good evening from los angeles. i'm tavis smiley. tonight with less than two weeks until the midterm selections, a conversation with senator patrick leahy of vermont, chair of the senate judiciary committee about how new voting rick may keep hundred of thousands -- riekzs may keep hundreds of thousands from casting their ballots this year. over a year ago, the supreme court struck down a key provision of the voting rights act of 1965, opening the door for states to place restrictions on who can vote including implementing new rules requiring voter i.d.s. leahy and other senators have a bill pentagon th-- bill pending now. we'll have a conversation with one of the true innovators of funk music, george clinton. after nearly 40 years of touring, he swears this is his last. he's written about his life and career. you'll love the title -- "brothers be like, yo, george, ain't that funking kind of hard on you?

a memoir." glad you joined us. those conversations coming up right now. ♪ ♪ and by characteristics to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ just over a year ago, the

u.s. supreme court struck down a key provision of the voting rights act of 1965, opening the day for states to implement restrictive measures about who can and cannot vote including new voter i.d. laws. a bill to address the supreme court striking down those laws is pending in the state and is blocked in the house. it would require that all changes to the vogting laws be reviewed by the department of justice. joining us, the author of the bill, senator patrick leahy, democrat of vermont. he is, of course, chair of the senate judiciary committee. senator leahy, good to have you back on the program, sir. >> it's good to be with you. >> i understand you have a bit of laryngitis. thank you for honoring the commitment to come on anyway. i promise to make this painless. let me start by asking -- >> listen, when i -- when somebody makes a commitment to you, tavis, they should be there. i'm proud to be on your show. >> i'm honored to have you back on the program. i'm not naive in asking this question, but what to your mind is behind these attacks on the voting rights act? >> in my mind, it is nothing but

a concentrated effort of voter suppression. you know, when we wrote the voting rights act, we had a bipartisan majority -- bipartisan coalition, passed overwhelmingly in the senate and house. i remember when george w. bush signed it, again with a bipartisan group. yet, five republican appointees on the supreme court knocked out the most important part of the voting rights act. it guaranteed that the elderly and student and lower income are going to be disenfranchised. look what happened as soon as they did this. in georgia, they moved quickly to suppress votes predominantly african-american. in north carolina, tom till is led an effort to suppress

voters. texas has done the same. it's almost like the supreme court said, hey, guys, you want to cut off a lot of the voters in your state, here the way to do it. >> with regard to texas senator leahy, i read a piece the other day, as you are well aware, that harsh provision in texas was upheld by the court. what do we make of the fact that it's not just states that are doing this but, apparently, there are courts around the country that will uphold these restrictive efforts on voting -- restrictive laws on voting? >> i think that they've taken their signal from five members in the u.s. supreme court. it is a mistake. you know, we -- i've been in country where people have fought revolutions for the right to vote. in my state of vermont, you just assume everybody, old, young, everybody, poor, rich, you all have the right to vote. and it's time for us to

understand how a state like north carolina or georgia or texas or -- these kinds of states could go and actually work at suppressing the vote. it all goes back to we wrote a voting rights act which protected people's right to vote. the supreme court knocked that out. i was amazed when justice scalia said that the voting rights act, this part of it, amounted to a racial entitlement. he spoke as though there's no racial preblg prej -- racial prejudice in america. baloney. go out in america, you'll find plenty of example of racial pre prejudice. i'm hoping everybody will vote this fall and help us reverse who is a terrible mistake. >> how do we go about reversing what is a terrible mistake?

it seem to me that what the supreme court careful basically said -- i should say on this and other legislation, what i see the supreme court saying repeatedly is that if congress wants to fix this, let them fix it. here's how we interpret it. this could be addressed by the house and the senate, as i intimated earlier at the start of this conversation. how would we go about fixing what's already been done? >> i think there are many member of congress who don't want to fix this. they're very happy with what the supreme court did because they feel it's going to help their own political base. but if we see that people will fight even under this to get out and vote, turn out heavily at the polls, say we do not stand for this. we're not going to elect those who are in favor of this suppression like tom tillis in north carolina.

we'll put in office, people will change it. we can. if that doesn't happen, there are those who oppose having a priority for people to vote. and they'll keep doing that. >> so the evidence, as i've done the research, is pretty clear. it's not just that we have states now getting tougher on citizens exercising their right to vote. it is that the data indicates that these restrictive voting rights measures do have an impact. i'm thinking specifically now of kansas and tennessee in 2012 after they put these tough i.d. laws on the books. voting went down in kansas by 2%. it went down in tennessee by 3.2%. how much more evidence do we need to that this depresses the vote in the country for us to take the issue more seriously? >> no, you're absolutely right. it does suppress it. we -- this country, if it stand for anything, it should stand for the right for everybody to

be able to vote. not just a privileged group of people, but everybody. and when legislatures and gerrymandering or in voting laws that suppress votes, there should be no place for that in america. it's obviously done for one reason -- to determine how the vote will come out. it's like -- in the old days, they used to have the poll tax. that was done to keep people from voting. we know -- we remember the jim crow laws. we remember some of those laws, the laws we would ask some esoteric question about the constitution. >> uh-huh. >> before you could -- before you could vote. of course, those questions are only asked of african-americans. that's not what this country

stands for. this country should be doing everything possible to get everybody out to vote. plus the fact that a lot of these laws are based on a false premise. they say we've got to stop voter fraud. then they point to millions and millions and millions of voters, and they can't find one case of voter fraud. no, it's voter suppression. >> is it your sense or your belief that this is a suppressed strategy being implemented specifically by republicans across the country? is this part of their strategy? >> where we've seen the suppression the most have been in those states with a republican-controlled legislature, republican governor. and they've done -- i use north carolina with tom tillis as an example. we see it in georgia. we see it in texas. we see it elsewhere. you mentioned kansas. you know, in vermont -- again, i go back to my own state of

vermont -- we do everything possible to get people to come out and vote. and the idea that you would have a state that would systematically work at stopping people from voting is hard to understand. it should not be allowed anywhere. >> is it that difficult to understand that every person in this country pushing to suppress the right to vote when there's so many americans who do not exercise their right to vote? put another way, if they're a group of folk who realize that other folk aren't exercising the right to vote and by further suppressing their right to vote, they might win elective office. it's not that much of a surprise when it comes to strategy if people aren't going to use their right to vote anyway. >> and you make a good point. but that's why i'm hoping with this going on, people say, wait a minute, maybe i wouldn't have voted before. maybe i'd find other things to do. but this is just going to get worse and worse. and my right to vote can be

taken away, what other rights might be taken away? i've got to vote. i've got to do whatever's necessary to vote. i've got to back it possible for the next -- got to make it possible for the next generation to vote. i've got to make sure the next generation comes out to vote. look at during the civil rights era. you had people like john lewis who could have died on that bridge when he was struck in the head out protesting, asking for the right to vote. look at the number of people who did die. they fought for the right to vote. what all of us have to is those came before us fought to make it possible for us to vote. don't we at least owe it to them to go out and vote? no matter who you vote for? my wife and i, we did an ad one year. people were surprised that in vermont we said, whether you

vote for me or somebody else, go out and vote. increased the voter turnout. i still won -- i'm glad i won. but the point is if we don't vote, if everybody doesn't get out and vote and say we won't stand for this, i guarantee you the legislature next year will be even worse, and we'll have no chance of getting some improvements to the u.s. congress. >> there are those pushing for these tough i.d. laws. there are those who are fighting to suppress the right to vote in part because -- including the supreme court, might add, whose argument seems to be in the era of the first african-american president these voter i.d. laws, these laws in the voting rights act specifically, are no longer necessary. we do, after all, have after african-american president. how then does one make the argument that we still have to have these laws that carve out special privileges and special

protections of african-americans when they've done enough to elect a black president? >> i was and am a strong supporter of barack obama. he's one of 44 presidents, 43 white. we have to do more than that. i also know that it's not just the president. it's the legislatures, members of congress. there are those who want to never have another african-american president. that would be a very, very bad thing for this country. >> a woman props? >> or a woman. i mean, all of us. i want every one of my grandchildren to be able to run for whatever they want and not be discriminated against either because of their gender or because of their race. and two are mixed race. >> the chair of the senate judiciary committee, senator

patrick leahy of vermont. senator, thank you for your work as always. an honor to have you back on this program. >> thanks, tavis. coming up, george clinton, the father of funk. stay with us. ♪ george clinton's one of the great hit-makers of all time, working first in r&b before creating a sound known as funk -- providing the dna for hip-hop to thrive. he has been the leader and force behind two mega bands -- of course, parliament and funkadelic. ♪ ♪ make me funk >> you must have there. >> anyway. his strong musical roots go back to high school where he formed a barber shop quintet and cut his teeth on doo-wop. you'll love this. "brothers be yo, like george." ain't that funking kind of hard? >> it's easy if you do like --

brothers be yo like george. ain't that funking kind of hard on you? i said it was hard when i started. i'll be hard when i get through. [ laughter ] >> you got it right. good to have you back, man. good to you. when i got into this, as a matter of fact i write this down. let me get this quote just right -- "i kept the funk alive, but record labels kept all the money." "i kept the funk alive, but record labels kept all the money." >> do you remember i came on your show before? i was out of my mind then. i came without of the paperwork, all of the lawyers, all of the copyright material. his to clean up my act -- i had to clean up my act so i could come on your show clear and say, we're moving all the way to the supreme court now. we're getting ready to go to the supreme court. >> uh-huh. >> all the samples of all that music. not the artists now. i'm tight with every one of

those hip-hop artists. the record company took the money from them, never gave it to us. any time i say some being it, they make it like i'm attacking the artist. i really want to tell dre, sthosnap, puffy, jay-z, i'm not the one who sued them. as a matter of fact, i'm asking them to come forward. to just -- i'm going to the supreme court with this. and like, i don't want to talk about just that. on page 379, that's the key. you can find out why i really wrote the book. i don't feel like -- my story ain't over. i wouldn't have been trying to write the book if i didn't want to tell what's happening in the copyright issues. they took the money from me. i was misbehaving. they got me. but now they're trying to take from my heirs, from my grandskids and band -- grandkids and band members' heirs and grandkid. if you took from me when i

wasn't paying attention, that's my fault. now they're going after the copyright which is eternal t. and the mother ship is going to the smithsonian. >> i saw that. >> it music itself should not be disrespected like that. i've got my own lawyers suing me for $1.5 million, protecting the other record companies that stole all the money. then my lawyers, you know -- >> come after you. >> come after me. all of that's starting on page 379. the rest of it is funkadelic, you know, parliament, bootsy -- >> what is it about your upbringing, about your being a child, a young adult that people should know if they really want to appreciate where all this comes from? what is it about your story as a child that they ought to know? >> oh, that's a good question. i mean -- i started out, i wanted to be like anybody else known for something, to do

something. i started a baseball group. i couldn't play. they put me off my own team. you know? i tried everything. you know, bought the gloves and the catcher's -- i mean, i tried -- i was about 13. i couldn't do that, so i started parliament at about 14, 15 years old. >> uh-huh. >> grade school, newark, new jersey. from then on, i wanted to be frankie lyman and the teenagers, the spaniels, the flamingos. them and motown came along. i used to write letters to smokey, to the publishing people. i got a job. they didn't kboep what it was. i -- know what it was. they just thought i was cute. now the songs are getting popular after all these yooers. i tried -- these years. i tried so hard to start. when we finally got to detroit and did a record called "i just want to testify."

it became a hit. from then on, i wanted to be like motown. the parliament, funkadelic, bootsy, parliament. it's just a family -- and i'm still doing that to this day. that's the way i keep going. >> sour found of -- i love berry gordy. my dear friend of here in this chair not long ago. your sound is a little funkier than motown. >> i took everybody's thing and milked it together. bootsy brought his brother -- we had james brown in our band. we had motown in our band. jimi hendrix, we were in newark together as kids. all of us in the village and stuff. we had that history. eddie hazel playing maggot brain. i just mixed everything together like a motown. instead of keeping them separate, i mixed it together so you've got some p. funk, pure funk, uncut, ain't been stepped

on, the bomb. do you know what i'm saying? >> yeah. >> every bit of that, i think we know the communication there. that was street language. and everybody related to that. it became the background for our generation. >> uh-huh. >> after that, our kids picked up on it which is the dres and snoops, and the tupacs, you know, all of the next generation picked up on their mothers' and fathers' music. called it go to the crates and -- leave my records alone! stop scratching them! >> don't touch my lords! >> of the dna for hip-hop. we were looking to be part of that generation. our generation. now the new generation is dance music. >> yeah. >> if you've got a butt, you're going to shake it. as a matter of fact, we tell them to bring two booties because one ain't enough. we've got -- as a matter of fact, the new album that goes with this book, got 33 songs on it. >> nobody does that, george. >> no. i had to --

>> nobody does 33 records -- >> no, i had to make a statement, i'm not going anywhere. i'm not going anywhere. since i know they're going to pay attention to the book, and my main mission is to bring attention to the copyright stuff going on. >> right. >> they don't intend to let the music be ours. you know what i'm saying? it's going to the smithsonian, but they want it to be one nation of all song that we've done is -- when my own lawyer's trying to take from me. knee deep. those two are like the holy grail. not only are the record companies trying to take it, i paid them $1.5 million to protect it. he's working for them. >> i thought we were onetration under groove. >> i thought so, too. one nation under $1 -- that's what he had. and it's a conspiracy between -- because there's so many records with samples. they're afraid i'm getting ready to do what this guy did -- sued

7 had hundr 700, 800 people in nashville. i might have to do it over again. >> it's fascinating to me that you have one group of folk in the country disrespecting and trying to take what's rightfully yours. on the other hand, the smithsonian which is the quintessential, you know, governmental agency, putting the mother ship this the museum. >> right. and at the same time, these other people are going to the copyright office itself. going and change our name. and you can do that. there's no -- they don't have any protection against -- we've been to the senators, the congress people. they're backing us. bobby rush, john conyers, sheilah jackson-lee, they've been helping me for the last five years. we couldn't even get in there to look at the stuff. they were going in changing our name. >> yeah. >> as a matter of fact, they're getting ready to give me an award, too. i guess i've been such a headache, pain in the --

somebody writes them all the time, getting all about what's going on. >> what's sad about this story is that it happened to so many artists. >> that's what's sad. with me, i'm 73 years old. i wouldn't have nothing told do anyway. i got rid of my habits. really got nothing do. this is my -- >> give it to the junk man. >> i got a lawyer habit now. >> yeah. >> yeah. i wasn't buying nothing. >> yeah. >> you know what i'm saying? i got over that just so i can pay more attention to the copyright issue. >> yeah. >> you know, i'm really thankful for them doing. that i probably wouldn't have paid no attention to the copyright issue if it hadn't of been that they'd taken it from my heirs, my kids. >> do you wish that you had figured this out, wised up sooner? >> four, you know, you just -- not that much. i'm glad i can do it now. at 73, you ain't got much to do. you go fishing and get that for real. i'm still on the road. i have fun on the road.

just give me something i can be passionate about. i was able to write a lot of songs. >> yeah. >> you know, this day and time to be able to do 33 songs for the album. got another parliament album coming out in about four more months. >> yeah. >> so i'm busy in -- like i said, brothers be yo like george. ain't that funking kind of hard on you? i was hard when i started. i'm going to be hard when i get through. >> there you have it. new book is out now. "brothers be yo, like george: ain't that funking kind of hard on you?" you come up with the greatest titles, man. >> i had to fight them for the title -- when you read it, just like we had to fight for the title of the records. >> yeah. >> i mean, i make it my business to try to make it -- the title itself make a statement. >> yeah. before you go, can i tell you that i have been -- it's in rotation in my car. this track that you and kim burrell did. >> lord -- >> i gave it to y'all first.

>> i remember this. the kim burrell thing -- >> now sly stone is on it. on this album, sly stone is singing the same song. we did it, myself, kim burrell, and sly stone. >> i've got to go. you've got george clinton, kim burrell, and sly stone on the same track? >> the same thing. this album is the statement. >> i love you, george clinton. >> thank you. i love you. >> good to have you back. my man. that's our show. thanks for watching. as always, keep the faith. ♪ >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. hi, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time for the first of two nights with annie lenox whose "the great american songbook," next time. see you then. ♪

and by characteristics to your peanut butt-- by contributions to your pbs station by viewers like you. thank you. ♪

>> . >> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a controversy over the metropolitan opera production of the death of klinghoffer. we talk to first amendment lawyers martin garbus and floyd abrams. >> how can floyd or i or you come and say to the people you shouldn't see this, you shouldn't hear this. i mean does one group, the jewish group, minority groups, irish groups, black groups have a right to tell other people what they shouldn't do? >> rose: and we continue with george lucas, the filmmaker, talking about the new lucas museum of narrative art in chicago, and the movie business today. >> narrative art which is an art that tells a story about society, that's the definition of narrative art. >> it's art that tells a story, it's the kind of ideas that glue a society together. it's like-- it's the visual mythology of