Stacey Abrams on writing romance novels and political thrillers in her spare time

prolific author. She's written eight unapologetically steamy romance novels under the pen names Selena Montgomery, and this month she's releasing her ninth work of fiction, her first under her own name. It's a political action thriller called While Justice Sleeps. Recently, I had the great pleasure of joining Stacy on her book tour at a virtual stop at Powell's Books in Seattle. We had a wide ranging conversation about her new book, her writing process, and of course about all the non

fiction political drama going on these days. So in joy, Wow, what an extraordinary year you've had, Stacy. Uh. Your work Turney Georgia Blue played a pivotal role in President Biden's election, you were nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, and now you're publishing your ninth novel, which, by the way, is being developed into a TV series? Am I missing anything? Did you win an Academy Award in a Pulitzer Prize while I wasn't looking? I did not? But what I mean,

you must wake up at times? How do you kind of keep it all in perspective? Because it's pretty extraordinary and even some of the questions and comments I'm getting people are so just very honored to be in your presence, virtual or otherwise. How would you describe the last several months for you personally? As someone who really loves words and language and tries to be very precise, the only

word I can use is weird. It's very weird. It's extraordinary and amazing, and I am both incredibly grateful and deeply incredulous. So it's weird. It's weird, but good weird, we should say. And of course we're here just to tonight to talk about your novel. Of course, you know I'm a political junkie, so we're going to talk about the state of the country and politics in a moment. But I want to talk to you about while Justice Sleeves.

I think the first reaction people might have Stacy when they hear that you've written a novel is wait, what when, I mean, how on earth have you had time to write enough? Not just one novel, but nine novels, Stacy, I've written nine, So tell us about when you did that, and and and sort of how you became interested in writing in the first place. So. I am the daughter of a librarian and a shipyard worker my parents when

I was growing up. I'm the second of six kids, and they were very intentional at out encouraging us to read and to love storytelling and to explore all of the facets of our personality. For me, writing and reading were just of a piece. Once I learned to read, I started writing. And I've written poetry, I've done plays, you know. I had a little brief stent where I thought I was going to be a country music writer. Turns out don't play the guitar well, so that went

out the window. But I've always loved writing. I love words. When I was in law school, I realized that it was probably the last time I would have or I thought it would be the last time I'd have enough free time to possibly write a novel. So I wanted to write a spy novel based on my ex boyfriend's dissertation and I was told by people in publishing, and this is ninety nine, that publishers weren't going to publish

a spine novel by or about a woman. So I thought, well, I know I've read about women spies, I know I've read espionage. I realized it was you know, general hospital and romance novels, and so I made my spies fall and love killed all the people I planned to kill. But at the time I learned how to structure a thriller, to write a suspense novel that was romantically driven but still has all of the elements of suspense. So fast forward to two thousand eight, I had written eight. At

that point, i'd written six of my novels. I was having lunch with the lawyer who Win the lawyers who helped me become a really good lawyer, but who also was one of my strongest supporters. Name is Teresa win Roseboro, and she would apply me when we'd have lunch, she'd ply me with these things she'd been thinking about. And this time she asked me if I had ever thought about the cork in the constitution that allows the only the only people in our constitution who were given lifetime appointments.

Are they also the only ones who don't have an outclause. If you think about it, if you are in Congress and you can't do your job, you're physically incapable of doing your job, you just get unelected. If you're the president, the amendment says you can be removed, But judges have lifetime appointments, and they can only be removed for high crimes, misdemeanors, or death. But being unable to do your job is

actually not a disqualifier. And when she said that, it just grabbed me, and so I spent the next couple of years writing the book. I was still under contract for two more romance novels, and there was this little election in two thousand eighth that got me distracted. But I've finished everything by tried to sell it, no one bought it. Tried to sell it again in twenty fifteen, was told that it was a bit absurd that we wouldn't have a president who was involved in international intrigue,

and that no one cared about the Supreme Court. It wasn't that relevant by the dynamic, and the climate had changed. And suddenly while justice leaps got to come alive, and I know that that night that that that Teresa, when Roseboro UH mentioned that to you, you went home and you started writing that very night because you were so intrigued by this idea. And and for all your other books, your romance novels, I know you used a pseudonym, uh, Selena Montgomery, but you decided to use your real name

for the first time, uh, for Wild Justice Sleeps. Is that because you've become really a household name and you thought why not? Well, it was more that when I started writing romantic suspense, I was also writing treat tax treatises and social policy analysis, and it was just easier

to keep them separate. No one wanted to read romance by Alan Greenspan, and you know, you can't really publish tax policy under pseudonym, and so I didn't think of it that intentionally, but it was basically brand identity romance. Selena Montgomery was also much more romantic romance novelist sounding name than Stacy Abrams. And now with this book, keeping the identity separate is no longer possibility. People kind of know who I am and what I do, and so

I'm happy to put my name on it. And as you say, it's so relevant, given given what has happened at the Supreme Court, with the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, of course, with with Mark Garland and uh Mitch McConnell's refusal to even meet with him after President I mean, so, I think all eyes have clearly been on the Supreme Court, and I'm curious. Last month, as you know, President Biden established a commission to study the possibility of expanding the

court or setting term limits for justices. How do you feel about those possibilities. Is that something that you would support. I'm less compelled by the idea of term limits, mainly because what I find in elected office is the term limits sometimes cordin off both good behavior, but they incentivize bad behavior. If you know there's no consequence, why bother? And so I'm concerned about I'm interested and intrigued by

the idea, but it is not the most compelling. I think the expansion of the court is actually a natural act. We are a much larger nation than we were the last time we expanded the court. I think the complexity of our politics and the complexity of the questions coming before the court warrant a larger court. But what I don't want to see happen is that, you know, because of tit for tat, we end up with, you know, forty eight people on the Supreme Court. It starts you

start to get diminishing returns then. And so I think that the commission idea is a smart one because rather than refusing to have the conversation or always couching it in purely partisan terms, this is an opportunity to really think through why haven't we expanded it since the last time, and what can it look like for the next generation if we do expand the court or alter its capacity in some fashion. I don't want to give to too much away, but the plot centers around what happens when

a Supreme Court justice falls into a coma. You know, it reminded me a little of that movie Dave, do you remember with Kevin Klein, but but at the Supreme Court instead of the White House. But the Supreme Court justice falls into a coma and he names his young law clerk, Avery Keen, as his legal guardian. So tell us a little bit about the character Avery Keen and

how you came up with and developed that character. Well, as you you explained when I first wrote that scene That night I got home, I had to go to work after I had lunch with Teresa. I got home, I said in my computer, and the scene I write with Howard Wynn was the very first scene and it has stayed in the book. It's been the first scene moved to. I moved it out of the prologue, moved it back over the last ten years, but it's always

been there. And as I was writing it, when he started talking about he he's a bit of a curmudgeon, and when he's muttering about his clerks, Avery just was really clear to me that she would be this young law clerk who has, you know, on the outside, seems to be good at what she does as this complicated life, doesn't know what her future looks like, and it suddenly thrust into this new controversy where she has done everything in her power to kind of stay under the radar

because she doesn't want to get caught She's gonna get caught up in challenge. She wants to just finally have some normalcy. But I also wanted to explore the conversation of having responsibility without having power, that you're given this thing, you have to do, this challenge, you have to meet. But all you have are your wits and your your moral compass, But you aren't really given the authority to navigate all of the spaces you have to be in

and what that would take. And so Avery, for me is she I wanted her to be smart and courageous. I wanted her to intentionally do good. I get frustrated with books where our hero is good because it's be good or die. That's not really a choice. I want you to choose you can do good or you can

walk away. And I think that's often the tension, not not quite as heightened as I do in the book, but it's often attention we face where we have to make an affirmative choice to do something that could undermine what we want in the long term, but it's the

right thing to do. How much of Stacy Abrahams is in a very king I'd like to think that most of my characters, especially Avery, have some part of me, But she's wholly her own person, and I wanted her to be and intriguing character who could stand alone that people wanted to get to know. I write characters that I want to be friends with, and they're always very different.

In some way from me. But I think part of it for me is also I get to live out my adventures through these characters I write, and so, you know, I think it's natural that a little bit of me creeps into her DNA. You're know that Avery's mother suffers from addiction, and that's something that you really wanted to to explore in the book and something that you've dealt

with in your own family. I know that your brother is currently in recovery, and and why was it important for you to portraying more complex and human aspects of addiction and the impact that has not only on the individual, but on the whole family unit. And popular culture, addiction is used either as a tactic to convey an issue,

it's used to villainize, or it's used to victimize. What has always frustrated me is that it ignores the real complexity that people don't stop being who they are because of addiction. There are certainly exaggerations and their behaviors that are saddening and disheartening and sometimes, you know, depending on the love of addiction and the type of addiction, terrifying, but the core of who that person is doesn't cease to be and the humanity doesn't disappear because of addiction.

I wanted her to have a foil in her mother that was a legitimate impediment to some of the things she wanted that created who she is. When you've got to think about being the caretaker of someone who should be taking care of you, and you've got to navigate this m challenge that sometimes diminishes their ability to be who they should be. Does that mean that person ceases

to have value? And the answers no, because throughout the book, I want that tension to play out where she loves her mother, her mother frustrates and disappoints her, and her mother wants to be a better person every day. And I think being able to tell that story through Rita and avery, to tell the story of mothers and daughters, to talk about the biological family and what that means to us even in the darkest moments, all of those pieces to me were important to give texture and color

and character to the story. The book also features a corrupt and ruthless Republican president. Publishers originally told you, Stacy in two thousand and ten, when you finished the book and we're trying to get it it published this character seemed quote absurd and far fetched, and um it now looking back and understanding what the country has been through in the decades since you wrote it, Um, do you feel, in a weird way you were able to predict the future?

I hope not. It was. I think, unfortunately the last four years we lived with a caricature of a president. We lived with someone who took his opportunity for leadership and power and bastardized it. Brandon Stokes, the president in the book, is hopefully less of a caricature and at least had I mean, he's a bad guy, but my my attempt is to at least make him seem plausible. But I think the other reality is that our constitution, our structure of government, does not preclude this from happening.

And there was this naivete it seemed that rejected this notion that we could that this could happen, and it was never absurd. I think, I think far fetched, given the complexity of the story or the different plot points, perhaps, but I think sadly we've realized that while we have a resilient nation, we are always vulnerable to demagoguery, two power, you know, hunger, and we are susceptible to those who prey on our best instincts to live out their worst. Instance.

We'll be back with more of Stacy Abrahams and the debate over voting rights that's intensifying across the country. That's right after this. You say that if you end a book and there has been no consequence to everything that's happened, you've failed as a writer. So ultimately, what do you think is the message of this book? And then we'll get into politics, because I know everybody's chomping at the bit to talk about politics. I wanted, let's say, first

and foremost, I wanted to entertain. I wanted to tell a story that took an arcane quirk of the Constitution, and I wanted people to have fun learning about it. And every book I've written, whether it was you know, my book about ethnobotany or you know the romance, my Serial Killer romance about linguistics, I want to learn things, and that's one of the reasons I write. I write because I have just a deep curiosity to know more, and I want readers to leave a book knowing more

about topics they hadn't thought of. I want to I wanted readers to also engage politics in a way that, yes, I I draw broad brushstrokes about the power that you have, but also I wanted to talk about the complexity of what people are having to deal with and how they think about it. Yes, politicians are going to make grotesque mistakes, but sometimes we forget what's on what's on the menu,

and how these things come into being. But ultimately my mission was to create a story where the good guys, if not are you know, if they're not wearing white hats, then we at least see the illusion of them, and that the bad guys, even when we were you know, we reject who they are, we understand a little bit

more about how they came to be. And in fact, I think it's so interesting that you've been very inspired by the writing of Robert Caro, and that reminds me of you know, how you're describing multidimensional care acts that are deeply flawed and yet have these you know, extraordinary qualities. And you really use lb J as an example of that, And and how did you become really interested in him? And why were you so captivated by the writing of Robert Caro When I was in college, I created my major.

I went through physics and philosophy and theater, and it was so bad they told me I could had to stop declaring majors because I clearly didn't know what I wanted. And finally I wrote a paper about what I wanted to know when I finished college, and what really captivated me was the notion of what what has driven me is the question of poverty and just how vile it is, how it robs us of this human capital, and how it is interconnected with so many other broken parts of

our society. The president who who tackled that head on, who spoke aloud about its evils, it was lb J. But he was also a person who was an avowed racist, who you know, impeded progress on so many levels, and he fascinated me. This, this person who also became the architect of the Voting Rights Act and who did so much to a tone, but at the same time got us into the you know, you know, extended our stay in Vietnam and lead to challenges based on misinformation and

his refusal to be wholly honest. And then I got to read more. That's what I was able to glean from my own you know, understanding and from what I was reading, but when I found Robert Carroll's books, like the detail and the intentionality of his writing, but also the complexity of the person who became lb J is always a reminder that no one is one dimensional, that we have multi strand identities, and that the smallest parts of our lives can infuse almost every decision we make.

It has taken four books to tell the story of LBJ, and it's still not done. And I think that is a testament to just how extraordinary he was as a president, but also how flawed he was as a politician and as a person. And that is our politics. I mean, that is America, this juxtaposition, this internalized dichotomy. And we are in trouble if we forget either piece of that, or if we decide that our leadership cannot be complex and cannot be flawed. But we've got to your point

about guardrails. We've got to adjust for it, and we've got to adapt to it, and we've got to be prepared for it. To worry about the sort of purity tests that that are increasingly being used across the political spectrum. Um that and and and uh, I don't I hate to use the term cancel culture because like everything has become weaponized by certain you know, segment of the population. But this sort of um, this this search and demand

for perfection in all things. In every past statement you've made, do you worry that will will discourage many competent, qualified, you know, purpose driven and committed people to run for office and be part of the political system because it has become so uh so demanding and so uh people have been becoming judged so harshly for almost everything. My parents were. My mom was librarian, my dad was a shipyard worker from my first fifteen years of my life.

Then they became ministers, and one of the most important lessons I learned from both they're more secular wives and when they became pastors is the notion of her giveness and redemption. People make mistakes and they should be held accountable. That is an absolute, but they should also have a

chance at redemption and a chance to make amends. Where I take exception, I do not deny the legitimacy of calling out mistakes and holding people accountable and setting high standards and saying there's certain mistakes that rise to such a level that your atonement may preclude you ever doing anything else, but that should be a high bar that

we set. But if someone is willing to show their true contrition, if they are willing to take do the undertake those acts of paying for what they've done, trying to solve for how they've been, If their apology is driven not by you know, convenience, but by legitimate, you know, a legitimate contrition and a legitimate attempt at atonement, then we should create space for them to re end. Turn. I don't think anyone should ever be permanently excluded from redemption.

I think there are some things that the bar is gonna be so high it's gonna take you a while to get there, and you might as well get comfortable not being there. But this notion that everything that is offensive is also a reason to exclude you is untenable to me, because we are all flawed. We are all broken people in our ways, and we will make mistakes that will take time to fix. And you know my approaches, I need to make certain I give people that level

of grace. I extend that because I have no idea what mistake it is I'm going to make, but I'm sure there's one out there, and it's going to likely be unintentional, and it's probably going to be, you know, very hard and harmful and hurtful. But I hope people there's a phrase I've heard so many times, charge it to my head and not my heart. You still have to be You still to pay for it, but you

should also be allowed to recover from it. But that recovery has a cost, and that cost cannot be permanent exile. Let's talk about voting rights, because you can't have a conversation with Stacy Abrahams without talking about that, of course, and sort of election integrity. Um, you know, you've been called the future of the Democratic Party, Stacy, but the GOP has already started raising money for a Stop Stacy fund to defeat a Georgia gubernatorial run, even though you

haven't declared your candidacy. And I'm curious, you know, with with everything that you've done, it has put you in the crosshairs of your opponents, and and how are you managing that? Just on a personal and professional level. I mean, you're laughing, but it must get really tiresome, frustrating and maddening at at certain points. It is all of the above, but the goal of my work is is twofold. I believe in voting rights because I believe in the power

of citizenship. I don't It's not about the act of casting a ballot. There's nothing magical about that. What is magical is that in a democracy, the casting of that ballot creates the opportunity to hire people who will do good and help improve your life. That's what I appreciate, and I want that to be available to every person who is a part of our democracy. That said, I tend to think that people who share my value system are the better people, and so I am partisan in

that way. What is frustrating to me is that the partisanship has overwhelmed citizenship in our nation at a level that we haven't seen in decades. It's never fully disappeared, but it is being weaponized and enabled in ways that should terrify and chill all of us. And yes, it it then becomes a question of my safety and my my humanity. Yeah. I used to like Twitter. I mean Twitter has always been you know, tread carefully. You enter the memes that have been developed about me are are

you know, both creative? And you know, luckily I like myself I'm good, but it is easy to believe the negatives and to believe the attacks. I have to remind myself that I am who I was before I started this, that I am Robert and Caroline's daughter, that I am, you know, the sister to my five siblings that I

was before I've met me. I don't take myself too seriously, but I also refused to allow someone else to define who I am because they disagree with who I have become in the public eye the work that I do. And I'm stumbling over my words because I'm trying to be really careful. We are so often bifurcated. We are this person at home and this person in public. I don't have that luxury. I've got to be holy who I am, and because that is how I try to operate.

It has created more tensions and more challenges than I anticipated. But I'm also privileged to have a platform to push the things I believe in, to advocate for those who I think are too often left out of the conversation, and to live both of my faith and my my

values and for me, they are the same. And those are the things that I think help help me navigate and survive all the really negative, ugly things, like, you know, an entire organization that is wholly designed to stop me from doing something I haven't declared I'm going to do. When you say the challenges from not sort of integrating your personal and professional life your whole self, what do you mean what kind of challenges have come from from

being that person? Do you feel like you're in therapy? All of a sudden, I appreciate the chair doesn't recline. Um. No, So, without going into too much, last week, Tucker Carlson decided to make light of my romantic suspense novels Assume in an attempt embarrass me. I'm like, I'm not embarrassed. My face was in all of the books, and the underlying intention there was to humiliate me and to push me out of this public narrative, the human part, you know, humanity.

We don't like being embarrassed, we don't like being ridiculed. It is, It is hard, but it also requires a bit of a recognition that I being who I am and my name being on books either now that they're real at leasing my romance novels with my my actual name on it, but I've never hidden it that that's going to open me up to these attacks, and it's

gonna open me up to ridicule. That they're going to be those who take everything I say out of context and they will find three words and string them together, or to say that I've blasphemed. Those are challenges because part of it is not just that I know it's not true. I have to do the work of making sure others know it's not true, and that's the challenge.

I'm good with who I am, I'm good with where I stand in you know, the eyes of my friends, but I need other people to trust and believe the work that I do, and that means I've got to spend a lot more time trying to diffuse these attempts at humiliation, these attempts at undermining me. And that's sometimes a distraction, but it's also part of the work. We're going to take a short break, but when we come back, breaking news or not, you'll just have to listen to

find out. Let's talk a little more about voter suppression, because it's a it's a very we worry. Sometime beyond Georgia, Republicans are attempting to pass legislation in dozens of states that many believe will restrict voting access Florida, Texas. I read actually Stacey and preparing for this interview, there are three hundred and sixty one bills with restrictive provisions in forty seven states. First of all, can anything be done and what impact are these going to have? When you

look ahead, specifically to the mid terms. We have to we have to begin by looking at January six. The insurrection, as violent and as vile as it was, had a very clear intend The goal was to undo participation by communities that they thought were illegitimate. And if you could, if you didn't, couldn't guess it from their words and their invective. Look at the Confederate flags they brought it.

The Confederate flag has a very specific meaning, and I don't really care about the revisionist history that tries to claim that heritage means anything other than trying to venerate

those who thought slavery was a good idea. So with that is your backdrop, you then look at the states that are considering this legislation, and almost to a state, it is based on an increased participation, largely by communities of color, but also by young people, by the disabled, by marginalized communities who have typically not been in the electorate.

Their increased participation changed the outcome of the election, and the insurrection was about undoing this this election, and as a through line of this legislation is also about making certain that if they can't undo what happened in they will preclude it from happening in twenty two. In the South, in particular, the vehemence with which they are denying their intention is wholly at odds with the evidence. In Arizona, they just passed the law that will disproportionately affect Latino

and Native American voters. And it's not like they didn't know it because we were part of making sure they hurt. In Texas, in Georgia and Florida, they are not passing laws based on the Sue Sponte notion that we just need to do this. They are specifically responding to every way these communities leverage the right to vote to actually participate, and so we have to talk about it. Silence is

their most effective weapon. When we are quiet about this, when we accept that this happens, it becomes even more effective because it convinces those who are under attack that they are alone. And so our first responsibility is to talk about voter suppression, to keep talking about it even after these bills passed, because we have the ability to

affect the narrative. And in Texas we just saw several bills fail because we kept up the pressure and we got corporations to speak up, and we have seen change happen in Georgia and in Florida. So that's number one. Number two, we have to help the organizations doing this work. Voter suppression can be mitigated. It We need to defeat it, but we can mitigate it by trying to solve for the problems these laws are creating. And so look for

the voter protection organizations in your state. Number Three, we have to pass federal legislation that creates a standard for voting so that our democracy doesn't differ based on our geography. That's the voting rights provisions of the For the People Act and the John LuSE Voting Rights Devancement Act. And I'll say all of this can be found at Stop Jim crow To dot com. Just go to stop Jim

crow To dot com. We'll walk you through all of this, tell you where these bills are where they're moving, what effect they have, and how you can help make certain that we keep our voices raised, we help the organizations doing the work, and that we get passage of the federal legislation to make our democracy real for all. I want to ask you a little bit more about For the People Act and why a federal law is so

critically important. And I imagine Stacy, there's going to be a boatload of resistance from states, you know, who say this is really in our purview. This was set up that we oversee election state by state by state. Can you talk a little bit more about the Four the People Act and why it is so critical. So the Four the People Act has multiple components to it. I am focusing right now in this conversation on the voting

rights provisions. Article one, section for the elections clause gives to the states the power to administer elections, but it gives to Congress the authority set the time, place and manner of elections. It's why in America we vote on a Tuesday in November. So we have accepted that the federal government has this prerogative. We have accepted that. After the two thousand election, we moved away from hanging chads.

We accepted the motor voter built. We have had the Voting Rights Act from nineteen sixty five through night to through two thousand thirteen, so it has always been that the federal government has the right to that a standard of access. That's kind of what the Constitution did when it said you can't preclude voters based on their race, which was the fifteenth Amendment, based on their gender, the twenty Amendment, based on I mean the nineteenth Amendment, and

based on their age in the Amendment. The reason for the People Acted so necessary is that we have determined that without being able to preclude on those three reasons, the newest approaches to limit who can register, how they stay on the rolls, if they can cast the ballot, and that ballot can be counted. That's what we saw play out during the two thousand fight over vote by mail. But across the board, this is going to say that no matter where you live, you should be able to

register to vote. That you should be if you are a citizen of the United States, you should be allowed to register to vote. That you should be allowed to vote early, because not everyone can go and vote on a Tuesday in November between eight am and a p m. And that you should be able to vote by mail in case, oh, I don't know, there's a pandemic and it's literally dangerous to stand next to someone in line.

That's what Those are the major provisions. Now there are other provisions in it, and anyone who says, oh, she ignored everything else, I'm not ignoring it. I have a limited amount of time, and those are the big pieces

that I'm pushing for. You know, I'm curious how the senses plays in into this, because there was some really interesting population shift and and and in terms of the Sun Belt and what's going on in in in southern States, with the GOP making real gains, how is that going to impact Because I know you've also said you can replicate what was done in Georgia two uh can be exported to the rest of the Sun Belt and the Midwest.

So when I did not become governor in two thousand and eighteen, and I'm not confused, I've never thought I was governor, I created three organizations Fair Fight, to fight for our democracy, to protect the right to vote, to mitigate voter suppression in Georgia and across the twenty states. I also created fair Count because the census is the single most important input of data that we have in our nation. It tells us who is, who we are, where we live, and what we need and what we

have seen in the census. The data that's come out so far should actually be I think I'm emboldened by it and that it is showing a population shift to the Sun Belt. And while Republicans by and large will control the drawing of the maps, they do not control the movement of people. And we are seeing greater diversity come to the Sun Belt. We're seeing greater diversity coming to states like Georgia, which is why its transformation was possible.

It is not inevitable. It takes if you are a partisan in this conversation, like so, I want everyone to be able to vote, but I want my side to win, and so from my side to win, we know that communities that have largely been disenfranchised are more than likely going to share my political values. What's happening with our demographic shift is that communities that have so for so long been denied real input are now amassing in greater

numbers in the Sun Belt. And we'll have I think a larger an outsized effect on elections, and that's one of the reasons we see these communities serving as the target for voter suppression. Well, in demographics are are not are working in your favor by there would be a majority minority population in the United States of America. So and that you know, it is something that is irrefutable and obviously, uh, those those segments of the population will

need their rights protected. Michelle d says, how does the Scotus decision invalidating parts of the Voter Rights Act affect your recommendations when you mentioned a federal law to protect voting So what happened in is that the Shelby decision, which came from the Roberts Court, essentially invalidated the formula that is what animates Section five of the Voting Rights Act. So we still have a Voting Rights Act, but it is essentially gutted because without the formula to say which

states are covered by it, no one is covered by it. You. So we have two challenges. We have the Scotus decision, that's the Shelby decision, but there's also a case that is currently before the Supreme Court that would get section two of the Voting Rights Act. It has been the intention of conservatives of sect of conservatives to eliminate the Voting Rights Act since its inception, and they are getting

closer to success. But the legal theory has been the one that was put forward by John Roberts as the Chief Justice, was that it was the formula was broken. According to that, if we fix the formula, then the Voting Rights Act will once again apply, and that's what the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act accomplishes. But the Voting Rights Act serves to preclude new bad laws that you have to go something called preclearance. You can't do

new bets stuff. We've got to deal with the bad stuff they're doing right now, which is why we also need the For the People Act, because if we pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and renew the Voting Rights Law immediately, it will not undo any of the existing laws that have passed since January, these insurrection enabled bills, they will still be the law of the land. And that's why we have to have a both in

solution on either or solution. But I want to say one other thing before it, and then we go the next question. There is nothing inevitable that says that Democrats, because of demographic changes, will win. Any party willing to listen to the needs of the people and promulgate laws and policies to serve them have the opportunity to win. But what we face right now is a party that has built its brand on rejecting this demographic change and

refusing to acknowledge it. And so instead of amending their policies to attract more people to their party, they are instead trying to gain the system and deny access to the right to vote. That is not right. I don't care which party does it, and I'm a member of a party that did it from eighteen seventy through nineteen. I'm a Democrat with a full understanding that it was

Democrats that created Jim Crow. So voter suppression is not the province of any one party, but any party willing to participate in it should be pushed back on and should be denied that kind of power grab. Let's talk

about the Republican Party today. Um, you know, seventy four million Americans voted for Donald Trump, and you know, I think he perhaps has surprised some people that he still has such a firm grasp a chokehold, some might say on the GOP, as evidenced by the ejection of Liz Cheney from her leadership position UH in the Republican Party, how do you metabolize that Donald Trump is a symptom.

He is not the disease. And he's symptomatic in that he was willing to reject norms, to engage in corruption in order to achieve his political ends, in order to hold power, and he was able to use the sort of Carney level demagoguery to bring people to his tent that happens in every nation. We He was nothing new and he will be nothing new. He simply, and he simply read this moment in a way that convinced seventy four million people that he answered their concerns better than

the other guy. The problem there in is that rather than recognizing what he represents, people are simply talking about him as a person as opposed to a symptom of a deeper and darker through line in our democracy, this notion of authoritarian populism. If he were to lose in

twenty four it doesn't dissipate. And what Liz Cheney found much to her chagrin is that despite voting with him more than nine of the time, you cannot support the policies and revile the person that people when you have given them truck, when you've given them salients, the average voter is not going to see a difference, and so I I'm actually I'm very disappointed that they removed her from her leadership position. I am pleased that she continues

to push back on his demagoguery. The problem is when you enable the demagoguery, you can't then be surprised that Frankenstein's monster decides that he doesn't want to leave the village. Well, it's not as if she didn't support him wholeheartedly in the past, and then it was when it was a bridge too far she spoke up. But I think so many people in the country were waiting for other Republicans

at what point would they breach their breaking point? But it's not about a breaking point, and I think that's part of the challenge we're having in articulating a response. It's not just a breaking point. It is that he embodies a set of beliefs and a set of behaviors that emboldened those who had to sublimate them as part of the social contract when as a society we agree to behave in certain ways in public and in other

ways in private, but we leave each other alone. He brought all of those dark impulses to the four and because people like some of the things they got, because he did it, they celebrated him. And there has not been the willingness to you can't accept the present but get really mad at the giver. It becomes part and parcel of the same thing. And that's the challenge the Republican Party and thus America is having to grapple with right now. Well, well, I mean, what do you think

is the future of the Republican Party? Is that can continue on this road? Is it? Is it a is it a craven desire to claim to power that keeps you know, the fear of being out primaried by someone you know that that Trump supports and that he can destroy you, not in a single tweet, but in other ways.

I guess, uh, still pretty effectively. Right Well, going back to all justice leaves, I will say that well, no, no, no, but I mean and sincerely, um, part of the story is that there are people of noble beliefs who still do horrible things. There are people who think they're doing the right thing, or believe that the ends justified the means. They're all of these justifications for accepting bad behavior, for doing bad things, and you can understand it without supporting

and defending it. And the problem that the Republican Party is having right now is they have not figured out they may have to sacrifice what they want to get what we need as a nation. And until the Republican Party is willing to sacrifice victory to return to values, then they are going to find themselves held hostage by this man. But he's only an embodiment of what they've done to themselves. He was just better at it than the other guys who tried. But he is not unique,

he is not special. He is simply the best version of this terrible notion that the Republicans have been pushing for. Democrats have founder We've found ourselves in similar straits. We got out of it. But as I point out, I've been the Southerner my entire life. They have been bad, bad people who hold my banner, who hold the banner of politics that I hold, And our only response has to be to reject it, and that gets us back to LBJ. LBJ was a person who made terrible choices

until he decided to do right. So I believe in redemption. I don't think it's coming out of Marrow Lago or Bedminster. But I think Republicans, if they are willing to reject victory to regain their values, I think they can re emerge as a valid and viable party. You have so many people still believing the big lie that the election was rigged, and of course you have a whole system of misinformation and disinformation that is affirming those beliefs. Um

what can be done about that? Is there anything that can restore faith in in the system among the people who insist that it lacks integrity? Although there's you know, as Liz Cheney said in our speech, there's so much evidence as we all know, to the contrary. I mean, what do you do with that? How do you how do you approach it? How do you unravel this myth?

I think it's actually one of the most important justifications for standardized elections in the sense of across this country, no matter where you live, you get to register with the same perquisite that you have that everyone has a minimum number of early voting hours, everyone has a minimum access to absentee balloting. Standardization breeds more familiarity, but it also pushes back against this notion that somehow it was

done wrong. You can't unring the bell that was wrung with such vicious force in this election, and people are going to believe those things that make them feel better about the choices they made. My I don't believe in conversion.

I think it is a hard thing to do. I believe in convincing, and the best way to convince people is to election after election after election, make it easier and easier for people who are eligible to vote, to participate in our process, to hire more and more people who are willing to tell the truth about who we are, and to have the patients to understand that we have always had challenges with our elections. This nation was built on voter suppression, but we were also built on the

promise that we could get better. And the persistence that we have to have is that we cannot undo or we cannot convince people of the truth they don't want to know, but we can demonstrate through our actions the reality of what is so and that's the mission, and that has to be what we continue to do. Uh, Stacy, I know you want to break some news here in Portland tonight, and you know doing this interview with me of course, Uh, because I know you've waited for this moment.

But we've getting a lot of questions about and and I know you said you weren't really into being asked this question. But since you have a major announcement to make, um, are you planning to run for governor? Stacy Abrams? I intend to vote in the election. I have not decided if my name is going to be on the ballot or not. Scene that's it. That's it. That's all she wrote. Okay, hold on, somebody just said yes. I need to be really clear. I was not saying I'm running. So I'm

not sure what that yes is responding to. But let me be very clear. And I think Katie is an amazing job of trying to trick me into an answer. I'm not answering that question. I am focused on trying to make sure we still have democracy. Let's get that done and then we can talk about other things. Well, I could talk to you all night, but you've been incredibly generous with your time. I want to thank uh

Pal's books and the great audience questions. I wish we were there in person so we could actually see people. I could sit next to you, but thank you so much for your extraordinary work. And when do you they When do they announce the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize? I'm curious. I it is sometime in the fall, and I appreciate there are there are many many people who should be getting that. I am not on that list,

despite the kindness that has been shown me. But I will tell people that in October, which is around the time Nobel decisions start coming out, they should be focused on getting going there. By Katie Curry, that's so nice. Thank you Stacy. Honestly, um, this was such a wonderful conversation. As I said, I can't think of a better way to spend a Friday night. I'm going to have a cocktail now, Stacy, I hope you will too. And Brie, thank you so much and Jeremy for for having us

here tonight. I on behalf of Stacy, she could speak for herself, but on behalf of myself. I really appreciate the invitation and it's always a real honor to talk to Stacy Abrahams. Thank you Katie, and thank you Powell's Books for having me, and thank you everyone. Enjoy while Justice leaves. Next Question with Katie Kurik is a production of My Heart Media and Katie Curric Media. The executive producers Army, Katie Curic, and Courtney Litz. The supervising producer

is Lauren Hansen. Associate producers Derek Clements, Adrianna Fasio, and Emily Pinto. The show is edited and mixed by Derrick Clements. For more information about today's episode, or to sign up for my morning newsletter, wake Up Call, go to Katie currect dot com. You can also find me at Katie Curic on Instagram and all my social media channels. For more podcasts from I heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows,