Winning Legislative Majorities: Daniel Squadron
March 2nd, 2023
”Governing power is the goal and the point.”
Daniel Squadron is the co-founder and Executive Director of The States Project and also a former New York State senator. We discuss what it takes to win legislative majorities in state houses and why this is the essential ingredient to making change.
State legislatures are the most important force in this country. When parties win legislative majorities, they can govern effectively. The good news is that tiny levels of new engagement make a seismic difference in state legislative races. Regular folks getting involved and becoming strategic players will create governing power that can deliver for people.
Follow Daniel on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/DanielSquadron
Follow Mila on Twitter:
Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/
Love Future Hindsight? Take our Listener Survey!
http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=6tI0Zi1e78vq&ver=standard
Want to support the show and get it early?
https://patreon.com/futurehindsight
Credits:
Host: Mila Atmos
Guest: Daniel Squadron
Executive Producer: Mila Atmos
Producers: Zack Travis and Sara Burningham
-
Daniel Squadron Transcript
Mila Atmos: [00:00:05] 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.
American democracy resides in the states. This sounds obvious, but the battle for state legislatures was a seemingly low priority for national Democrats for a long time. No longer. It appears to finally be dawning on folks that the battle for our democracy has to be fought at the state level, not just by voting for your preferred candidate for president once every four years. Here on Future Hindsight, we have definitely been banging this drum for a while. But now, perhaps because of the overturning of Roe v Wade with "send it back to the state" shrug from the Supreme Court and the alarming state legislation regulating reproductive freedom out of existence. That is followed perhaps because of the knife's edge calls to respect the election outcome in 2020, and perhaps because of the culture wars being waged in classrooms, universities and libraries. The drumbeat that state races really matter is pretty deafening.
This week's guest, Daniel Squadron, has also been banging that drum for a while. He's a former New York State senator and co-founder and executive director of The States Project. Per their website, The States Project connects the importance of state legislatures to every aspect of our lives and brings together communities to help build a healthy, sustainable and prosperous future for all.
Daniel, welcome to Future Hindsight. Thank you for joining us. Daniel Squadron: [00:01:44] Thanks for having me. Glad to be here.
Mila Atmos: [00:01:46] So I just read a little bit from your mission statement there, but take us out of consultant speak and into real words. What do you do at The States Project?
Daniel Squadron: [00:01:55] Well, I'd start with what are we obsessed with at The States Project? And it is state legislatures. We believe deeply that state legislatures are the most important policymaking engines in the country, and they've been left for the
last 50 years to the worst forces in the country. So at the States Project, we try to identify how to have an impact on governing power in state legislatures around the country so that lawmakers who best represent their constituents, who are committed to protecting personal freedom, to preserving democracy, and to improving lives, actually have the power to get that done.
Mila Atmos: [00:02:35] Right. So when did you come around to really wanting to do this work on state races and deciding that this was going to be super crucial? Or have you always been there?
Daniel Squadron: [00:02:46] Well, no. If you'd told me the day I started my career that I would be working on state legislatures 20 years later, I would probably say, "Where did I go wrong?" I came to this. You know, I started my career working in politics at the New York City level, worked for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, actually co- authored his book. And then I ran for New York State Senate way back in 2008 in a Democratic primary against a 30-year incumbent. And people said, why would you want to do this? It's such a terrible place. And I said, "Exactly." Even 15 years ago, looking at New York state and our government, the legislature was clearly broken. And I got there and I discovered two things. One, even in the most aggressive rhetoric of the campaign, I had probably understated the case about just how bad it was. And two, they had so much more power to do good than even I could have imagined in my most idealistic moment on the stump. And so I spent nine years in the legislature, a couple in the majority, many more in the minority. A little deep insight for your listeners there: The majority is better.
Mila Atmos: [00:03:57] Yes.
Daniel Squadron: [00:03:58] But we'll come back to that because it's a really important point, because really thinking about not just who's in office, but how much power they have to govern is something that it's really important for people to do. I think more than sometimes we think about in the public conversation. So in that time, I saw something else. I saw that there was a force providing support and ideas and tools for lawmakers who wanted government not to exist, who wanted corporations to be able to poison air and water and do whatever they wanted, and who believed that religion should govern government. And it was called ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. And
for folks like me and a bunch of my colleagues who really wanted to push forward policies along the lines of what I talked about before, there was no support. In fact, not only no support, but if we're being honest, national Democratic Party and national progressive activists didn't seem to care a whole heck of a lot what was going on. In fact, for some of those years, we had a Democratic numeric majority, but a few Democrats went over to the Republicans and gave them the governing majority and no one cared. So after the 2016 election, I saw that this wasn't an issue that I could fix as a single state lawmaker representing a great district here in New York City. It was really a structural problem. And so many people, like many of your listeners, were desperate to get involved and do something. And so I had been making this argument for ten years that if you've got 100 people in a room to really focus their time, energy, resources, expertise and network, they could change a state legislatures direction. In ten years, do you know how many people took me up on that before 2016?
Mila Atmos: [00:05:53] Tell me.
Daniel Squadron: [00:05:54] Zero. I probably said it 150 times. I whiffed 150 times. Right. But then after the 2016 election, with people so focused on this, suddenly people started taking me up on it. I went to an event in my district and made the same speech I'd made 150 times, and a couple of authors of young adult novels came up to me after and said, "We'll do this." I said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm sure you will." And then lo and behold.
Mila Atmos: [00:06:23] They did it.
Daniel Squadron: [00:06:23] They did it. And it was incredibly powerful to see and then some other constituents... So I got very excited about this. I met through the course of that year Adam Pritzker, who himself was looking to really engage in politics in a way that was different and innovative. And we got together and I left office in August of 2017 to start this, basically based on the idea that because we were in a moment when people were actually willing to focus on this and get involved because state legislatures were so important, because Democrats and progressives had done so little. This was a moment that we could change that. And that was the idea.
Mila Atmos: [00:07:08] I love it. Well, I remember when people were trying to unseat these IDC reps. The Democrats who were caucusing with Republicans in the state of New York. There was a lot of talk about among among women and especially about how much power they had to change, for example, reproductive rights in New York State. And there was so much energy there in a way that I had not seen before. You know, it was the kind of thing where as an adult in New York, to your point, people weren't paying attention. And I didn't even know. I was like, "Oh, who are these people? And what are they doing and why are they doing that?" So one thing I want to know here for the listener, what do you wish more folks understood about running and winning state races? What's different about them?
Daniel Squadron: [00:07:56] Well, I'd say two things, and one is the one we've been talking about. They are so important. Think of any issue you care about, any reason you would be listening to this show unless it's foreign policy. Over the last decade, state legislatures have made more progress or done more damage on that issue than Congress. Guaranteed. You know, you can email us if you did.
Mila Atmos: [00:08:20] No. We agree.
Daniel Squadron: [00:08:21] The second is tiny levels of new engagement make a seismic difference in state legislative races. People are not observers to the outcome. Just this past November, we had historic wins in state legislatures. Historic partially because generally Democrats have underperformed at that level. It looks like we overperformed the entire chamber in both houses in Michigan and the Minnesota Senate. And the Pennsylvania House flipped literally a couple of hundred votes in each of those cases -- and the majority wouldn't have flipped. Tiny numbers of votes make a huge difference. The candidate themselves meeting voters can make a huge difference because they can meet a much higher percentage of all the voters. And a really small amount of money compared to national politics can change whether a campaign exists. Or is basically silent.
Mila Atmos: [00:09:28] Mm hmm. Well, you mentioned just now about the majorities in Michigan and I think also Minnesota. Right. Also became a trifecta. Tell us about governing from the majority, because you mentioned that earlier. And I feel like this is a good time to talk about why that matters.
Daniel Squadron: [00:09:45] Well, let's look at what's happened. Even just as the sessions get started. It's a two year session. New majorities always, like new executives, always need a little time to get their their sea legs. In Minnesota, we've already seen them protect abortion and reproductive rights, enact a climate action plan with the goal of requiring utilities to be powered by clean energy by 2040. One of the best in the country. In Michigan, they've expanded the earned income tax credit for working families who need the cash. They've cut taxes for retirees as well, and they funded apprenticeship programs so that there are more paths to folks being able to earn a living and take care of their family coming out of high school or as they're shifting careers. And that's just in the first couple of weeks. Now, let's ask "well, is that because there's a couple of individually inspiring elected officials in there who convinced everyone with an amazing Aaron Sorkin-esque speech on the floor of the chamber?" No. There are some really inspiring elected officials in every one of those chambers and around the country. But if they're in the minority, they are observers to the legislative process with an all access pass. They need to be in the majority in order to govern. And that's the thing that we need to focus on a whole lot more than we do.
Mila Atmos: [00:11:09] Right. So what states do you work in?
Daniel Squadron: [00:11:12] Well, as Americans, I think we should all be thinking about all 50 states. The people of all 50 states are our neighbors. They are part of this experiment with us. They are part of the American promise and they are part of reaching it where we've come up short in the past. So the first thing that it's really important is that we do not think, "well, the federal government is about everyone, but states are just about me" or just about an issue that happens to be in the headlines today. Now, when you're talking about helping people get off the sidelines and no longer tear out their hair because they are so frustrated but don't feel like they can do anything. Part of our job is to identify those places where regular people getting involved could make the difference. So in 2022, it's about a dozen places. In Pennsylvania, the States Project, and our network of supporters, including our giving circles who are exactly these types of folks I'm talking about, contributed 80 times more than the next biggest giver. And the Pennsylvania house flipped when, frankly, even we thought it was wildly unlikely. Just recently were able to reaffirm that new majority. And that breaks a Republican legislative control in Pennsylvania that had threatened to undermine the
presidential election no longer possible. We worked in Michigan. And again with our network of funders, with the largest funders to that effort. We worked in Minnesota, in Arizona. Arizona is an interesting one because came up just short of the majority one seat in each chamber. But it looks likely that when it comes to things like election subversion, they no longer have a majority for election subversion. Even in Arizona. Worked in... And, you know, there's a lot of other states that often get left off the national conversation. And I think it's really important to mention them here and for folks to think about them. Maine, which it was a trifecta newly after 2018 and our first year of operation and has such a long laundry list of things they've gotten done. I'm not sure we've got time for it, but it is an exciting one. Alaska, Nebraska, North Carolina, Colorado, Wisconsin. And as we look towards 2023 and 2024, certainly in 2023, Virginia. Virginia's very important. There were special elections in Pennsylvania in February that helped maintain that majority. And what we're going to do is look at the places where relatively moderate interventions can have seismic impacts on outcomes.
Mila Atmos: [00:13:53] Right. So what about Florida? Are you doing anything there or do you intend to do anything there? Or is that the kind of place where a little bit of intervention will do nothing? Like, what's your, what's your call on Florida?
Daniel Squadron: [00:14:05] It's an interesting, and love to ask you why you're asking the question.
Mila Atmos: [00:14:07] So well because everything that's going on in Florida right now between the AP African-American studies course actually changing the curriculum because Governor DeSantis bullied them into it; because he's asking teenage girls to submit their menstrual cycles; because books are literally being wrapped up in schools, you know, because the don't say gay bill, etc., etc... That people are just like when you read the headlines, you're like, "Oh my God, what's happening over there?" And then though, at the same time, they have a really progressive state rep in a person like Anna Eskamani. So it's like, how do those two things work? And is there actually room to have a legislature that would be majority Democratic?
Daniel Squadron: [00:14:54] So the States Project did work in Florida in 2020. The results were not great. I'd say a couple of things about it. One, over time, there are real shifts in these places, and so that's why we always take a 50 state look. In general,
there's always something you can do to help build. Are we building towards a majority in 2024 in either chamber? Very unlikely. You have very badly drawn districts. You have a political culture that is extremely difficult and often problematic. And we need to be honest about the places where shifting governing power is likely. I also think it's critical that we're honest about the idea that absent shifting governing power, reps like Anna Eskamani, who we know really, really well at the States Project and is very inspiring, are going to be playing that role I talked about before. The Observer with the all access pass. Two seats doesn't change that if you're still in the minority. Governing power is the goal and the point. Now, that said, when we talk about spending resources in state legislatures, the States Project was proud to have spent more in the last cycle than any outside group has in history. Nearly $60 Million. A lot of money in any kind of real world sense. National politics on our side, probably 100 times that.
Mila Atmos: [00:16:31] Right.
Daniel Squadron: [00:16:31] So we're talking about a penny on the dollar being a
historic new investment.
Mila Atmos: [00:16:38] Mm hmm.
Daniel Squadron: [00:16:39] If we were actually talking about this relative to the scale of the kinds of issues you just raised about what's happening in Florida. If we were talking about this relative to the kind of positive impact that we've talked about, Minnesota and Michigan happening, a whole new set of things becomes possible.
Mila Atmos: [00:16:57] Mm hmm.
Daniel Squadron: [00:16:58] So, no, Florida is not a place where we think legislative control is likely to flip through political intervention in the next couple of cycles, currently. In a world where we didn't say "also state legislatures." In a world where we didn't say, "Of course, I care about state and local politics." In a world where we just said, "who has real power in this country and what does it take to intervene so that actually the majority?" Even in a state like Florida, the majority will is reflected in the legislature, then a whole new set of things becomes possible, including, I believe, Florida.
Mila Atmos: [00:17:39] I agree. I think in the long run, it just can't continue in this way. I mean, I think even quote, "real conservatives" are also like, what's happening? We have to submit the menstrual cycles of our daughters. That's also a little insane, honestly. I mean, I think as a parent, people are like, what? What?
We are going to take a quick break. And when we come back, when Democrats are their own worst enemies -- the New York edition.
But first, we want to share about a fellow democracy group podcast, Democracy Paradox. It's another podcast about democracy. But what makes it different is it tackles extremely complex ideas without arrogance or condescension. So it opens new ways to consider politics and world affairs through the insights of world class researchers and scholars. Go to a democracyparadox.com or look for it on your favorite podcast app.
And now let's return to my conversation with Daniel Squadron.
Mila Atmos: [00:18:41] Your patch is really New York. I've actually lost count of the number of times I've heard people say, "Oh, New York Democrats are the worst." And at the congressional level, New York was a mess this past cycle. How do you differentiate from that? Or are you trying to figure out how to influence that machine from the way you've been working at the state machine?
Daniel Squadron: [00:19:04] So I'm a lifelong New Yorker. And so even when it is not through the States Project, I have a deep personal and vocational interest in what happens in New York. I also have the memories and sometimes wake up in cold sweats in the middle of the night with the nightmares of the time that I've spent in New York politics. I actually think there's some lessons that apply to Florida and New York in the same way. And you raised one of them when you were talking about Florida. Look, let's start with the values we care about. Think that people work hard and play by the rules, they should be able to support themselves and their family. We think that how someone is born in terms of where they're born, what their parents circumstance is, what their personal identity and lived experiences shouldn't define their opportunity, that this country should provide reasonable opportunity across all of those dimensions. We believe that the government can do a lot to help out communities and folks who need it. Build roads and bridges, and make sure taxes are fair. And you can't get away with
paying no taxes just because you're a big, powerful corporation or individual. Just take those values. It's clear that one party reflects those values a whole lot better than the other party. Here's another one. People's will in voting should determine who wins elections. It's also true that neither party is perfect. I think that we -- because the fight is so tough and because the Republican Party has been taken over by such obviously aggressively ugly, anti-democratic forces -- I think it's easy to forget that as Democrats or progressives or people who share that set of values, we should be demanding more than we're getting and we should be holding folks to account, even if they are waving the same party banner that we are. By the way, I think a lot of Republican voters and even some Republican elected officials who share those same values I described, or maybe they don't believe in government as a potential force for good in the way I do. But they do believe in the will of the people and the right to privacy and in some other things. In fact, we've seen that in Alaska. One reason the States Project has worked in Alaska the last few years is you've actually had a bipartisan coalition where a group of Republicans and Democrats came together and said to the extremists who don't believe in democracy, said to the extremists, who don't believe that anyone other than the biggest corporations should have a say, "you're out of power." And there's something there to take as a lesson in a place like Florida. At what point are Republican elected officials going to actually start meeting their voters where they are and say that these kinds of incursions into people's most private lives, the things that government should protect individuals from having laws about, when are they going to stand up and say that's more important than party? Or in a state like New York, how can we not act because it's basically a one party state in terms of who's in power right now. Not like a monopoly, but like a real marketplace of ideas and ideologies that sort of pushes for the best ones to come up. That's a bigger challenge in a lot of ways, but that's sometimes the way that I think about it, whether in a state that's trending red like Florida or in a state that hopefully stays blue like New York, but could certainly do a whole lot better than it is.
Mila Atmos: [00:22:37] Yeah, I like that. What you were saying there about how just because we are quote "all Democrats" -- we aren't, of course -- but, you know we should be demanding more and demand better governance, actually delivering for the people in the way that you described earlier in places like Michigan and Minnesota. So speaking of extremists, the Supreme Court heard a pretty worrying case this term, Moore v Harper, which is based in this independent state legislature theory. I saw your
op-ed in Newsweek soon after the case was argued. Can you talk about what worries you about that case and what everyday people should maybe keep in mind about it?
Daniel Squadron: [00:23:17] So we're here in heated agreement about the importance of state legislatures. And we haven't even talked about one of the powers of state legislatures that the Supreme Court might create that would blow people's minds, even who already get this. Even who already understand that, as you say, Dobbs was the Supreme Court shrugging its shoulders and saying, go to the states, and these other things. Moore v Harper is a case that is undergirded by something called the Independent State Legislature doctrine or theory. This is essentially the idea that has been bouncing around in far, far, far right Republican conservative intellectual legal circles, but has never seen the light of day in a reasonable, broader context that state legislatures have a unique power when it comes to federal elections. State legislatures, not state governments. So state legislatures without the state court, without the state constitution, without the governor. State legislatures. Now, the reason I say that 3 to 13 times, how long we go here, is because it's really hard to even get one's mind around that idea. People say, "Well, but Katie Hobbs is the governor in Arizona." "No, no, no. State legislatures." Say, oh, but, you know, "the Supreme Court in North Carolina, at least historically was was somewhat reasonable." "No. No. State legislatures." So Moore V Harper is a case that on its face is about legislative district maps in North Carolina and what the State Supreme court there did. But at its core, it's about the idea that state legislatures could potentially be given the power to step in on any federal election, including the presidential election, and say this is ours to decide before, during, or after the vote. And this is important to understand, because sometimes people say, "well, they actually couldn't come in and swap in their own set of electors." Well, could they? Let's look at Florida again in 2000. In fact, a lot of this is based on what Chief Justice Rehnquist at the time wrote. He both said that state legislatures had a plenary or absolute power, but he also started talking about the fact that because the outcome was in dispute, this had to be determined before it was too late for the state to send their electors. So it would actually probably be difficult in a election that was run smoothly, where no one claimed fraud, where no one tried to undermine confidence in the election afterwards, where no one filed frivolous lawsuits for a state legislature to step in and steal presidential electors. A lot of ifs there, though, right? Do we know anyone in American politics who's claiming fraud? Do we know anyone in American politics who's refusing to accept a legitimate and obvious outcome? Do we know anyone who's filing
frivolous lawsuits? All of this election subversion that looks sort of absurd on its face and is scary but also ridiculous starts to come together as part of a logical strategy by the other side. Undermine confidence in the election. Get election administrators who refuse to certify. Hard for election administrators to steal an election. That's not a new idea and there's a number of safeguards on that. But they can certainly sow chaos and delays. Get state courts or federal courts who are extremists, who are willing to, even if it would be overturned at a higher level, delay. And what you do is you add up to a scenario where if state legislatures are given this power by the Supreme Court in the Moore v Harper case, They're just, quote unquote, "forced" to step in so that the electors get sent to someone. This is the stakes in that case. Going into the 2022 election, state legislatures adding up to over 300 electoral votes were in the control of election deniers. Meaning, a majority of the majority had either denied the election or signaled an openness to subversion in states, adding up to about 306 electors. Because of the flips in Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania, and because the fact that hopefully in Arizona, some Republican -- we would only need one in either chamber -- will stand up for democracy. There are now states adding up to fewer than 270 electoral votes that are controlled by election deniers. That's game changing, because if the Supreme Court decides that the independent state legislature doctrine is a real thing in Moore, v Harper, or in the future, then it's no longer about whether you can win the vote in enough states to get to 270 electors. It's about whether state legislatures in enough states to get to 270 electors are willing to let it happen. That's a very scary reality.
Mila Atmos: [00:28:40] Yeah. So we have to remain vigilant in all states at all times, basically from now on, because who knows how the Supreme Court will decide. So let's do something slightly more hopeful. Talk to us about the successes and maybe also the surprises of the 2022 elections.
Daniel Squadron: [00:28:56] Look, this conversation and the fact that you and your listeners are already so interested in state legislatures is an enormous success. And that's a success that goes much more broadly than the States Project. But for someone like me who feels like I've been screaming into a cave for many years about state legislatures, to have others so interested and so excited at the scale that we now do is game changing. That's the first. And it's really important that it's maintained. The second is the electoral outcome in state legislatures in 2022 is almost impossible to overstate.
2022 was a better overall electoral than a lot of folks had expected. We still lost Congress.
Mila Atmos: [00:29:45] Mm hmm. Yeah, we did. And there are still all these election deniers.
Daniel Squadron: [00:29:49] Absolutely. In state legislatures we outperformed not just expectations on the morning of November 8th, but we outperformed the deep 50-year history of right wing investment in state legislative power, leading to overperformance, leading to holding the line in a year like that, and then sweeping everything away in a year like 2010. And so the second thing is it actually shows that it's possible. You know, we had a theory, being honest -- I wasn't 100% sure it would work. Our theory was you get a lot more people involved and engaged and organizing their communities and raising money through the giving circles. You go to candidates and caucuses in the states and you say, "look, we want you to run good campaigns. We want your candidates knocking on doors. If you're doing ads, we want you to test them." So it's not just some arrogant consultant's view of right and wrong. It's actually about the voters' reaction. It actually turns out that that makes a real difference on outcomes. That's very exciting because, you know, we sometimes have a phrase that if we do our job really well, we can have an impact on the margins, maybe.
Mila Atmos: [00:31:12] Mm hmm.
Daniel Squadron: [00:31:13] And I think a lot of people feel that way, too, right? They get involved because it's the right thing to do to get involved. They don't really have an expectation that their involvement will change outcomes. It's a sort of a depressing cynicism that I think has seeped in for all of us.
Mila Atmos: [00:31:28] Yeah.
Daniel Squadron: [00:31:29] Right. "I need to stay knowledgeable," people say, "but I'm not going to fix things." Well, in state legislatures, the results of 2022, show you can fix things. Now, look, probably not a presidential election. I mean, for all the billionaires listening, first of all, give me a call. Secondly, maybe. But the lesson here is groups of people getting together. By the way, 90% of our Giving Circle leaders are women
gathering 25 of their friends who gather another five or four friends each can become the most important force to change the power outcome, not just elect someone who excites them, but change the power outcome in these places. That's A, how democracy should work. And B, if I'm being honest, like best case scenario of what I hoped was true and 2022 showed us is.
Mila Atmos: [00:32:27] That's amazing. So, well, as is the way of American politics, we stagger out of one election cycle right into another one. What do you anticipate for 2024? What's on the docket in the near term?
Daniel Squadron: [00:32:41] I note this is not the what are you hopeful about question, so I will not dig too deep for that. I'll give you the the worried version.
Mila Atmos: [00:32:49] Okay.
Daniel Squadron: [00:32:50] So a few things. One, anyone who thinks that the crisis that was unmasked by the Trump years has been solved is totally misreading 2022. You know, we talk a lot about the fact that, you know, there does seem to be that there's a 51%, 52% majority for our side at the ballot box, and yet they have so much power. They control Congress. They control the Supreme Court. They've controlled all these state legislatures, historically. That's a problem of democracy. There's a second problem, too. Look at the vision that we have talked about earlier. Look at the vision they have. We are only getting 52% of the ballot box. That's a crisis of its own. And I think we sometimes forget that the unfairness of the 52/48 situation and power is real. It's not as it should be. But a 52/48 reality when you look at these visions is in some ways more worrying. So as I look ahead to 2024, one of my worries is that we don't continue to understand that fact. We need to do a much better job of having a vision that really connects across the country, that really connects in different regions, different economic levels and education levels. If we don't do that, then every election is going to have a one-out-of-three, three-out-of-five, chance of being democracy ending. So the first is 2024. I worry that we're going to kind of just do more of the same instead of continuing to think about this as a situation that needs to be resolved. The second is because of the extent to which state legislatures are a whole lot less likely to be the source of election subversion. I worry that people say "mission accomplished" and move on. You know, heading into 2020, state legislatures were the single most
important source that was going to have an impact on control of Congress because they draw congressional maps heading into 2022 because of the independent state legislature doctrine, they were the single most worrisome place for subversion of the presidential election. Heading into 2024, it's possible that they'll be the most important source for something else that's core to our democracy. As we've said, they already are the most important source for people's right to access reproductive health care in the way they would choose to as an adult. People need to understand that state legislatures are the most important force in this country that has been left behind. Full stop. And so as we head into 2024, I worry that the presidential election and national politics will again swamp that story.
Mila Atmos: [00:35:43] Mm hmm.
Daniel Squadron: [00:35:43] And the third and final one is I worry that people think this is all about Donald Trump and that if he's not the nominee, people will think things are normal again. It's not normal to have one of two major parties for whom their base voters don't care about election outcomes. That's true on both sides. It's not normal to talk and think about the country, not in terms of achieving our pluralistic promise, but in terms of subdivisions into all kinds of categorizations. And the final thing is there's the 52/48 problem, but there's also the Trump problem. Raise your hand if your life changed because Donald Trump got elected in this country. I'm raising my hand because I left my State Senate office and co-founded The States Project. Trump was a symptom. Trump was a sign of where we are, politically. Trump was caused by what we've allowed to happen to our economy and our civic life and our public square. And so heading into 2024, I'm not sure he's going to be in the headline every day. But I'm sure that what we learned because he got elected, is still true in this country.
Mila Atmos: [00:37:03] Right. Well, I'm raising my hand right here because I started this podcast because Trump was elected. You know, I thought to myself, really what ails us as a society in America is that not all of us are engaged and not all of us vote, and not all of us even know what the stakes are. And I really wanted to have a conversation with the American people to say, "look, we have to all, we have to do something because we can only do it together." We can't... We cannot, like you said, just one person is not going to do it. But all of us together can can make a difference. So let's turn to the long game, because building this state by state strategy to really impact governing power at
the state level has been built over years. And I think you've argued it still has a ways to go. What is that long term outlook? What are your long term goals?
Daniel Squadron: [00:37:49] So in 1972 some leaders of what was called the new right at the time, really a hard right cultural movement that, combined with a hard right corporatist movement, founded the American Legislative Exchange Council, ALEC. 1972. Through the seventies, you saw them building power and institutions for their worldview and trying to change the conversation. They weren't just trying to beat Democrats. They were trying to also change the Republican Party. They succeeded. Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign in 1980. I would say that the sort of consensus, both culturally and economically, that Bill Clinton in some ways represented -- maybe had to in order to be elected -- but regardless represented, showed real success there. Today, it's 51 years later, Alec still exists. At 51 years later, the Red Map program by the Koch network, or funded by the Koch network in 2000, took basically 10 minutes to be able to be formed and funded and have massive impact in state legislatures. They have an institutional focus on states and state power and state legislatures. They have it partially because there's actually this conversation within the Republican Party going on, and they're using states for that conversation. Since so many national figures get focused inside the Beltway and they're having it because for a lot of them, there's a literal financial return on investment. Out of the Koch network, is industries regulated by states. Now, no one's marching in Phoenix or Denver or any of these other capitals about, you know, mineral extraction rules. But that is really powerful stuff. So the long term for us has to be institutions that understand the power of states. Because when you look at grassroots power, when you look at engagement, it does a whole heck of a lot more if the headline is state power. Real power in states. And by the way, it goes even farther when it's state legislative power. Governors races are hard, super hard.
Mila Atmos: [00:40:19] Yes, we've seen that.
Daniel Squadron: [00:40:21] Congressional races in states are wildly expensive, like wildly expensive. So I think we need institutions that understand and think about power in states. And the reason it's going to be hard is it has to be built on a set of principles and goals that don't have the kind of self interest that we've seen on the right. It has to be about a worldview and a vision for the country. And folks have to do it. You know, some people are involved in politics because they get really excited and something that
comes across their social media feed. Some people are excited in politics because, you know, they want to meet a big political celebrity or be friends with them. Some people are involved in politics because they have some interest professionally, and politics or government can have an impact on it. And those three measures? The right wing, or federal politics, is going to clean the clock of state legislative politics for us every time. We need people involved in building these institutions for the purpose of the worldview and the values and the vision. And it has to be durable, cycle to cycle, year to year, and focused.
Mila Atmos: [00:41:41] So, well, what are two things everyday people can do to build governing power at the state level?
Daniel Squadron: [00:41:48] This is an amazing thing. First of all, like you can actually do it. You can be one of the most important forces. You ever, like, think about the power of some individual in the Koch network? That's you if you're choosing state legislatures. When you gave Beto O'Rourke a contribution on your phone so that you could get to bed in September, you were giving some amount of money around the almost $60 Million he raised. $60 Million was a uniquely historic spending level across a dozen states.
Mila Atmos: [00:42:25] Right. Yes.
Daniel Squadron: [00:42:26] So the first thing.
Mila Atmos: [00:42:27] You can spend smaller, smaller dollars much more effectively.
Daniel Squadron: [00:42:31] First thing you can do is take responsibility for your doomscrolling contributions.
Mila Atmos: [00:42:40] Okay.
Daniel Squadron: [00:42:41] Make them strategically. You are a strategic player in politics. Your responsibility goes beyond voting. So be strategic with those contributions. Look at where, whether you're giving $10 or $100 or $1000, it will make the biggest difference. Not just to elect someone who you like, but to create governing power that
will deliver for people. That's the first. The second is you can start a giving circle and you can have your own group. So our Giving Circles program lets people have their own web page, their own name. They get to choose what state their dollars will impact all of their dollars. And you know.
Mila Atmos: [00:43:25] You can spread the love in your state.
Daniel Squadron: [00:43:26] People always say, you know. How many people say like,
you know, I want to be involved politics, but I hate money? Mila Atmos: [00:43:31] Yes.
Daniel Squadron: [00:43:32] By the way, politicians feel that way, too. But they don't have that choice.
Mila Atmos: [00:43:36] Right. Right. It's how it is. Yeah.
Daniel Squadron: [00:43:39] And, you know, fundraising really is organizing and
storytelling.
Mila Atmos: [00:43:43] Mm hmm.
Daniel Squadron: [00:43:43] It's organizing and storytelling with a really concrete impact that has 100:1 impact at the state legislative level versus federal. So the second thing is, you can actually start your own group. We'll take care of all of the components that make it really difficult. The research, the compliance, a lot of the tools and the facts. And what you can do is go out there and actually be the leader in bringing other people into this in the most potent way.
Mila Atmos: [00:44:10] Excellent. So here's the last question. Looking into the future, what makes you hopeful?
Daniel Squadron: [00:44:16] I actually have incredible hope for so much. It is an incredibly hopeful time. And this is funny because you and your listeners don't know me well, but hope is not always my leading emotion here. But there's just so much in this
moment to be hopeful about. People are still involved, even though Trump isn't president. That seemed really difficult. People get it about state legislatures, not in a transactional way, and not in a just redistricting way, but in the big picture of what it means. It's actually possible. A thousand people, 10,000 people, certainly fewer than 100,000 out of 300 million Americans. To fundamentally build this kind of power structure across every state in the country. The fact that we are this close to doing this, It's amazing. And I have to tell you, I'm actually really hopeful for America. You look at the principles and the foundations and the ideas behind it. You look at the words of the Declaration of Independence. That's a pretty good promise. It's a promise we haven't kept, always. Goodness knows, in awful ways. But having a promise and the goal being just keeping it. That's pretty hopeful. So I believe that the possibility that in 2030 we're going to be sitting here and saying we are in an era of renewed opportunity and government effectiveness and responsiveness and a delivery of the American promise, greater than we've ever done in our 225 year history is more likely than not. It's a lot of hope in that.
Mila Atmos: [00:45:58] There's a lot of hope in that. I'm hopeful for that, too. I'm going to, in 2030, check in with you again.
Daniel Squadron: [00:46:04] I'd love to be here.
Mila Atmos: [00:46:05] Thank you so much for joining us. It was really a pleasure to
have you on.
Daniel Squadron: [00:46:09] Thank you so much.
Mila Atmos: [00:46:11] Daniel Squadron is a former New York State Senator and co- founder and executive director of The States Project.
Next week on Future Hindsight, we're joined by Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider, co-hosts of the Have You Heard? education podcast and co-authors of A Wolf at the Schoolhouse Door: The Dismantling of Public Education and the Future of School.
Jack Schneider: [00:46:38] There's been an ideological push for more than half a century to pull apart the nation's public schools and the coalition that supports this idea
of unmaking public education, a coalition of libertarians, evangelical Christians, social extremists, people with extreme views about race or gender. That coalition has seized this moment, and particularly in the wake of the pandemic, right in the wake of Donald Trump's presidency. In a time of deep polarization, they are seizing the opportunity to do all sorts of things that really get at this one aim, which is unmaking public schools.
Mila Atmos: [00:47:19] That's next time on Future Hindsight.
Have you checked us out on Instagram yet? We've got a bunch more tips to help you build your Civic Action toolkit. Follow us on Instagram @FutureHindsightPod to get special updates, episode clips, and everything in between.
This episode was produced by Zack Travis and Sara Burningham. Until next time, stay engaged.
The Democracy Group: [00:47:52] This podcast is part of the democracy group.