Now What? Election Reform and Greater Appalachia

Topics Discussed

It would mean so much to us if you leave a review of our book, I Think You’re Wrong (But I’m Listening)!

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it we do without you. To become a financial supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, subscribe to our Premium content on Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles.

Sign up for our newsletter to keep up with all our news. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for our real time reactions to breaking news, GIF news threads, and personal content. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our store or visit our merchandise partners: TeePublic, Stealth Steel Designs, and Desert Studio Jewelry. Gift a personalized message from Sarah and Beth through Cameo. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

Episode Resources

ELECTION REFORM

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

Transcript

Beth [00:00:00] This is why I would focus on the infrastructure group because you get people working together on something, they can work together on multiple somethings. You get people working together around electoral count act reform, then maybe you have less of a bruising Supreme Court fight. Maybe you get some momentum around a scaled-back version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Like, there's so many things that could happen here. 

Sarah [00:00:29] This is Sarah Stewart Holland. 

Beth [00:00:30] And I’m Beth Silvers. 

Sarah [00:00:32] Thank you for joining us for Pantsuit Politics. Thank you for joining us for another episode of Pantsuit Politics. As most of you know, we have a new book coming out in May, Now What? How To Move Forward When We're Divided (About Basically Everything). In anticipation of our book, we're going to start asking that question here on Pantsuit Politics. In today's episode, we're talking about our elections. The aftershock of January 6th is still reverberating, but voting rights legislation is dead in the water, now what?

[00:01:10] Whole regions of our country can feel like enemy territory and the midterms are rapidly approaching, now what? We're going to start talking about the state of election reform in Congress, and then we're going to share a conversation with Kelly Krout, a mom of seven who is running for Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas and see what we can learn about Arkansas and Greater Appalachia and try to answer that question, now what? And at the end of the show, I'm going to share about my mother-Son Book Club. So many of y'all have asked me about that, and I'm excited to talk about it.

Beth [00:01:36] Before we get started, I'm just here again to ask you to leave our review for our first book on Amazon because it confusingly helps our second book to have lots of reviews on our first book. So if you have done that, we really, really, appreciate it. If you haven't and you've read the first book and can honestly leave a one sentence review for us on Amazon, we would greatly, greatly, appreciate it. We're only about 200 away from our goal of a thousand. So anything you can do there means the world to us. We don't know exactly why, but we appreciate it so much. 

Sarah [00:02:15] Okay, Beth, do you want the good news or the bad news first? 

Beth [00:02:17] I mean, I always pick the good news first. Always. 

Sarah [00:02:19] Okay. Have you heard that a bipartisan group -- it's almost like they heard you the other day, a bipartisan group led by Senator Susan Collins are working on updating the Electoral Count Act of 1887. 

Beth [00:02:32] I love a bipartisan working group. I told you I would get up every morning and go to bed every night if I worked in the administration thinking, how do I keep the infrastructure band together? 

Sarah [00:02:41] It's the same thing. 

Beth [00:02:41] Get them some pizza, get them some wine, bring them whatever they want and let's get some things done.

Sarah [00:02:46] It's our all-star team from infrastructure: Romney, Murkowski, Capito, Portman, Tillis, Young and Sens on the Republican side; as well as Manchin, Shaheen Cinema, Warner, Coons, Murphy and Cardin on the Democratic side. If Senator Susan Collins gets this done, I will take back almost everything mean I've ever said about her. Okay, so let's pause just a second. In case you didn't know, the Electoral Count Act is a garbage law. It's a garbage law. It came about after the disputed election of 1876, which was also a garbage moment in American history. It was the election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who def lost the popular vote to Democratic Samuel Tilden. 

[00:03:25] Now, I say he lost the popular vote, but is in the context of widespread reports of electoral fraud and the disenfranchisement of black Republicans across the South. But there were 20 electoral votes from four states with conflicting reports. And so, basically, they got in a smoke-filled room and said, we'll give the Republicans the election if you pull federal troops out of the south, which effectively ended reconstruction. And, again, garbage moment. So of course, this garbage moment in American history produced this truly terrible law. 

[00:04:02] It is so bad. I kind of wanted to read it out loud. It's too confusing and too bad to even read out loud. But just know that the seemingly important sentence that begins, "If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate...", goes on for 273 words, that single sentence, and resolves absolutely nothing. Which is why attorneys working with the Trump campaign were fully prepared to exploit it on January 6th. 

Beth [00:04:36] It is a really bad law. 

Sarah [00:04:38] It's so bad.

Beth [00:04:39] And I understand how hard circumstances get us to bad law sometimes. What's nice about a really bad law, though, is that you can look like a hero with kind of an easy fix. Because if this group even just comes out with one sentence like the vice president may not overturn the election results, they have done something good and helpful for American democracy. 

Sarah [00:05:00] So true. So we did have some experts on democracy come together, and they issued a report and they had specific suggestions. One that comes up pretty often is, let's raise the threshold on objections. Right now you just need one member from each chamber. Well, considering we have some real wild cards out there, particularly in the House, let's raise that. Let's not just depend on one wild card, let's make it where it's like, oh, I don't know, two thirds of each chamber to raise that objection. Something real lofty. 

Beth [00:05:30] Well, just to be clear what we're talking about, if a state has certified election results, what should it take for Congress to seriously consider rejecting that state's certification? That's what we're talking about. 

Sarah [00:05:44] Not Madison Cawthorn. I can tell you that much. 

Beth [00:05:46] If you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate, overturning the certification of a state to me ought to take 60 votes too. 

Sarah [00:05:56] Yeah. Not Josh Hawley with his fist in the air. That's not good enough. 

Beth [00:06:00] Okay. And I mean just to object, not to actually do something with it, but like just to raise the question of doing something that serious ought to take 60 votes. 

Sarah [00:06:11] Yeah, to object. So they also said, we need to clarify how these disputes, once these objections have been raised, how they're resolved because that's really not covered in this paragraph. Terrible, terrible, paragraph of this law. That's all it is. And we put the whole paragraph on the show notes if you want to subject yourself to it, which you probably should. 

Beth [00:06:27] Clarify the safe harbor provisions so that it's very, very, clear that if a state resolves its own dispute over electors by that deadline, Congress must count them. We don't want this stretching out. I mean, that's kind of what they were trying to get at with this law. Let's not let this stretching out until forever. But, again, they did such a bad job. Such a bad job. And then, again, let's just at the very least clarify the vice president's role so that it does not include resolving congressional disputes over electors in an election that, oh, I don't know, they could actually be a candidate in. 

Beth [00:06:59] I'm excited about this. I know that this doesn't register in the top 50 priorities for your average midterm elections. 

Sarah [00:07:07] I thought it should. Oh, it should though . 

Beth [00:07:09] But it is extremely important and I think that this is really effective. I know this is not what voting rights advocates really want and think is most important. And still, I think it is incredibly important. I think it's directly responsive to what happened on January 6. And I think getting this done with 60 votes in the Senate is a very healthy thing for our country immediately and in the long term. 

Sarah [00:07:34] So, well, let's talk about the voting rights issue because they're directly related. I mean, part of the reason this is happening now is that this bipartisan group, particularly the Republicans in this bipartisan group, are hoping that -- and now we get to the bad news portion of this program, the brutal failure of the Freedom to Vote Act in the Senate will motivate a little movement on this particular reform. Because previously the Democratic leadership stance, including the White House's stance was like, don't submit this to us and act like this is voting rights reform. Like, don't act like this is too little. This is a trick. This is a trap. You're going to do this and then say, "See, we did it." 

[00:08:13] But that was before, you know, Leader Schumer's efforts to institute a talking filibuster in order to force a majority to vote on the Freedom to Vote Act failed. And just in case you've forgotten, I mean, the Freedom to Vote Act is pretty prolific. It's mandate same day voting, online voter registration, early voting, loosening voter ID. There's a lot in there, okay? And so, but it's not going anywhere right now. I mean it's, you know, dead forever. But for right now, it's not going anywhere. And so I think that they're hoping like the end of the momentum there will translate into some momentum around the electoral contact. 

Beth [00:08:49] And how do you feel about that, Sarah? 

Sarah [00:08:51] I keep thinking about this moment where I was listening to Biden's first year and particularly Biden's relationship to Joe Manchin. And they were talking about Joe Manchin initial offer on the Build Back Better is like not even on the table anymore. Now he's like, forget it. And the report was talking about that happened with Clinton's health care reform, right? That Bob Dole submitted a compromise and they were like, now isn't good enough. And then, eventually, Bob Dole was like, it's off the table. I'm not even doing that anymore. I don't know why we keep making the same mistake. Like your first offer is your best offer. It's like real estate in Congress. 

[00:09:26] And this idea that like we'll hold out for something better in a future you cannot control, that is particularly dangerous in a political setting. And so I don't want to hear about traps. Get it done. If this is the best we can do, I'm happy with it. And I know there are a lot of voting rights people that would not be, and I get that. To me, though, they're so different. They're so different. I don't even know what we're really talking about them in the same way, except for I just think it's just sort of the the political reality of the moment. But I really do think they do very different things. 

[00:10:00] And I think that if we can get the Electoral Count Act through, that could build momentum for voting rights reform. And so let's do that because what we don't want is to wait and hem and haw and let Trump get his teeth in it and have time to build real opposition like he did with the infrastructure bill. Like, we don't want to wait until he's really got people sending death threats to Republicans for voting for anything on a bipartisan manner. It's not in his interest. He doesn't want this Electoral Count Act to go through, which should be all the indication we need that it should. 

Beth [00:10:36] I think you're right that this could build some momentum. This is why I would focus on the infrastructure group because you get people working together on something, they can work together on multiple somethings. You get people working together around Electoral Count Act reform, then maybe you have less of a bruising Supreme Court fight. Maybe you get some momentum around a scaled back version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Like there's so many things that could happen here. I was thinking about our conversation about activism, and I worry that some people heard that conversation and heard activism is bad or activism has no place or activism is not helpful, which is definitely not where we are on it. 

[00:11:15] For me, there is a moment when activism has to make a turn from here are our demands to hear are the things you need to keep in mind as you execute. So I was thinking about the Freedom To Vote Act and voter ID and that conversation in general. Freedom to vote would not eliminate voter ID requirements, but it would loosen them up. And that is politically a loser for most people. It just is. Now, we can debate the merits of that, but I don't want to do that today. I just want to accept the reality that that's a loser. So what's the next step? If I were a member of the Kentucky State Legislature, I would be thinking about what would a really cool universal I.D. program look like in Kentucky? 

[00:12:00] How could we make it where you can go into any school, any bank, any community center, any post office and get an I.D. and get it for free? Get it replaced for free. Get your voter registration updated. That's where activism can come in and where activists can come in and say, "Now, hey, as you're doing that, consider the tribal nations in Kentucky, and how do you respectfully navigate." You know what I mean? Like, there's got to be a pivot from demand oriented to action oriented, execution oriented. And that shift has not happened in the national voting rights conversation in a way that's made it at least to the layer of people who pay attention as much as you and I do. And that frustrates me. 

[00:12:39] It cannot be you support these particular pieces of legislation or you're a monster. It has to be this is the problem. Let's define what is the scope of a federal voting right. Are we talking about what it takes to register or are we talking about how long you have to wait in a line, whether you have to physically go somewhere? I mean, there are some really hard questions around what fits within a voting right. And when we're talking about just what encourages people to vote and is it a goal to actually encourage people to vote? The history of a place matters when people attack us about being frustrated with Georgia's laws because New York has worse laws than Georgia when it comes to voting. 

[00:13:21] Well, you're ignoring a whole lot of history and a lot of context in that conversation, and that matters. And that's one argument against some of the federal voting legislation that's been proposed that it tries to do a one size fits all for a big, diverse country. The Supreme Court rejected a more targeted approach under the Voting Rights Act. So where does that leave us now? There's a lot of words for me to just say we need a lot of creativity around where that leads us now. And being in the category of you either past this or you're the worst and our democracy is over, that's just not working. I'm ready to move on. 

Sarah [00:13:55] Yeah, I think the important thing I'd like to emphasize about activists is you can be an activist and you can be right about the issue and wrong about the strategy. Suffragists were. Lots of people were. There's a long history of that. Being right on the issue doesn't mean you're right on the strategy. And I know it feels a little bit easier to think the only thing standing in our way are two senators or the only thing standing in our way and our filibuster. But that is an oversimplification of the reality, and it's not the only thing standing in our way. And I know it feels discouraging and hard to think we have to tackle this state by state. But guess what? This isn't a new conversation among activists either. 

[00:14:42] And so I just think that that with voting rights, the now what for me is you cannot, as an activist, put all your eggs in one basket. And I'm speaking about activists as a monolith, and they're not. Lots of activists know that and have launched very successful strategies understanding that reality. You know, there's a real simple narrative even about women's right to vote. That it was, you know, Alice Paul coming along as played by Hilary Swank and pushing a federal solution. And that's what really got women the right to vote. 

[00:15:17] But that's not true either, because that strategy was successful because there were pressure coming from states who had actually given women the right to vote and had politicians accountable to them. It was both. And so that's always going to be true. And I think that that it just becomes activism and relationship sort of like electoral versus governing all that, especially when there is a moral issue. And for voting rights, there is a moral and ethical issue at play here, obviously, that it becomes the moral weight can complicate the conversations around strategy. 

Beth [00:15:52] Yeah, you know, I think you hit on something really important there because it's almost not even activism that I'm talking about. It's that political hobbyism. It's what is driving the conversation among people who are interested in politics. And I'm sorry that that matters as much as it does right now, but for a variety of reasons. Social media, coronavirus, like, there are a lot of reasons that what drives the political hobbyist conversation becomes what people believe the possibilities are and what people believe that voters care about. 

[00:16:24] And I think that misses so much. But what it's missing the most for me right now is that pivot to, oh, we actually do want to get things done, and we actually are willing to make some compromises in the process of getting things done. Because that is what humans have always had to do throughout history. This idea that Democrats have 51 votes in the Senate and a narrow majority in the House, and so we've got to seize the moment and muscle every thing through. 

[00:16:49] But that isn't how any kind of leadership works. In the corporate world, people who have lots and lots of power still understand that there is a fragility around power and you can't just cram everything down. So much good stuff can get done if they use this Electoral Count Act I think as the jumping off point for it.

Sarah [00:17:09] Yeah. I mean, there are Twitter activists and there are activists on Twitter, but that doesn't mean all activism takes place on Twitter, right? I think that that's just where we get stuck a little bit. So the now what is to remind ourselves, like, it's always more complicated and there is work for you to do close to where you live and close to your community if this is something that you deeply care about. And it's something we should all care about. 

[00:17:30] And as we continue to keep our eye on 2024, we've decided to launch a new series where we talk to candidates running this year to help us understand the different regions in our country and what they care about. We're using Colin Woodard's framework. And you can listen to our interview with him in our January 19th episode linked in the show notes to get a better handle on that if you haven't listened yet. And first up, we're going to be talking about Greater Appalachia as represented by Arkansas, and to help us understand this area better is candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Kelly Krout. 

Beth [00:18:15] Kelly, we're so excited that you're here with us today, and I wondered if you might start by just orienting us to the present moment, Arkansas. What's going on there? How has COVID impacted Arkansas? What do you want people to know about your state right now? 

Kelly Krout [00:18:30] Hey, thank you so much for having me. The honor is all mine. I'm very excited to be here. So. Arkansas is really something right now where we're seeing a lot of different things happen. It is becoming super, super, extreme. We make the national news a lot for kind of wild legislation that makes its way through. We see a lot of elections just go unopposed. People just aren't running or people are winning their elections in primaries, which is contributing to some of the extremism. 

[00:19:00] We see people just overwhelmed with the state of things. And so they don't really want to get involved because it's too messy. I talk a lot about how if we want good, kind, politicians to be in office, we have got to do something about this environment we've created for politicians. Because it's so nasty, and kind and decent people don't want anything to do with that. So Arkansas is no different than anywhere else there. It can be really ugly and you're putting yourself in kind of a vulnerable position to run for office. So that's sort of the small gist there. 

Sarah [00:19:31] And so how did you decide to put yourself in such a vulnerable position? 

Kelly Krout [00:19:34] That's a super question. I guess I'm a bit of a glutton for punishment. I don't know. I'm kind of a go big or go home, all in all out kind of person. I actually used to be pretty politically apathetic because I just felt like it's so much information to need to know to be able to be really involved and really engaged in it. Overwhelming. So I just kind of la,la,la I'm going to pretend this isn't happening. 

[00:19:57] And then a few years ago, I started paying a lot more attention and realizing that was kind of a privileged position to take, to step back and just not be involved. So I started paying a lot more attention. And when I noticed people stepping up to run for office in my area, I didn't feel like anybody matched the values that I had. And so I looked around. I was like, is anybody going to do this? And they were not. And so I just stepped up and decided I'll learn as I go. So I just wanted to be able to serve my community. 

Beth [00:20:22] What made you choose Lieutenant Governor? 

Kelly Krout [00:20:24] That's a great question. It's kind of a quirky position. Here in Arkansas, the lieutenant governor would serve as governor if the governor resigned or passed away or could no longer perform the duties of governor. And then they preside over the Senate with a tie breaking vote. We don't see a lot of ties in Arkansas. It's a supermajority, but it's an important leadership position and would have a really unique microphone to be able to advocate for issues that are important to Arkansans. 

[00:20:49] I ran for the House of Representatives in Arkansas and the previous election cycle was unsuccessful, but I loved campaigning, loved connecting with voters and built a really unique social media platform where I was able to have a lot of really important, good, graceful conversations. And I thought, how can I serve my party the best? How can we serve Arkansans the best? And was asked about lieutenant governor and decided that actually sounds like a good fit. 

Sarah [00:21:13] In my experience, you know, I also loved campaigning. I love knocking on doors and meeting just people on the ground. And that's where you really can start to bridge that disconnect between the extreme nature of the political reality in a place like Arkansas and the lived reality of the citizens themselves, especially the apathetic ones who don't tap into the process. So what are you seeing there? Like, what's the industry like in Arkansas? What are the real complaints? 

[00:21:38] You know, I think politics is about everything and also it can be its own sort of silo that if you can just scratch below that and get an answer to what's really going on in people's lives. So what's really affecting the lives of the people of Arkansas as far as what industries are increasing or declining or what sort of resource problems are you having? What are you seeing when you talk to people on social media or in person?

Kelly Krout [00:22:02] That's a great question. Well, I'll tell you it's not the things that the Legislature is concerning themselves with. I am a social work student. I'm finishing up my master's in social work, so I'm getting daily experience dealing with some of the most vulnerable people in our population. And I served as a foster parent for many years in the area. And so I got a front row seat to how a lot of families are struggling, swimming upstream, trying to work through these really clunky systems that are very difficult to navigate. You know with a good advocate helping you, we've got to simplify some of these systems so that people can do well. 

[00:22:35] We are 41st in education. We're 49th in health care. Our infrastructure is not good. We're number one in teen pregnancy. We've got big issues that we could be working together to resolve. And instead, the Legislature is focusing on taking away health care from certain individuals. And really, we are really focused in on abortion here in Arkansas. And so trying to have conversations about those things and how we can work on prevention rather than being reactive, people have been pretty receptive to that kind of conversation. 

Beth [00:23:06] I would love to hear more about you being number one in teen pregnancy. How does that get discussed? How should we, who don't live in Arkansas, understand that stat. 

Kelly Krout [00:23:15] It's real interesting. You know, we're in the south. We're in the Bible belt of purity culture. It's what is preached and taught in the churches, for the most part. Sex education is almost nonexistent. If it is happening, it's abstinence only sex education. And so kids are literally not learning how this happens. And because of the purity culture kind of dynamic that's in the state, kids are not comfortable talking to their parents like, hey, I'm going to be sexually active. What do I need to do to be safe? People are not comfortable having those conversations, and we would rather just say, "Well, if you're not ready for a baby you shouldn't be having sex." And it's just an unrealistic take. And we've got to do better. 

Sarah [00:23:53] So we're using Colin Woodward's formulation of America as 11 regional cultures. As we think about these upcoming elections, we found it to be a really helpful tool. Now Arkansas sits mostly in the greater Appalachian region, which we do as well in Kentucky. There's a southeastern part of the state that's deep south, but politically you see a lot of crossover between the Deep South and Greater Appalachia. You sort of see this voting bloc. So what I think is really helpful, as I think about my state and particularly a state like Arkansas, is who settled this? Where did the culture come from or what you see in Appalachia as Scott Irish? 

[00:24:27] And they didn't go in and settle a town like in New England, right? It was like individual families and clans. They pick a piece of land. They'd settle right in the middle of it and secluded themselves from every body else, right? They don't want government in their lives at all to the impact of their wealth. Like it was really about increasing freedom, not wealth. And you see this cycle of no governance. There is no role for government in my life. It is all about my individual choices, even in religion, right? This evangelical religious outbreak, it's not outlook. It's not about improving society or outreach to our fellow man. It's about individual relationship with God and where you go when you die. 

[00:25:04] And there's not a lot of dissent allowed in the clan or the family. And so you see the cycle of seclusion and poverty exclusion. No, there's no role for the government here. We don't care if they're doing a bad job because we don't want them here at all. We don't want them in our lives at all. And I'm wondering, you know, like I said, that rings really true for me as a Kentuckian. And I think you can see threads of that even in what you were just saying about teen pregnancy. So does that ring true for you and your experience in Arkansas? And as a candidate running for a role in government, how do you speak to that if you don't -- if you're -- you know, we can see what messaging works well. The government's the enemy. Period. Full stop. Vote for me. So how do you shift that messaging and how do you deal with that narrative? 

Kelly Krout [00:25:45] Well, yeah, it's interesting and it's messy. And I would agree that a large majority here in Arkansas want the government to stay out of their lives, and a lot of the Legislature focuses on how can we keep the government from being too powerful. Ironically, though, they will put legislation in place that is big government type stuff. 

Sarah [00:26:03] Right, to enforce their worldview. 

Kelly Krout [00:26:04] Right. So like in our last legislative session, they made it illegal to enforce mask mandates, and so they took away local control so school boards can't do a mask mandate. And it was just a big, hairy mess. And it was so bizarre to me that people couldn't see that. That is big government, though, that is over involvement because you've taken away the power of the local communities to decide what is best for their people, their children, their schools. 

Sarah [00:26:28] It's that suppression of dissension, right? Like, that's okay. That's okay. That's allowed but anything else. And I don't want help, but I will use my power to shut you down. 

Kelly Krout [00:26:38] Right. It is bizarre and it is frustrating. So if you can have a calm conversation with someone to kind of be like, let's take a breath and think about how that actually is overreach. We saw a bunch of legislation. We were real focused on trans youth in Arkansas at this last session, and I don't know why, because that's a very small percentage of our population. And it was just like, how could we not see that this is an overreach to be involved in pediatric visits between parents and children and their doctors? Like that's overreach. But it's all under the guise of we're protecting families and children, and it can get really confusing for people who aren't digging a little bit deeper into the issues. 

Sarah [00:27:15] So how do you deal with that as a candidate? 

Kelly Krout [00:27:17] Well, I spend a lot of time trying to have conversations. I jokingly will create videos and stuff where I'm like a conservative version of myself and a liberal version of myself kind of like having conversation the way we would ideally want it to go. I spent a lot of time, again, on that topic, like, hey, here's what gender affirming health care actually looks like. What you've been led to believe is something big and scary and dangerous that it really is not. Nobody's doing surgeries on four and five year olds. 

[00:27:43] That's not that's not a thing. And so just helping people understand you've been fed a story that is not exactly accurate. And if you'll step back, take a breath and see what's actually happening, you might not actually have a big problem with this. So everything I do as a candidate revolves around being proactive instead of reactive. Like, let's back up a few steps and see if we can keep from having this big reactive fight in the first place. 

Beth [00:28:05] I wonder -- because, you know, it sounds like some of what you're dealing with in Arkansas is that sort of nationalized culture war push. Lots of states looking at this same types of legislation around transgender care, for example. How do you bring people home and say, like, let's talk about our our roads, our water, our teen pregnancy rate, our schools? I think it's hard to get people to kind of settle in to the places where we can have the most impact right now. And I wonder how those conversations go for you. 

Kelly Krout [00:28:33] Well, it's really interesting because I don't think it's a shock or surprise to people that, hey, we're not doing great. In health care we're not doing great and in education. But then on the flip side, we do a lot of like, hey, we've got a budget surplus. Let's cut taxes. Let's do all of this stuff. And it's like, hold up, what if we looked at both of these things together? What if we invest a little money in infrastructure? If we have so much money, then let's take care of some of these problems. Let's boost up our education. Let's support our teachers better. So trying to connect those two things in a conversation that makes sense has been somewhat helpful. 

Beth [00:29:05] When you think about Arkansas's biggest opportunity, the resource you have in abundance, or the bright, shiny thing that Arkansas could grab if it would just invest or focus, what do you see? 

Kelly Krout [00:29:16]  You know, we've seen a lot lately of trying to be almost a touristy state, which sounds kind of bizarre because most people would not think of Arkansas in that way. But I was in Northwest Arkansas, there's actually a lot of money in Northwest Arkansas on people who have invested in the arts in a really elaborate trail system in museums and, you know, just kind of making it a really neat tourist destination. 

Sarah [00:29:40]  Those people happen to have the last name Walton. Yes. 

Kelly Krout [00:29:43] Oh, you've heard of them? 

Sarah [00:29:44] Yeah, I've heard of them, right?  Listen, that art museum is on my list. No doubt. 

Kelly Krout [00:29:49] It's lovely. It's lovely. And so we do have a lot of assets like that that we could be talking about and boosting up and really boosting our economy, even more so here in the state. 

Sarah [00:29:58] Every American should go to Hot Springs, too. It is a phenomenal point place to visit.

Kelly Krout [00:30:02] Yeah. There's really a lot of places. 

Sarah [00:30:03] That's actually a really interesting answer to that seclusive, tribal, clannish, sort of undercurrent us versus them that can really infect state politics. And I feel like tourism is often a way to get around that and say, like, we do want people to come here. We do have things to offer. But we have to invest in order to be a place people when I come to. Because I think like that culture might be in the history, but we've all moved past the the part of  everybody wants tourists, right?  And no matter what your cultural ancestry like the narrative is, we all want tourists. It's almost like a more positive angle on that nationalization. 

[00:30:48] Like, hey, there's positive things that we can do in our state to talk about wanting people to come here and having more inclusive language in, like, this is a benefit as opposed --  you know, because I think so often the language just gives it's the right thing to do. Well, that is not going to work in a place like Greater Appalachia. That narrative does not work because of that cultural history. But the idea of it's an investment, so people want to come here so we have more tourism, more jobs, to me, that's a really a positive way to answer that sort of messaging. 

Kelly Krout [00:31:16] Right. But, of course, on the flip side, we're not going to be able to recruit talent to come work for these big companies like Wal-Mart and Tyson and J.B. Hub, where we're kind of the hub of a lot of these places if we have really discriminatory policies written into our state. People don't want to subject their families to that kind of thing if we're not an actually inclusive and accepting state. And so if want this, we're also going to have to be this. We've got to be inclusive and we've got to be accepting if we want to bring people here for tourism and move here. 

Sarah [00:31:45] So as we wrap up, tell us the moment, the exchange -- girl, I've been watching your Tik Toks so I'm sure you're  having great conversations on there -- the moment where you thought, I wish everybody could know this about Arkansas. I wish everybody could see this exchange about my state. 

Kelly Krout [00:31:59] I wish that we could get a better reputation for it. We're not all extreme. In fact, I'm friends with -- you know, I'm running as a Democrat. I have a lot of Republican friends, and none of them are like what we see in the national headlines of Arkansas. I feel like Arkansas kind of gets a reputation for being, and I've said it over and over, really extreme. And most people are not that way. Most people are more accepting. And so I do a lot of just encouraging people to run for office. You're qualified to run for office. We need choices for democracy to actually work. We need people to stop winning in the primary, make people work for it. And it's an uphill battle in some of these different areas of the states where people have not run for season after season. But it's just important we've got to get out there and do it. 

Sarah [00:32:44] Well, thank you for making that choice yourself. 

Kelly Krout [00:32:46] Hey, thank you. That was so encouraging. 

Sarah [00:32:59] We want to thank Kelly for talking to us. It was a great conversation, we hope you enjoyed it. For outside politics today, Beth, I get a lot of questions about my Mother-Son Book Club. Have you seen my Mother-Son Book Club on Instagram? 

Beth [00:33:10] Ofcourse. I love your post about your mother, son, book club. And I was very excited to see you getting back together in person again. 

Sarah [00:33:15] Yes, we took a little bit of a COVID break for lots of obvious reasons. We've been doing this. I had to look it up for this conversation. We've been doing this since 2015. I think that's right. I was looking through my pictures. So seven years, they were six years old when we started, and they're all 12 or 13 now. I think I just read about it somewhere and I was like, oh, this is brilliant. 

[00:33:38] Like, the woman had been doing it since they were little and they were like going away to college. You know, it's hard, I think, to continue a narrative about love of reading with boys. There's a lot, lots out there about little girl readers. Lots of even that narrative and pop culture, the stories and the movies and stuff that they watch. And so reading is really important to me. 

[00:33:59] And so I wanted to do it. And we have had some people move. And here's the really hard part, we've had some conflicts among the boys where they're not actively friends anymore, which is made for interesting dynamics inside the book club because the moms are all still friends. But it has been really fun. So for those of you just asking sort of the specifics? We just started and whoever hosts the book club -- and we usually do it like once a quarter, I would say, gets to pick the book. And then we read the book and we come to talk about it. 

[00:34:31] And maybe one mom will sort of take the lead on the questions that we ask. We try to follow the boys interests as far as like what they're asking about, but it's been really, really, fun. I would highly recommend it. Felix definitely wants his own. And so my other two now are like, well, where's our Mother-Son Book Club? And so there could be a point where I'm in three Mother-Son Book Clubs, so pray for me. 

Beth [00:34:49] What has been the book that sparked the most interesting conversations so far? 

Sarah [00:34:55]  Well, first of all, I need to give a mad shout out to Beth Sham, who is a longtime listener and incredible librarian. And so often I'm like, please send me all the books. And her book recommendations are amazing. One of my favorites she recommended was You Don't Know Everything, Jilly P! By Alex Gino. It just covered a lot. It was a really beautiful book about identity and disability and complicated family dynamics surrounding those things. I really liked it. I thought we had a really good conversation. 

[00:35:25] The boys really like books that are like a lot of identity stuff. I mean, it makes sense, right? They're getting older. They're figuring out their identities. They go to a pretty diverse school. And so we try to read a lot of books about diversity and inclusion. And so our next book is The Hate U Give, which I'm really excited about. And so I thought that was a really  good conversation we had. It's hard when we do more like plot driven books because it doesn't feel like there's as much to talk about. So we do try to stick to those sort of very experience-driven novels. 

Beth [00:35:56] So if someone we're getting started today knowing what you know now, is there anything that you do differently in how you sort of set it up? 

Sarah [00:36:04] Yeah, I wonder if it would be easier if we had -- and we're kind of moving this way, like, a book one of the boys has read before. Because sometimes we'll get them and they're like none of them like it. And that's really hard when none of them like the book. And so I think I would really let them like the boys pick the books instead of all of us starting from scratc, a book we've never read. It also makes it easier like you get a time off where you've read it. I love it when I have a book club and I've already read the book like for the book club. And so I'm sure some consider that cheating, but really does make life easier. 

[00:36:33] Feels like you're ahead of the game, you know? I think that would be good. And I think sometimes it got easy for there was a point in our book club where it got really easy to just let the boys read the book. And then we would barely talk about it and then we would just split off and the boys would go play and the moms would chat. And we probably needed it at the time. We just need some decompression, but we really try to get better about like now we all read the book and we all talk about it together because those were really the most productive conversations. 

Beth [00:37:01] Do you find that the conversation from the book club, like, comes up again in your house? That's what I am noticing a lot lately. If I have something unusual with with Jenna Ellen, it tends to have so many ripple effects. You know, if we have like one conversation about something, it'll come up again two weeks later in a different context. So I'm wondering if you see a lot of that with the book club. 

Sarah [00:37:24] Yeah, it's really funny. Like last time we'd had our first meeting in a long time and everybody laughed and Griffin was like, that was really fun. I forgot how nice it is just to talk about this. It was so sweet. I was like, don't we talk about this? He's like, it's just different when my friends are here and we can really share what's going on in middle school. You know, they just really need a place to share and connect. But yeah, I mean, I think there are some books that we'll still talk about. Like, oh, yeah, that reminds me of, you know, whatever novel that we read that it'll come up. Because once you have some language around it and you have just that muscle memory of like, we talked about that and it was fine, I think it really helps, especially as they get older. 

Beth [00:37:58] The thing I love about this is the you're introducing other adults who are people who can talk with them about important things. I'm just constantly thinking about how do I build this community of other adults around my kids for the times when they just don't want to come to me with something that they they know that they have other people to go to. 

Sarah [00:38:16] I will also say I'm just glad these boys are like in a book club. It is shocking and appalling to me how often I will encounter specifically women who are like, I've never been in a book club. I'm like, wait, what? What do you mean? You've never been in a book club? I feel like I've been in a book club since the age of 16, like, perpetually. And I am a joiner by nature. I get that. But I just thought that was, like, legally required. I don't know. To turn 35 is like to have been in a book club. 

Beth [00:38:44] I wish that were true. I think it's really hard to start things. 

Sarah [00:38:49] I have started off couple that have fizzled ou,t that didn't take, that's for sure. 

Beth [00:38:52] Yeah, it's hard to start. It's hard to maintain. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of energy. I think that there can be like a guilt component if you don't get the reading done that people don't want to welcome into their lives. I just think finding friends as an adult, we've talked about this before, is harder than it should be, especially if you've moved to a new community recently. So I don't want to act like that's an easy lift because I think it's not as easy a lift as it ought to be. 

Sarah [00:39:18] No, that's really true. I just mean, like, how have you not been like dragged into one by this point in life? I think a good book club is very hard. The best book club I have ever been in is when I was newly married and I went to a Barnes and Noble Book Club in North Carolina where we lived at the time, and it was very diverse ages, men, women, different ethnicities, different life experiences. And we were not friends outside the book club. And it was the best book club. 

[00:39:42] Because sometimes I think book clubs that become, like, I have a "book club" that's just a group of friends. We don't ever read books anymore. And it's fine. Like I'm happy. I love that we get together and it's really important to me. But I do miss book clubs that are actually to discuss the book because I think sometimes when everybody's like you're a group of friends already or you want to be a group of friends, it's hard to maintain the book club because the friendship takes priority. 

Beth [00:40:04] Well, you just said, I think the key verb, which is, have you not been dragged into it? A lot of people aren't getting dragged anywhere. There are not enough draggers out there. 

Sarah [00:40:12] That's true. I'm a dragger.

Beth [00:40:12] I have learned from you to start assuming that people want to do things with me. That's been a very big mind shift. Because I started assuming that no one wanted to do anything with me ever, that I was imposing on people to say, like, do you want to go have lunch or dinner.  And when you get out of that mindset and you become a dragger, it feels good and life is a lot more fun. And also, you don't care if people say no because you know there's going to be something else around the corner and it's going to be fine. 

Sarah [00:40:38] Oh, I definitely don't care. 

Beth [00:40:39] But there aren't enough people dragging. 

Sarah [00:40:40] That's hard to convey as a dragger. Is like people think I'm going to be mad at them. I'm like, no, I don't. I just ask somebody else. Now, it's so true. It's just, you know, I'm a joiner. I like to be with people. I think that is key to human happiness. And, you know, I just ask for things. I am an asker. I don't know if it's an only child. I don't know if my mother taught me how to do this although she's often appalled by what I will ask for. But I just ask for what I need. People say no, they say no. 

Beth [00:41:07] Yeah. And when you get into that mindset, everything lightens. But it was hard for me to get there. So I'm doing a better job at dragging. I haven't done a book club yet in my, like, modern iteration. I need to try to drag people into a book club because I don't have one. Not as yet 

Sarah [00:41:22] You can choose to do a podcast or a long read club. I was actually in the pages of Real Simple with my book club that turned into a long read -- a long article club. 

Beth [00:41:30] I would love a long read club. 

Sarah [00:41:32] That's interesting because I read a lot of those. 

Sarah [00:41:34] Yeah, it's fun. All right. Well, this became an overarching book club conversation, but I like it. Thank you for joining us here for another episode of Pansuit Politics, where we just follow the conversational road wherever it may lead. We will see you again on Tuesday, and until then, keep it nuanced y'all. 

Beth [00:41:58] Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our managing director. 

Sarah [00:42:03] Maggie Penton is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music. 

Beth [00:42:09] Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers 

Executive Producers (Read their own names) [00:42:14] Martha Bronitsky, Ali Edwards, Janice Elliot, Sarah Greenup, Julie Heller, Helen Handley, Tiffany Hassler, Emily Holaday, Katie Johnson, Katina Zugenalis Kasling. Barry Kaufman, Molly Kohrs,. 

[00:42:30] The Kriebs. Laurie LoDow, Lilly McClure, Jared Minson, Emily Neesley, Tawni Peterson. Tracy Puthoff, Sara Ralph, Jeremy Sequoia, Katie Stigers, Karin True, Onica Ulveling, Nick and Alysa Vilelli,  Amy Whitehead. 

Beth [00:42:48] Jeff Davis, Melinda Johnston, Ashley Thompson, Michelle Wood, Joshua Allen, Morgan McHugh, Nicole Berklas, Paula Bremer and Tim Miller. 

Alise NappComment