Courts for Democracy: Skye Perryman
August 10th, 2023
“The courts are a frontline in this battle for democracy.”
Skye Perryman is the President and CEO of Democracy Forward, an organization that uses the law to build collective power and advance a bold, vibrant democracy. We discuss successful legal action to protect and advance the rights of all Americans.
A culmination of factors have come together to create a moment in which there are serious existential questions about what type of government and what kind of society Americans will be living in. Backsliding in areas such as voting rights, reproductive rights, and freedom to read are leading to legal fights across the nation. Skye reminds us that “The role of courts in a democracy is to fortify and strengthen democratic institutions through interpreting our constitution, through interpreting the laws, through providing predictability, as well as to ensure that everyone has access to the rule of law.”
Follow Skye on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/skyeperryman
Follow Mila on Twitter:
Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/
Sponsor
Thanks to Shopify for supporting the show! Sign up for a $1/month trial period at shopify.com/hopeful.
Love Future Hindsight? Take our Listener Survey!
http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=6tI0Zi1e78vq&ver=standard
Take the Democracy Group’s Listener Survey!
https://www.democracygroup.org/survey
Want to support the show and get it early?
https://patreon.com/futurehindsight
Credits:
Host: Mila Atmos
Guest: Skye Perryman
Executive Producer: Mila Atmos
Producers: Zack Travis
-
Skye Perryman Transcipt
Skye Perryman: [00:00:00] Thanks to Shopify for supporting Future Hindsight. Shopify is a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere, giving entrepreneurs like myself the resources once reserved for big business. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com/hopeful, all lowercase.
Mila Atmos: [00:00:25] Welcome to Future Hindsight, a podcast that takes big ideas about civic life and democracy and turns them into action items for you and me. I'm Mila Atmos.
We have discussed many times on this podcast the ways in which democracy is under attack. And this has taken many forms, whether that's at the ballot box through gerrymandering or other voter suppression tactics, the spread of misinformation and disinformation, the loss of confidence in the courts or the undermining of public education. And when it comes to institutions, it seems we are not fully cognizant of the attacks and subsequent degradation until the situation is already dire or almost too late. So what is there to do? This might not sound obvious, but the answer is defend our democracy in the courts.
To help us understand just how this is done, we're joined by Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, an organization that uses the law to build collective power and advance a bold, vibrant democracy for all people.
Thank you, Skye, for joining us. Welcome to Future Hindsight. Skye Perryman: [00:01:42] Thank you for having me.
Mila Atmos: [00:01:45] So I opened this conversation with democracy being under attack, and Democracy Forward was specifically founded to combat exactly this. You argue that American democracy is experiencing generationally defining threats. We are under such a continuous onslaught that all the threats feel like a giant crisis. But tell us, what do you consider to be a threat that defines a generation?
Skye Perryman: [00:02:14] Well, I think generationally defining threats are the types of threats that really raise a question as to whether this generation and future generations are going to live in a society that is more democratic and just, or whether they will live in a society that is less democratic and just than even what we have today. And what we saw last summer is that for millions of people in our country, for people who are women or others that have female anatomy, the Supreme Court has rolled back the rights of people, meaning that women today and young girls today have less rights than their predecessors. That is a generationally defining threat. What we see throughout the United States is an anti-democratic movement that is seeking to wield power in order to roll back basic democratic protections. Whether these are things like the right to vote or the ability to participate in society. And so we are really at a point now where there are major concerns about not just what the kind of society we live in today, but also what this generation and future generations see and experience in American society, whether we will live in a democracy or whether we are going to slide more towards an autocratic or totalitarian type of government. And that's what I think when we say this is a generationally defining moment. Our country has experienced these pivot points and these moments before. The civil war certainly was one. The push for civil rights was one of those points where there was a real question whether we were going to push forward or whether these old structures were going to continue to deprive people of basic rights. And we're at that point again.
Mila Atmos: [00:03:59] Mhm. Yeah. Thank you for defining that for us. So for contrast, what is the threat that is not generationally defining because, you know, threats to democracy exist always. Basically there are always forces who are anti-democratic. So what are the things that are maybe more, let's say, run-of-the-mill threats and dangers to democracy that maybe we aren't paying attention to either, but we really should be?
Skye Perryman: [00:04:26] Well, I think these threats, this movement, the forces that want the government to only work for a few and not work for all, those forces are always there; whether it's efforts to suppress votes, which have been ongoing, whether it is efforts to stomp on people's civil rights. All of these things are threats to democracy that need to be paid attention to, even in times of lesser crisis. Right. Even in times where maybe there's not a full culmination of all these things coming together. We need to be vigilant about those. And this has been a persistent thing. But we are at a place now where we see a culmination of factors that have come together, that have created a
moment where there are really serious existential questions about what type of government, what type of society we will be living in. Are we going to be in a place where it's not perfect, but we can work to make it more perfect collectively together, more democratic and just? Are we backsliding such that the fights that we're going to be fighting in this generation and future generations are ones that to a large extent were fought and mostly won, but we have to go back and re- fight those fights. I think that's where we are at this moment.
Mila Atmos: [00:05:37] Yeah, I would agree. We have slid back and we are refighting those fights specifically, of course, I'm thinking here about the Dobbs decision last summer. Now we're basically back to ground zero in a way that I think even five years ago we would not have necessarily believed was going to happen. So now that we understand the threats, what is the role of Democracy Forward? How do you do the work that you do? Who do you represent? Because I think this is a source of great mystery for everyday people, how you achieve justice at the courts.
Skye Perryman: [00:06:11] Well, that's exactly what we're about at Democracy Forward. We believe that the courts in a democracy should have the role of protecting and advancing democratic values and democratic institutions, protecting and advancing the rights of people, all people, unpopular people and popular people, people who have been structurally marginalized because of systems and structures and communities, as well as folks that have been represented in civic life for some time. All people need to be represented. And then, of course, the courts need to be able to enable the government to do the work of the people. That's really the focus of the courts in a democracy. What we've seen, of course, is that the courts are not always used that way. There is a multi-decade, highly resourced and coordinated effort by far right anti- democratic legal organizations that have sought to use the courts not to protect people's rights, but to roll back rights, to roll back progress that have sought to use the courts to stop lawful policies that are good for people. We've seen this in the pandemic. We've seen this in women's rights. We see it with civil rights, voting rights. There's a number of areas where there is a coordinated effort to use the courts to move us backwards. And so it's important that people and communities find a way to engage with the law and the legal process and the courts. And we seek to do that by providing legal representation. So when we say the courts are a frontline in this battle for democracy, one of the things we mean is this is a place where anti-democratic actors are going to try to pull back
rights to try to reinterpret the Constitution, to try to take things that are settled for all people in this country and put them up for grabs. People in communities need to be able to have representation to ensure that the law is interpreted appropriately and that the courts are not misused, that they're used as an instrument of justice and not misused. Separately, the courts are a major backstop in many ways. We see every day in our work that the courts continue to be a place that you can go, in order to challenge unlawful government behavior. And I think we'll talk about some of those examples of where we're engaging in the courts every day to make sure that we represent all types of people and communities throughout the range of issues that affect American life, from veterans to teachers to students to parents, researchers, press members, conservationists. I mean, we represent people that make up the fabric of American life, ensuring that our democratic values are defended and advanced.
Mila Atmos: [00:08:54] Right. So I'm thinking here specifically about the first lawsuit against the Kobach Commission, because I think that illustrates so well how you stood up for the rights of everyday voters. Tell us about how the commission tried to suppress the vote and how it was disbanded because of your work.
Skye Perryman: [00:09:15] Yes. Well, it's near and dear to my heart. It was a case that I had the honor of working on on behalf of voters in the early days of the Trump administration. People forget efforts to undermine the results of an election in 2016 and 2017. What we know is that Donald Trump did not win the majority vote. He won the electoral vote, but did not win the majority vote. And so this disturbed him. And from trying to fabricate numbers about crowd size at the inauguration to trying to fabricate what happened in the election. And so there was an effort early in the Trump administration to collect information on individual voters and to store that information on White House servers, to seek to hold panels throughout the country that would intimidate voters, that would look at whether there was so-called voter fraud. All of these things we saw in the early days of the Trump administration. And so there was a legal effort. And I think this is important to note, Democracy Forward brought a case on behalf of voters and voter communities under the Privacy Act, which is a federal statute that was violated as a result of the commissioner, that we allege was violated. But other organizations also brought cases. And I think this is a really important thing when we look at advocacy and the importance of everyone. It wasn't just one singular silver bullet case, but there was a number of cases that we worked in community that people and
organizations brought in order to challenge this unlawful behavior. And what we saw was that before any of these cases were ever fully resolved in the courts, the Trump administration had to disband their commission. And so it's a great example of what happens when we use the power of people. Average everyday voters were the plaintiffs in some of the cases. The pressure that those legal actions put on this anti-democratic behavior was one that actually caused a disbandment of these commissions even before the cases were ultimately resolved. And I think that's a really important thing. And of course, I think we can only use our imagination about what January 6th or what the 2020 aftermath would have looked like, had that administration been able to store individual personal information about people on White House servers and other things. In our case, we had support from a variety of national security leaders, filed a brief, you know, people that had served in high intelligence positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations, saying that this presented a national security threat in addition to a threat to democracy. So that was how serious this was. What we see now is not new. These are these tactics. That's what you brought up at the beginning, but also that there are ways forward even in times when you think the decks are really stacked against you, that you can take on the highest levels of power and people and communities can do that.
Mila Atmos: [00:12:03] That's really important to remember that people can do that, that you are not powerless. And I think that is a common feeling that one has when one reads the news, it's like, Oh my goodness, you know, this stuff just keeps on happening. What can we do? We feel so helpless and often hopeless. Honestly, I think as an everyday person, you know, if you're not a lawyer or if you're not aware of efforts that you have going at Democracy forward, you can feel totally dejected. So that was, of course, a huge victory for democracy and all Americans that the Kobach Commission was disbanded even before it had to go to the courts. You were incredibly busy during the Trump years. And while we no longer have a president who is anti democracy, the onslaught against democracy continues at the state level. You know, we talked about Dobbs and how basically at the state level, state by state, depending on what state you're in, abortion is outlawed outright. So you've just filed suit against Arkansas Act 372, which would restrict access to books in bookstores and libraries and thus violate the First Amendment of the reading public. The bill was already signed by the governor on March 30th and slated to go into effect on August 1st. Tell us about your lawsuit. Who are you representing here and what's your argument?
Skye Perryman: [00:13:25] So in Arkansas, we're representing a library association alongside a broad coalition of librarians and other literacy organizations challenging a law that would impose criminal penalties on librarians and booksellers for misclassification of books. And what we see here is there's these broad censorship agendas that various states are pursuing, including under Governor Huckabee Sanders in Arkansas, where there are a number of things that the states are doing in some local communities in order to suppress the ability of people to read and to engage with ideas and expression. So here in Arkansas, the law essentially would criminalize or create criminal penalties for librarians if books are misclassified. If you have a book that was supposed to be in a, quote, adult section, that that is in a youth section, and there are a number of other elements to the law. And of course, we believe these violate foundational principles of the First Amendment, both under the United States and also violates the Arkansas Constitution and creates a real due process concern. Right. Because there's a lot of vagueness in these laws. It is important that if there are such penalties attached to a law, that it be very clear what is covered and what is not, so that people are not in fear every day in sort of this limbo. And of course, the law contains broad and sweeping terms that have not been properly defined that make it very difficult for individual librarians or booksellers in Arkansas on the ground to be able to do their jobs without fear of criminal prosecution. This is what censorship looks like. It comes in all forms. Sometimes there are outright bans on books. Sometimes there are restrictions like this one that essentially create bans and barriers to reading into free expression. We've challenged another type of restriction in Florida that Governor DeSantis and his administration has been implementing. And so this is part of a broad censorship agenda. And what we know about democracy, not just in the United States but across the world, is that there is a direct relationship between societies that suppress ideas, reading, expression, and speech and those that are not democratic. And so when we see these types of things happening and being endorsed by the highest powers of states like Arkansas and Florida, they present concerns not just for the individuals and communities in the states, which of course are of preeminent concern to us, is what people are going through and living through every day. But they do present concerns and major threats to our overall democracy. And that is why one of the major battles for democracy at this moment is with respect to fighting these laws and regulations that a number of state actors are abusing their power and seeking to implement.
Mila Atmos: [00:16:23] Yeah.
We're taking a quick break to thank our sponsor, Shopify. And when we come back, we'll be talking about the fight to fund Mississippi public schools, the radical act of speaking the truth, and more.
But first. You hear that sound? It's the sound of a sale you're missing out on because you're not selling on Shopify. And what does it sound like with Shopify? Cha-Ching! Ah, much better. Start selling with Shopify today. Shopify is the commerce platform revolutionizing millions of businesses worldwide. Whether you're a garage entrepreneur or IPO ready, Shopify is the only tool you need to start, run and grow your business without the struggle. Shopify puts you in control of every sales channel, so whether you're selling satin sheets from Shopify, in-person POS system or offering organic olive oil on Shopify, all in one e-commerce platform, you're covered. And once you've reached your audience, Shopify has the Internet's best converting checkout to help you turn them from browsers to buyers. Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce in the US and Shopify is truly a global force, powering Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklinen, and millions of other entrepreneurs of every size across over 170 countries. Plus Shopify's award winning help is there to support your success every step of the way. This is possibility powered by Shopify. What I love about Shopify is how no matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com/hopeful, all lowercase. Go to shopify.com/hopeful to take your business to the next level today -- shopify.com/hopeful.
And now let's return to my conversation with Skye Perryman.
Libraries are intricately linked with schools, and that's a big place where the culture wars are playing out. Public schools. I just want to reference here for the listener. We had a conversation with Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider about what the forces are behind the attacks on public schools. And one of the strategies is to undermine public schools by diverting funds to private schools, which is already happening in some states like in Florida. But you, at Democracy Forward, successfully prevented this from happening in Mississippi. Can you tell us about your work in this case?
Skye Perryman: [00:19:20] Right, in Mississippi, we represent parents for public schools, a group of parents. We work in coalition alongside some other legal organizations. And there were Covid-19 taxpayer funds that came into Mississippi. And yet what Mississippi sought to do was to divert that money to private schools, which, of course, is education that does not benefit all children in the state. And in particular, the Mississippi constitutions has a very clear provision that public money cannot go to private schools, that the public money has to go to free schools, schools that are available for all children. And what we know is that this is a provision that didn't just arrive in the Mississippi Constitution out of a coincidence, but it was actually a provision developed in Reconstruction. And so the attacks on public school today, the attempt to divert public money to schools that only serve a few in places like Mississippi, also harken back to, of course, the legacy of white supremacy and the legacy of racism that we have in this country. We believe public education is so fundamental to the promise of democracy and that it's incredibly important that legislatures like the Mississippi legislature have to follow the law, not just the federal law, but also their own state constitution. And we're able to get a court judgment that is blocking the state's misappropriation of these funds. Of course, the state has appealed that. So this is on appeal and we'll see sort of how that develops under the clear provisions of the Mississippi Constitution. What we also know is that these types of laws essentially are also here to be a check against a legacy of white supremacy and discrimination. And so, of course, we see that attacks on our efforts to not comply with these provisions have that broader purpose and focus as well.
Mila Atmos: [00:21:15] Well, it's interesting to know that the Mississippi legislature actually passed a law against public funding of private institutions way back during Reconstruction, like we have already discussed here so far, a lot of these battles have been ongoing for many, many years. And the battle to restrict a woman's right to have an abortion has also been going on for decades. And as we mentioned earlier, we didn't think this was going to happen maybe five years ago. But here we are. We are now in a post-Roe world and there are many lawsuits coming through in states where abortion is no longer allowed. What is the work that you're doing that is shoring up the rights of people who can get pregnant in these states?
Skye Perryman: [00:22:05] First of all, let me say that to your point, we are in this post- Roe world and this Dobbs world. And I think one thing that's important to remember is
that for millions of people, even prior to Dobbs, that because of state activity and state overreach, there were so many restrictions on the ability of people to obtain reproductive health care, including abortion care, that there were already vast inequities in the ability to get care. And, of course, now we're in a situation where because of the Dobbs decision, those inequities are becoming much more prevalent, where people in certain states are being deprived of the care altogether and those that don't have resources to travel and even some that do, if the timing doesn't line up, are unable to access the health care that they need and the abortion care that they need. And so this is a really dire circumstance. But I mentioned that earlier time because it's not dissimilar from what we're seeing with censorship and other things where even if you're not up to the ultimate time, where, you know, this ultimate pivot point where we are in this post Dobbs era, there were a number of years leading up to that, and so many advocates that were trying to get people to pay attention. And I think there's a lesson there. And I think there's a lesson for so many of the issues that are at stake today. So I wanted to start there. Dobbs really struck a blow to the ability of people to challenge laws that states or local communities pass that ban or restrict abortion based on individual privacy rights, which was fundamental to a democracy. It was fundamental to our jurisprudence in this country even before Roe. Of course, there are a number of cases for many years that held that there is an intimate sphere of privacy, that the state, without compelling interest, cannot impose upon. And Dobbs really struck a blow to that, particularly with respect to abortion and maybe with respect to other privacy issues, which is highly concerning. But what Dobbs didn't do was remove any other protections that exist for abortion. And so what that means is, for instance, in the emergency context, I'll start there. Congress passed a law that entitles everyone in this country, regardless of what state you live in, to receive stabilizing emergency care if you present to the emergency room. It's called the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, EMTALA, and it says that emergency facilities have to provide life-saving and stabilizing care when people present. That applies to pregnant people, too. And so that law, which is a national federal law passed by Congress, continues to exist post Dobbs, and what we have is a number of states that in the post Dobbs landscape don't want to comply with that law, do not want to allow emergency facilities in their state to comply with that federal law, which, of course, creates a conflict. And what our Constitution says very clearly in provisions that were not at issue in Dobbs is that when federal and state law conflict, it is the federal law that has to take precedence, because at the end of the day, while we live in a country that has a diversity of states, we live in one country and we have one
nation, and federal law has to take precedence. And so we're representing the American College of Emergency Physicians and other medical professionals and briefs on cases in states like Texas and Idaho and others where the state is seeking to undermine that federal protection for people in their states. We are also representing the generic manufacturer of the medication abortion pill known as mifepristone in a case in West Virginia that is challenging West Virginia's ban and its restrictions on medication abortion. Right after Dobbs, West Virginia sought to implement and to enforce an abortion ban. This ban may not be able to be challenged on the basis of privacy rights because the Supreme Court in Dobbs said that the privacy right doesn't exist to challenge that. But there are federal protections for people that live in places and for our client that produces medication, abortion. Their medication was approved by the FDA. It is highly regulated by the FDA. Congress itself weighed in and specifically subjected mifepristone to a very specific regulatory scheme, which involved a REMS, a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, very specific, even a more highly specific than other medications. And in this country, your access to medication doesn't depend on your zip code. We have one federal drug regulatory authority. And so we are bringing a variety of arguments under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which is that provision that says federal law has to take precedence when state law conflicts like the West Virginia law conflicts as to medication, abortion and with respect to commerce clause arguments, to be able to enforce our clients ability to make mifepristone available in West Virginia, as well as to restore access to people. And so this is an example of how, as disillusioned as one may be with where the courts are with what happened after Dobbs, we have to use the tools that exist to continue to fight and to continue to enforce these basic principles. Federal law has to supersede state law when the two conflict these very basic principles that undergird how our society functions, not just in the scope of reproductive health care and abortion, but overall. And so we're engaged in those cases. You've also seen in the news there are the cases where right wing interests are trying to challenge the approval of mifepristone in Texas. And we have filed briefs on behalf of our client there and also have a case in Maryland seeking to enforce our client's rights under the FDA's laws and regulations, because federal judges can't just take products off the market without following a lawful process. So we're doing a variety of things in the post Dobbs landscape. And I think the main thing is that there are a lot of tools that we can use and that we must use. And this is a really trying time, but it doesn't mean that we are without the types of tools that need to be used in the courts. And then, of course, in the broader society to help restore and advance access.
Mila Atmos: [00:28:07] Mhm. Well, it's terrific that you're doing this work on behalf of the people that you represent. And really this is a pro-democracy movement through the courts. And as I was reading, getting ready for this interview, I thought over and over like, how is it that we're in a place where we are suing state governments and we are denied justice often at the courts, especially if you think about Dobbs, but that's not, of course, the only example. And it makes me feel like we are in a place of deep distrust against the government, which is an institution that really derives its power from the people. So after, let's say, you win all these lawsuits, how can we ever regain that trust? How do you square that circle?
Skye Perryman: [00:29:02] In a democracy, fundamentally, the government derives its power from the people, and the role of courts in a democracy is to fortify and strengthen democratic institutions through interpreting our Constitution, through interpreting the laws, through providing predictability, as well as to ensure that everyone has access to the rule of law, that these are not concepts that are just for a few people, but that everyone has this access. And of course, we're seeing that that is really under attack, that there are a number of forces seeking to use the courts in other ways. I think that the answer is in the work that we do in our own individual lives, not as lawyers, not as podcast hosts, not as people with these platforms. That's important work, and we're doing that. But the people in this country, we have seen over and over that nothing can stop movements of people that are committed to furthering and advancing democracy in their own ways. We have seen people take any number of steps in this time in order to be on the front lines fighting. I see this with parents who have day jobs, jobs raising their families, going about their lives, who are setting some of that aside in order to be able to be on the front lines to protect public education and protect not just their kid, but all kids in this moment. It's very inspirational. And teachers, we see the same thing. We see doctors and researchers having to stand up for the rights of their patients for evidence and science. I mean, speaking the truth is a radical act right now with the amount of misinformation that we see that right wing and anti-democratic groups are trying to put out there, We saw not just the highest leaders in the country, but we saw leaders at the local level take extraordinary efforts in many places in the last election to preserve the ability of people to vote against intimidation and against threats. And so I think the way to restore confidence in our institutions is for those institutions to become more reflective and to be doing the work of the people and of democracy at this time. And I
think that there is a way to do it, but it involves us pushing, demanding more, requiring that our institutions actually be advancing democracy, protecting people and getting us to a place where we can be on the road that we need to be on, which is how we create a more democratic and just society, not just trying to go grab back the things that are so up for grabs now. So it's hard to feel hopeful. And I know we're going to talk about hope, but I see this hope every day. And I see that notwithstanding the distrust that people have in institutions right now, there is a trust, I think, in people's experiences. And I think finding a way to elevate that, whether through the courts, which is what we try to do at Democracy Forward or through other platforms, is really the thing in this moment.
Mila Atmos: [00:31:59] Well, we're always building our civic action toolkit here at Future Hindsight. So speaking about the things that you just mentioned, what are two things that everyday people can do to not just get back our rights that we have lost recently, but really to advance justice in the long term?
Skye Perryman: [00:32:19] One thing that we started talking with folks about is what if every day, whether it was on your morning walk or even on your evening walk, if if you're not a morning person or every day on a coffee break, you spent a few minutes thinking, what can I do today? To help advance democracy. What that could mean is reading a piece of well-done investigative journalism to become more educated. What that could mean is going to your public library and checking out a book and encouraging folks that are working there. It could mean some conversation that you have with your children or with a community member. It could be getting smart on an aspect of our history because as we've seen, this is not a new fight. This doesn't mean that it's not the fight. It's THE fight. But this is not a new fight. This has been going on. And so it could be registering to vote and helping people making a plan, get people to the polls and help people vote. And I think that if we every day thought about one thing we could do that day, think about the impact you would have over the course of a year. Think about the impact you would have over the course of two years. Think about the impact that you would have over the course of a generation. And I think part of it is being intentional about asking that question, not just during election season, not just at the end of a podcast, but us all getting into asking that question every day. What can we do? Is it writing a letter to the editor? Is it taking something to social media? That's an experience that people need to understand. There are so many ways that people can use the tools they have. So that's number one. And then the second thing I would say is
that we do need people to be informed. And information is one of the most radical tools that we have in this world now, where there are such uses of misinformation and attempts to try to contort facts, whether that's facts about who won an election or whether that is facts about vaccine safety or whether that is facts about health care or economics or any of this. And so I do believe that in our own lives, we all need to be doing a lot to stay informed. And there's a lot of resources, whether that's listening to something on the way to work, whether that's reading good journalism, trying to learn the facts and being very mindful and vigilant about the information that we are taking in and how we're processing, I think could be great. Of course, I have to say everybody needs to make sure that they're registered to vote and that their community members are registered to vote. And we say that. And you'll say that more as we get towards more election time.
Mila Atmos: [00:34:46] Right, Right. Well said. So I feel like this conversation would be incomplete without a discussion about the Moore versus Harper case that came before the Supreme Court. It's a case about independent state legislature theory playing out in North Carolina. Thankfully, and maybe even surprisingly, the Supreme Court rejected the anti-democratic efforts by North Carolina officials to strip state courts of their ability to review congressional maps. But help us out here. What exactly is independent state legislature theory and what was at stake in this case?
Skye Perryman: [00:35:23] There's a lot at stake in this case. And I'll start by saying that this is a case that concerns the role of courts in reviewing congressional maps and legislative maps around how lines are drawn with respect to voting. And we know and you've talked about on your show what gerrymandering is, this practice that can prevent people from being adequately represented. And historically, it has been the courts that have had a role in looking at maps when they are challenged in order to make sure that they are fair and lawful. And this, quote, independent theory of the state legislature seeks to deprive state courts and state constitutions of that power and leaving that to the state legislative bodies. What I will say about this is that the, quote, independent theory of the state legislature, just for those of your listeners who are not lawyers and didn't go to law school and don't live and breathe this every day, this is not some theory that like is in the casebooks and law school that people have been studying about for some time. This is a theory that is a political ideology. It is something that has been sort of labeled and started moving through the courts at this time, where there are broader
efforts to undermine the ability of people to be able to be represented and the ability of people to enjoy free and fair elections. And so I think we have to be very concerned when we start seeing these types of things make their way all the way up to the highest court. The second thing I'll say is that there's a lot of question about why the Supreme Court even took this case, because the North Carolina court, of course, struck down the maps and this theory. And so I think it is important for us to focus on the broader threats to democracy that this type of thing presents, which is, again, that there is an effort and it's not just an effort by politicians. It is also an effort by sort of highly resourced and coordinated right wing legal organizations to try to move the law in ways that are less democratic. And so what that means is that whether you have full faith in the courts, you don't have faith in the courts, you don't know what the courts are, you don't want to think about them as part of your day to day life, this is a major place where the fight for democracy is playing out. And there are things that we can all do to be informed and to participate. We represent individual people all the time and using the courts in representing their voices in the courts. And so I think this is another example of how the courts are truly a center and a frontline of this fight for democracy during this time. And I think the main thing I think folks should understand is that this is not the kind of theory that I think should ever have been given, really, the we really shouldn't be having this discussion about this theory. It is not based on any type of sort of historical, reasonable interpretation of the law. But yet again, here we are. And it's another example of this generationally defining time.
Mila Atmos: [00:38:18] Yes. Thank you for putting all of the context out on the table for the listeners to fully understand when they see all the reporting about the decision and how to think about this theory going forward. So we always end our show on a hopeful note. Looking into the future, what makes you hopeful?
Skye Perryman: [00:38:38] One is just what I see in our work every day, which is the power of people from all stations of life. We represent folks, wage workers, the most sophisticated researchers. Veterans. Teachers. Students. Parents. Conservationists. Business owners. Press members. Doctors. Nurses from all walks of American life. What we are seeing is that the majority of people do believe in the potential and promise of democracy, and there are a lot of people that are being willing to use their lives, use their stations, folks that never thought that they would have to think about these issues that are taking steps now to try to advance democracy in this time. Now we
need everybody doing that. And that's why I'm glad you have this podcast, because we need more people doing it. And I do think that we're at risk of not enough people taking things seriously. The second thing that gives me hope is knowing that our history can be instructive and provide a path for our present and for our future. And there have been these inflection points, very few of them before. Usually the country has been sort of on a path where it was not perfect, but there was a general forward motion to try to make things more just and democratic. But we do know that there have been certain pivot points where all of that was up for grabs. And in those points, we have seen new advocates emerge, new strategies emerge, new voices emerge that have pushed the country, that have pushed our communities, that have demanded more from our leaders. And that has made the difference. We saw that in the civil rights movement. We saw that beginning of the 1900s and the way the aftermath of the industrial Revolution. We've seen that throughout. And so I have to hope that that history can provide a path here if we all get vigilant and do our part. And so thank you for amplifying these voices in this moment.
Mila Atmos: [00:40:35] Well, thank you for your hopeful perspective that we have done this before and we can do it again. But we can only do it if we do it together.
Skye Perryman: [00:40:42] Yes. And it's not a given. It's a fight. We've got to get everybody into the fight. The arc of the moral universe doesn't just turn towards justice without people really trying to bend it. And so we've all got to bend it.
Mila Atmos: [00:40:53] Hear. Hear. I totally agree. Well, Skye, thank you very much for joining us on Future Hindsight. It was really a pleasure to have you on the show.
Skye Perryman: [00:41:01] Thank you for having me.
Mila Atmos: [00:41:04] Skye Perryman is the president and CEO of Democracy
Forward.
Next week on Future Hindsight, we're joined by David Pepper, a lawyer, writer, political activist, former elected official and chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party between 2015 and 2021. He's the author of several books, including Laboratories of Autocracy,
and most recently, the excellent how-to guide, Saving Democracy: A User's Manual for Every American.
David Pepper: [00:41:39] That narrative that we've described of federal swing states being where the whole battle is, is totally disempowering to almost every American because they don't live in one of those swing states. The attack on democracy is everywhere and it's anchored in states. And the frontline is local government and state house. Know, whoever you are listening to this, whatever state you're in, you're on the frontline of democracy.
Mila Atmos: [00:42:03] That's next time on Future Hindsight.
Did you know we have a YouTube channel? Seriously, we do. And actually, quite a lot of people listen to the show there. If that's you, Hello! If not, you'll find punchy episode clips, full interviews and more. Subscribe at YouTube.com/FutureHindsight.
This episode was produced by Zack Travis and me.
Until next time, stay engaged.
The Democracy Group: [00:42:38] This podcast is part of the Democracy Group.