Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
535 News brings you the policy of Congress, straight from Capitol Hill. Every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday that Congress is in session, contributors Paul Kane of The Washington Sun, Leigh Ann Caldwell and Marianna Sotomayor of Puck, Scott MacFarlane of MeidasTouch Network, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Brody Mullins, and contributing hosts and analysts Susan Davis and Colby Itkowitz sit down with members of Congress, reporters, advocates, and all the people behind the policy. These are long-form conversations about the bills, debates, and efforts shaping Washington and the country - focused on substance over spectacle. If it’s important to the 535, it’s important to us.
You're watching 535. This is 535. You're watching 535. You're watching 535. You're watching 535.
You're watching 535. We're live from the Capitol, and 535 starts right now.
Welcome back to 535. I'm Paul Kane of The Washington Sun, joined by my former colleague,
Mariana Sotomayor, who is now at Puck, Puck News, and a man who needs no introduction,
Steny Hoyer. who spent 20 years as the number two Democrat in the House Democratic Caucus,
back and forth between Majority Leader and Minority Whip, who has been among the rank and file now
for four years, back on his beloved Appropriations Committee. You have a few months left before you
retire, and we all know that you're not going to go out quietly. Give us a couple of things that
are still percolating there that you're really focused on yourself, you know,
and whether those are things that will keep fighting with your successor.
Well, there are a number of things, Paul, but two of the things, of course, as you know, I'm very
invested. I'm wearing the Ukraine pin. I wear it every day. We need to win this war and not make
some sort of compromise that looks at Russia. winning or looking like they're winning and encourage
every despot in the world to attack their neighbors. But I also, as you know,
have been an appropriator almost all my career in the Congress of the United States. Took a leave
of absence for those 20 years you talked about. But I want to see a fully fund fiscal year 27.
We haven't done that yet. We need to do it. And hopefully we will. So those two items in
particular, there'll be other items. As you know, I'm continuing to work on FBI.
And that's a big deal for us in Maryland and a big deal for me. And I've been at it for 17 years.
So still trying to deliver. Well, tell us about that.
Where does it stand? Because Donald Trump does not like the FBI and basically said he was going to
toss away the decision that came down during the Biden years. and just leave them where they are in
downtown D.C.? I don't think he thinks they can leave them where they are because the building's
really falling down. It is not a building that is serviceable for much longer.
And it's a safety hazard, not only for the people that work there, but the people who surround it.
And it's a high security risk for the FBI. So I think moving it is...
happen at some point in time and i'm continuing to work i think the gsa made the right decision i
think they made it on the merits and not on politics and i make that argument and continue to make
it and hopefully at some point in time we'll do something because every week month year we delay
the price goes up on something that almost everybody, Republicans,
Democrats, the administration, in my opinion, thinks needs to be done, and that is to get the FBI
out of that building. You mentioned the Ukraine war.
I'm sure if you had a magic wand, you would love that to end yesterday. But there is going to be a
continued fight about Russia sanctions, about funding this war.
In the next Congress or so, I know Democrats are feeling incredibly confident that they will win
back the House majority. But tell us a little bit about just how you've spent the last couple of
weeks really making sure that even some Democrats who were against the language that was passed
here in the Senate on Russia sanctions could get on board. And do you see someone taking up a
mantle to kind of step into your own shoes? on this issue,
when it comes up again, they're picking up the phones, calling everybody and saying, you have to do
this. Look past the politics, you have to vote on this. I think there'll be somebody, I don't know
exactly who it will be at this point in time, but Democrats have been essentially unanimous in
their support of Ukraine prevailing in this war and defending their country,
their democracy, their borders, their sovereignty against the invader.
Putin and Russia. And they've showed extraordinary resilience. We need to show the same kind of
resilience and we need to keep the faith with Ukraine. They need to win this war. They need to win
this war so that nobody, no other despot around the world thinks they can invade their neighbor and
take property. In my view, and you maybe heard me say this, Mariana.
The mother of this war was our failure to respond in 2014 to the stealing of Crimea by Russia by
force. And America is the defender of liberty and presumably and hopefully and continually the
upholder of international law. We're a little shakier than that we used to be,
sadly. But I'm going to continue to fight for the next few months.
to make sure we do with Ukraine. Greg Meeks and I introduced a bill,
the Ukraine Support Act. We had to get it out of the committee because they wouldn't report it out.
We got it out. It passed. It's in the Senate. The Senate hasn't passed it. But the bill that we
just passed not too long ago, and happily the president signed,
says we're for Ukraine. We want sanctions on Russia, tough sanctions on Russia.
The controversy was more about the tariffs that Greg Makes and Richie Neal were rightfully
concerned about. We had a disagreement on how broad that would be applied by the president.
But I think there will be a follow-up because we've been united. There's been no break in
Democrats from left to right, right to left, supporting Ukraine.
We now need to get them more money, more materials, more weapons, and more money,
frankly, from whatever assets Russia has to reconstruct that which has been broken by Russia.
In terms of this administration, they seem to have drifted closer,
not fully over to the pro-Ukraine side of things.
Trump has gotten better on this issue in terms of what a mainstream Republican and the Democratic
Party would have been seeking.
Six years ago, then-Speaker Pelosi would keep saying, all roads lead to Russia,
Russia, Russia. Moscow, yeah. With Trump. What do you think that, where that shift has come from?
I think, I don't know. I'm not an insider in the Trump administration,
as you well know. But I think Trump is pretty frustrated. He's tried to be nice to Putin.
He's tried to put out the red carpet for Putin, which I... regretted. But I think he's also become
frustrated that Putin continues to exacerbate the war, continues to pursue his war efforts and
acquisition of eastern Ukraine and keeping of Crimea. So I think Trump has perhaps got a little
different viewpoint of what Putin is prepared to do. He after all said he was going to stop it.
the day after he was elected president. I think his premise was, I can talk to Putin and he'll do
it. Putin has no intention of doing it. Putin wants to acquire a large part of Ukraine and keep
Crimea and impose his will by force. And the entire European continent believes he not only wants
to do that, but he wants to reestablish empire.
And I think there's a divide in the White House. as well. But I was glad that we were able to pass
that bill. I was glad that President Trump signed it because it says we want to put sanctions on
Russia. And having him in the position of signing a bill which says substantial sanctions on Russia
was a step forward and constructive. You worry about the Republicans,
setting the Trump administration aside, the House Republicans, Michael McCaul.
Longtime traditional hawk, very supportive of Zelensky. He's retiring.
Mike Turner got nudged aside at the Intelligence Committee and is facing a potentially competitive
election in November. Do you worry about their caucus not having these type of people around?
I'm worried Don Bacon is leaving. Don Bacon, yeah. Don Bacon, who is a former Air Force general, or
I guess he's still a general in the reserve. Yeah. They've been a giant on this effort.
Am I concerned? Yes. And as a matter of fact, I am writing a letter to people who supported the 58,
which, by the way, you know were Nancy Pelosi, Jim Clyburn, Steny Hoyer,
all supported. We were part of that 58 that said, we need to stick with Ukraine. We need to send a
message that we're for Ukraine. both to the ukrainians to lift up their morale they have shown
extraordinary perseverance and resilience in fighting an army substantially larger than theirs but
the good news being not as good as theirs ukraine has made an extraordinary show for the last four
years of how competent it is in defending its territory and america needs to be there and i hope
somebody and again We've had unanimous support on the Democratic side, and there were only seven or
eight people that voted against this bill to put sanctions on Russia. And I've talked to Mike
Rogers, who chairs the Defense Authorizing Committee. He thinks we need to defeat Russia in this
effort. He's a strong supporter of that. So I think we have bipartisan support, and I'm sure there
are going to be people who continue to fight for that. And by the way, although Greg Meeks...
member of the foreign affairs committee and my dear dear friend and co-sponsor of the ukraine
support act uh in their letter of reservation i say not necessarily opposition because they said
they wanted to make changes said that it is in the national security interest of the united states
of america that we defeat russia so even those who were not for this bill mostly worried about
tariffs not sanctioned tariffs
I think that we're going to have continuing support. And as you point out,
I think the administration view has been somewhat modified, and I hope that continues.
I think we want to talk about the institution. The what? The institution.
It's no secret that Congress is just not the same. effective functioning place you know what would
you what would you want to know what is the thing that you want to see change i mean you've
mentioned the appropriations committee and we have seen time and time and time again how difficult
it has become to even do the simple job of being able to fund the government not just on time but
getting a number of those appropriation bills through because of even internal intra-party
disagreements largely on the Republican side, but there's something to be said about how the
politics, the narrow margins are really affecting what can actually move.
And it's not even on the floor, it's even on the committee level. What has to change on that front?
Have you talked to a number of Democrats about how they can potentially...
to smooth, grease those wheels a little bit better ahead of a potential majority.
We need to be bold. The appropriation process is broken. We ought not to sugarcoat that.
The psychology of doing things in December has undermined the psychology of March,
April, May, and June being used to pass appropriation bills through the House of Representatives,
send them to the Senate, and the Senate doesn't pass appropriation bills at all. The excuse they
use is it takes too much time in the Senate. They don't have a rules committee, they can't
constrain the time, amendments they deal with.
But the appropriation process is broken and we need to fix it. We need to install the psychology of
doing our work in a timely fashion. The fiscal year ends September 30th, we ought to finish our 12
appropriation bills. by September 30. And when I say finished, that means the president signing the
bills, not just us passing them. So I met yesterday with Jim Lankford of Oklahoma over on the
Senate side, and we talked about government shutdowns and how negative they were both for the
people who work for the federal government and for the people who rely on the federal government.
I'm going to be working on that after Congress. And I'm going to make some substantial suggestions
to the leaders of the Appropriations Committee, whoever's in charge. I think the Democrats are
going to be charged, so I think Rosa DeLau will be the chair, about how we can make the
appropriations work better. What are some of those ideas that you're already thinking about? Well,
first of all, we don't need the president to send down a budget.
That's not in the Budget Act. He doesn't sign the budget. He plays an advisory role.
Obviously, a very important one. But we need to proceed no later than March 1st in having March and
April have our hearings. In May, marking up our appropriation bills,
all 12 of them. And in June, passing those 12 bills through the House of Representatives, whether
we pass them singly or as a package, however we pass them,
send them over to the Senate. And the Senate needs... on that same schedule so that on July 1,
staffs and members are prepared to start dealing with making the bills the same,
resolving any differences that we have. And I think that something that won't happen,
but I may recommend, is that we limit the number of subcommittees a member can serve on.
so that we don't have conflict between Committee A meeting and Committee B meeting, and members
focus on the subcommittee that they are principally responsible for. What you're talking about
envisions a world in which the Democrats win the majority and everybody sort of understands there
are orderly ways of doing things. We're not going to do it the way the Republicans have the last
four years. It's going to go back to the way Nancy Kennedy and Jim ran things. We Democrats didn't
do so well either. This is not a partisan issue in that sense. But we've already seen recently a
couple of Democrats from the centrist wing of the caucus voting with Republicans on rules.
You've got a newer, younger crop of people from that Democratic socialist wing who sound...
more angry than the first crew that came in seven, eight years ago. Are we going to see a repeat of
the steady hand that you guys had for 20 years? Or is it going to be more like the Kevin McCarthy,
Mike Johnson years? Well, first of all, I think the Republican Party is a deeply divided party.
And the difference between the Republican Party is they have a significant segment of their party
who believes that losing is winning. that not passing legislation,
not moving forward, is winning. We don't have that faction. What we have is a faction who wants to
do maybe more, maybe faster, but wants to get things done, which is why we,
Nancy, myself, and Jim Clyburn, with four votes, did almost everything we wanted to in 21 and 22.
We passed really substantive legislation that I think was very helpful to our country and to our
people.
The Republican leadership faces, however, a much more strident and much more determined opposition
to doing things. And that's a real difference, and you need to keep that in mind of why,
even with Smallham in charge, we were able to move something in there or not. But neither one of
us, Republicans or Democrats in charge, have done well enough on the appropriations process.
We need to do better. And it is because that psychology, what I call psychology of December.
Well, we'll get it all done in December. That's three months after the fiscal year begins. It is a
failure to do our job in a timely fashion. And, you know, Paul, you've heard me say this, Marianne.
I don't know whether you've heard me say this, but the Congress is less than the sum of its parts.
There are 535, your name of your show. Yes.
Pretty good people. who have been selected by their neighbors to represent them. But we come here
and then we all sort of tribally get into our boxes and we don't get things done.
There are people on both sides of the aisle that want to get things done. I know that you
interviewed Steve Womack not too long ago. Steve and I are very close friends. I have great respect
for Steve. We talk about this all the time. We've got to get our work done in a timely fashion.
which would not only be good for the institution, not only good for government operations,
but it would be good for the psychology of the country and the world to know that the United States
of America can pass a budget in a timely fashion. All right. On to our one minutes.
One minute. Yes. Bang, bang, bang. I know. You know the magic minute,
but we're trying to keep it one minute. Yeah, the magic minute was great. I know, I bet. A little
bit of reflections for these questions. What is the best part? What has been the best part for you
about being in Congress? People. Members. They're really good members on both sides of the aisle.
I really like it.
But I get to meet people, different people, different interests every day.
Wonderful staff, the people that I've had the opportunity to work with. That's the best part of the
Congress. What is the coolest thing that is in your office? The coolest thing?
Yeah. It's in my office. I have two basketballs signed by Drizel, Lefty Drizel,
and Gary Williams. Those are the University of Maryland basketball coaches.
Yes, you betcha. I'm a big Terps fan. The other cool thing, though, is I have a picture of the old
Senate Chamber of Maryland. which is in the rotunda, George Washington resigning his commission as
commander-in-chief. And I say, I presided there four times in my lifetime when we recognized the
role Marilyn played in George Washington's resignation. What do you think, that one? Well, I
actually wanted to ask you, what is your favorite fun fact about the Capitol complex? Is there
something that even us who've been waiting around in the hallways for you all, we may not even
know? What's the coolest spot on the Hill? First of all, I think your premise is correct.
I think you know everything. You guys have been around here. I think the coolest thing about the
Capitol, and I love to give tours of the Capitol. is the extraordinary work that has been done.
I mean, you walk through the Capitol and you just feel America's success and people who have made
that success and the fact that we have survived as a democracy for 250 years,
longer than anybody else in the world. That is, you know, as opposed to some officer,
some cubicle or some this, that or the other. Now, It's cool to be up top of the rotunda and look
down. It's a queasy feeling. No, I don't like that. The first time I did it,
Paul, I recoiled and said, oh, Michael, because its course goes like that.
And so when you look over, you don't see anything other than 183 feet straight down.
Okay, I'm going to cheat. The last question we have isn't on there. What role are you going to
have? on Governor Wes Moore's presidential campaign? I'm going to be for him.
He's great. I think he'd be an excellent president of the United States. There are a lot of good
candidates, obviously, so we'll see. We've got a lot of time to go before that. It's going to
crystallize. But Wes is a, Governor Moore, I should say, respectfully,
is a very good friend of mine. I was, as you know, supported for governor when he was 4% in the
polls. I think he has the charisma and the inspirational ability to inspire our people to be
better, to renew America's character and its principles. In a couple months,
Steny Hoyer will no longer be in Congress, and he will hopefully not be so diplomatic. He'll just
let it rip. But that concludes this wonderful interview. We'll be right back at 535.
Thank you. The halls of Congress are empty. Hello?
Hello? Hello? Nope. The members have headed home to campaign. And while they're gone,
we'll still be here. Breaking down what they got done. What needs to happen in the lame duck. Farm
bill. Funding. What about FISA? Oh, FISA. On this vote, the yeas are 49 and the nays are 50.
And what didn't make it over the finish line? The motion is not agreed to. With experts who have
seen it all. Who know the policy almost better than anyone. And he's the only person I know who got
the Treasury Department to change one of their reports. And deep dives with Hill veterans. Somebody
who can make sense of the sometimes... Senseless? Yeah, that's it. Plus the road to the 120th
Congress. And a look behind the scenes with those who have run campaigns.
Teams who have won the majority. And teams who have lost it. And in the middle of it all,
this building. From the grandest places.
to the tiniest spaces.
There's not even a capacity sign on this to tell you that you're only supposed to have one person
on at a time. We'll talk with people who know the inside details. What are you doing on my
elevator? All throughout the month of October, only on 535. I guess the house is never around.
You get a former member. Back
to 535, I'm Colby Echowitz. So our national parks, they are plagued with less staff,
billions of dollars in deferred maintenance. and a funding fight in Washington over how much money
they should get. And so we're going to talk about that and more with Taryn Sittenfeld. She is the
president and CEO of the National Parks Conservation Association. Taryn, thanks so much for joining
me. Thanks for having me, Colby. Great to be here. So the summer months, that's when the national
parks get especially busy. People and families go visiting. If you were a visitor to a national
park this summer, would you have noticed? the lack of staff, the shortage of staff,
the funding needs? Yeah, it's really, really unfortunate. The National Park Service has lost about
a quarter of its staff in the last year and a half, and that is definitely affecting the visitor
experience. People might be experiencing longer lines to get into parks, like we saw, especially in
some of our most visited parks, like Yosemite. earlier this summer you might see fewer rangers
there are shorter visitor hours but that's just the visitor experience unfortunately what people
might not see is the longer term damage that the staffing shortages the funding shortages could be
reliant could be causing whether that is like fewer scientists fewer historians fewer people to do
the longer-term ecosystem protection, the research, fewer search and rescue missions.
So this is really having devastating impacts. That's why we absolutely need Congress to pass
America the Beautiful to bring about badly needed deferred maintenance for things like trails and
roads, water infrastructure. This could not be more important. So that's a standalone bill. Then it
is about $6.6 billion. Exactly, yes. I did a little bit of my research. Yeah, good for you. In
deferred maintenance. Yes. Where does that stand right now, that legislation? The good news is that
Bill has more than 250 co-sponsors across both the House and the Senate. Now that's bipartisan?
It enjoys tremendous bipartisan support. So really, we just got to get it done. I believe the House
might be going out as soon as today. But we would love for the Senate to pass this. We'd love this
has to get done during the lame duck. We are already seeing the success story of the Great American
Outdoors Act, which passed Congress on an overwhelming bipartisan fashion in 2020. That funding has
been so, so helpful for all kinds of projects, whether it's some of the pathways around the Statue
of Liberty or for upgrading campgrounds in very visited, incredibly popular parks like Zion.
So that funding is running out. We need Congress to pass America the Beautiful. We know the
bipartisan support is there. We know people across our country love our parks. They bring us
together across differences. There's nothing better than getting out for a hike. And so we've got
to get this done to protect and invest in our parks now and for the future. What has the White
House said about that bill? Will the president sign it if it comes to his desk? Yeah, absolutely.
So we just got to get it done. How does that square with his recommendations of funding cuts to the
national parks? That's a good question. And we will work with anyone, anywhere,
anytime to protect and invest in our parks. So we are very eager to get that bill done. At the same
time, we are seeing the president's FY27 budget proposal that would slash park operations by a
quarter. That could mean even more staff losing their jobs. And these are not numbers on a paper.
These are people. These are rangers. These are trail maintenance. These are people who are doing
habitat restoration. They're beloved, and we need them to have their jobs. So we cannot have more
cuts to the Park Service operations. We also are incredibly concerned because we're seeing that the
administration is actually raiding some of the park fees from across the country for the
president's vanity projects here in Washington, D.C. These are badly needed. revenues that these
parks need all across the country. Is there a number that you have for that? I believe it's close
to $100 million. But he's taken from the national parks to pay for some of these other... In the
process of doing that. Some of these projects, it's not that we are specifically opposed to them on
their face. It's that we are very opposed to rushing through projects without any regard for
Congress, since we're here in the nation's capital. And that also they need to have respect for
public input and for the rule of law. So the utter disregard for all of that as they rush ahead
with these very expensive projects is incredibly concerning. I know your organization is also
really concerned about environmental rollbacks and uses of federal lands for other projects.
and the impact that would have on the national parks. Can you explain to me a little bit how those
things are all related? Yes, we are unfortunately seeing that far too often this administration is
siding with various fossil fuel interests or pushing for more mining.
These are our sacred national parks across the country. These are places that people love across
generations, across. politics they get our kids off their phones and outdoors and so we should not
be seeing that we are getting rid of for example the roadless rule which has been on the books for
literally a quarter of a century to protect about a third of our forests from logging and mining
and road building. My colleagues at the National Parks Conservation Association have done the
research that about 30% of these roadless areas in our national forests are within 30 miles of a
national park site. And so that is having really damaging impact for wildlife across the country,
for the waterways that run in and out of our parks and forests. So we're very concerned about that.
We're also incredibly opposed to some of the park-specific threats that we're seeing, whether it's
efforts to build a border barrier in Big Bend National Park in Texas, which is incredible for
wildlife, for the desert landscape. for the beautiful night skies.
And that's on the southern border? Exactly. And we're also seeing this administration is attempting
rushing forward with handing off a piece of Yosemite National Park to a private developer,
seemingly for a luxury resort. This is an iconic park. It's already over visited and facing all
kinds of threats. We're seeing efforts to build a road to enable mining in gates of the Arctic and
Alaska, which is also incredibly important to indigenous people across the state of Alaska. So
there are threats all across the board. That's why we are really working to not just stop these
threats in the specific parks, but also to have better environmental practices across the board.
Can the executive do that? I mean, can the president have the executive power to just sell off
national park land to a private developer? Unfortunately, we're seeing that this administration
appears to have very little respect for the rule of law, for the role of Congress,
or for public input when it comes to how they're managing our national parks. Our parks are at the
core of what is best about our country. As we have turned 250 years old, we should be celebrating
our parks. We should be spending more time in them. We should be providing them with the robust
funding and staffing that they so badly need. I mean, speaking of our 250th anniversary of our
nation, the president has also talked about and actually had an executive order around changing how
history is portrayed in national parks, saying that he didn't want anything that, quote, I think,
disparages Americans. And your organization has pushed back on that. Where does that stand?
Well, first of all, we, of course, love Americans. We love our parks. We have sued the
administration. We believe that this is absolutely against the law. And it is so important.
We have 433 park sites across the country. They're, of course, the big,
iconic landscape parks that everyone knows and loves. But about two-thirds of those 433 parks are
cultural and historical parks. They tell the story of our country. They remind us not just of our
triumphs, but also of our tragedies. And it is so important that the Park Service continue to tell
the truth. So that's why I'm so proud of the work that my colleagues across MPCA are doing to
ensure that the Park Service can continue, that they can be the truth tellers, that we are not
censoring science or erasing history. So that is another very big priority for us. It is part of
this larger philosophical question of, like, who gets to tell America's story? And who gets to
decide what? people get to see exactly and we believe that our parks belong to all of us that our
history belongs to all of us and that it needs to be told so i want to ask you before before we end
up here in terms of all we have so many national parks how many have you visited so there's what my
colleagues at the national parks conservation association refer to as the capital n capital p parks
okay so there's 63 those that means that they were congressionally the bill passed they were became
a park by an act of Congress. But then there are also national monuments, and there are national
scenic highways, there are preserves. I would say I've been to, I'm actually on a listening tour. I
have 185 colleagues across 11 regions. At this point in the first six months, I'm actually pretty
new in this job, which I am so grateful to wake up and fight for our parks every day. I've been to
eight of our 11 regions. So on this job, I've been to probably 15 or so, but previous to that,
I had been to I think around 30. So I'm getting there, but I am so lucky. Is your goal to tick them
all off? Of course, on my first day in this job, one of my colleagues gave me, there's a passport
that you can then get a stamp at each park that you go to. It has the date on it.
And so I'm making my way through filling up my passport, but it's a really fun thing for everyone
to do. Amazing. Well, let us know when you get that passport filled. We'd love to hear about it.
Absolutely. I'll come back. I'd love to. Please, please come back and show it and bring the
passport so we can see it. Definitely. Here in Sittenfeld, thank you so much for joining me today.
Thank you, Colby. We'll be right back with more from 535.
Congressman Molinar, thank you so much for being here. My pleasure. Appreciate you having me. Can
you explain to people where your district is and what kind of district it is? What do they grow in
your district? And is that a big job industry in your district? Talk to me about this bill you
have. It's called the Farms Act. What exactly is the problem you're trying to solve with this? Is
this something that the administration could address on their own, or does it need to require
Congress to pass a law to really fix it? Is this bipartisan at all? Do you have Democratic
supporters? So what's the press text here? Who's your counterpart in the Senate? What is the path
forward you see for this legislation? Oh, my gosh. You know, let me think about that.
Welcome back to 535. I'm Leanne Caldwell with Puck News. Joining me now is one of two authors of
the new book, Draw the Line in Ohio. It focuses on the redistricting through the prospect of one
state, Ohio, as is in the title. So joining me now is Josh Rotenberg. Josh,
thanks so much. Yeah, thanks for having me. We're hoping that your co-author will join. She had
some metro problems, but you know, it happens. We all live in D.C. and we understand. So this new
book is out. So Draw the Line in Ohio. First of all, it's about redistricting,
which is extremely timely right now. Obviously, we are in the middle of the redistricting wars,
but you obviously started writing this book before.
this latest iteration of this national redistricting effort on both sides of the aisle.
So just take me back to why you decided to write a book about redistricting.
And especially redistricting in one state. Yeah, absolutely. So just a little context for
everybody. I was a statehouse reporter in Columbus, Ohio, when Ohio was doing its new redistricting
process. There was a bunch of shenanigans that happened in the 2010 cycle, and they wanted to,
on two different occasions, reform their process. And so when 2020 came around, we were going to
see a new form of redistricting in Ohio, and I was tasked with covering it. And my boss at the time
told me this would be. Nothing to really write home about. It would take a couple of weeks if
everything went according to plan. And then, of course, it didn't. And with redistricting, we know
that it's a very in-the-weeds topic for those that don't pay attention. So he told me that every
time I was to go on TV and report, I should do so with a legal analyst, and that's Rory. And for a
couple of weeks, we were doing this assignment. And then crazy things just kept happening. We
looked at each other and we were like, somebody should write a book about this. And so we did. And
yes, it takes place in one state. But what we knew and what we really couldn't foresee was if this
was happening in one state, in one state legislature, this was bound to be happening across the
board. And sure enough, we've been proven right. Yeah, absolutely. This is...
something that is as old as the history as of the United States.
I love the line in the part of the book where you say that it's actually not supposed to be
gerrymandering. It is supposed to be gerrymandering. It is. Okay, tell the story about how
gerrymandering or gerrymandering started. Yeah, 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gary is
tasked with signing this matter. But spelled like Jerry. Spelled like Jerry. But if you listen to
John Mulaney and Seth Meyers, they actually talked about this on his show, where John Mulaney's
grandmother is like, everybody's been saying it wrong. It's Gary. But yeah, no, look,
back then, of course, there was no TV, there's no social media, there's no internet, so people are
just saying things as they see them. Yeah. And he signs a map that has a district in a funny shape
that looks like a salamander. There's a political cartoon that says, better call it a garymander.
But of course, nobody knows. It's hard G, soft G, so... And now dictionary, the Webster's
Dictionary has it as gerrymandering. But everybody's been saying it wrong. Yeah. So gerrymander.
And I mean, that's such a great point because it's not necessarily redistricting that's the
problem. It's the gerrymandering that is the problem. So take us back to to Ohio.
You know, you talked about the 2010 election, but it was really post 2020 election where this just
really hit a zenith. You guys do such a great job in your book of really bringing out some of
these. these characters who are really influential in this process.
Take me back to 2022. You were a reporter, you know, sitting in the front row,
overhearing people's conversations, these lawmakers' conversations. What was it like covering it?
Were you bored out of your mind at the time? So one phrase that actually an Ohio Supreme Court
justice who kept ruling on this over and over again used was Groundhog Day. And so that's why we
named it one of the chapters, because it did feel like Groundhog Day. This whole process that went
on for months was lather, rinse, repeat. We'd go to these hearings. We'd see a bunch of
shenanigans. They'd pass a map they know they shouldn't be passing. It would go to court. It would
get struck down. The court would say, do it again. And it just kept doing this. So, yeah, I mean,
it got exhausting. Yeah. But, you know, I'm just a reporter in this process. I mean, you really
feel for Ohioans who more than 70 percent on two different occasions said we want a better process.
I mean, think about it. In this day and age, we're coming up on the midterms. We're not going to
see 70 percent anywhere. And this was more than 70 percent twice. So. Both sides of Ohio.
What do you mean more than 70 percent? So with 2015 and 2018, there was reforms to Ohio's
Constitution to change the legislative redistricting process and the congressional redistricting
process. And more than 70 percent of voters voted for both of those ballot initiatives. So that
shows strong bipartisan support. which again, unfortunately, in the time we're living in right now,
is few and far between. So, yeah, it's one thing for me to be covering it and be exhausted by
waking up every day, but you really felt for these voters and the voting rights advocates who were
like, we demanded a better process and we should have had one. If it weren't for the bad faith of
the actors that were involved. Well, I mean, that's a great point that you bring up. They voted for
a better process, but the better process did not turn out. Correct. So, you know, the state Supreme
Court, correct me if I'm wrong on these details, but the state Supreme Court directed pretty much,
it's not an independent commission, but an independent process. Yes. They brought in a Republican
and a Democrat, scholars. They were actually from out of state to figure out these lines.
But that went off the rails at the 11th hour. So how,
why? Yeah, we should have predicted this. Anybody that was watching, it felt too good to be true.
After so many partisan interests were involved, all of a sudden these two independent guys come in
and they were actually on a live stream doing this. So, you know, in the book we call it the real
world independent map makers. Yeah. Better name than like C-SPAN for gerrymandering.
Right, right. And, you know, and look, these guys were just learning everything about the new
process. So kudos to them for coming in in a week and producing new maps. But on the day that the
deadline was supposed to get these maps to the court, one of the map makers leaves. And then all of
a sudden one of the Republican commissioners just said, all right, we're throwing our hands up. You
guys had a nice try. We appreciate what you've done. However, we need to get a map to the court.
And they just said, we have our own map makers. We're going to go ahead and we are going to submit
the maps that they draw, even though the court explicitly said, do not do that. And they did it.
And predictably, of course, it got shot down. And you just knew at that moment of all moments,
when there seemed to be hope for this process, for it to just ultimately get taken away.
You knew that this was the time to sound the arm about this. Yeah. So how did they have the legal
justification to do that? That's a trick question, right? They didn't.
But they did it anyway. They did it anyway. And what did the courts do in response to that? Well,
the courts brought up the idea of holding them in contempt, even scheduled contempt hearings,
but then never held them. Why? Well, in talking to the former chief justice of the Ohio Supreme
Court, this is really a last resort because there's the separation of powers issues.
And they hope that just the threat of promoting contempt would get lawmakers to ultimately oblige
with the process. But it didn't. So, again, in retrospect, should they have held them in contempt?
I mean, if I'm advocating for it, yeah, they wouldn't have changed their... their way of thinking,
their process without doing that. Yeah. And, you know, we'll see what happens next time. So let's
stick to Ohio real quick. But actually, magically, your co-author has appeared.
She made it from the metro. Oh, my gosh.
Hi, Rory. Thank you so much for joining us. Yeah. Congratulations on the book. Thank you. We are
just talking about. Ohio 2022, ignoring the state Supreme Court and how this partisan map happened
anyway. And so, you know, we'll get back to that. But Rory, just big picture to bring the audience
into you. How did you get involved in this? What is your background and why did you want to write a
book about redistricting? Yeah, so I'm a lawyer and, you know, the short version is I feel like
redistricting has been this issue that has followed me throughout my whole life. I am from
Massachusetts, home of Elbridge. Jerry. I worked here in the Capitol and kind of watched the impact
of gerrymandering from the lawmakers around me. And then I moved to North Carolina. I looked there
when Rucho v. Common Cause was decided. Then I moved to Ohio where we talked about the events in
the book. So is gerrymandering following you? It seems like it.
So wherever you go next, everyone, watch out. Everybody be careful, I know.
So do you specialize in election law? I don't specialize in election law specifically,
but I do specialize in institutional reform. And I think gerrymandering is part of the problem with
Congress, and it shows that this is an institutional reform that's needed to make Congress function
more effectively. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Got it. So coming back to 2022 in Ohio,
this independent effort at MAPS was thrown out. The Republican MAPS were adopted.
We saw changes in the we saw the gains that Republicans made already a supermajority.
Republican state even made more gains in the subsequent election. You know,
let's what happened like after that, I guess. What was what was kind of the next.
tension moment in this state. I want to come back to today and this year. But first, what happened
after 2022? Yeah. So look, Ohioans again. wanted a better process, they didn't get it.
So the voting rights advocates were fed up. And as soon as Ohio Supreme Court Justice,
Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor at the time, told in one of her decisions, there is another way to
do this, the voting rights advocates took that as a signal, we need another ballot initiative. So
they went ahead and tried to create a 15-member independent commission, five Democrats,
five Republicans, five independents, and they put it on the ballot. And it was gaining a lot of
momentum in 2024. The internal and the external polling showed it. But at the last moment,
the ballot board, the Ohio ballot board, who's in charge of the ballot language, they changed the
language of the true spirit of the amendment. And what they put on the ballot was this reform
would, quote unquote, require gerrymandering. And so you had voters go into the voting booth
thinking. They were voting to finally getting rid of gerrymandering, and instead they voted against
their own self-interest. And the reason we knew this was a strategy is because the current chair
of the Ohio Republican Party said out loud, confusion wasn't such a bad strategy. And this is where
we are today. And was confusion the goal? I think at that point it was because they knew they were
fighting an uphill battle in terms of public support. And so I think that we're seeing this
nationwide right now that ballot initiatives are really the next frontier in a lot of these
gerrymandering wars. Because people who are fed up with what state legislatures are doing, that
is... in line with what the voters want. They do have this direct democracy process, but we've seen
in multiple states that people are manipulating the ballot language in a way that tries to either
ask the question in a misleading way or lead people to vote one way or the other. So as we have
these broader conversations about what's next, I think ballot initiatives has to be part of that
conversation. Yeah, they're always written so confusingly.
So let's fast forward to today this year we obviously saw the president be very open this was a
political tool used to do mid-decade redistricting to try to gain seats in the house of
representatives in this upcoming election i want to stick to ohio for a second because actually
ohio um you might disagree with me but the narrative is is that they when they did their they could
have They could have been more extreme and more aggressive for this 2026 cycle,
and they declined not to. Is that your take of what happened? I would love to hear your reaction to
that, because couldn't they have gotten an extra seat and they declined to? They could have gone
further, and that is correct. And part of this was the issue of timing. I think it's important to
know Ohio wasn't in and of itself just participating in the mid-decade gerrymandering wars. They
had a court order from their previous congressional maps being unconstitutional.
So they had to redraw for this cycle no matter what. OK, that's right. So that's part of why.
The mid-decade redistricting from other states that preceded Ohio's redistricting commission this
cycle, they kind of had some takeaways of, you know, we saw what happened in Indiana, for example,
where we finally started getting some pushback. And I think to that extent, they started to
believe, well, you know, we might have gotten... you know, all the milk we can from this cow.
Let's not push our luck. And, you know, Speaker Jeffries had made a statement about having the
money for another ballot initiative. They didn't want to go there. I think because people knew they
had this conversation about confusion being a strategy. People were more aware this time. Now that
ended up being a bluff, but it worked in that context. Yeah. Would you agree with that?
I mean, it seems like.
Were they hiding behind the court order? Because there was also the Trump factor, like the Ohio
legislature, Republican, J.D. Vance was there. You know, Trump was pressuring them to do more.
I think they had already gerrymandered the state so much. They couldn't find more. They couldn't do
that much more. And people were aware at that point in time that the overall political...
pulse was starting to shift and it ran the risk of becoming a dummy mander and we're seeing that in
so many other states right now where when you gerrymander too much then it ends up backfiring so
yeah that for this cycle folks in ohio were aware of that possibility based on their previous
behavior oh really interesting okay um and so you know what sort of lessons should other states
take away from what ohio has gone through Look, Ohio and Columbus in general is Test Market USA.
They test everything there from restaurants to legislation. And there's a lot of things that are
introduced there. And if it succeeds there, then they know they're going to try it elsewhere. But
what people should take away from this process is the most powerful person in any state is not one
of its elected officials. It's an engaged citizen who refuses to look away. Yeah, I would just add
that, you know, we use a lot of sports analogies in the book. And to use one here. It's a marathon,
not a sprint. You are going to have some losses along the way if this is an issue that you really
care about. But you have to take the losses when you get them, and you have to get back up, and you
have to keep going. I mean, if you look at, again, I study institutional reform. And if you look at
big institutional reforms that this country has had, whether it's with health care or with voting
rights, these things take decades a lot of the time. It's not a quick fix. And so I think it's
really important in terms of lessons learned to remember you have to be in it for the long haul if
you truly want to accomplish change. Yeah. You know, we focused a lot about the Republican efforts
in this state, but you also mentioned in the book, which Republicans, every time I talk to
Republicans today about. redistricting they always bring up Democrats sue to blue that they might
not have pushed the legislatures as hard but they had a legal strategy to get more blue states you
know so you could say both sides are doing it and so what role did that Democratic strategy have
when it came to Ohio? Well, yeah, I mean, if you can't get your way, that's why there's a couple
different branches of government. If you can't get your way with the executive branch, your last
shot is the judicial branch, unless the legislative branch does something about it as far as making
new laws. So, yeah, then a bunch of different states where the Republicans control the legislatures
or the commissions, the Democrats knew their only shot that they had was to go to the judicial
branch and try to win. And were they successful? Some places they were,
yes, and then we saw. I mean, politicians are adaptable. I mean, I like to say politics are like
physics. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. So Republicans are
gerrymandering. Democrats are going to court. They're gerrymandering more. Now Democrats are
gerrymandering more. And so regardless of whether you're doing it via the courts, via the ballot
initiative, via your state legislature, I mean, another phrase that we use so often in talking
about this topic is that it's a race to the bottom. And at some point, you have to just say enough.
where are we going from here? And it has been nice to see, you know, at least there's been some
effort. People here on the Hill are talking about it. I know the Problem Solvers Caucus just
introduced four new pieces of legislation aimed at addressing some of this. So, you know, there's
the old adage that the first step of solving a problem is admitting that you have one. And I think
finally people are at a point where they're admitting that this is a problem. You know, but what
happens at the top? You have Hakeem Jeffries who... well be the Speaker of the House after
November. He is determined at payback for what the president and Republicans have done this cycle,
gaining 10 to 12 seats. It could be, on paper, it could be more. It's probably going to be less.
Speaking of the dummy mander. But this is going to continue next year.
You know, how does it end when it just... keeps going,
especially when there's so few, almost the entire map has been partisan.
We don't have to jump to any conclusion. The only reason we jump to that conclusion is to think
that people won't get involved. And the only way I know, serving here in Congress and then also
being a journalist, the only way that these lawmakers ever move and move quickly is when there's
enough public pressure. We saw it with the Epstein files passing in one day in both the House and
the Senate. Now, imagine that was gerrymandering. A lot of this stuff happens in plain sight
because they know that the average voter isn't paying attention. Well, now is the time to wake them
up, give them an education so that they can take their own call to action right now. It can be
constantly getting on the phone with your representative, going to them and saying, why does my
district look the way it is, going to speak locally and letting things rise from the ground up.
A lot of people focus here on Washington, but a lot of stuff that happens that affects your life
happens in your own backyard, in your city, your town, your state house. So flood the zone there,
have it work its way up here, and then eventually... have it so much in the conversation that we're
not talking about who gains seats and who loses seats as far as the parties are concerned, but we
really focus on the millions of voters that are having their rights suppressed. You know, if
Republicans were so upset about what Democrats are doing as far as gerrymandering, they control
Washington. Mike Johnson could put a bill on the floor to ban partisan gerrymandering, John Thune
could get it through, Donald Trump could sign it, and we could just throw out this book. That's not
going to happen. Go to the other side. You talked about Hakeem Jeffries wanting to fight fire with
fire. We have a line in this book that says, you know what happens when you fight fire with fire?
You don't put out the flames. You just burn the whole house down. The problem is we're still in the
house. You can't burn the house down while we're still in it. So this is where the people need to
wake up. They need to get to their representatives on both sides of the aisle and say, we need a
solution to this. Because I know that other people are focused on singular issues, whether it's
health care, education, certain rights. But none of those things are going to truly get solved
unless you solve this first. Rory, what do you think the solutions are? So one thing I would just
add to that real quickly is that, you know, We need to learn from history. So people forget
Democrats controlled the House for 40 years, from the 50s until the Gingrich Revolution in 1994.
And I know we're here to promote our book, but one of my favorite books is The Broken Branch, which
is about Congress by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann. And one of the things that they talk about a
lot in there is, you know, Democrats didn't treat Republicans well during those 40 years that they
controlled the House. So in 94, when things flipped... we kind of saw the same thing where Newt
Gingrich came in wanting revenge. And he got it. And now we see this back and forth.
So, you know, I think it's important for us to learn from that history because we've seen that
process has not only served the institution of Congress in a bad way, but it's served voters in a
bad way. We want to stop that. So to get to your point about solutions, I do think we have to be
having these conversations. We should be having... hearings and these conversations out in the open
about what kind of structural reforms can we implement. And we have to stop talking about it and,
you know, Republicans are doing this, Democrats are doing this because people then, you know, they
go to their corners. We have to talk about it in a more objective way. And I use that word
objective because, you know, this topic of independent redistricting commissions comes up often and
I think that there is a real... Is that the answer? You know, I think it's part of the answer,
but I think the answer has to be multifaceted. There's no instant solution here, because if there
was, I think we would have found it by now. So independent commissions can be part of that. But,
you know, the issue that always comes up is how do you define independent? I mean, on paper, it's I
am not registered as a Republican or a Democrat, but people have biases and preferences, which is
why I resort to the word objective. I think that's a more accurate description of what we are
looking for.
any system that removes the politicians is a good place to start because, I mean, imagine you are
on trial and the prosecutor is also the jury. I mean, you know, when you have a vested interest in
the outcome, you shouldn't be controlling the rules. So I think that that's step one. There are
other things that have been put on the table, such as a... that if mid-decade redistricting is
undertaken, that it's unconstitutional. You know, we could put presumptions like that in place and
then the burden would shift for state lawmakers to prove why they needed to do this. I mean, this
gets at a bigger issue that, you know, we can talk about with how courts have become more partisan
and, you know, what is the enforcement mechanism for that. But I think what we have seen throughout
since the 2020 census at least is for a long time there was this thought process that if we could
just get better rules we would have a better process and we have seen you know politicians are
remarkably adaptable when it comes to their own survival so when you get better rules they find
ways to work around it so as we are talking about these solutions i would like to emphasize that
some sort of accountability measure has to be attached to every possible solution that we talk
about and that's part of why i say it has to be multifaceted if you can break the rule and there
are no consequences for doing so, why would you not keep doing it? Yeah. So, yeah. So I think that
a broader conversation about enforceability and accountability for any reforms that are undertaken
is a very important part of the conversation. Which goes back to the 2022 example when the courts
did not hold them in contempt for not following the court order. Exactly. Right. It's really
fascinating.
So talk a little bit about your book tour. You're going to be, you know, or I guess as this,
after this, I don't even know.
We will have been at Politics and Pros talking about this, which is a great spot in D.C.,
obviously. Everyone who's watching knows. Where else are you taking this book tour? Yeah, so we
were just recently in Ohio, all over the state there. We're going to go to the Northeast in
Connecticut. What was the Ohio response? A lot of PTSD. Really? Yes. They were like, wow, you wrote
a whole book about how our lives were completely miserable. Oh, my gosh. And I was like, yes, but
at the same time, we're trying to remind the country that there is hope because of the steps that
you took. Yeah. And it's not a... fact that you took the wrong steps it's about that there were bad
actors so they were happy that somebody at least is sounding the alarm about this but yeah we're
gonna go to the Northeast we're gonna go to California one of our main endorsers of the book is
Arnold Schwarzenegger so we're hoping to catch up with him and we're gonna go to his Schwarzenegger
Institute at USC so we're just trying to get the word out everywhere and if we're not going to your
state the question is is why not invite us and we'll go oh fantastic well Rory Riley Topping and
Josh Roltenberg, thank you both so much for being here. The book is Draw the Line in Ohio.
I highly recommend. Lots of pop culture references. Very readable. Also,
really does a great job of bringing out the characters in the book. So it's not, it's very
relatable and infuriating at the same time. Thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you. And on behalf of all of us at 535, thanks for watching. We'll see you back here
tomorrow.