democratic party caucus. the committee is the planning tamika final decision in august. this is over in our. >> where joined by the staff, our director veronica special assistant, jenna and former director long time advisor to the department, and the party rick. secretaries department plays a crucial role in the logistics of these meetings. a big thank you to the director, deputy director. i would also like to thank tim brown from the dnc's i.t. department, as well as many other members of the dnc staff. our sincere thanks to everyone. >> thank you, jim. thank you again to the staff and all of you who contributed to this committee. at our last meeting when we adjourned, we learned the supreme court had torn away a constitutional right from the american people and opened the door to new extreme laws that jeopardize the health of millions of women. this was devastating news. i was touched and inspired by the passionate thoughts you all shared with us doing -- during the meeting. as republicans push to make abortion legal -- illegal in many states, electing democratic governors, attorney generals, state legislatures, and federal representatives, is the last line of defense for americans reproductive rights. i am grateful to you all for the work you do to make this happen, alongside the work you do with the committee to provide a transparent and equitable infrastructure to the parties business. today, we will resume our work to that end with a brief discussion on the calendar following that conversation we will revisit the 2024 delegates selection rules, focusing on the sections that members raised for our discussion at our may virtual meeting. we will incorporate any changes into the draft of those roles, which we will vote to approve better august meeting. we completed a lot of the legwork of drafting the rules in may and have made progress on many components, saved for discussion. i hope you find our conversation engaging, but efficient. we might be able to complete the initial draft of the rules tonight, which we will vote on in august. if needed, this review can be extended into tomorrow. once we complete our conversations on the rules, we will move to the call for the convention. are there any questions regarding the agenda today? i will turn it back over to our co-chair. >> before we dive back into our delegate selection rules. we want to ensure we have an opportunity to discuss the pre-window applications. following are june meeting we set a preliminary questionnaire to state parties to gather information to provide you with additional detailed information on their processes. the questionnaire was sent to them on june 30. we requested any additional questions that you had by july 6. the party affairs staff is finalizing compiling the ultimate russian air, which will be -- questionnaire which will be sent to state parties this monday and return by this friday. as we discussed last meeting, there may be some information the parties wish to share directly and we will provide an opportunity for them to do so. he will be provided with any nonconfidential information after we receive an annex friday. beyond that the questionnaire, i know from speaking with many of you, you have heard from leaders within states and have been doing your own research as well. from the outset of this process, we wanted to ensure all members received the same information to make their decision. i wanted to open the floor to any members who would like to share information on outreach, their opinions, or any outstanding questions on the process. what anyone like to contribute -- would anyone like to contribute? >> thank you. mr. char, -- chair, this is an exciting moment, we are getting close, we are starting to get all of the information we need. we will only be needing it a few more times of four we vote. i think everything we heard in our last meeting was fantastic. i really want to tip my hat to every single state party that presented, every single one of them were impressive and made a strong argument. i don't think my mind is fully made up. i'm leaning a certain way in some places. i'm excited to hear where other people are as well. starting to share our thoughts now can help each other, as well as help the states as they take these final few weeks to get us the final information they want to get us. i think back to the framework we passed in the resolution where we sit at the end of the early window, the store we want to tell about the early window is that -- a story we want to tell about the early window was that it was inclusive, diverse, and instilled confidence in the electoral process, and we got in front of a lot of general election battleground voters. i think after hearing all of that, there are couple of big questions that i'm grappling with. i'm anxious -- i would love feedback from the rest of the committee. first, we explicitly stated that we wanted to make sure that each region was represented. for me, some regions feel a bit more settled than others. i feel pretty good about the east. i feel pretty good about the west. i feel ready good about the south. i will say that georgia made a strong presentation. one i am still flooding on. -- reflecting on. the midwest is the most complicated for me. i think there were very strong resin patients -- presentations made by states, minnesota i thought was very strong, michigan was strong. i give a lot of credit to iowa for hearing the concerns of this committee and reimagining what their caucus could look like. i still have a lot of questions about each of them. i still have questions about some of the specifics of i was a reimagined caucus. i have questions about michigan and minnesota and where they stand in being able to move their date, given they will require some republicans. all three were very much in the necks. another big question i have, we say in the resolution we will contender -- consider up to five states in the early window. i will say, i know there are a lot of presidential campaigns veterans around this table, i lean towards four. i think, once you start to go above four, it becomes a burden for the campaign. but having said that, i'm keeping an open mind on that question, because i want to see what four we are looking at. again, this is not a list of criteria. the framework is not a list of criteria that every state has to check. the framework was what we want the window to look like. so, depending on whether or not the first four tell that story, well, then maybe we are done. maybe after we pick four, the story needs a bit more help. in which case we need to leave the door open for five. for my hope, for the sake of our presidential candidates, we don't need to go there. the final question that i am really reflecting on, obviously what states we pick is the first major thing, but at some point there's going to be a conversation about order. i'm thinking about that a bit. i think a couple of states are not gunning. i think some states will be happy to be in the game, just to be in the window. i will say, i think, and i feel more strongly today than i did even before the state presentations, that that ought to be decision made by this committee, that that ought to be a made by the dnc, and i am less inclined to stand on tradition or what any individual state laws might or might not say. we need to do what's right for us. there are couple of states. i will give a couple of examples. new hampshire has a state law. i say this as a long time friend of the new hampshire primary. i've been on the ground in new hampshire more times than i would like to admit sometimes. but i don't like that this committee is held hostage by them. i want to make this decision beta on the merit -- based on the merit. new hampshire made a compelling case on the merit without having to rely on tradition. i also think nevada makes a strong case on the merit. so, as we think about it, i hope, just as we said in our very first meeting that we are going to -- were not going to be held hostage to tradition when it comes to which states we select. we will not be held hostage to tradition in terms of the order. i think we should be creative. i think we should leave ourselves the opportunity to be creative. i think should consider, i'm not sure i am even there yet, should we consider multiple states going on the same day? in the early window? that could be something that really sends a strong message to the country. i am not talking about all four, not just one a big national primary date. but could you do to states on the same day, a new hampshire nevada one for example on the same day? i really -- i'm really impressed by the presentations they made. i think we should give ourselves the opportunity to put together what we think is the strongest slate of states and the strongest schedule, ordering of states, for the party. i hope we have that conversation moving forward as well. thanks. >> thank you. who else would like to contribute some thoughts? >> you have to be lawyers, you can afford them. on this committee we don't have to pay for our lawyers. they are dedicated patriots and we thank them for giving us moments to pause and recognize that we did not get the shelf made or whatever right. thank you all. first, mr. chair, madame co-chair, on behalf of this committee and this party and i'm sure on behalf of this great country, i would like us to extend our condolences to the people of japan. they have just witnessed a horror that have not seen at that level in a long time. for a culture that does not worship guns and have to deal with this type of violence, i know we extend our well wishes to his family, to his friends, to the many people of japan, to let them know that we, the american people come our thinking about them. and we are honoring the spirits that they often call upon to bury our dead with dead and dignity. -- with grace and dignity. i will be quick, i did not feel like writing. i think, he has summed up many things we have already stated, whether in the media, or in this room, or elsewhere. we know our calling. a call and we have is a great calling. it was a call we had in 2006, 2005, and we answer to the call. we answered the call by having two small states, i don't think nevada is that damn small but it has a generous heart and we had a story to tell when we ended up with south carolina nevada. we ended up with record turnout. we ended up at the presidential level. we had midterm losses which were painful, especially in 2010. we lost a lot of our state legislative races, i could go on and on. nobody came here to sermonized. -- sermonized. we know the story was a compelling story. it was about diversity. i want to continue associating my time and my purpose in calling on this committee to constantly raise that issue of diversity. i'm not speaking of diversity in all of its forms, which i thought many of the presentations from our state leaders amplified the need to have greater diversity. whether it was reaching out to community in better ways or a leasing we have highways going east, west, north and south, we had some good stuff. we also had good music. ain't nobody going to sit down one prince is singing. the song we have to sing us to make sure we respond to discord in notes from our people who are angry and passed off, who don't -- pissed off who don't think we're doing enough for their lives. when we include this new framework, when we add another state, to add more reasons, less reasons, whatever we decide to do. let us do it in a way that says 12 years from now, or even longer, that we made a difference for somebody to be heard or to be seen, it's because democrats care. with -- we would disqualify ourselves even with all of the criteria given the rules in my state, which has taken away the rights of women to have the full range of reproductive health services, even in the case of rape and i ncest. people walk in today to try to get an appointment and they could not because they didn't know this would impact them because they just needed a screening. the number of states that have applied, they are so serious. the leadership is full of inclusion. inclusion is even better than diversity. diversity gets you invited into the party. thank you but inclusion has allowed us to dance, asking us to dance. those states that showed up with leadership from all different regions and backgrounds also made a bold statement. it was a statement that we are not just asking for your vote. we are helping you and you want -- we want you to help lead us. that is a different statement from my quote unquote diverse state. we don't back them up and we don't show that we need someone we talk about diversity and inclusion, so let that be a criteria that was unwritten when we said we want to include diversity and inclusion. thank you, jim. >> did you have a comment? >> very quickly, i wanted to second mo's creativity and flexibility we have on addressing this process. it might be a couple of states on same day, not everybody has to go on a tuesday either. there might be some states that might able to go to a saturday, and we might be able to fit five states better into a month those are the things that we are looking at and looking at the actual states and how they fit into this whole process. >> yes. >> i will move this a little bit. i am from arizona. i am luis. four things i am looking at as criteria to evaluate states. access to the ballot box. if we are going to define ourselves as the party of access, the party of transparency, making sure that people have the right to exercise their participation in this presidential primary, i think that is fundamental to the decision-making we have to make. access to the ballot box, the ability to vote early, the ability to register on the same day, that invites participants from other affiliations to say that they want to be a part of the democratic party and vote for who will be our president. number two, i know we get locked in the word of diversity. i don't want people to think about diversity as people who wake up and -- at 4:00 a.m. in the morning. as is different from the folks who are participating in presidential primaries right now. states that have the privilege of retail politics are among the state that have the highest payment, but they sometimes do not feel and look like my mother. there was a cafeteria worker that woke up at 4:00 in the morning or my dad that was a bar worker we have to look at diversity in a different lens and we have fallen to -- that means right, african-american, latino, asian, if we want to put a goalpost into what the definition of diversity is. the third point i want to evaluate the decision-making on is strategic alignment. battleground testing for november. that is extremely important for us to continue to compete. and looking at how we build an electoral victory. number four, i think we are all privileged in this room to think about ways we can write new chapters of political organizing in the states that we pick. we want to write the history, we want to write about what happened in iowa was in the 70's and the 80's and the 90's that gave a lot of people in this room -- we want to look at writing the chapter of political organizing. that is what i am looking at, challenging our party to look at ways to address the population between urban and suburban and looking at rural areas, diversity in how candidates have relationships in those areas because if we want to be a party that is looking towards the future, we cannot just be holding to some traditional stages with the consultants who already know the playbook and repeat the same thing without us challenging ourselves to a new chapter of political organizing. those are my four points in looking at access, diversity for the working class, strategic alignment for november, and looking at political organizing. >> thank you, luis. who else? yes, david? david and then scott. >> david mcdonald washington. i have general views about this, not solely in the context of the cycle, although we are only making a decision in this cycle, but in reality, it will probably affect your cycles. -- affect future cycles. we have to look at it in a context which we don't know who the nominee is. historically, and i am certain this will be true in the future, it becomes a process known matter how much you start with and have fewer empty hands. because of that, it is important to me that the group of states that we put up front fairly represent the rest of the country because they are beginning to filter to people that the rest of the country will see. as with a poll, if the sample is biased, the result will be biased. we need a group of states that practically represents the rest of them. at the end of the day, it has to reflect a country or we have not done our job. second, the total number of delegates that we allocate upfront needs to be small. it is not a good system of a filtration process if it eliminates everybody before the rest of the country gets to vote on them. that can happen if you have too many delegates upfront. it needs to be indicative not decisive. finally, this is a criteria i haven't heard mentioned yet, and maybe it is a product of being on the committee for four cycles than not, i am curious as to how well in the past and the future the state will work with us on the rules as opposed to if we come up with a rule and decide to challenge it. if we think that something needs to be done differently, is it going to be fighting to get it done, or is it going to be that we have problems on that but we can work it out? this has to be a partnership upfront because when it isn't, it is a distracting process for the campaigns, as having an argument internally. those are the big factors in addition to what everyone else has said. like everybody else, i am interested in seeing what the results of the questionnaires are. thank you. >> thank you, david. scott. >> thank you. david makes a great point, which is that the final result of this process needs to be something where we fairly represent the entire country. we need to be mindful of that as we craft whatever this looks like. at this point, i am not sure i have a feeling one way of four or five, but i do think our principles, that is why we are democrats versus democrat -- democrats versus republicans. we are guided by public pallet -- practicality, and we ultimately need to have a calendar that works and that actually results in the election of democratic presidents. that is the bottom line, is what this process has to do has to result in democratic presidents. i want has to be mindful of that as we go forward with this process. thank you. >> thank you, scott. any other points of view? carol. >> thank you. i have been on this committee more often than not since 1993. a long time. even before that, i have paid attention to what this committee did. always in the past when we have made significant changes to our delegate selection process from when we added proportional representation to when we added two extra states, two more states to the pre-window, we have had extensive discussions in this committee about whether that change would give us a stronger, better nominee in the end. which is sort of what scott was saying. it is what we really hope to be here for, is a stronger and better nominee. the system we have now, the current four states in the pre-window, has given us the winner of the popular vote ever since it was instituted. so i think we need to make sure that we are not just making change for the sake of change if whatever steps we take, we need to convince ourselves that that will give us a stronger nominee, or we need not to make the change. one thing we are looking at right now and talking about based on the states that have applied is adding a big state to the pre-window. over time, we have talked a great deal in this committee about how important it is to have small states in the pre-window for reasons that david just enumerated. if we are going to have a big state inserted into the pre-window, we need to have an extensive discussion about how that gives us a better and stronger nominee. any change we make, we need to talk about, and we need to be certain that we end up with a democratic president, a stronger nominee, and let's not make change just to be making change. even though we have given ourselves an opportunity now in this process to make change, we don't have to. we can leave it the way it is. we can tweak it a little bit. or we can throw in a big state, we can do what we want to in this committee, but we need to make sure that it ends us up where we want to be. mr. roosevelt: thank you, carol. joanne. >> joanne from new hampshire. i completely agree with carol about the point of a stronger, better nominee at the end of this process. and for us not to lose sight of what we are trying to accomplish. i think that the other thing that i look at in this calendar and structuring at it is how well or what the republican party doing in those states and how it -- how a change might affect how the democratic party is represented. and to make sure that in all of our deliberations and in all of the end result that this effort we are putting in, which i commend everyone on this committee for the work that each of us is doing and the dedication to the process, that we do in fact and up with a process that gives us the best chance for winning in the presidential general election. mr. roosevelt: thank you, joanne. anyone else? ok. i am sorry, ken martin. >> thank you, chair roosevelt and the board. i want to take a moment to commend all of these states that decided to bid in this process. it took a lot of work, time, and energy for every single state to put together what were tremendous and impactful bids. this is a tough decision because every state, regardless of their size or whether they are traditionally a red or blue or somewhere in between, they bring great strength to the table. i again want to commend all of the state chairs for their creativity, the incredibly hard-working group of state party leaders we have who every single day are building our party's infrastructure on the ground throughout their states and counties and local party committees. i want to reflect on a few things i think are important from my perspective on what i am looking for at as we move forward. i want to say on the offset for the sake of transparency, i am one of the states that has put a bid forward. it is still, regardless of whether or not minnesota is in the mix, it is important for us to reflect on everything that has already been said and i also think what is important to me specifically as access to the ballot box. we need to make sure that whatever states and up being in this mix, whatever set of states, that we have favorable election laws in those states which will make it easy for people to participate. low barriers to entry are important and we need to make sure that we have election laws that not only encourage people to participate, but have a proven track record to opening up access. to the ballot box. . two, it is important to consider the mix of states, that we consider a couple of things. one, states that will not be too large that they require too much of an early investment of money in this process to compete. we do not want any of our presidential campaigns to have to bankrupt their campaign in the first couple of months of the election cycle, or states that effectively are so large than their delegate size that they essentially will determine the outcome of the nominating contest well before it has begun. it is unfair to those other 45, 50 states left after this process to have this process decided in the first month of this nominating contest. the last pieces are on diversity and you have heard this spoken about a lot. i also appreciate louise talking about working-class people who i believe are the backbone of the democratic already and working-class people who are party has fought for four years. we need to consider not just racial and ethnic diversity but rural and urban diversity, labor, sexual orientation and gender identity. not just in terms of rod numbers or percentages because that does not reflect -- broad numbers or percentages because that does not reflect us. we need to reflect how broad our participation we are seeing from those communities in their states both as it relates to voting and their active participation in the party, and as it relates to their ability to run for elected leadership process. we contact about being from diverse states, but if there is no inclusion, to donna's point, and there is no access to people from marginalized communities to participate, then what does it mean? when we think about diversity, it has to be broad in how we are thinking about it and through the lens of whether or not those states are actually creating pipelines to active participation in their democracy. thank you to all of the states. this process has not only been fair and transparent but easy to navigate. everyone who has wanted a shot to have their voice heard has had their voice heard in this process, and that is a tremendous statement to this committee. making sure that everyone who wanted to have their voice heard and to showcase they are a great state had the chance to that thank you. mr. roosevelt: thank you, ken. anyone with anything additional? mo. mr. elleithee: i am very much enjoying this conversation and this is what i have been waiting for, for us to start talking about it. a couple of thoughts based on the things we have heard so far today. can just talk about not wanting -- ken just talked about not wanting to just put in a big state, you do not want one state to predict the trajectory of the races in the process, but we also should not delude ourselves because ever since the modern primary process came into play, two very small states have set the trajectory for the entire process. that is worth recognizing, right? two small states, with the exception, and elaine, you will no doubt correct me if i am wrong, with the exception of this last predental -- presidential election, it was done by new hampshire. it was done by the second stage. it showed the wisdom of this committee in making a change in 2008 to bring more voices into the process. i do think it is worth noting -- i am not saying i am for big states and not necessarily saying i am for one big states, but i am saying that thinking about, as several of you have said, what is the right strategic process to go into this, makes the most sense. i believe several of you have talked about needing a process that does the best job of nominating and eventually electing a president. wholeheartedly agree. 1000% agree. bringing more voices into the process earlier will help us, can only make the process better. when you look at the current lineup of states, they are -- there are relatively little labor votes early in the process now. that is the community we have identified that we need in this process to help us swing the general election. states that represent the manufacturing sector, we have talked about the need to reach out to rural america and the agricultural sector, and i do not disagree with that, but manufacturing communities that are incredibly important in the general election have little voice in the early process right now. the fact that again, historically, the trajectory of the race is set pretty strongly, 2020 and 2008 being the notable exceptions, but the trajectory of the race is set by new hampshire, the fact that latino voices and black voices and aapi voices do not get included in the process until later. these are all things that we have talked about. i think looking at the current lineup and asking, is this a good lineup. i think about, let's look at this whole thing and say, can it be even better? can we bring even more voices in earlier in the process, voices that will help us? here's the thing. we have heard in several meetings now that the current lineup has selected the person who has won the popular vote in every election in recent memory. the thing is, we all see it. elections are changing. demographics are changing, coalitions are changing. and we don't get voters in these new coalitions, these changing coalitions in some of these newly emerging battlegrounds, if we do not get our candidates earlier in the process, we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage. we are making our candidates weaker. i know i am not saying anything that everyone on this table does not agree with, but i think it is important that we not rest on what has worked and instead ask the question, can we make it work better? mr. roosevelt: thank you. >> so, i haven't been on this committee as long as others, and i spent a lot of time observing the process as opposed to being engaged in the process. i think that -- and i speak from a representative from a state that is not -- so i think we heard a lot of great presentations. from a lot of states that once this really badly for a lot of different reasons. and we need to have some basic standards about how we select. you can go back to how south carolina and nevada were selected in the last process to understand that made sense because of diversity, because of representing america, and we have heard a lot about people saying and states in their presentations saying we want to represent america. one of the things that is not representative of america yet is that a state that has a real manufacturing base, that has a real working person based in a city, las vegas has a big working person based in nevada. but the kind of industrial base -- and people just said neighbor -- the kind of industrial base doesn't still exist -- does it still exist in the united states ? is it fair? -- is it there? i would moved by what some of what michigan said because of that. you think about the story of america and what that means. i am actually thinking about this not based upon the words that are in the call or the diversity words we are commanded to do, which of course we have to do, but the stories that these states told of who they are, what they represent, and who america is. i don't know how you make that into a standard, but that is part of what i found so compelling about the presentations that were made. mr. roosevelt: thank you, randi. >> tony from new jersey. thank you, mr. chairman. your opening comments, i agree with totally. you opened the door to something that i normally would not want to do. my state also presented, and what kind of mini me from a big state and a little state, and to randi's point, we have that industrial base, but the cost of being at a state like new jersey is -- needless to say, if you do not wash your own face, nobody is going to wash it or you i believe that this is an opportunity for a state like new jersey. we didn't have rpints -- prints. we had bruce and bon jovi. but ken, all of the states made a great presentation, but i want to go back where i started my conversation with the committee. diversity is an important factor we have to deal with here. why not have more of it than last of it -- less of it? four or five states, i don't know the number, but why can't we have states that represent the diversity of this great country? why doesn't have to be one or the other? -- why does it have to be one or the other? this is an emerging issue around the country. hispanics feel more and more not on the table, and you are going to hear more of this as this process goes on. hispanic, latino, we really have to begin to look at that as an issue i think the diversity that we talk about, and i agree with donna that diversity on every level from rural and to randi's point on industrial, i love the assistance, but we have to think about what is practical here and what is workable here. and why can't we do more of what we have already seen to be successful? nevada and south carolina have been extraordinarily successful. i think we can do more of that. that is my dark of the day. -- thought of the day. mr. roosevelt: thank you tonio, scott? mr. brennan: as one of the four states, i am always cognizant when someone addresses the history of these things. most started to correct the record, but in 2008 barack obama won iowa. hillary clinton won new hampshire. in 2016, hillary clinton won in iowa and bernie sanders won new hampshire. that race was not over, so i want to make sure we understand what the facts are. the race was not over when the candidates left new hampshire in 2008 and 2016. 2020 very different, but again, i agree. we want the best process possible, we want the strongest nominee possible, but the thing i come back to his shame on us if we change the process that has resulted in victory for the sake of change. thank you. mr. roosevelt: thank you, scott. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would be remiss if i didn't doubt that -- didn't point out that we have a consequential midterm election coming up. with the lines that have been redrawn, with redistricting, and definitely some tight races that are in front of us, having us make a change for change's sake could put some of the races, and now i am speaking of new hampshire, certainly, we have a tight senate race. we are making a lot of strides in putting forward strong candidates in the state senate and state legislature, all up and down the ballot. this could -- any change could negatively impact the outcome of this midterm election. i think we need to -- while this is a process for 2024, our decision can have an effect not only in my state but for other states around the country. mr. roosevelt: thank you, joanne. yes, leah. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know new york was kicked out early in this process. i just want to say. [laughter] i have no dog in this fight. two or maybe three points i want to make. one is, i think i would argue the point about making change for change's sake, i don't think that is what we are doing. i think the democratic electorate has changed sufficiently that people that in communities where i go want to know why our lineup is the way it is, and why the two earliest states do not reflect the base of the democratic party. i think it warrants change, it warrants examination, and i don't think it is an exercise in futility or exasperation to say it is time to consider some change to our process. that is one. the second point i want to make, too echo mo, the broadest brush of diversity has to be considered. rural, urban, poor people, which is different from working. -- working people, and business people in every sense, and everyone. our challenge as a party is to demonstrate that everyone has a home with us. when we stratify people and intentionally meet some people out in our language or say we are only concerned about working people, which is different from people in poverty, who are poor, but to still vote. they still deserve a seat at the table. everyone who work hard and have the brakes that we wish we had and have money to spend, they belong to the democratic party too if they share our values. the third thing i want to say is that one of my prior concerns is the mix of the states. right now we have four relatively small states who are within 10 or 15 delegates of each other in the lineup. as a practical matter, we are talking about a short window for four or five states who will be competing with each other for time and attention of the candidates, and in the end, this is a race for delegates. you cannot be a nominee to be in the general election if you do not wrap up the delegate. i would be concerned about over balancing in the early window with a with large numbers -- in the early window, which with estate with large numbers, like california which is not in the running, so i will use them as an ample, who has 300 west delegates, that -- 300 plus delegates, that becomes a challenge. do you spend the money in the state with 300 delegates or the state with 29 delegates? that is not what we want either. we want to process that will allow candidates to go from state to state and feel evenhanded about it without making the race be over before we even get out of the window. that is my point i want to make. mr. roosevelt: thank you, leah. did you have something? go ahead. >> from nevada. i appreciate this conversation and folks speaking out on the important issues in making this decision. when nevada was selected for the early window, we were definitely a battleground state building towards even more. we have delivered in terms of the core democratic values we hold dear. today, because of this effort, we elected the first latina to the u.s. senate in this country. that is a huge feet -- feat. she is also in her reelection battle at this time. we hold three of the congressional seats and we also elected a democratic governor recently. we now have an all majority women legislature across the country, the first state to do that. we have also expanded access, and i appreciate my brother from denver, western states for access to the ballot, and i know at the last meeting i talked about access to the ballot because all of the states are now equal in terms of what is that access. how easily can i working housekeeper make sure she has time to cast a ballot and have a voice in this process? and access to talk to a future president in terms of our nominees? these are all things that we have been able to deliver and things that will continue -- we will continue to look towards and working with the rest of the folks here. i would not be remiss if i also did not mention how amazing it is to run into young latinas and latinos putting their teeth on the political ground working for presidential candidates in nevada and understanding values, which may coming up as an operative, it is amazing and breathtaking to see the future leadership talk about political organizing and we are training a new generation of future political leaders and organizers and such to elect more democrats across the country. i want to say that is another added value that we should also look to because we should be looking to the future leadership of this committee did -- committee, of our party and elected officials. we cannot stop and we continue to build. what we decide now, is about the future of the democratic party as well on all aspects. our values, the future leaders, future organizers, and the positions they hold to make policy decisions that affect our lives every day. thank you to this process and thank you to the team and for allowing us this conversation. mr. roosevelt: thank you, artie. we have heard a variety of views and we are getting ready for our next topic, but first i will cause -- call luis. mr. heredia: i know we have asked states that have state laws in place to not allow already consideration -- early consideration, but we have other states that we have placed priority on. are they considering changes to their existing laws to allow for expansion of the ballot box? i know we sent a survey to the states and that was submitted, but one thing that came to mind right now is that for states that do not allow early voting, for example, has the legislature considered it is a political viability for them to move on the next legislative session to allow early boating -- voting in these states? it is just a question i have. mr. roosevelt: i do not know if we have a full and up-to-date information. we will try to include that in our questionnaire. as for the states that are not applying for early voting, when we examine state plans, we can look at that. yes, david. mr. mcdonald: related to luis' question, for states that do not have early voting, can we also make sure we understand what they have done recently to change that? it is one thing to say if the legislature is going to consider it now that the issue is on the table, but i would like know what has been done to comply with that rule on what state primaries are trying to change to provide more access or if they are just standing still. mr. roosevelt: there is a lot going on both good and bad in that relationship. for example, a couple of weeks ago the roots constant -- the wisconsin supreme court basically band drop off boxes. there is a whole lot of information to be gathered and we will do the best we can to have that information. i think we have heard a good exchange of views, raised a lot of things that should go into our decision-making over the next meeting or two. there is a lot for us to discuss among ourselves for our meeting in august. i would like to get a sense from all of us here whether an additional meeting before the august one would be useful. the meeting could take place virtually the week of july 17 to 24th. the staff would try to find the time that works the best for the most members. what do any of you think about an additional meeting to continue our discussion to try to get ready for the august meeting? ken martin. mr. martin: ink you, mr. care. i think it is a great idea. -- thank you, mr. chair. i think it is a great idea. we should think about whether it should be a virtual meeting or not. i am not sure we would be able to have all of the conversations we need to have if they are not in prison. they are harder online, at least from what i think. everyone will try their hardest in the virtual setting to make sure there is equal access, but i would prefer that if we do schedule something for that week that we try to do it in person if possible, knowing again that it is probably easier for everyone in terms of convenience to do it virtually. i worry it might hinder the conversation or not allow for a robust conversation and we are running out of time. mr. roosevelt: when we originally discussed the schedule, we included an in person meeting at that point. we decided that might be too burdensome for everybody, so we took it out to see what we could get done. we now know what goes into it, and we will look at both virtual and in person to see what will get the broadest participation. the party of affairs staff will assess this and get back to everybody promptly to let you know. any other points of view about this? you will actually be -- when we send the doodle poll. [laughter] anything anyone else would like to say for the record? >> one of the questionnaires with additional information, when is that due back? mr. roosevelt: a week from today. anyone else? you will be hearing from ocelot, let's put it that way. >> here is what is coming up on the c-span networks. life at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the hearing on the legal implications on the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade. at 2:00 p.m., the house returns from a two week break to consider several bills, including one that would prove access to military records. on c-span2, the white house covid-19 response team provides an update on the pandemic. and at 10:00 a.m., the senate is back to consider the atf director nomination. also on 10:00 a.m. on c-span3, the hearing on how the bipartisan infrastructure lock impacts communities and public transit. and at 1:00 p.m. eastern, full coverage of the latest january 6 committee hearing on the u.s. capitol attack. everything is also streamed live on c-span.org or on the free c-span video app. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 committee hearing investigating the attack on the u.s. capitol. go to our web resource page to watch the latest videos on the hearings, briefings, and all of our coverings on the attack and subsequent investigations. we also have reaction from members of congress and the white house as well as journalists and authors talking about the investigation. go to c-span.org/january6 on when you can watch and see it live. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code to sign up for the email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit span.org -- c-span.org/connect. >> nasa has unveiled the first images from the james webb space scope showing galaxies from billions of years ago. president biden says the images show a new window into the history of our universe. nasa administrator bill nelson explained the purpose of capturing such images is to help identify other habitable galaxies. vice president kamala harris also joined the event. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for joining us. this is an historic occasion. we are here to view the highest resolution image of the infrared universe everyone has ever seen, captured by the most powerful telescope anyone has ever made. i am proud to turn things over to our president and vice president who have charged
Related Keywords
New York , United States , Arizona , Georgia , Japan , Nevada , New Hampshire , New Jersey , South Carolina , Washington , Iowa , Minnesota , Russia , Michigan , America , Russian , American , Randi Tony , Carol Joanne , David Scott , Las Vegas , Ken Martin , Scott David Mcdonald , Hillary Clinton , James Webb , Bernie Sanders ,
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.