing wrong with that. you know, i -- and it is not something that is unique to miami in terms of being a more communityigrant cities. to other i lived in boston for seven years. i remember when thomas menino boston.ted mayor of one of the most famous things you do in boston is go to the menino wasnd thomas the first italian mayor elected to boston. for a century or more irish americans dominated politics. even at that level people voted people they were comfortable with. i think where it gets uncomfortable and now more by innuendo is when the difference -- it is not the commonnallity that is used as a reason to vote for somebody, it is the differences being used as

a reason to vote against somebody. where -- while he would have become clearly much and modern in terms of it not being tolerated over thely so when mr. bundy says what he says, everybody runs to the hills away from him. away from him. it is, as george points out, it is hidden code words and hidden statements. as lincoln points out, sometimes using what is perceived as an issue but cloved in, you know, on israel isnd perhaps how you feel about the jewish community or where you stand on immigration is how you about hispanics when in fact there could be good policy one way or the other but those are cloaked to send messages. own statements that -- you know, i encountered when i was -- that i would get statements about i'm not hispanic enough. this meant. but people will throw those words out there. you have -- african

accused of -- not candidates not accused of being black enough because they are not in touch enough. those kind of innuendos are used to send a message. be morewe have to sensitive to it. the problem is as we are here at laws,school talking about just how we talk about how you morality you can crowiate laws that can punish people for being immoral. challenge you talk about speech expressed in ideas is how do you ledge slit away the and that is -- legislate away the innuendos. he would hope that over time the message, the social disapproval and hopefully the of it.al consequences and that is what he would need to get to at some point. just like we always say no one likes negative campaigning. will only stop the data -- >> it stops working. that don'tpeople

love the negative ads, it makes a difference. innuendosat the become in fact a reason to vote against somebody, i think you getthat times, people turned off by it. i think, perfect sample when duke the kkk won the republican nomination and the republican party disavowed him that was not a message they wanted. point where to the we disavow those kind of messages. i remember as a democrat, i accused ofto be attacking republicans, i remember when a democratic nominee for the congressional date county said the last american please carry the flag out and we elected the honorable -- but both parties and anyone is prone to it, it is the day those messages are punished politically that we really turn the corner. >> congressman as jimmy morales was talking about immigration reform. talk about use of innuendo code thes to be antihispanic in

debate. this is one of the issues even though polls suggest and as sal from the tea party express came out with an op ed where he the teaing about party -- as a tea party person favor of immigration reform couldmebody disavowed how anybody who could be conservative be in favor of immigration reform. antihispanic or more legitimate reasons to look beyond? of hatredere is a lot behind some of the immigration reform rhetoric. >> i don't disagree with a lot of the things that jimmy and george have said. said before, and let me in a upon immigration second. demagoguery does show its face occasionally. will maintain, though, and stress that that is one of the reasons why i think it is study history.

can't compare in my view the united states today with the united states 100 years years ago. we are a much better place. that is not negating. you know, george knox talked of more thanamples demagoguery, you know, of, you racism today. i mean we are going to find examples like that. know, no -- no human is ever going to be perfect but certainly it is perfectible. our country consider our country is perfectible and it is much, much better. than it was in the past. that is what i mean. take things in -- in the in contrast.

>> for example, president obama elected ifave been it hadn't been for the white vote. >> right. there are a lot of examples. a lot of examples. of overcoming and getting better. now -- now let me point to thish somehow you brought out. issue brought the out. the kinds of matters that were discussing in this panel. immigration. it -- it facilitates and makes it easier. issue makes easier dem in demagoguery attacks and it is a very, very difficult issue but you know, progress

is possible. progress. brought out an example about the latest, you know, public statement by howbody being attacked for can you be making that statement? coming from where you are coming from? nevertheless even on an issue as difficult as immigration possible.s and you know i remain hopeful that we will see -- that we will significant progress soon even on that issue. >> i hope so. he would have some questions from the audience. questions.your we are -- this is one question. we he would living -- are in a super sensitive society? george? is an association with that seems to connote

good and bad. relationship close call a judge and know will be in place. the investigate of politicians ofto -- the strategy politicians is to get as many votes as they can by having the people that they are appealing resonate with or identify with something that they say, otherwise stand for. it is not unethical. this is the difficulty when we read our attempts to relate. have to allow and understand differences.e per se any cost not unlawful constituting a crime due process.

and so as long as you don't do that, then the argument is that whatever you do is fair game in aretics because you supposed to know and understand you areis all about and supposed to be thick skinned. >> and nvidia want to tackle this? >> you hear that society has become too pc. we remember back toward grandparents telling jokes that today would curl her hair. it was fine back then. like backl comments in the 1950's we did not have these. society is less tolerant of comments. an audience thing but i think that's a good thing. is weallenging part

always talk about america as a melting pot. there is perception some people have that at some point we will all just be americans. the hyphens go away and we are a group of americans, whatever that is. i think we are more like a salad. ll mixed together but you still taste the salad, the tomato, the cucumber. issues are approached from a perspective and changes perhaps with ethnicity, race, gender. i'm married to a strong professional woman. to me, the extent to which i think sexism is tolerated in the media, and entertainment, politics. all of us were shocked how hillary was treated in the primary where she became a victim. it's hard for her to be viewed as a big them.

i've seen the way lawyers treat my wife, there's a level of sexism -- >> your wife being an attorney. >> it would shock me. areas wheret of some things we have gotten very sensitive about and other areas we maybe have not. again, there's nothing wrong with people being drawn to each other for different reasons. are recenteople who immigrants may have more of a sensitivity to immigration. when it becomes a sword for a rational purposes, that is where we have to figure out -- i don't know if you can legislate against it or collectively decide we will not put up with it. have is the issue of polarization. it was talk about on this panel.

we have districts that are designed. the issue of immigration reform, one of the comments made that's very difficult to get past him a house because there are so many drawn so you are do not have diversity within the district and then there is no oferstanding or knowledge who these diverse populations are we are talking about in the immigration reform debate. there's a question here from the audience who says here locally in miami-dade county and surrounding municipalities, would the use of innuendo be different if there were at-large elections instead of district? different but that's why it's difficult to talk about better or worse. some could argue that the district is an institutionalized way to reduce the need to appeal

to one ethnic group or point of view over another because there is homogeneity built in, common interest built in by design. if we are solid and not melting, that exists anyway. >> the tomato stays the tomato and sometimes we forget that fact. we obscure the identity by calling it "salad." [applause] please, again, current miami as a barometer for the rest of the world. when we talk about at-large elections are now the judicial elections. the fact is that you will see overt innuendo associated with the manner in which even the

basedsionals experience upon their understanding of the demographics. there has been a chronic complaint registered on behalf judges ofnt african-american descent who do ,ot have the capacity resources, access to resources to raise sufficient money to fare well in a contested election countywide. there are others who know that. there are others who make a vulnerabletifying minorities, both women and ,ersons of african descent candidates because there's an understanding that the cultural affinity between the three major cultural groups is so significant that it makes a

difference. people talk about the surname game. this is not limited. 1980 -- a man in because history is important, he won a seat in the florida legislature because of his last name. was a prominent and politically active family in miami-dade called the plumber family. $1700 inless than order to beat a very, very well-qualified, engaging attorney whose name was alan rosenthal. plummer was a 38-year-old african-american bus driver who public even attended a meeting by a collegial body because of his last name and his avoidance of using a photograph

in any of his so-called campaign material. voters, a of the significant majority of the voters send this man to the legislature and he stayed for a full term and he made a joke about it, ok? critical in a sense of negativity. it is a device that is used by people as a strategy to gain votes. we cannotratic world judge, evaluate, or defend its use. let's not even forget even recent history. multimember districts were a way to deny minorities election. that was a reality.

reforms madecent possible, single-member district. judicial elections are separate. i think that would be worth a panel all by itself, judicial elections, and whether or not they should be elect and. that's more in a perfect world. it's important to put on the record. until single-member districts multimemberlity, districts were utilized to deny minorities elections. on the lack ofnt concern with discrimination against african-american republicans and hispanic republicans. the claim of prejudice seems used as a political play.

please comment on the lack of concern with the discrimination against african-american republicans, hispanic republicans, the claim of prejudice seems to be used as a political ploy, i guess. >> i think with the question is referring to is more a concern .bout the media i've heard that concern a lot -- >> you see it on social media. you see it on twitter. the anonymity behind social media has really had an impact on race. it's not even innuendo. it is very straight, right in your face accusations. i don't think it's a surprise that we are seeing the rise in the level of it except that it's

tweets, for example, where it can be pretty anonymous. the point is pretty direct. >> it's interesting. if you have truly looked nationally, we have three hispanic u.s. senators and two of them are republican. i forget how many hispanic governors and their majority of them are republican. in florida, the democratic party has uneven and nominated and hispanic for governor or senator that i'm aware of. difficult.n label is i will speak candidly having been a chairman of a local claim that uses the they are more responsive to a particular group or other. >> maybe what the question suggests is that there is a certain sense that an

african-american is going to be a democrat and not going to be a republican on a national level. >> it's a very important point that you brought up. the last time we had national inventions, it impressed me terms of statewide officials that were hispanic. candidates. i was impressed by the fact, except for senator bob menendez -- >> in the castro brothers on the democrat side. quick statewide? >> the mayor of san antonio. >> maybe it's just because i

have not understood. >> in 2012, covering both conventions, what other things that struck me on the republican side of it is the enormous number of hispanic elected officials who were on the podium . on the democratic side, even though they had very few hispanics in the audience. they were attending the convention, which is a very marked contrast. thats, the perception hispanics and african-americans are predominately more thatratic, whether or not has resulted in deliverables to those communities, i think there are a lot of hispanics who are upset the current administration has not done more with the current immigration issue. likewise you could make a statement about if you