Thomas: Hey everyone, welcome to the show! Today we're tackling something super important: the fight for voting rights in America. I mean, whether you've waited in crazy long lines to vote, struggled with registration, or just felt like our democracy isn't quite living up to its promise, this is definitely an episode you'll want to tune into. Grace: Exactly. Stacey Abrams' book, “Our Time Is Now,” really digs deep. It doesn't just talk about voting; it examines the entire system. And let's be real, Thomas, when you see whole communities consistently shut out, it's more than just red tape, right? This book really asks the tough questions about power, about identity, and whether we can honestly call ourselves a true democracy. Thomas: Absolutely. Abrams takes us through a powerful history lesson, connecting the dots from the blatant racism of the Jim Crow era to the more subtle, but just as effective, tactics we see today, like those "exact match" laws and voter roll purges. She uses really clear examples to show how marginalized groups have been deliberately kept out of the democratic process. It's pretty eye-opening. Grace: Today, we're dissecting our democracy – or, as you say, our “so-called democracy,” and breaking it down into five key areas. First, we are going to dive into the past, understanding how historical factors have shaped the current challenges in our electoral system. Then, if my outline here is correct, we'll examine contemporary suppression tactics—those seemingly innocuous bureaucratic hoops. Thomas: Exactly! And after that, we are going to honor those inspiring activists who are pushing for change, reminding us that progress requires action. Also, we'll explore the role of identity in this struggle—how race and power intersect to influence who has a voice. Finally, we’ll lay out Abrams’ vision for a truly inclusive democracy—a system that serves everyone, not just a select few. Grace: So, get ready. Because this goes beyond just voting. It’s about justice, about history, and about what America could be if we truly made room for everyone. It sounds like a journey.

Thomas: To really get a handle on voter suppression today, we’ve got to rewind and see how deeply rooted these issues are in America’s history of exclusion. I'm talking about post-Reconstruction, specifically. That era, right after the Civil War, was supposed to be a turning point, wasn’t it? We had the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, the Fourteenth guaranteeing citizenship, and the Fifteenth safeguarding voting rights. On paper, it looked like a brand new day: everyone gets equal treatment under the law. Grace: “On paper” is doing a lot of work in that sentence, Thomas. Because, as we all know, it didn't “quite” work out that way. Reconstruction kind of fizzled out without really securing those rights. By the late 1800s, Southern states were churning out Jim Crow laws like there was no tomorrow, and those laws were a deliberate strategy to crush Black political power. Thomas: Absolutely. Jim Crow was systematic, calculated, and just relentless. Think about literacy tests and poll taxes. Supposedly neutral, right? Designed to ensure "election integrity." But come on, let’s be real. They were anything “but” neutral. For example, Black voters would be asked to interpret ridiculously complicated legal texts—like, the entire U.S. Constitution. Absurd, isn’t it? And if they failed, boom, their vote was gone, regardless of anything else. Grace: Then you tack on poll taxes. Talk about disenfranchising people already struggling with poverty – poverty often caused by systemic racism in the first place! It's like putting a price tag on your basic right to participate in democracy. How did we go from these grand promises in the Constitution to this level of blatant exclusion? Thomas: Excellent point, Grace. To really understand, we have to go back even further, to the founding of the country. Take the Three-Fifths Compromise. Enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a person—not because anyone wanted to recognize their humanity, but because it boosted the political power of slaveholding states. Can you believe the irony? Their very existence was used to expand representation in Congress, yet they were denied any political power themselves. “That's” the kind of deeply entrenched problem we're dealing with. Grace: So, a foundation built on one paradox after another. Reconstruction amendments promising "freedom" somehow sparked a wave of white resistance and reactionary laws. The Three-Fifths Compromise giving power to the very people who opposed equality. Honestly, the deeper we go, the more it feels like democracy for some in America, and not for everyone. Thomas: Exactly, and that's what makes this not just a history lesson but a systemic issue. Consider this data from Abrams: Black voter rolls in Mississippi plummeted from nearly 190,000 in the 1890s to under 9,000 within a decade. The drop-off is staggering! It really shows how state legislators weaponized laws against their own citizens to maintain white supremacy. Grace: And let's talk about the cost of that suppression. It's not just about the votes that were lost, but the message it sends to segments of the population. When you tell a whole group of people, year after year, that their voice doesn't matter, you're saying: "This system wasn’t built for you”. Thomas: Which is why the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was such a game-changer. It directly tackled those tactics, banning literacy tests and requiring preclearance for changes to voting laws in areas with a history of discrimination. For a while, you know, it felt like real progress was happening. Grace: Until Shelby County v. Holder gutted that preclearance provision in 2013. Guess what happened? Almost immediately, jurisdictions across the South started closing polling places—especially in Black and minority neighborhoods. Georgia epitomizes how quickly those barriers popped back up. Thomas: It’s unbelievable how often those closures were spun as administrative tweaks or cost-saving measures. But it’s clear when you look at the impact— the longer lines, longer travel times, and disproportionate impact on marginalized communities—it's a calculated move from an old and familiar playbook. Grace: Here's a scenario for you, Thomas. Imagine you live in a rural county in the South. Your polling place closes, and now the nearest one is twenty miles away. You don’t have a car, public transport is a joke, and you have to take unpaid time off work just to vote. Are you voting? Or are you saying "forget it"? Thomas: And that’s what voter suppression counts on—that the hurdles will not only make it harder to vote, but discourage you altogether. It’s voter suppression through intimidation, like psychological warfare. It can wear down even the most determined activists when they're constantly pushing against the system. This isn’t just history, Grace—it’s the day-to-day reality for millions of people right now.

Thomas: So, really understanding the history is key to seeing how voter suppression works today. These tactics, they aren't just dusty relics, you know? They’ve evolved. White supremacy and anti-democratic forces didn't just disappear; they adapted. They're just wearing new disguises. And Stacey Abrams, in Our Time is Now, she really breaks down this shift to modern barriers in a way that you just can't ignore. Grace: Exactly, it’s like voter suppression got a makeover. Gone are the obvious thugs and poll taxes. Now it's all about “election integrity" and fighting "fraud" that barely exists. It's kind of brilliant, in a twisted way. Things like voter ID laws, or "exact match" policies? They’re sold as common sense, right? To keep elections secure. But really, they systematically exclude the people the system probably doesn’t want voting anyway. So Thomas, where do we even begin unpacking this? Thomas: You’re right, Grace, let’s start with the voter ID laws, right? Because they're like, the poster child for something that sounds neutral but really hits marginalized groups the hardest. Abrams explains how needing a government-issued ID – like, a driver's license, state ID, or even, get this, a handgun license – seems fair enough, until you actually look at who has those documents. Grace: Right, and more importantly, who doesn't? I mean, look at Texas. They said a gun license – held mostly by white, rural voters – was okay, but a student ID from a state university? Nope, doesn't cut it. I mean, come on, that's not an accident. The numbers tell the whole story. Voters of color are almost twice as likely not to have the required ID in places like Texas, which basically sidelines a big part of the electorate before they even get to the polls. Thomas: Exactly! And getting those IDs isn't as easy as some politicians act like it is, either. Think about a single parent working two jobs, without a car. How are they supposed to get to the DMV when it's only open during working hours? Not to mention, documents like birth certificates or passports – which you need for the ID – can cost money and might be impossible to get if you were born at home or in a rural area. Especially for older Black or Native American citizens. Grace: So instead of voter ID laws, it's more like "voter obstacle course" laws. The system is like, "Okay, prove you're worthy." And then it puts all these obstacles in your path to make sure you fail. And when you do, it’s like "Hey, those are just the rules, right?" Makes you wonder, Thomas, is this really that different from the literacy tests they used way back when? Thomas: You know, it's really not. It's the same basic idea, right? Design rules that seem fair on the surface, but they end up discriminating against specific groups of people. Which brings us to voter registration purges. It's another quiet, but really nasty way to keep people from voting. They revise the registration lists to "clean up the records," they say. But really, tons of legitimate voters just get taken off the list. Grace: Georgia was the master of this, right? Abrams doesn't hold back when she talks about Brian Kemp's "use-it-or-lose-it" policy. Over 1.4 million voters purged between 2012 and 2018? I mean, that's not just maintenance, that's a scorched-earth policy! Thomas: And it’s not just random, right? These purges tend to target people who haven't voted in a while. Think about who that affects—people working multiple jobs, people who move a lot, or communities that have been marginalized for a long time. It's like penalizing people for just trying to survive. Grace: Not to mention the psychological factor, too. Imagine showing up to vote after years of not being involved, and then finding out that you've been purged from the list. You're standing there, ready to make your voice heard, and suddenly you're not on the list. That's humiliating, confusing, and just another reason to give up on the whole system. Thomas: Right, so it's voter suppression disguised as efficiency. And when you combine that with polling place closures, it's really a perfect storm of exclusion. Right? Abrams talks about places like Clay County, Georgia, where they closed polling sites and made people travel miles just to vote—often without a car or public transportation. It's almost always low-income, Black, and rural communities that are hit hardest. Grace: Like the story of Maggie Coleman, right? A 71-year-old woman, suddenly she has to drive ten miles to vote because they closed her polling place. That's a struggle for anyone, especially in a county with no public transportation. It’s like, how many obstacles can we put in the way before voting becomes almost impossible? Thomas: And even if you make it to the polling place, there are other obstacles, like long lines and not enough voting machines. So you're making people make tough choices – take time off work without pay, risk losing their job, or just not vote at all. It's really the same psychological warfare we were talking about earlier. Grace: And, speaking of weaponizing bureaucracy, let's talk about "exact match" policies. This one is almost funny if it weren't so awful. These policies throw out your voter registration if even the smallest detail doesn't match government records exactly. Forget a hyphen? Miss an apostrophe? Sorry, no vote for you! Thomas: I know, it’s so devastatingly effective. Abrams points out that in Georgia, just tens of thousands of voter registrations were delayed or denied because of these policies. And the majority of them were – you guessed it – people of color. And here's the kicker: the mistakes weren't always even the voters' fault. A lot of the errors came from government officials themselves! So you get punished for someone else's mistake. Grace: And then the state just shrugs and says, “Oops, administrative mix-up." But in the meantime, the election goes on, and who gets left out? The people who were already struggling in the first place. It's almost elegant, the way these systems are designed to work. The old poll taxes and literacy tests used brute force, but these new methods use technicalities. Thomas: You've got it, that's what Abrams is saying – that modern voter suppression isn't an accident. It's done on purpose. These laws and policies don't just quietly exclude people; they make a statement about who belongs in America's democracy, and who doesn't.

Thomas: So, with those deliberate barriers in mind, we naturally turn to the grassroots efforts fighting against them. Stacey Abrams really emphasizes in “Our Time Is Now” that these challenges are huge, but not impossible to overcome. Grassroots mobilization is proving to be a potent solution to systemic disenfranchisement. And that's where we start looking at solutions—specifically, how everyday people and strategic organizations are pushing back to reclaim democracy. Grace: Grassroots is definitely having its moment, isn't it? I mean, what screams "power to the people" more than groups like Fair Fight Action and the New Georgia Project just rolling up their sleeves and saying, "Okay, you've tilted the system against us—well, watch us tilt it right back." It’s kind of wild, Thomas, how these movements can turn local efforts into national movements. So, why don't you kick us off? What makes Fair Fight such a powerhouse in this battle? Thomas: Sure thing! Fair Fight Action is Stacey Abrams' brainchild, launched after the highly publicized 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election. Her opponent, Brian Kemp, who was also the Secretary of State at the time, was basically overseeing his own race and, in the process, implemented widespread voter suppression. Fair Fight pulls no punches—it uses a really smart, multifaceted strategy, including litigation, policy advocacy, education, and partnerships with other progressive organizations. Abrams understood that just pointing out the problems wasn't going to cut it; they had to be tackled head-on in the courts and in the public's mind. Grace: And the stories they've brought to light—like what happened to Mrs. Hollis during those 2018 midterms—really hit home. Here’s a woman, properly registered and ready, being told, essentially, "We seem to have misplaced your ballot application; tough luck." It's almost comical, if it weren't so infuriating. And it's not a one-off error, it's clearly systemic. Fair Fight took these stories, created a narrative, and used them to create public outrage and fuel their legal battles. Thomas: Exactly! Mrs. Hollis's experience really resonated, because it wasn't unique to her. It represented what countless voters, especially in Black and low-income communities, were experiencing—everything from faulty voting machines to total mismanagement at polling places. Fair Fight presented her case as a prime example of how voter suppression works in practice—subtle but incredibly damaging. Their legal strategy is designed to push governments to acknowledge these systemic failings and, more importantly, to actively fix them. Grace: And aside from litigation, Fair Fight has another trick up its sleeve: public education. They're not just saying, "The system is broken," but they're making sure people actually understand how it's broken and, more importantly, what people can do to navigate it. That's huge, because voter suppression doesn't just happen because of confusing laws—it thrives on public confusion. If you can make people think it's too difficult or risky to vote, then what? They stay home. Thomas: Right! That's why grassroots organizations like Fair Fight put so much emphasis on storytelling. Individual experiences, like Mrs. Hollis's or Maggie Coleman's—another Georgia voter who faced totally unnecessary hurdles—humanize the whole struggle. By sharing these stories, Fair Fight fosters empathy and educates people about what's at stake. And that's just one piece of the puzzle. The New Georgia Project takes a slightly different approach, focusing heavily on proactively registering voters. Grace: Ah, the New Georgia Project. The absolute rock stars of voter registration. They remind me of superheroes in their origin stories—scrappy, determined, taking on forces much bigger than themselves. Didn’t they register, like, over 100,000 new voters in the lead-up to the 2018 election? Thomas: That's right—an incredible feat, especially considering everything they were up against. For example, they submitted nearly 86,500 voter registration forms in 2014 alone, and a lot of those applications just mysteriously disappeared. Lost in bureaucratic processes, or tripped up by policies like "exact match," or simply mishandled by election officials. This wasn't just bad luck; it was obstruction, plain and simple. Grace: Diamond’s story from that effort really stuck with me. Here's someone who registers with such excitement, only to find out on Election Day that her form was "lost." Diamond isn’t just losing her opportunity to vote; she's losing faith in the process. And that personal impact—the psychological toll—really makes you wonder if suppression tactics are, at their core, designed to erode our trust in democracy. Thomas: That’s precisely Abrams' point. When you encounter barrier after barrier, you start to believe that “Your voice doesn’t matter." But the New Georgia Project has flipped that narrative. By figuring out where the gaps really are—like access to registration—they've found ways to empower people. They aren't just signing people up; they’re educating them, connecting them to important resources, and making sure they really understand their rights. Grace: And the tools they use—let's dive into those for a second. I love how they've embraced everything from old-school canvassing to really savvy social media. It feels personal, too. They do targeted outreach that speaks directly to the people they're trying to reach, whether it's offering bilingual materials for Latino communities or mobile clinics in rural areas. It's not a "build it and they will come" approach; they're actively going to where the people are. Thomas: That's the beauty of grassroots mobilization: it is adaptable. Fair Fight and the New Georgia Project don't rely on one-size-fits-all solutions. Instead, they tailor their efforts. They're addressing specific barriers for specific communities. It could be storytelling to build awareness, going door-to-door to register voters, or legal challenges to overturn discriminatory laws. Each tool is part of a much larger coordinated strategy. Grace: Which brings us to the bigger question: What can we actually learn from these movements? How do grassroots organizations manage to survive, let alone thrive, when the odds seem so completely stacked against them? I think one of the biggest takeaways is their sheer persistence. Look at what Abrams emphasizes—this isn't a sprint; it's a marathon. Even if you lose a legal battle, or find that registrations are delayed, you regroup, and you keep pushing forward. Thomas: And that persistence is driven by community. Grassroots advocacy works because it empowers people to see themselves as part of the solution. It's not about waiting for change to come from the top down—it's about building change from the ground up. Grace, these organizations are showing us what democracy could “really” look like if it truly included and represented everyone. And that's what makes them not just inspiring but completely essential.

Thomas: This activism really highlights the larger goal, you know, a more inclusive democracy, and that really depends on fair representation. Stacey Abrams, she points out something super important: the intersectionality of the New American Majority. I mean, it's about how our different identities – race, gender, class – affect our chances to participate in politics, and how we can use that collective identity to make real change. Grace: Right, the New American Majority. It sounds ambitious, almost like something we're striving for. Abrams does a good job convincing us it’s not just a nice idea, but actually happening. But here's what I'm wondering: how does the intersectionality thing really work? We're talking about a group of people with very different lives, right? Different challenges, different backgrounds. So, can one movement, united by the issue of voter suppression, really bring all that diversity together into something strong? Thomas: That's a really good question. Abrams argues that intersectionality is the key, precisely because it acknowledges those differences. She's saying we can't just look at one thing, we have to see how different systems of inequality overlap. For example, someone who's Black and a woman – and like Kimya in Abrams’ book, has survived domestic violence – faces a unique set of challenges. We can’t really understand what she's up against if we only focus on one part of her identity. Grace: Tell me more about Kimya's story. Abrams uses it as a prime example of intersectionality in action, right? Thomas: Exactly. Kimya’s experience demonstrates how personal experience can bring real systemic change, right? She went through a awful domestic violence situation and saw firsthand the problems with the justice and healthcare systems. Instead of letting that break her, she became an advocate, advocating for gun safety reform. The data shows that having a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by a shocking 500%! Kimya’s work really highlighted the connection between gun violence, gender, and systemic neglect and pushed others to support new laws. Grace: Wow, that's a story that really hits you hard but also inspires. It's clear her voice represents more than one thing – it connects a lot of different issues. But, Thomas, as inspiring as Kimya's story is, can one example really lead to broader political change? I mean, when you’re dealing with these kinds of interconnected systemic problems, doesn't it become almost impossible for a movement to tackle everything? Thomas: It can feel overwhelming, for sure. But Abrams would argue that it’s by recognizing those layers that movements like this gain power. When people see their own complex struggles reflected in a larger group, they're more likely to believe in what it’s doing. And that's where the New American Majority comes in. It’s a demographic shift with huge possibilities, precisely because it’s built on diversity. We're talking about people of color, young voters, single women, all kinds of communities that have been pushed to the margins. They're starting to realize that their collective power comes from working together to dismantle these unfair systems. Grace: Okay, but here’s the catch. Systems don't just fall apart without a fight. And if this New American Majority is as powerful as it seems, it makes sense that voter suppression would target them. Abrams talks about how these systemic barriers evolve to try and neutralize this group – things like closing polling places, strict ID laws, gerrymandering. It’s like the more potential they have, the more underhanded the suppression tactics become. Thomas: Absolutely. Abrams stresses that voter suppression isn’t a thing of the past. It's happening right now, designed to weaken the New American Majority. A really obvious example is the closing of polling places in predominantly Black neighborhoods after the Shelby County v. Holder ruling. These closures didn't just make it harder to vote; they deliberately cut off access, sending the message that the system isn't for them. Grace: It makes me think of Maggie Coleman’s story, that 71-year-old woman in Georgia who had to travel almost ten miles to her new polling place after hers was shut down. No public transportation in her area, and the county has a poverty rate of 43%. It’s not just an inconvenience; it’s practically impossible for many people. And that’s the – I don’t know, horrifying – genius of suppression tactics. They don’t have to say “No Black voters allowed.” they achieve the same thing through layers of red tape. Thomas: Exactly. And that's why Abrams connects these voter suppression tactics so directly to demographic shifts. The New American Majority is a threat to the status quo. Their growing numbers signal change, but only if they can turn that potential into political power. Suppression tactics, like the ones in Georgia, are clearly designed to weaken these communities and limit their influence, deliberately. Grace: And that brings us to the other side of the coin – opportunity. Abrams doesn’t just point out the problems; she gives us a plan for how to fight back. For example, look at how her campaign for governor in Georgia reached out to the Latino community. Instead of ignoring them, she made a real effort to address their concerns – things like affordable education and healthcare. It wasn’t just a gesture; it was about including them on their terms, what they cared about. Thomas: That outreach was so important! Latinos make up almost 10% of Georgia’s population, and they'd been largely ignored by politicians. Abrams going to places like local taquerias, listening to people’s concerns directly – it wasn't just for show. It was acknowledging that these communities matter and that their struggles and hopes are part of the larger fight for a fair democracy. When you include folks like this, they start to see themselves as part of the system, not as outsiders, but as key players. Grace: And it’s more than simply reaching out—it's about establishing the framework for long-term involvement. Similar to how Maggie Coleman's narrative illustrates repression, Latino mobilisation in Georgia demonstrates what can happen when individuals are provided with both the resources and the respect necessary to engage in the process. Abrams consistently revisits this concept, doesn’t she? The notion that democracy is not a static thing; rather, it's something we must all actively contribute to shaping. Thomas: Exactly, and that’s the bigger picture. This isn't just about registering voters or winning elections. It's about transforming democracy so that every voice is heard, especially those that have been historically silenced. Abrams challenges us to think about democracy not as a gift, but as a living system that grows stronger when everyone is included. The New American Majority proves that diversity is America's strength, but to realize that, we have to break down the barriers preventing these communities from fully participating. Grace: Break down the barriers, amplify their voices. And what I appreciate about this discussion is that it's not just theoretical. Abrams provides practical examples, such as automatic voter registration, outreach tailored to marginalized communities, and the significance of coalition building. It's not just about what needs to change; it's about how to make it happen. Thomas: That’s her whole point. The New American Majority isn’t just a nice idea. It's a reality waiting to happen. If we can protect their right to vote and recognize the intersectionality of their experiences, we can unlock a transformative power that redefines what democracy can be, not just for now, but for future generations. The potential is “amazing”.

Thomas: Stacy Abrams really gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't she? This demographic shift highlights the need for some serious systemic reforms to protect our democracy. In “Our Time Is Now,” she doesn't just point out the problems; she actually lays out concrete steps we can take to move forward, ensuring that this diverse “New American Majority” she talks about can truly participate in shaping the future. So, today we want to focus on this idea of “Systemic Reforms and a Call to Action,” I mean, she identifies the barriers, but also gives us a clear roadmap with achievable reforms. Things like automatic voter registration, federal election standards, and ending gerrymandering. We thought we'd keep it simple today and talk about both — the vision for equity and exactly how we can achieve it. Grace: Ambitious stuff, I'll give her that. Let's kick off with AVR, automatic voter registration. Thomas, this sounds great in theory. It's supposed to eliminate a lot of the initial barriers, right? So, break it down for us. How does it actually work? Thomas: Okay, so picture this: automatic voter registration completely changes the game. Instead of making people actively sign up – which, let's be real, has historically disadvantaged so many groups – AVR automatically registers eligible voters when they interact with government agencies like the DMV. Basically, if you qualify, you’re in, unless you specifically choose to opt out. Abrams argues that this is such a key reform because it makes voting accessible to all instead of a process filled with unnecessary hurdles. Grace: Right, so it's the system finally doing its job instead of making voters jump through hoops. But I'm curious, do we have proof that it actually works? I mean, Abrams isn't just throwing ideas at the wall, hoping something sticks, right? She's got data. Thomas: Oh, absolutely, she does. And it's pretty compelling. States that have implemented AVR, like Oregon, have seen huge increases in voter participation, especially among those traditionally underrepresented groups. Take Oregon, for example. After they adopted AVR in 2016, voter registration jumped by almost 10% in the first month alone! Abrams makes a strong case that it's a no-brainer; it simply removes unnecessary barriers…walls, if you will, that have historically kept so many people from getting on the voter rolls. Grace: Okay, that makes sense. But it also brings us back to the question Abrams raises, right? Why were those walls there in the first place? I'm thinking of Florida's third-party registration example. I mean, the laws there imposed ridiculous deadlines and penalties for grassroots organizations submitting voter forms! Penalties for missing a 48-hour deadline because an office was closed on the weekend? It's like they were deliberately setting traps for democracy. Thomas: Exactly. And Abrams highlights the devastating impact of those laws. Third-party groups, like the League of Women Voters, basically had to stop their registration efforts because the new rules made it too risky, legally. And get this, within one election cycle, over 81,000 fewer people were registered in Florida – a state where elections are often decided by just a few votes, a razor-thin margin. AVR could really solve these issues by bypassing the risks tied to those manual registration drives. Grace: So, it's not just about whether someone fills out a form. It's about who gets access and how we simplify things to make democracy actually work. Alright, I'll admit maybe AVR is pretty convincing. But she doesn't stop there, right? She also argues for federal election standards which gets into tricky constitutional territory, especially with states traditionally controlling their own elections. How does Abrams navigate that? Thomas: Exactly. And you're right, states have always regulated their own elections, but Abrams points out that it contributes to massive differences in voting access across the country. Federal election standards would set minimum requirements—protections against things like "exact match" policies or chronic voting machine shortages—while still letting states keep some control. It's really about creating fairness, not just uniformity. Grace: So, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution; it's more like having basic ground rules that everyone has to play by. Like requiring goalposts on a football field, right? Doesn't matter where you're playing, but you can't have one team scoring into an empty net while the other's shooting through a brick wall. Thomas: Perfect metaphor, Grace. Abrams really emphasizes that the current patchwork is ripe for abuse. Georgia's exact match policy is a case in point. Thousands of voter applications, mostly from voters of color, were stalled or rejected because of minor errors. I mean, the data didn't perfectly match across systems, but a lot of the time, the discrepancies weren't even the voter's fault! National safeguards would prevent these kinds of arbitrary exclusions. Grace: Right, and by arbitrary exclusions, we mean people like that young woman in Georgia, right? The one who was flagged because her hyphenated name was entered differently between two databases. It’s the kind of absurdity that's tailor-made to frustrate and disenfranchise. Thomas: Exactly, and her story really shows how precise some of these policies are. These errors weren't just isolated incidents; they were systemic. And let's not forget the psychological impact. Being told your registration is invalid because of a typo sends a pretty clear message: "You're not welcome here." Federal standards would ensure that a mistake in a name or address doesn't stop someone from participating. Grace: Fair enough. But states are going to scream about federal overreach, especially when election laws are tied to identity politics. Still, as Abrams points out, we have overarching frameworks for civil rights, so why not for voting? I mean, it's arguably the cornerstone of democracy. Thomas: Which is exactly her argument: voting is a fundamental right. Uniform standards wouldn't erase state control; they'd just prevent bad actors from exploiting loopholes, and the "exact match" debacle is just one example. Others, like gerrymandering, expose even deeper systemic issues. Abrams calls for redistricting reform through independent commissions to ensure fair representation. Grace: Ah, gerrymandering. If suppression tactics are psychological warfare, gerrymandering is a tactical airstrike. It's so insidious, one party rigs the map, locking themselves into power no matter how voters actually behave. Michigan's past gerrymandering before that independent commission… that’s a case study in how bad it can get, isn't it? Thomas: Absolutely. Michigan's story really underscores how grassroots advocacy and public pressure can force change. After overwhelming evidence of partisan disenfranchisement following the 2010 census, voters there rallied to pass a ballot initiative, creating an independent commission. And guess what? Electoral districts that reflect legitimate population patterns, not partisan gamesmanship. That's the power of people-driven reform. Grace: People-driven, but also painstaking. Change this meaningful doesn't happen overnight – or without pushback. And that's the running theme here, right Thomas? From automatic voter registration to ending gerrymandering, Abrams outlines ideas that don't just address the symptoms of an inequitable democracy but go after its structural flaws. And yet, every proposal runs into resistance from entrenched power interests. Thomas: By design, Grace. The same groups Abrams discusses—those clinging to outdated structures of privilege—benefit from the status quo. In “Our Time Is Now,” she makes it clear that while systemic reform is vital, it's only effective if people take ownership of the democratic process. Liberation isn't granted; it's fought for. Grace: And fighting for it isn't just voting—it's knowing what's at stake. Abrams has made that clear every step of the way. From sidelined voter registrations to rigged district maps, the fight is as much about exposing suppression tactics as it is battling them outright.

Thomas: So, today’s conversation really took us on a journey, didn't it? We explored the historical and current challenges of voter suppression, from those old Jim Crow literacy tests to the “exact match” policies we see today. Stacey Abrams’ book, “Our Time Is Now,” really brought home the point that these barriers aren't just random – they're deliberate tactics to silence certain voices. But, you know, we also saw the strength of grassroots movements, groups like Fair Fight Action and the New Georgia Project, and just the sheer determination of individuals who refuse to be shut down by systemic obstacles. Grace: Right, Thomas. What really struck me was this idea that suppression is not just about preventing people from casting their ballot. It’s about eroding their confidence in the whole democratic process. That's the insidious part, isn't it? But Abrams, she really reframes the conversation. She doesn't just point out the problem; she gives us the tools to solve it. Things like automatic voter registration, setting federal election standards, having independent redistricting commissions—these aren't just quick fixes; they're about building a sturdier foundation from the ground up. Thomas: Exactly! And I think the biggest takeaway is that democracy isn't a spectator sport. It's something we all have to actively participate in. Abrams challenges us to not only fight for the right to vote, but to really understand the power of that vote. Because when everyone's voice is heard, it changes everything – not just elections, but the very core of our society. It sounds idealistic, but I really believe it! Grace: And that leads to a clear call to action for all of us: Get involved. Whether it's registering voters, boosting grassroots efforts, or pushing for systematic changes, this is everyone’s fight. As Abrams puts it, “Democracy works only when we all participate.” So, let’s get to work—and make sure everyone has a seat at the table and a voice that’s actually heard. What do you think? That's a pretty good summary, right? Thomas: Couldn’t have said it better myself, Grace. Thanks for joining us in this really vital discussion. Until next time, remember: democracy isn’t just something we’re entitled to, it’s something we have to actively protect and nurture. Let’s keep pushing for a truly fair America.