>> Hello, everyone,
and welcome to "Amanpour & Co."
Here's what's coming up.
>> As protests continue to shake
the United States, the entire
justice system is on trial.
We talk to a trailblazing judge
about how jails are being filled
by criminalizing
the mentally ill.
And...
>> We need to demand
true equality.
>> We are here to move
history forward.
>> "Mrs. America."
I speak to a director of that
new series, Amma Asante,
about the 1970s
Women's Liberation Movement.
Then...
>> That's one of the things I'm
concerned about this November,
is that some of the states
that are seeing the big surges
in vote by mail also
have traditions of rejecting
a lot of mail ballots.
>> MIT election expert,
Charles Stewart,
warns our Hari Sreenivasan,
states need to start preparing
to protect those votes now.
♪♪
>> "Amanpour & Co." is made
possible by the
Anderson Family Fund,
Sue and Edgar Wachenheim, III,
the Cheryl and Philip Milstein
family,
Candace King Weir,
the Straus Family Foundation,
Bernard and Denise Schwartz,
Charles Rosenblum,
Jeffrey Katz and Beth Rogers.
Additional support provided by
these funders and by
contributions to your PBS
station from viewers like you.
Thank you.
>> Welcome to the program,
everyone.
I'm Christiane Amanpour
working from home in London.
The moral reckoning underway
in the United States right now
also centers around the nation
as the world's biggest jailer.
If its prison population
were a city at almost
2.3 million, it would be among
the country's ten largest.
It's not just the awful
prospect that one in every
three young black men
can expect to end up in jail,
but also about 400,000 people
with serious mental illnesses
find themselves behind bars
on any given day in America.
And the entire prison industrial
complex favors punishment
over rehabilitation.
That is where a trailblazing
Miami judge, Steven Leifman,
comes in with a new program
trying to steer the mentally ill
towards treatment
instead of jail cells.
It's also the topic of a new
documentary on PBS,
looking at how to rescue people
like this young man,
Stephon Berry.
>> I always had a normal life,
then I had
this whole schizophrenia thing,
it really drowned my mind,
like everything was crazy.
Like I didn't know what was
going on at the time.
It was a real
psychological warfare.
As I move forward right now,
through the program -- it's my
only way to confusions
and everything that my thinking
process needs from the program.
I think my thought process
is always messed up.
But when the program
started to come through
and the teachers start helping,
that's how my mind get better.
>> Steven Leifman is a judge
for the 11th Circuit Court
of Florida,
and he's the program's
architect,
and he's joining us from Miami.
And Norm Ornstein
is a resident scholar
at the American Enterprise
Institute who helped commission
the documentary,
and he's joining us
from Washington, D.C.
Gentlemen, thank you both
for joining us.
Steven Leifman, let me ask you
first since you're sort of the
architect of this novel program.
I was struck by one of the lines
at the very top of the program
where it says that you came
to this after essentially
making what you describe
as one of the biggest mistakes
of your professional life.
Describe that and how it led you
to where you are now.
>> Sure, and thank you so much
for having us on today.
I actually had a case
where the defendant turned out
to be a Harvard-educated
psychiatrist who had
a late onset of schizophrenia.
He became homeless and he
started to recycle through
the criminal justice system.
And he ended up having
a full-blown psychotic episode
in my courtroom,
and he was charged with
a ridiculously minor offense.
Now, I'll tell you at the
time -- this is about 20 years
ago -- judges in Florida and for
the most part around
the United States
have absolutely no training
on how to deal or identify
people with mental illnesses
and what to do with them.
And so, after he had this
terrible episode in my court
where he was screaming his real
parents died in the Holocaust
and the people in court
which were his real parents
were from the CIA
and they had come to kill him,
I ordered an entire battery
of psychological evaluations
to see if he was competent
to stand trial
because that's all I thought
I could do, which was
pretty much all I could do.
So, he ended up spending 10
to 12 weeks on possession
of a dairy cart,
nothing of a misdemeanor.
And at the end of the 12 weeks,
I learned that I had no
legal authority to have him
hospitalized or treated,
and I had to release him
right back to the street.
And so, I was unable
to fulfill the promise
I had actually made his parents,
but I put him at risk,
I put the community at risk.
I probably put my job at risk,
God forbid something
terrible happened to him
or he did something terrible,
but he just disappeared
and he never came back
and it's been 20 years.
And I couldn't tell you
if he's dead or alive today.
And it just became a window
to everything that was wrong
with our legal system.
>> And we're going to get more
into that, but I want
to turn to Norm Ornstein
who is a congressional expert
and not necessarily
in this field,
but you come to it also
from a very personal standpoint.
Your son, very sadly,
died after a long struggle
with mental illness.
Tell me a little about that
and why that brought you
to commission this film,
which, by the way, is called
"The Definition of Insanity."
>> Thanks, Christiane.
My son, Matthew,
who was a brilliant young man,
a national champion high school
debater, went to Princeton,
was out in Hollywood
and doing well.
And at 24 had a psychotic break,
believed that God had come
for him, had taken his soul
but not his body,
and he was on a struggle
to get back his soul.
Had no insight
into his illness and went
through ten months of hell,
as we did in his family,
because the system is broken
and there was nothing
that we could do.
He was over 18.
We couldn't order treatment
or get -- often information
about where he was
or what he was doing.
And he died at age 34,
on January 3, 2015 accidentally,
carbon monoxide poisoning
in a motel room,
and we decided that
rather than curl up into balls
as we were inclined to do,
we wanted to do something
to help other families
from going through
what we went through and help
other people from going through
what Matthew went through.
And as we went on our journey to
do something along these lines,
we encountered Judge Leifman.
My wife and I -- Judy Harris
and I -- went down to Miami,
immersed ourselves
in the program,
were blown away by the fact
that you could save lives
and save money,
and decided that if we could do
a documentary on this,
personalizing it, and showing
through the power of film,
we could then take it around
the country
and maybe to other places
and use it as a catalyst
to spread best practices.
>> Well, clearly, you know,
you probably hadn't realized,
but this best practices
is coming at
the most incredible time.
Because everybody is trying
to figure out how to implement
best practices
in other parts of, you know,
the system in the United States,
including police reform,
et cetera.
So, I just want to ask you,
Judge Leifman, to put it in
some sort of numerical context,
how bad this situation is.
I've read a couple of statistics
that every year more than
1.7 million people with serious
mental illnesses are arrested.
And you said,
"When I became a judge,
I had no idea I was becoming
a gatekeeper to the largest
psychiatric facility
in the State of Florida,
the Miami-Dade County Jail."
>> So, we have about five times
more people in our jail
with serious mental illnesses
just in Miami-Dade County
than at any state psychiatric
hospital in Florida.
And it's not that they just
get arrested more.
They stay four to eight times
longer than someone else
for the exact same charge
because the courts don't know
what to do with them.
And so, they recycle
in an enormous way.
In fact, we had a study,
and I'll be really quick,
but it just highlights
everything.
We sent one of our local
universities the names
of 3,300 people who had
come through our program,
and we asked them to tell us
who the highest utilizers
were with mental illnesses and
criminal justice backgrounds.
And they were able to narrow it
down from 3,300 to 97 people,
primarily men, primarily
diagnosed with schizoaffective
disorders or schizophrenia,
primarily homeless
and primarily co-occurring,
meaning they have both
the mental health disorder
and a substance use disorder.
Over five years, these 97 people
were arrested 2,200 times,
they spent 20,000 days
in the Miami-Dade County Jail,
13,000 days
at a psychiatric state facility,
cost taxpayers $14.7 million,
and we got
absolutely nothing from it.
>> So, tell me, then,
what your program
is doing and what has it done?
So, you have people,
they come into your courtroom,
they've been accused of either
a petty crime or whatever,
but you know
that they're mentally ill.
What do you do,
and what are the results?
>> So, we've actually taken
a two-part approach,
and if I were to do it again,
I would take a three-part
approach, and I'll hopefully
get to that in a minute.
But we have both the pre-imposed
arrest diversion system.
So, we've trained over
7,500 police officers
in Miami-Dade County at all 36
of our police departments
in a program called Crisis
Intervention Team policing,
which is a 40-hour
training program
that teaches law enforcement
officers how to identify someone
who's in crisis,
how to de-escalate the situation
as opposed to escalating it,
and then where to take them
as opposed to arresting them.
And it has been --
that part alone
has been enormously successful.
Over the last eight years,
our two largest agencies,
the City of Miami and
Miami-Dade County,
who handle about 60 percent
of all the calls -- they
handled 91,472 mental
health calls
yet they only made 152 arrests
out of those 91,000-plus cases.
Police shootings almost stopped,
police injuries almost stopped,
injuries and excessive force
to individuals with mental
illnesses almost stopped,
and we actually reduced the
number of arrests in Dade County
from a high of about 118,000
a year to 53,000 this year.
We also have a post-arrest
diversion program.
We changed the screening tools
at the jail to do a better job
identifying people
who have these illnesses
when they come in.
And if you do get picked up
on a misdemeanor
and you meet our criteria,
within three days
we get you out of jail,
we send you to a crisis
stabilization unit,
we get you stabilized, and then
we give you the opportunity
to come into our program.
And if you agree,
which most of them do,
They don't go back to jail.
They go directly from the crisis
unit to the courtroom.
And when they get to
the courtroom, one of our
eight peer specialists -- these
are people with lived
experiences, who live
with serious mental illnesses
who are in recovery -- four of
them actually graduated
from our program -- are waiting
for them.
They're waiting for them
with their medication, with --
I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> Yeah.
No, no.
I just want to -- we've got
a few clips from the movie.
So, I want to actually
illustrate some of it.
So, the crisis intervention part
of it is very important
because in -- whether it's,
you know, with shooting unarmed
black men on the street
or killing unarmed black men
to getting all,
you know, pumped up,
this is a big problem
in terms of the police
and law enforcement.
So, I was really interested
to see this little clip
in the film where, as you say,
they're given training on
how to de-escalate the tension.
Let's just play it.
>> Come up.
Thank you, thank you.
>> Good morning.
How are you?
>> I'm so happy
that you're here.
>> Me, too.
>> Will you join me in singing
the national anthem?
>> Where?
>> Right here!
>> Right now?
>> Okay.
No, no, please, please,
take a step back,
just take a step back.
>> Okay.
No problem, not a problem.
>> Okay.
What made you take a step back?
>> Well, what CIT teaches
the officer is to see more than
just, you know,
the obvious potential crime.
If I just ask you to take
a step back,
it did not compromise
your officer's safety,
and you were
able to just take a step back.
>> We've got to compromise
sometimes with these people,
man.
I mean, it can't always be you,
you, you.
You got to de- escalate it
sometimes.
>> Exactly.
Beautiful.
>> Really interesting to watch
that at work -- obviously,
role playing there.
And again, the figures are
approximately 3,757 fewer jail
bookings of people with serious
mental illnesses every year,
reduction in jail admissions,
a cost cut of
about $29 million per year,
number of police shootings
significantly reduced.
I mean, you can see the figures,
which are amazing.
I just want to also ask Norm.
When you see that, you see it,
in the documentary
that you commissioned.
What do you -- you know,
you also do a lot of study
for governance and the rest.
How do you see that being able
to play into a wider,
I guess, attempt
to reform elements of policing
and funding various,
as we've heard,
defund the police,
but just put funds into mental
health and other social needs?
>> So, what we learned from
the Miami program is that you
can save lives and save money.
It takes an initial investment
doing the Crisis Intervention
Team policing, for example.
What Judge Leifman has also
been able to do is
to train the 911 responders
when there are emergency calls
coming in to make sure
the right teams get there.
What it's also done is to
identify for police officers
their own mental health issues
and an awful lot of the violence
that occurs with police,
and that includes violence
that they inflict upon
themselves.
More police dying from suicide
every year than in the line
of duty -- that
if you can deal
with those you're going to have
less ability to have
real problems on the streets.
So, an investment
at the beginning and a focus
on how you can change
from training to escalate
to training to de-escalate
has repercussions that go
beyond those with serious
mental illness on the streets.
It affects all the behavior
and the encounters between
police and others.
And if we can focus
on some of these things
that are more positive things
that can be done,
we might de-escalate the tension
that now exists between
belligerent police unions
and officers often times
and those who are trying
to reform the system.
It's really important
to figure out ways in which
we can make positive
transformation of the police
and the broader criminal
justice system.
And, of course, one other
element I want to raise here,
Christiane, is that all of
the people in prisons, including
so many with mental illness,
all of those who are homeless,
including so many with mental
illness -- they are hotbeds for
COVID.
Right now, the urgency of making
some of these changes
is amplified because COVID
is making all of it worse.
>> Well, to that end,
obviously I'm going to ask you,
Judge Leifman, because there
you are in Miami and Florida
is sadly an epicenter right now.
What is the state of COVID
in your city and your state?
>> It's pretty drastic
and pretty dire.
I think we just passed our
tenth day with at least
about 10,000 cases.
We actually went up
another 2,500 today.
We seem pretty rudderless
and a lot of confusion going on
and not a lot of direction
of where we should be going.
So, I don't see a way
out of this any time soon.
The hospitals are totally full,
the ICUs are full,
and in some parts of the country
they're making ethical decisions
on who they should accept
and who they shouldn't accept
because there are just not
enough ventilators
or staff to deal with the number
of people coming in.
It's pretty horrifying.
>> Well, that is actually a
horrifying piece of information.
I hadn't been aware of that.
It sounds, you know, almost
as bad as at the beginning
when there weren't enough beds
and PPE and ventilators
and the rest.
Is that what you're saying now
is happening?
>> It's -- yes and worse.
And the difference
in the earlier states
is they started at a high level,
but they really had strategies
in place to get it down.
There doesn't really seem to be
anything changing.
I mean, some people are still
walking around with no masks.
I mean, they are starting to put
some mask orders in place,
and you'll get fined now in
Dade County if you don't have
one on, but it's still pretty
spotty and inconsistent.
I just don't think
some people understand
the gravity of this situation.
They've gotten too many
mixed messages,
too many different news outlets
giving different ideas,
and that's really
dangerous when you're dealing
with public health.
>> So, let me ask you,
Norm Ornstein, because that
really does sound horrifying.
And we see it to an extent that
there are issues here with --
you know, where I am, in London.
There's meant to be a mandatory
mask wearing and you don't see
it in stores and the like.
It's quite scary.
Let me ask you
about the election, though.
You have an election coming up
in November,
and there's also concerns
about that, about, you know,
will the president who had
an interview with Chris Wallace
of Fox News -- would not say
whether he would leave
if he lost.
You -- again, you work
in these issues.
What are you thinking about
the election, the sanctity
of the vote,
the mail-in ballots, et cetera?
>> So, I'm working with a number
of groups and task forces
on election crises.
I'm glad you're having
Charles Stewart on to talk about
one important part of this.
We're going to have a massive
increase in votes by mail,
and that will create chaos.
We are unlikely to have an
election result on election eve.
What President Trump has done
is to go after votes by mail,
say that they're inherently
corrupt.
What that means is we're going
to have fewer Republicans
voting by mail, and the results
that come in on election eve,
which will be very partial ones,
may show him ahead
in some places,
but the final results could
show him losing by a lot,
but he might not
accept those results.
He's already made it clear
that he does not believe
that the votes cast by mail
are legitimate.
That's ridiculous and false.
We do not have evidence
of corruption in votes by mail.
And we're very possibly going to
have chaos here.
We can only hope that we do not
have a close election.
And we may see this
extending into December
and even into January.
And one other thing
to keep in mind, Christiane,
is that in the fall with
the flu season emerging as well,
COVID could get that much worse,
and this massive failure
in public policy starting
at the top with the president,
extending to a number of
governors and others,
the tribalization of dealing
with public health could make
the election even more chaotic.
So, we're braced
for some bad things,
and a lot of us are working,
as I am a lot, to try
and keep them from happening.
>> Thank you,
and of course we will hear more
from the MIT expert,
Charles Stewart, later on.
Gentlemen, thank you both
because you have really
given sort of a playbook
for how some of the structural
issues in the United States
could be reformed,
and it's really
very interesting and heartening.
Thank you very much,
Judge Leifman and Norm Ornstein.
Now, with structural racism
in the spotlight,
perhaps the focus
on everyday misogyny has taken
the backseat for a bit,
but not if progressive
congresswoman
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
has anything to say about it,
and she does.
In an electrifying floor speech,
lambasting what she calls
a faux-apology
by Republican congressman,
Ted Yoho, accused
of using misogynistic curse
words about her this week,
this is what she said.
>> My father, thankfully,
is not alive to see how
Mr. Yoho treated his daughter.
My mother got to see Mr. Yoho's
disrespect on the floor
of this House towards me
on television.
In using that language
in front of the press,
he gave permission
to use that language
against his wife, his daughters,
women in his community,
and I am here to stand up to say
that is not acceptable.
>> So, what is and what is not
acceptable is the timely topic
of a hit new miniseries on Hulu.
It's called "Mrs. America",
and it's about the controversial
1970s anti-feminist
Phyllis Schlafly,
who is determined to defeat
the Equal Rights Amendment.
My next guest is the filmmaker
Amma Asante.
She has directed two
of the episodes as well
as some of "The Handmaid's Tale"
and films such as "Belle"
and "A United Kingdom."
Amma Asante,
welcome to the program.
Could I just first ask you
to react to AOC's comments,
and how she said she didn't want
that kind of a faux-apology
after that kind of misogyny
and sexism directed at her?
What does that say to you
about this moment, in fact?
>> I think it was powerful.
I think the way that she
structured her whole response,
which I only saw this
morning -- I'm speaking from
Denmark, and I managed to catch
onto it this morning -- was
quite incredible.
I think the way that she laid
out how misogyny can work
in our world today
was really impressive
and incredibly powerful,
the idea that you can be
a husband, the idea
that you can be a powerful man,
the idea
that you can have children,
the idea that you can have
a wife are not a defense,
you know, against everyday
misogyny and the kind of
everyday misogyny that we see.
So, I thought it was incredibly
powerful,
and the she has a platform
from which she can speak today.
It tells us
everything about today.
We've come a long way,
but we clearly still have
a long way to go.
>> Which, of course, brings me
obviously to your series
because it's called
"Mrs. America."
It's about the American feminism
and Women's Liberation Movement
of the '70s.
And how much did you know
about that part of history?
What attracted you to that now?
>> I knew a little bit.
I knew specifically
about Shirley Chisholm, and I
knew about Gloria Steinem.
I particularly knew
about Gloria's magazine,
Ms. magazine, and what it stood
for, what it was about,
but I had to do a real
kind of cramming
of research and information
as I took on the two episodes
that I directed
because it's a big subject
and there were so many aspects
that were coming together
all at the same time,
a little bit like today,
that made it important for me
to really try and catch up,
specifically for my episodes.
So, you know, not so much,
but enough to be interested.
And what attracted me, I guess,
was the fact that
the series was also going to be
looking at the intersection,
not just feminism
as it pertained
to white women of the time,
but as it pertained and needed
to include black women as well,
and I was particularly always
struck by Shirley's journey
and what it meant to be
as courageous as she was
at the time and not just being,
you know, the first black person
to step up and do what she did,
but also the first woman
and what that meant
for her journey.
>> Yeah, and what she actually
did was pretty remarkable.
She was the first black woman
elected to the U.S.
from New York.
She took a seat for New York.
She ran for the Democratic
nomination for president
in 1972.
And, you know, her slogan
was "Unbought and Unbossed".
And you -- that's
the real Shirley Chisholm.
And actually, do you know what,
I'm actually going to play
a quick clip of the real
Shirley Chisholm and how she
described her campaign
and what she stood for before I
get to how you dramatized it.
>> I am not for candidate
of black America,
although I am black and proud.
[ Applause ]
I am not the candidate
of the women's movement
of this country,
although I am a woman,
and I'm equally proud of that.
[ Applause ]
I am not the candidate
of any political voices
or fat cats or special interest.
[ Cheering, applause ]
>> It's really amazing to hear
that and to hear the applause
she got, because today
those are the issues.
You know, progressives,
people who want equality saying
that they are not the candidate
of special interest or fat cats.
She went on to say,
"I am the candidate
for the American people."
And yet, you in your episode
show that even amongst
the established movement there,
people like Bella Abzug,
also a congresswoman
from New York, Gloria Steinem
and the others,
they didn't actually 100 percent
support her run for president.
I'm just going to play
this -- a clip -- and then we
can talk about the whole lot.
>> I am trying to protect
our interest,
put pressure in the places
that makes real results,
not symbolic.
I am not going to let your ego
get in the way.
>> What my ego...
If you were running
for president,
not only would this entire
movement endorse you,
we would host fundraisers, knock
on doors make phone calls --
>> Because I would go about it
in the right way!
>> [ Quietly ] Bella...
>> Do you want us to be taken
seriously or not?
She got 2% of the vote.
She took money from the
Black Panthers and their
endorsement.
Her campaign's a joke!
>> Oh [ stutters ].
>> Shouldn't have said that.
>> You always said
you would support me.
Why couldn't you go all the way?
>> So, that is a very full clip
encompassing so many issues.
Just what does it say
to you that there?
>> It says so many things,
Christiane.
I mean, first and foremost,
I think what it says to me...
>> [ Laughs ]
>> ...is that [ laughing ] this
was big,
and the complexities that were
involved, which is just big,
and how you move forward
in a movement when you have
to both look at the detail
and the bigger picture
is an enormous task.
And, you know, for Shirley
navigating all of this -- I
mean, these questions of whether
at the same time is pushing
the woman's movement forward,
if you like, you can also
push forward the black movement,
which is something that could
have happened, perhaps,
if Shirley had been able
to get a little bit further,
if you like, in her journey,
and in her challenge,
is interesting to me.
But it also says that, you know,
look, all of these women
together were looking
at a bigger picture,
and they were looking for
whatever reason at a win
that they felt, perhaps,
might benefit all women.
And at the time,
for whatever reason,
it's possible that they felt
that Shirley would have been
a win for perhaps,
you know, the black community
rather than wholly
for the women's community,
and they felt McGovern was
a stronger bet,
is how it appears
when you look at history
and when you read back.
Of course, it would be
interesting now to speak to
all those women and find out
what they would say about this.
But looking back, when you read
the history, that's perhaps
what it feels like.
>> Yeah, for sure.
And, you know, the idea of,
you know, who is electable,
whether -- you know,
when we've had that issue
in this current -- you know,
the Democratic candidates
this time around as well.
But I just want to ask you,
do you think in this moment
of Black Lives Matter
that she is getting her jewel,
or will get her jewel,
that this will help refocus?
Because let's not forget
that the two big movements,
#MeToo was started by a black
woman, Tarana Burke.
Black Lives Matter was started
by three young black women.
You know, they are the ones
who are powering
the two huge movements
that are taking place right now.
>> Absolutely.
There are definitely
great parallels for today.
And I really hope that
that that means
that Shirley will get her due,
because, of course, embedded in
all of this is our ideas,
I should say, of erasure,
and the fact that, oftentimes,
as women of color
and black women, we make
headway.
We move societies forward.
We help societies to evolve.
And for someone like Shirley,
she doesn't always get her
dues.
So I'm really hoping that a show
like -- and the specific episode
about Shirley and a show like
"Mrs. America" will open a door
to her being more recognized.
I mean, it's really wonderful to
receive messages on social media
and generally e-mails
and the like saying,
"We didn't know the story
of Shirley Chisholm,
and it's really,
really interesting to learn
from the show of what she was."
And I think that's something
that I really enjoy doing.
I'm not a historian, and
I'm certainly not an activist.
But what I love to do
is sort of find my way,
perhaps, to telling stories
that can become the conduit
or the pathway towards history,
so that people can go and look
this stuff up themselves.
They can read in books,
they can go online,
they can find out about her,
and find out that really
we do stand on shoulders.
And I think one other thing
I'd love to say
is that we really have to assess
what we think of as a win
because, essentially,
she didn't win.
She wasn't a candidate.
But she won because
she has changed the world to a
certain extent that we live in.
And I think that's very
important.
>> And, obviously, all the
others who are profiled as well.
I mean, Bella Abzug an episode,
Betty Friedan, who's known
as the mother of the movement
with "The Feminine Mystique",
Gloria Steinem,
I think Jill Ruckelshaus.
I mean, it's --
and Phyllis Schlafly, of course.
And this is where
it's so interesting, the way
your life collides with this.
So we have a picture of you
as a young girl
at the White House
during the Reagan years.
And you're there
with Nancy Reagan
because you, in your school,
in your career
came up with the song,
"Just Say No," which obviously
was her theme tune about drugs.
I wonder whether you
could ever have imagined
that it was Ronald Reagan
and with Phyllis Schlafly
the anti-feminist,
who basically stood against
all of that progress.
And the ERA
has never gone through.
>> Yeah.
And, as I say it's really
complex, because, in the very,
very beginning, of course,
it was the Republicans
that supported the idea
of the amendment going through.
And for various reasons,
that changed.
But I have to say
that it was always a sort of
bipartisan support that -- and,
actually, on both sides.
There were various people
on both sides that supported
and didn't support the amendment
at different times.
I had no idea,
of course, of anything called
the Equal Rights Amendment
when I attended
the White House at the
age -- I think I was 16 years
old.
I attended with "Grange Hill,"
which was a BBC drama series
for children.
And all I knew was that I was
attending the house of the
president in the United States.
I think it's really ironic,
in a way, that I was there.
And now I have obviously
directed these episodes.
And, yes, it was Reagan
and the
Republican Party at the time
that then stood against this,
much in part
because of the impact
that Phyllis Schlafly had.
And, of course,
the amendment was never ratified
because of that, you know?
>> And now, of course,
in the intervening years,
all the number of states
required have ratified it.
The House has ratified it.
It's the Republican Senate
that has not passed
this amendment.
And it's a very interesting
moment right now.
I wonder if it will be passed
at some point.
But I want to ask you
on the bigger now sort of
Black Lives Matter issue,
that we're seeing a call
for a redress of the imbalance
in your industry -- TV,
theater, movies,
the whole cultural picture
as well as many, many others.
And you've signed a letter,
along with a lot of prominent
black actors
and TV personalities,
calling for a change
in the industry.
Tell me about what you're asking
for and whether you think
this is a moment
where it will be addressed.
>> I think, since I came
into the industry
many decades ago now,
we've been having
conversations about equality
and the idea of a level
playing field.
And whilst things have
minimally improved,
nothing has changed
to the extent that you could
call it a satisfying redress,
if you like.
And I think that's what we're
calling for,
is meaningful change,
which we haven't arrived at yet.
We're still in a situation
where I think, if I'm right,
I still represent,
as a black director
who is also female,
but is also British,
under 1 percent of the industry.
And that is because there is
such a lack of opportunity.
Between my first film,
if you like,
and my second film -- my first
film, through which I -- for
which I won many awards,
including a BAFTA Award,
there was a ten-year gap
between that first film,
an entire decade,
through which I had
to sort of sustain myself
and keep the idea of keeping
a career going in this industry
at the forefront of my mind
and my motivations
and my intentions.
And, because of that,
I think that there is
a real deficit of talent
of color within our industry.
And what I mean by that is not
that that talent doesn't exist,
but opportunity for that talent
still does not exist
quite in the way that it should.
>> Yes.
>> And so what we're asking for
is the right for all of us,
not just me, but for all of us
who have the talent,
to have the opportunity, to be
given the same consideration
that our peers who are non-black
or are white have received
and who have traditionally
had the privilege,
the privilege to be called
masters of their craft,
the privilege to be called
the geniuses, the privilege
to be able to fail,
and not just succeed.
And that's something that we're
asking for the opportunity for.
>> And, of course, this is being
asked and demanded
in the United States as well,
Broadway and all those areas.
I just love, number one,
of your calls, your demands
in this letter, quote,
"Banish your weak excuses."
Amma Asante, thank you so much
for joining us.
>> [ Laughs ] Thank you.
>> And you can tune into the FX
series, "Mrs. America", now on
Hulu.
Now as we were saying,
with the presidential election
fast approaching, and
many states expanding
postal voting in an effort
to keep people safe
amid the coronavirus pandemic,
problems with recent primaries
are ringing alarm bells.
Charles Stewart is a professor
of Political Science, and he's
the director of the MIT
Election Data and Science Lab.
And here he is speaking
with our Hari Sreenivasan
about why this has become
so politically charged
and why officials need
to prepare now for November.
>> Thanks, Christiane.
Charles, thanks for joining us.
There's been a lot of talk
in the last few weeks
about the importance of giving
people access to vote by mail,
considering that we're heading
into an election
in the middle of a pandemic,
that voting from home would be
better for your health, right?
I want to talk a little bit
about your concerns
about why we should not rely
too heavily on this as our
one-size-fits-all solution.
>> There's many reasons we want
to retain robust
in-person voting sites.
An important reason is that
a number of people
just need to vote in person.
They could be people
with disabilities.
They could be people
who don't --
have made mistakes
with the mail ballot system.
We've seen a number of cases
during the primaries where
ballots arrive late, et cetera.
There are people who don't trust
the Postal Service.
And then, finally, we just know
a lot about voter behavior.
And we know that the people
who vote in November,
particularly the ones voting
in November who didn't vote
in the primaries,
are going to be, by and large,
low-propensity voters,
people who are not
as attuned to politics
as probably the people watching
this show are.
And they're going to decide
at the last minute to vote,
and they're going to need
a place to go to vote.
And when those people flood
into polling places,
we want to make sure
that there aren't undue
long lines out in the streets
waiting to get in.
And we want to be able to move
people through these enclosed
polling places as quickly as we
can.
So, we need a lot of -- we need
in-person polling places,
and we need a lot of them.
>> If you were to design
a system today,
what would that mix be,
given the circumstances
that we're in?
If you're advising an election
official, what do you tell them
to plan for, how many people
show up in person versus
how many people --
they might have a surge
in mail-in ballots above normal,
but what should they be
prepared for in November?
>> Well, I mean, the advice
is going to be very specific,
of course, to the jurisdiction
and to the state.
But, generally speaking,
right now, I think we have to,
first of all,
take into account that we really
don't know for sure,
and that we have to build
in a lot of resilience
on both sides.
And so I have been jokingly
saying that, in most places,
plan for 70%
of your voters to turn out
in mail and plan for 70%
to turn out in person.
And we'll see
what the pandemic is like.
We'll see what
President Trump is tweeting.
We'll see a wide variety
of other things in November.
But plan for all contingencies.
>> Since we've seen the lines
in Wisconsin,
and since the country has been
grappling with this pandemic,
which more of the country
is waking up to the fact
that we are not dealing with it
as well as we could or should,
what does that do
to voter confidence?
>> One of the things
that's really struck me
during the primary season
is that voters have actually
risked their health to go vote.
Turnout in the Democratic
primary in 2020 is on a par,
in fact, up compared
to what the turnout was in 2016.
It's been down on the Republican
side, but it's not
contested on that side.
But, on the Democratic side,
it's been up a little bit.
So, voters are going
to the polls.
They're mailing in their
ballots, but they're also going
in on Election Day.
And so I think that voters
these days are intent to vote.
They're going to vote.
And everything else
about this election season
tells me we should actually
expect for record turnout,
even if there's a spike around
Election Day, because
the attitudes and anxieties
are just so high on both sides.
>> What are the fail rates
associated with ballots
that are mailed in?
>> Well, there's a number
of ways of measuring that.
In 2016, roughly 1% of
ballots ended up being rejected,
for instance.
Mail ballots ended up being
rejected.
And so that's a starting point.
But I think we also have to
remember that different states
are more likely to closely
scrutinize ballots
and be unforgiving of mistakes.
In the vote-by-mail states like
Washington, Oregon, Colorado,
their rejection rate in 2016
was closer to
nine-tenths of 1%.
But, in some states
that make it really hard --
New York has been a good example
in the news the last few weeks.
It can range that from 3
to 5% of rejection rates.
And so, that's one of the things
I'm concerned about this
November,
is that some of the states
that are seeing big surges
in vote by mail
also have traditions of
rejecting a lot of mail ballots,
usually for highly
technical reasons
that are obscure to voters.
And the voters are kind of
surprised when they see that
their ballot has been rejected.
>> The President of the United
States for several weeks now
has been making the case that
mail-in ballots will contribute
to the most corrupt results,
the most corrupt process,
unless changed by the courts,
will lead
to the most corrupt election
in our nation's history.
When you hear statements
like that,
is it justified by any fact?
>> No, it's not.
And when I hear statements
like that from President Trump,
from Attorney General Barr,
I mean, the first thing
an expert like me thinks is
that they just don't know
what they're talking about,
because President Trump,
for instance,
is distinguishing between voting
by mail, on one hand,
and absentee voting,
on the other hand,
which he has done, claiming that
it's the vote-by-mail states
where there's been massive
fraud.
Well, again, Oregon,
Washington, Colorado -- they
take this really seriously
because it's their entire
voting system.
And there is no evidence
at all in those states
that there's been massive fraud
in the elections
over the last decade
or two in which they have been
doing vote by mail.
So, it's just not true.
I mean, there is fraud
sometimes.
And voting by mail does have
certain opportunities for it.
But there are more failsafes
in voting by mail
or voting absentee.
And keep in mind
there's more of a paper trail
when you vote by mail
than when you vote in-person.
And so it's easier to
catch people who are trying
to do something that's not right
when they're voting by mail.
>> What can election officials
do to inspire confidence
in the process?
There was a recent ABC poll out
that said almost half
of Americans think that voting
by mail can be manipulated,
is fraudulent,
that it's susceptible to fraud.
>> Right.
>> That's not just people
who listen to the president.
That's got to include others
as well.
But underlying that is that,
what do you do to make sure
people feel that their vote
is going to be securely counted?
>> Right.
A lot of the opinions that
voters have about these matters,
about whether an election
is legitimate, et cetera,
is actually driven by what
they're hearing from
partisan leadership.
And so it really does matter
what President Trump says.
It matters what Joe Biden says
and other party leaders.
And so there's limits to
what can be done if you're just
worried about public opinion.
But there are things
that officials can do.
And I think that the most
important thing that they can do
is to be transparent
about the process,
to invite people to observe
what's going on.
That's the best practice, and
it's common around the country.
To have ballot counting rooms
open to observers,
put a webcam in that room,
so that it's not just the party
officials who are observing,
but any citizen can watch
the envelopes being opened,
and watch them being counted,
can watch the machines
be calibrated and certified.
You know, I think that
being transparent
about the process
is probably the most important
thing that election officials
can do to satisfy
those who will take evidence
as their guide for whether
they can trust the system
or not.
And then, I hope people like us
will then be --
we'll take that evidence in
and judge for ourselves.
>> How much actual
election fraud is there?
I mean, after the election
of President Trump,
he set up a commission
for a while to study this.
I don't know if there were
final results of that.
But, historically,
what's been the case?
What is it at now?
>> Well, that commission,
President Trump's commission,
disbanded without making
a report.
Historically, back in the
late 19th century,
where I think we gain a lot
of our kind of casual beliefs
about fraud,
there was a lot of fraud,
there was a lot of coercion,
there was a lot of double
voting, et cetera.
And a lot of the protections
that we use in elections
now come out of the late
19th century.
But I would say that,
by and large,
since the mid 20th century,
with some exceptions from time
to time,
elections have been pretty,
pretty clean in most places.
Very recently, there have been
efforts to gather up and measure
all of the prosecutions,
for instance, for voter fraud
around the country.
And when you add up
all those prosecutions
for voter fraud, say,
over the last couple of decades,
and you then divide by
the total number of votes
that have been cast,
in those couple of decades,
you will discover
the order of magnitude for fraud
is something like a ballot
per 100,000 or so.
I can't give that number
off the top of my head,
but it's a very small number.
And when there is fraud,
it gains a lot of attention.
You get a lot
of attention for it.
The final thing I would say
about fraud is that the cases
that we observe
tend to be retail fraud,
and especially
on voting by mail.
Think about this way.
Because of the paper trail
that goes along with voting
by mail,
you know, it's really hard
to try to basically organize
hundreds of people
to all forge the same signature
and do those sorts of things.
It's not easy to do.
And so, the types of fraud
we do see in voting by mail
is onesies and twosies.
It's things like,
Widow Jones, Papa Jones just
died, and she knows
that he really wanted to support
Donald Trump on his dying day,
and so she'll send in his
ballot for him, stuff like that.
And it's oftentimes sad stories.
But that's much, much, much,
much more common than
I mean, truly nefarious attempts
to try to corrupt the system
through any sort of voter fraud,
whether it be by mail
or in- person.
>> Let's fast-forward
to election night.
One of the things that you
almost warn for
is that we the press
and really the country
should be open to a scenario
where there is not a winner
that night.
>> We need to be prepared
for what some people
have called "Election Week",
rather than Election Day.
The reason for that is that many
of these local jurisdictions
are going to be
unable to automate
the counting of their ballots.
In some states like Michigan,
the state legislature
is prohibiting
election officials from even
processing the mail ballots
until the polls close.
And so there are things out
there that will just cause
the count to be longer
than it's ever been before.
And we just need to be prepared
for that.
And, again, election officials
need to be transparent
about what's going on
during that count.
But we need to be prepared
for that.
>> During Chris Wallace's
interview
with the president recently,
the president was asked
if he would accept
the election results.
And he said, "I have to see.
No, I'm not going to say 'yes'.
I'm not going to say 'no'."
What did you think
when you heard that news?
>> Well, I actually
wasn't surprised, because that's
what he said four years ago.
And he's not become
a bigger friend of election
administration since then.
And so I think
that's unfortunate.
I mean, there's a way of
answering a question like that
in which you maybe
can acknowledge that there could
be disputes in the election
and that one wants to fight
for every vote
you're legally entitled to.
I understand that point.
But you can say,
"Of course,
after the counting is done,
and the votes have been
certified,
I will accept that I have lost,
if, in fact,
that's what the votes say."
So, there's a way of answering
that question
that doesn't give away
the right to dispute
legitimately what's going on,
and so, yeah, very unfortunate.
>> Are election officials ready?
And if they're not ready,
what can they do between now
and Election Day?
>> I would say
the issue is not so much,
are they getting ready,
but have the state legislatures
and the counties created
the conditions under which
they can act efficiently?
For instance, has the state
legislature changed the laws
so that you can at least start
processing mail ballots
on Election Day, rather than
waiting for the polls to close.
Little things like that I think
in some states haven't been done
and may not be done.
Some local officials
may not be able
to buy the automation equipment
to facilitate
the easy mailing out
and the processing of all
the paper that comes back.
That cost is going to be paid
in time at the back end,
as processes and things
are done manually.
So, my sense is that,
by and large, election officials
have gotten the word,
gotten beaten up,
know what they have to do,
are being pushed to do
what they need to do.
But I wouldn't trust me
[ laughs ].
I would pay attention
to what's happening
in someone's state and locality
and make sure that that's
actually what's happening.
>> In addition to that,
what keeps you up at night?
>> Oh, in some ways,
that's enough, right?
There's a couple of things
that worry me.
One of the things that worries
me right now
is just being unable
to recruit enough poll workers
to meet the in-person demand.
There's been a lot of emphasis
on voting by mail,
and I think appropriately so.
But it may have distracted
a number of people
from the importance
of voting in person.
And so that's something
that really does worry me.
But the second thing is
this concern
about the post-Election Day
period going off the rails
because of just loose talk
about fraud during the counting.
Our democracy is too important
just to be throwing around
unfounded charges of fraud.
And that's really the thing
that keeps me up at night
and makes me realize
that I think we're going to
have to hunker down for at least
two weeks after Election Day
and be in constant battle mode,
because I think the campaigns,
particularly Donald Trump -- I
don't want to be accused
of two-sider-ism here --
I think we have seen it more
from the Trump side -- will
keep pushing and pushing
and pushing as far
and as hard as they can.
>> Alright, Charles Stewart,
the professor of Political
Science at MIT
and part of the MIT-Stanford
Healthy Election Project,
thanks so much for joining us.
>> My pleasure.
Thank you.
>> And so important to set
that standard now,
and just make sure everything
goes according to plan.
And, finally, we've shown you
some of the powerful speech
by Congresswoman Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez
against everyday misogyny.
Well, she's following in the
great parliamentary tradition
of Australia's first female
prime minister, Julia Gillard.
Back in 2012, she too
had been called that word
which rhymes with "witch".
The opposition leader
at the time, Tony Abbott,
had also stood in front
of banners that read
"Ditch the Witch,"
and then he tried to get
the speaker of the House
fired for sexism.
Gillard responded to that
with a 15-minute slap-down that
rallied women around the world,
and here's a little bit
from that speech.
>> I will not be lectured about
sexism and misogyny by this man.
I will not.
And the government will not
be lectured about sexism
and misogyny by this man,
not now, not ever.
The leader of the opposition
says that people
who hold sexist views
and who are misogynists are not
appropriate for high office.
Well, I hope the leader
of the opposition
has got a piece of paper,
and he is writing out his
resignation
because, if he wants to know
what misogyny looks like
in modern Australia,
he doesn't need a motion
in the House of Representatives.
He needs a mirror.
That's what he needs.
>> Marvelous, really.
Her words and AOC's
resonate especially today,
as the struggle for equality
is fought on so many levels.
And that's it for our program
tonight.
Remember, you can follow me and
the show on Twitter.
Thank you for watching
"Amanpour & Co." on PBS, and
join us again next time.
♪♪
