Loading summary
Transcript81 lines
- [00:00]
Home Depot Advertiser
Memorial Day savings are here at the Home Depot, so take your kitchen to the next level with up to 35% off, plus up to an extra $450 off select appliances like LG. Plan your get togethers with an LG refrigerator you can count on for years to come at the Home Depot. And with the connected ThinQ app, you'll know if the door is left open and when to change the filter. Spend less time worrying this Memorial Day with savings on lg, America's most reliable appliance brand at the Home Depot offer valid May 15 through June 4 US only. C store or online for details.
- [00:31]
Lifelock Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. Not everyone is careful with your personal information, which might explain why there's a victim of identity theft every five seconds in the U.S. fortunately, there's LifeLock. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity. If your identity is stolen, a US based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year by visiting lifelock.com podcast terms apply hi.
- [01:01]
Mike Pesca
It'S Mike with a major announcement. It is not about the Gist. It is about something called the Gist List. So let me tell you, every day I construct the show by reading and listening and imbibing a tremendous amount of information. A lot of it doesn't make it onto the show, of course. So what do we do with that? What do we do with the effluvia, the jetsam, the sods, but also the odds. Enter the Gist List. Every day on Substack, I will be compiling the most interesting, important, maybe unfairly ignored stories that I look at and say, there's something there. You know, we must nurture that which is interesting in this world. Some of these stories do end up as segments. They all start off as ideas. We need ideas. The Gist List is designed to interest you, definitely, not to waste your time to make you smarter. To see where I'm heading every day on the gist. So head over to Mike pesca.substack.com today and every day to sign up for the Gist list. It's Thursday, May 15, 2025. From peach fish Productions, it's the Gist. I'm Mike Pesca, RFK Jr. Appeared before a Senate committee and a House committee yesterday and headlines were generated. Ben of Ben and Jerry's was dragged out in protest. That's not the headline I'm interested in, though. Ben said the protest was about Gaza. But we should also note that three weeks Ago, RFK said, quote, sugar is poison and Americans need to know. Righteous protests aside, gore a man in his chunky monkey and don't be surprised if he goes off half baked. Now, the headlines we're talking about were the claims that RFK Jr made elsewhere, but then was called to account before the committees. Let's take Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who engaged in this exchange with Kennedy.
- [02:49]
Senator Chris Murphy
You also said, specific to the measles vaccine, that you support the measles vaccine, but you have consistently been undermining the measles vaccine. You told the public that the vaccine wanes very quickly. You went on the Dr. Phil show and said that the measles vaccine was never fully tested for safety. You said, there's fetal debris in the measles vaccine. And this morning.
- [03:10]
RFK Jr.
All true.
- [03:10]
Senator Chris Murphy
All true this morning, in fact.
- [03:12]
RFK Jr.
Do you want me to lie to the public?
- [03:14]
Senator Chris Murphy
That's not none of that.
- [03:15]
RFK Jr.
Is none of that. Of course it's true. Of course it's true. Senator, Senator, begging your project do not know what you're talking about.
- [03:24]
Mike Pesca
Okay? Shouldn't be hard to fact check. And when responsible media did, they found that they were all misleading claims. But, you know, misleading isn't the same as untrue or true. For instance, the measles vaccine, that's one of the M's in mmr. The R is rubella, and rubella is, quote, produced from a fetal cell line originating from an abortion that took place in the 1960s. All right, that was from the fact check from Reuters. And it's all true. It's all a fact. Now, do you call that fetal debris? I wouldn't, but RFK would, and the Texas Mennonites apparently do. And that's where the recent measles outbreak was acute. And the Texas Mennonites were hesitant to outright hostile to the vaccine because of that fact. Now, you'd want the leader of HHS to be more responsible than that, but in appointing rfk, the administration clearly indicated it has a different definition of responsible. The MMR vaccine doesn't quickly wane. That is untrue. But according to the highly respected researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. I'll read the headline of the research study shows gradual waning of MMR vaccine effectiveness over time. It gradually wanes over time, which is sort of baked into the very definition of waning, the overtime part. Now, it's true no responsible party would phrase or frame things like RFK does. But again, he is not a responsible party, or at least the parties and constituencies that he feels Responsibilities to are not the traditional ones. I'll go out on a limb and say they're not the correct ones. He should feel responsibility to the health of our children. He feels responsibility to some other group of people. Maha so RFK Jr is slippery, misleading and irresponsible, but is he just flat out wrong? Well, maybe not in the clip I sent you, but then later there was an exchange with Maggie Hassan, Senator of New Hampshire. I will fill you in on a bunch of the particulars afterward, but you should know the two are sparring over a new HHS employee hired by Kennedy. The remit of this guy, David Guyer. It's unclear, but he was fined $10,000 for practicing medicine without a license. Because he doesn't have a license, he's not a doctor. And the state of Maryland took objection to him prescribing hormones to children in the name of combating vaccines. RFK Jr said this description that he was fined the 10,000 is defamatory. This was his attempt to correct the record.
- [06:07]
RFK Jr.
You may or may not know that David Guy sued the American. Oh, I do know that. I do know that. That doesn't change the findings, nor does it change the experience of the parents who testified. That finding was reversed by court and he was awarded $5 million. That is not true.
- [06:25]
Mike Pesca
Now let me this is a little different from a definition of gradually fading or quickly fading or if a 1960 cell from an abortion should be considered, quote, fetal debris. Either this Guy Geier won $5 million meaning he was right and vindicated, or didn't win the $5 million but had to pay the fine, meaning he was not vindicated. The answer is he did not win $5 million. He did not win any dollars because the court, which said he violated medical law, could not be sued for any amount of money. The appeals court in this matter found that the official's action, the court that find him the 10,000 was protected. The suit against that court should have been dismissed much earlier than it was. However, I will say, and this is where RFK Jr doesn't just invent facts out of whole cloth. This is his tactic. Here's what happened. There was a bench trial Guy or sued. And in this trial, that court did award 1.25 million in compensatory damages, 1.25 million in punitive damages, and 2 1/2 million dollars in attorney attorney's fees. So at one point he could go around saying I've been awarded 5 million by the courts or my lawyers and me combined, but he was ultimately the loser. And if that is a referendum on whether he committed medical fraud or operated without a license because he never had a license, let us consider that he lost. He's a loser. He had no license. He paid the fine. He was never a doctor, still isn't, was fined for acting as such and he never got a refund. That's still on the books. And let us also ask, why is this guy working for hhs? Answer because he is a well known vaccine skeptic. Why is he in charge of autism research? RFK says nothing could be further from the truth. I suspect that it's at least, you know, within the same zip code of the truth. Can you trust rfk? I laid out the track record. I would say it's irresponsible for you to trust rfk, but as you know, they're not going by our definition of responsible on the show today. Full show interview. Very impressed with my guest. She's Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and she is out with a book titled the Purposeful Warrior. Standing up for what's Right when the Stakes Are High. Purposeful Warrior or Purple State Warrior? I ask you, given that Jocelyn Benson is leading in the polls, frontrunner to be the next governor of the state of Michigan, she stood up to Donald Trump's election denialism and now she has reached the apex of her career. She has a guest spot on the Gist. Jocelyn Benson. Up next, money doesn't grow on trees. Yeah, helpful, but what am I supposed to do with that? Is that actual financial advice? It's a cliche. It's also true, but it's not actionable. I'll tell you what, Green Light is sort of the correction to all of that. Green Light is a credit card and money app made for families that is a little more positive, phrased in the affirmative, in fact, oriented towards the affirmative to allow parents to send kids money and keep an eye on kids spending and savings and kids get to build confidence and get used to money. And the Greenlight app also features a chores feature which parents like. Parents like. Now I'm not going to say manipulating but you know, linking the fact that if you get the money, there are some things that you have to do, responsibilities. I kind of wish I had the whole technology or just the idea of the Greenlight app when I was a kid. And in fact, our kids are a little old now. I kind of wish I started them on it a little earlier. Millions of kids and parents are already learning about money on Greenlight, the number one family finance and safety app Start your risk free greenlight trial today at greenlight.com/the gist. That's greenlight.com/the gist to get started greenlight.com/the gist. Jocelyn Benson is the Secretary of State of the state of Michigan and she is also running for governor and leading in the polls, but it's in 2026, so that's a ways away. She's also the author of a new book, the Purposeful Warrior. Standing up for what's Right when the Stakes are High. Secretary Benson, welcome to the gist.
- [10:59]
Jocelyn Benson
Really great to be here. Thanks for having me.
- [11:02]
Mike Pesca
So you just wanted to write this book because you got to get these thoughts out. It's not one of those campaign primer type books, huh?
- [11:07]
Jocelyn Benson
No, I actually started writing this book right after the 2020 election because it was such a crazy time, very surreal to have to take on the President of the United States just to defend the results of a legitimate election. And so it started just as my take on what it was like to stand up to a President and protect the votes of Michiganders in 2020. And then as I wrote it, I started it really right after January 6th in 2021. And it evolved into a book about just different stories on how we can find power through our own experiences. And then through that, through finding that power within ourselves, we can leverage define a better world for ourselves, for the people we love, for the places we call home. Even if it means standing up to the powerful, the most powerful man in the country, the President of the United States. And so I wanted everyone else to hear not just my story, but think on their own front. What ways can I show up better for myself, for the people I love, for the place I call home? And what would that look like? And what would I need to do that? That's why I wrote this book to that person.
- [12:11]
Mike Pesca
It starts with a gripping and terrible account of death threats and protesters, if you want to call them that, besieging your place of residence. How much? This is terrible. Death threats are sadly common in American life, in Michigan politics, they're very common. How much do you think it actually affects the actions of elected officials?
- [12:35]
Jocelyn Benson
Well, I know on behalf of me, you know the governor, Governor Whitmer, was subject to a kidnapping threat. We saw my friend Governor Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania have an attack on his residence right after Passover. For all of us, it does two things. One, it makes us more determined to do our jobs and to do them well. It doesn't have an impact on us warriors for making us Afraid. Right. We instead become emboldened to fight even harder than we would before. And secondly, it creates a sense of solidarity or bond, even if we don't agree on things amongst those of us who have had to deal with these things. Because we understand that public service shouldn't require you to be sheltering in your home while people are outside with guns. Right. And so that basic understanding can create strength in solidarity as well as strength of purpose. And I know for myself and the other women of Michigan who have dealt with these threats for a number of years now, it's really only made us stronger, more connected to each other, and more determined to do our jobs and serve the public well.
- [13:36]
Mike Pesca
Right. So these are statewide officials in fairly well funded states. But go a level down, go two levels down. There are a lot of reports of people who do not have the benefit of the kind of protection that you would, which, from what I understand, are enough, but aren't overwhelming. And it's not like federal Secret Service. But you always hear reports that this has an effect. And maybe one of the effects is good people not even running for public office.
- [14:01]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah. Yeah. And that's another reason I wrote this book, to say these types of things should not deter us from standing up for ourselves, for our people, for what we believe in. That we have to use those moments, whether they invoke fear or rage, to find purpose and determination. And it is scary. I mean, right after I tell that story in the book about being in my home as a public official, the next story is about when I was 20 years old investigating undercover white supremacists and extremist organizations. And I was very worried that they would figure out who I was and come and kill me. And in that moment, no one else. I was in this small hotel In South Carolina, 20 years old. No one else was around me or there to protect me. But I, in that moment, said, well, I can allow fear to consume me and drive me away from what I want to do, or I can use it to get to work. And what I did in that moment was I chose courage. I chose to get to work. It was a small sort of thing. No one else was around. I just got up in the middle of the night, instead of lying there scared, and started typing out the article I was going to write exposing their bad deeds. And so I learned throughout time to funnel, whether I'm in a quote unquote, high profile position or just alone in this hotel room In South Carolina, 20 years old, to funnel fear and rage into purpose and action. And through that. And if we all do that, we can actually do so much good for ourselves, each other and the communities we love.
- [15:31]
Mike Pesca
How much of a bona fide threat do you think organized neo Nazis or far right wing extremists are? And I'll just tell you my reporting and opinion on this, which is they are bad. They are out there. I've talked to FBI agents and they are monitoring them and they don't and they say don't be blase. Yet at the same time I know that what terrorist groups want to do is to terrorize us. And I also know that there is in our polarized times an incentive for maybe more left leaning media to exaggerate the threat. And maybe they don't even know what they're doing, maybe it's genuine. But where do you come down on this as someone who is pretty, pretty well read in and, and privy to the actual malignancy and potency of these organizations?
- [16:18]
Jocelyn Benson
I think, I think what I, where I come down having spent a lot of time also investigating and helping working with the FBI to get them information on these folks, is that there's a lot more connections than we realize. Even though incidents can seem isolated and that connectivity can generate real harm for not just an individ but an entire community. And so it is something that we have to take seriously and we're seeing it more and more. Even in the late 90s when I was doing this work, we saw this extremism and the harm that it can cause. Not just the individual victims of a hate crime, but an entire community that is terrorized. And then the other thing is that oftentimes it is leaders who have hateful rhetoric that can lead to followers, for lack of a better word, exhibiting hateful actions or worse. And so I think it's important that we talk about that, that we talk about it in a way that's matter of fact and necessarily fear based, but just real. It's a reality that is out there. And that I think when you see someone who's being victimized by it and a community in terror by it, we have to talk about it. We have to provide support for that community. We can't allow that fear to drive us to in further, we have to still act in furtherance of our purpose. But at the same time I think everything needs to be fact based, evidence driven. And when we become, when we depart from that, then it becomes easier to kind of dismiss the actions even when they occur because there's been such consistent sort of rhetoric around it. So I Just try to be fact based, evidence based, recognize the connections, try to tell the, you know, and try to support those who are victimized.
- [17:56]
Mike Pesca
I sometimes draw a parallel between the fears after 911 of Islamic terrorism, which was real, which was a threat and yet was also greatly exaggerated at times and smeared very innocent people. And so it's not an exact parallel because there is no real, you know, salt of the earth, God fearing, far right winger who isn't quite going to do terrorism. But I do remember the fear that you're talking about and oftentimes how the media went overboard in describing the threat. And I wonder as you sit there in Michigan, which has the largest percentage wise Muslim population, if you see any parallels to that?
- [18:38]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah, I think one you sort of can't paint. No community is a monolith, right? So one, beginning with that principle that we can't paint anyone with a large brush and that secondly, we have to recognize the very disempowering or sort of challenging aspect of without facts or without evidence being laden with suspicion for particular issues or beliefs. So I think in my view, one, from a governing standpoint, focusing on economic support for all, making sure everyone has a fair chance to succeed is key. From a interpersonal standpoint, I think it's important to just simply look at facts, look at evidence, work with law enforcement, draw the connections between hateful rhetoric and hateful acts, but not go beyond that to a broader scope that can lead to larger communities being penalized or traumatized or worse based on the actions of a few.
- [19:34]
Mike Pesca
Tell me about the group that you formed during the 2020 election, during the worst of the denialism of the 2020 election with the local and statewide election officials from your state, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia. Was this mostly a WhatsApp or Signal chat group where you were trading information, bucking each other up, asking for advice, what was going on?
- [19:57]
Jocelyn Benson
No. So when we were all after the 2020 election, we recognized as we looked around Georgia, Arizona, we were facing a nationally coordinated effort to dismantle a presidential election. And so we needed a nationally coordinated effort in response. And so we started simply just talking to each other on a regular basis. It wasn't so much around text change and that sort of thing, but really we were showing up in the same rooms, we were having a lot of the same conversations, we were talking to a lot of the same sort of people from law enforcement and the like. So it really built. I think, you know, in some cases we would have even weekly calls and conversations where we would be talking to each Other and saying, this is happening in my state. What's happening in yours? What have you learned? And so it was actually both through the national association of Secretaries of State even, and ourselves, as colleagues in battleground states at the moment, started setting up consistent communications, particularly through conversations, that enabled us to build more coordination in response to what we were dealing with in the courts and the public arena and everywhere in between.
- [21:00]
Mike Pesca
Would tactics in one state show up in another? And you were forewarned about them?
- [21:04]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah, I mean, you know, we didn't all get calls from. From President Trump saying, can you find me 11,000 votes? That was unique to. To Brad in Georgia. But we all got people outside our homes or phone calls. And frankly, in times like that, one of the. One of the tactics is to make us feel isolated, terrorized us. It's like, you know, and therefore weak. And so we actually found strength in talking to each other. When I was. The day after people came to my home to protest the election and call on me to stop certification, it was phone calls I got from the Secretary of state in Mississippi and Montana, who were Republicans, who said, are you okay? What can we do to help? And that actually was really powerful in those moments because it made me feel not alone, and it helped me become stronger and stay focused on my job. So there were lots of ways, big and small, that we found connectivity with each other in that moment, and particularly among the battleground secretaries. When specific stuff happened, we could call and say, oh, that happened to the clerk in Maricopa county as well. Here's what he did. Or here's what he's thinking of doing in response. Or they filed that facetious lawsuit in Pennsylvania, too. Here's what we're doing about it. Or my colleague in Pennsylvania had to move to another home after the.
- [22:22]
Mike Pesca
Was this Kathy Boockvar?
- [22:23]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah, Kathy Boockvar.
- [22:24]
Mike Pesca
Yeah. She's been on the show.
- [22:25]
Jocelyn Benson
She had to move to another home. And so, you know, you feel like you're not alone in dealing with this trauma and that you're going through, and that helps you stay focused on your job and support each other.
- [22:36]
Mike Pesca
At the time, was there. Maybe you didn't even get to this, but was there a sense that once you got through this, if you got through this, you would be putting this horrible incident in the rear view? And I have a couple of questions based on that. Do you have any sense that that informed some of the decisions of the Secretary of state? Like, I don't. I do not want to in any way imply that Brad Raffensperger did what he did because he thought that once he got through this, he'd be a Republican in good standing and it wouldn't hurt his chances. So let's take him out of that. Yeah, but do you think that there was at least some of this sense that this was a one time crisis that wouldn't be repeated in subsequent elections by the same figure?
- [23:18]
Jocelyn Benson
No. There was a sense, every step of the way, of two things. One, everything we were doing, every action we were taking, was going to create a preced for if this happened again, what was done in 2020 to guide or inform what should be done in the future. But secondly, even more important, I was particularly focused on ensuring this didn't happen again, and knowing the actions we took in that moment could determine whether or not others in the future would try to repeat these actions. In particular, we talked a lot about legal consequences and the like in the aftermath of 2020. But in everything, we were in unprecedented, unchartered territory. Every day we didn't know what would be thrown at us. I would wake up thinking, okay, we certified our election, we're done. And then, sure enough, that day, there would be another attack, another lawsuit, another thing we'd have to fight. It was an ever evolving series of challenges, but a constant throughout was this recognition that this may happen again and how can we ensure that it doesn't? Or at least were acting in such a way to inform people in the future who may have to deal with this if it were to re emerge.
- [24:27]
Mike Pesca
What decisions did you and the other secretaries make then that we're still seeing today, or we're seeing today?
- [24:33]
Jocelyn Benson
Part of it was coordination and transparency, coordinating with each other. Prior to 2020, oftentimes we would just individually run elections in our respective states. The connectivity that we built after 2020 with Attorneys General as well, has in many ways held, particular the battleground states. So that when by the time 22 and 24 came along, we had a sort of muscle memory of working together in a very coordinated way that didn't exist prior to 2020. Secondly, from a cybersecurity standpoint, it's a little bit different now because the current Trump administration has completely obliterated CISA and our federal cybersecurity support. But from leading into 2020 and throughout 24, we worked nationwide amongst each other as states too. And with the folks who build the machines and everyone involved in cybersecurity and election security writ large, there is a significant amount of coordination and sharing of data, best practices. What we were learning, what we were thinking, working with Microsoft and others as well to make sure we all were aware of what we needed to be doing to protect the security of our elections, both from a cybersecurity and physical security standpoint. That level of coordination did not really exist before 2020, and it is still in place today.
- [25:53]
Mike Pesca
CISA is the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, is that right? Yeah, I think security is there twice.
- [26:00]
Jocelyn Benson
It is a combination of Department of Homeland Security and basically all of the federal government cybersecurity efforts are or were under both Chris Krebs and Jen Easterly coordinated through cisa. Now things have been really decimated under the Doge attacks. And so we're all left kind of wondering if everything we've built out of experience and necessity has gone by the wayside. And, you know, so we are still, I think, trying to figure out what 28 is going to look like.
- [26:32]
Mike Pesca
Yeah. And Trump had an executive order that took away Chris Krebs, who was in charge of it in 2020, took away his security clearance. So that has some echoes of what we were talking about. But is the agency itself, as you understand it, what a husk of what it was or actually acting in contradiction of what its stated goal is now.
- [26:52]
Jocelyn Benson
More of a husk of what it was at this point? I mean, look, we're not 100 days in, right? So we're still just trying to like sift through the rubble of what has been demolished and figure out what things are going to be in the future. But yeah, it's we are all secretaries trying to figure out how to keep that information sharing security network together in the absence of the coordination that we have leaned on for years from CISA through the federal government.
- [27:25]
Mike Pesca
And we will be back in just a minute with more of my interview with Jocelyn Benson.
- [27:32]
Jocelyn Benson
Foreign.
- [27:40]
Talkspace Advertiser
This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. May is Mental Health Awareness Month and Talkspace, the leading virtual therapy provider, is telling everyone, let's face it in therapy, by talking or texting with a supportive licensed therapist at Talkspace, you can face whatever is holding you back, whether it's mental health symptoms, relationship drama, past trauma, bad habits or another challenge that you need support to work through, it's easy to sign up. Just go to talkspace.com and you'll be paired with a provider, typically within 48 hours. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule. Plus, Talkspace is in network with most major insurers and most Insured members have a $0 copay. Make your mental health a priority and start today. If you're not covered by insurance, get $80 off your first month with Talkspace. When you go to talkspace.com and enter promo code SPACE80. That's S, P, A, C, E80. To match with a licensed therapist today, go to talkspace.com and Enter promo code SPACE80.
- [28:44]
Mike Pesca
We're back with Jocelyn Benson, Michigan's Secretary of State. And as Secretary of State, you had a choice in 2024, and other secretaries of state chose differently. And the question was whether to keep Donald Trump off your state ballot. You could have done that affirmatively weighed in and say, yeah, he's off the ballot. But what you did was chose essentially to stay neutral and let the courts decide. Why did you think that that was the right choice? And by implication, why would you criticize other states that made the opposite choice?
- [29:15]
Jocelyn Benson
I felt very strongly in the guise of, as I was talking about, every action we take in unprecedented times sets the precedent for next time that we should not. It was an abusive authority of an elected official to try to make a call in a decision like this where the law and the facts were not set in stone and clear. So if it has to do with someone born in the United States, if the facts are clear, then yes, we as election administrators can make that case. But where the law is nuanced, I, as a former law dean, as an election lawyer and constitutional scholar, I mean, when this, this issue first came up, the 14th Amendment's interpretation to potentially keep Trump off the ballot, I was like, I was ready for it. Like, I knew all the different people I should be talking to. I wanted to actually decide it from a legal standpoint with my knowledge of the law and everything.
- [30:09]
Mike Pesca
So you're saying you were excited to hear the arguments and have them play out?
- [30:12]
Jocelyn Benson
No one's excited to have to deal with it. Right. But I was. I was ready to have to make the decision. And it was going through that process that I thought, okay, first of all, if it wasn't me in this position, I'm an elected official. I happen to be a lawyer. I happen to know the law. I happen to be very thoughtful as I make these decisions. Does that mean I should have the power to make this legal and factual call in this case? And what happens if, you know, what are the implications of that? What's the precedent of that? If it's someone else in this position, should they have that power? So I started looking at less from a substantive standpoint. And more from an objective of who should have this power and authority. And even though I could have exerted that authority from a sort of. I don't know. Not that I, you know, I could have acted as some of my. Two of my colleagues. I think it was just two. Two. Two of my colleagues did. I felt very strongly it would not have been appropriate for me for the Secretary of State in an elected position that did not have anything in the law that said I would have that authority to just assume that authority and. And execute it on my own, sort of with my own opinion. I did. It wasn't right. It was not appropriate. And the Supreme Court agreed. And your Supreme Court.
- [31:26]
Mike Pesca
The U.S. supreme Court.
- [31:27]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah.
- [31:28]
Mike Pesca
Yeah. And I will also quote you back to you. As Michigan Secretary of State and a former election law professor and law school dean, I'm keenly aware of the responsibility I bear in reassuring voters that our democracy is secure, fair and accessible. This was the. The heading of the brief that you filed saying exactly what you told me.
- [31:44]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah.
- [31:45]
Mike Pesca
The most judicious thing is for you to stay at it.
- [31:47]
Jocelyn Benson
Right. If another court had said, yes, he was guilty of an insurrection, and that violates the 14th Amendment, then I would have been able to have the authority to implement that decision. I was not a court. I'm an elected official. And so it didn't feel, you know, it just didn't feel the appropriate place for that decision to be housed, to be with individual state elected officials. It felt more appropriate to be housed in the courts, as it ultimately was. And. Yeah, so it was. But it was a tough time because Democrats were getting a lot of pressure behind the scenes to do what some of my colleagues did, which to me was a more political move. And I could. It just didn't feel like the right thing to me. You know, I published an op ed in the Washington Post that sort of laid out where I was and why. But, yeah, it's challenging when you have to. When you have to be. To break ranks from your party and say no to folks who expect you to do the political thing and instead say no. That doesn't feel right to me. And again, I don't talk about that in the book, but that's kind of the theme of the book, too. Like, how do you always consistently stand up for what's right, even when the stakes are high and the implications are serious?
- [32:58]
Mike Pesca
That does bring me to the question, should we even have Partizan elected secretaries of state? Most countries don't.
- [33:07]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah.
- [33:08]
Mike Pesca
Break it down in both parts. There's the partisan Part, and then there's the elected part. What are the pluses and minuses of each?
- [33:14]
Jocelyn Benson
You know, I wrote a book on secretaries of state as guardians of democracy back 2008, and I wrestled with this question because on the one hand, you have elected secretaries of state through a partisan process or nonpartisan process, which is still problematic. And some would argue that having a D or R after your name sends a signal to voters on different things that is helpful and informative. And if you don't, if you're just nonpartisan, it's harder to figure out where that particular candidate would actually come down on an issue. And voters should, should be able to know that before casting their vote. Some states have the office, Pennsylvania, Florida, have it be appointed as a position. And so really the question often is, should this position be an elected one or should it be an appointed one? And I think it all comes down to the person. And when we see governors appointing the chief election officers in their own races, it creates as we saw Jeb Bush appointing Kathryn Harris in the 2000 election when his brother was running for president, and all the insinuations that came from that, that can create some additional complications that an independently elected Secretary of state doesn't have to wrestle with necessarily. So I come down believing that elections are better than being appointed because it enables voters to have some sense of accountability. They can always vote someone out if they don't like them, as opposed to going through an appointment process. And secondly, I do think that having a D or after one's name helps indicate to a voter, which is priority number one, how someone's going to be and who they are. However, I think it's most important that anyone seeking this position be professional and bipartisan and transparent and the best secretaries of state on both parties, whether they're appointed or not, whether they're D or an R, they are ones who are those three things, professional, bipartisan and transparent. And if we can stay in that lane and all support secretaries who do that, then no matter how we get there, then we can have good governance.
- [35:07]
Mike Pesca
Back to the question, doubling back on. Had you decided to exclude Trump from the ballot, my question is can you imagine, can you imagine if that had gone through and been allowed stand? We know that Michigan voted for Trump and there are different scenarios. But what if Donald Trump had won but wouldn't have been allowed to have the votes of Michiganders? What if Donald Trump had lost and his people were by by the electoral votes of Michigan? It just a. Can you imagine? What do you imagine might have happened.
- [35:37]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah. Chaos. Right. And it's sort of in direct contrast and confusion and all this stuff. Not that what's going on today is not confusing and chaotic, but in a different way. I think for me, I lean towards the benefit of ballot access and that officials shouldn't stand necessarily in the way unless the law is clear. And many times it is. On ballot access, when it's nuanced, when it's not clear, I think you should. And it was actually Justice Jackson who said this at the Supreme Court oral arguments on the case, that when the law is not clear, shouldn't we just allow for ballot access? So that's my own philosophy. I think ballot access is better than not when it's unclear, because it would have been very confusing, not just for the scenario you lay out, but for those Michigan voters who voted for President Trump and their vote counts as much and should count just as much as anyone else's. That's how they chose to use it. My job is to make sure that it comes to fruition. So to me, it really would take us very far away from our jobs as election administrators to simply make sure the will of the people is heard, respected, and preserved. Once you start playing around with these questions of when it's not clear who should. Should political officials be making the call of who can and can't be on the ballot?
- [36:57]
Mike Pesca
I think in that case, it would have been very hard for Democrats to say we are the enfranchisement. Right. We are carrying that mantle had that been allowed.
- [37:06]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah.
- [37:06]
Mike Pesca
I know right now that the GOP in the House is subpoenaing you for election training docs, and I'll ask for your comment on that. And from what I understand, you're saying you have to redact some sensitive materials, but will comply. So let's just pause there. And where does that stand?
- [37:23]
Jocelyn Benson
I think so. So, yes, transparency has been a hallmark of our administration. We've given, like, buckets and buckets of documents over to these partisan oversight committees. Happy to do it. But when it comes to passwords, which they've asked for security information about election machines, that if candidates, which many of these lawmakers are, get access to it, it creates election security problems. There is a need to always figure out the line between transparency and protecting the security of our elections. And that's the line we're navigating here. To the extent that a subpoena is involved, I think it's. I welcome courts to weigh in on this, too, which is ultimately what will likely happen here. Courts will Try to figure out where that line is between transparency and protecting the security of our elections. But we do have something in our laws that say specifically politicians can't get access to secure election materials, machines and the like. And lawmakers are have tried in the past to get access to passwords and other sensitive information that election officials use to protect the security of our election machines. So we've got to protect that security. Happy to be as transparent as I can, but I'm not going to cross the line and hand over information or passwords or keys or security settings for election machines that would allow someone to come in and potentially tamper with them and harm our election security writ large.
- [38:53]
Mike Pesca
Okay, that's the specifics of that case. But in general, people who are bonafide good faith in election reformers and also maybe partizan motivated, quote unquote, election reformers do often make the point that there is an excess of opacity in our system. And even if not opacity, there's just so much complication that it is the enemy of openness and understanding what they what's really going on. Do you think that's a legitimate complaint or is it mostly wielded for a desired outcome?
- [39:23]
Jocelyn Benson
I completely understand the concern. I think there's a. There's an option though for people who feel that way, which is become an election official. We hire poll workers, thousands of poll workers throughout the state and every election. And when you're a poll worker, you can see the entire process from soup to nuts and become a part of it. And frankly, once people do that, they realize it is secure and all the rest of the. But there are essentially there's protocols in place to enable access to the process in a way that also protects the security. One of those is become an election official yourself, sign up to be a poll worker. You also get paid and you get to see a lot of your questions answered. So we, we try to answer those questions by encouraging people to be a part of our work so that they can get their answers and also help us secure our elections and administer them in the process.
- [40:07]
Mike Pesca
Have you had an election day since you were elected where it was probably the feeling that you hoped you would get on election day, flush with pride and patriotism. Has that actually. Yeah, it's been off your elections. Has that happened for you?
- [40:21]
Jocelyn Benson
Yes, in 2020. In November of 2020, we had the highest turnout election in our state's history up to that point. We had met the moment no big issues erupted on election day. We were in the midst of A global pandemic. And even so, we're able to keep people safe and educate all voters about how to participate. We were enthralled and jubilant that day, the election, and we also were able to tabulate all of our votes in half the time that we had anticipated. Within 24 hours of the polls closing, we were done with our work and we were in the certification process. So that jubilance I've had other times as well. But it was so ironic to me that. That in the Aftermath of the 2020 election, we didn't have a lot of time to celebrate and look at all the things that we did right. We were in the defense mode. But, yeah, that election day is always a fun day, but in 2020 in particular, and in 2024, frankly, because we also saw such high turnout. That's my goal as an election administrator. Smooth, efficient elections, quick, secure tabulation of ballots and high turnout. We had all of those things in 2020 and again in 24. It's just. It's when the politicians get involved in the aftermath and start complaining that things get more challenging.
- [41:38]
Mike Pesca
As. As a Democrat, who's running as a Democrat, and you've seen all the polls with 27% approval rating, do you think the party has a very deep and fundamental problem with the brand in terms of being overly toxic to too many people?
- [41:53]
Jocelyn Benson
I think government is, in many ways, is overly toxic. I think that's the brand government, government doing too much, being in all these places. We don't need it not delivering on the things that we do.
- [42:06]
Mike Pesca
So you're saying of the Democratic political party, it's the political part?
- [42:10]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah, I mean, that's in the end, the. And the fighting and the. The division that when I talk with folks, I hear a lot of people who are just tired of feeling like nothing's getting done. And to the extent that Democrats have been branded with that, I do think state officials, like governors, like secretaries of state, actually can show and deliver results. Like in my case, we took the dmv, the Department of Motor Vehicles, which was a poster child for government inefficiency, and in 18 months made it work really well under my leadership. And that, to me, is what we can show to folks. We're delivering and rebrand the party as one that takes care of people, that delivers results, that actually makes people's lives easier, that implements changes to cut costs, not drive them up. And so I think the more we have bold, innovative, uncompromising leaders who can articulate how we're making people's lives better. The Democratic brand itself, which is rooted in a history of doing those things, particularly with the party of the Voting Rights act or the party of Social Security Act. We need to revisit and become that again while listening to people and really solving the problems with for folks on the ground. That's what we're trying to do in Michigan and I think in states where you've seen the Democratic Party embraced and succeed, it's states where you see leaders doing just that, delivering for folks.
- [43:29]
Mike Pesca
And if I could ask you about one of your old jobs, do you think colleges and universities are in a similar position?
- [43:35]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah, yeah, I do. I think it's a, it's a.
- [43:37]
Mike Pesca
So we should, I should tell the listeners you were the dean of Wayne State and I used to, yeah, the law school. I used to teach the lsat and if you got a pretty low score, we said you could still go to Wayne State because it was not one of your top law schools. It was no Cooley Law School. Also in Michigan, I believe, where Michael Cohen went.
- [43:56]
Jocelyn Benson
Yeah.
- [43:56]
Mike Pesca
One great. Now if you look at the rankings, It's I think 70 something. Last time was like in the 50s and you know, that's the 50s. Mediocre.
- [44:04]
Jocelyn Benson
When I took over Wayne State Law School we were in the fourth tier and I was asked to come in and they were like, well let's, let's try this out. Let's having the youngest woman ever to run a law school in the history of the country, maybe that'll work. And did. And I talk about this in the book. I came up with a plan. It was data driven, it was solution oriented. I worked hard and we moved the needle. We changed those numbers. We cut tuition, we made law school more affordable for more people. We engaged our alumni in getting people jobs, which is what people want. You get this degree because you want a good paying job. And I focused on getting our students.
- [44:37]
Mike Pesca
Employed and that's what helps rise up the ranks thinking, yeah, they passed the bar more, they got better jobs.
- [44:45]
Jocelyn Benson
It's very similar to governing in general where we could get tangled up in, in for lack of better word, social issues or we could just focus on getting people the economic strength and power that they want when they like show up at a law school, for example. And I focused on making sure people got what they needed out of their education and were able to then take that degree and use it it to prosper and thrive however they chose to use it. And I think when we can stay in those fundamentals, whether we're running a government or running a law school, we can achieve great success. And that's certainly what my experience has been.
- [45:19]
Mike Pesca
Jocelyn Benson is the Secretary of State of the State of Michigan. The new book is the Purposeful Warrior Standing up for what's Right when the Stakes Are High. And if you're saying sounds like a good book, but you know, was the Forward written by a cast member of Mean Girls, it was in fact by Amanda Sey Free. That's the book. Thank you so much.
- [45:36]
Jocelyn Benson
Thanks for having me, Mike. And thank you to Amanda, my dear friend, for talking about how we can all have a warrior within us to fight for what we believe in, no matter what profession we find ourselves in.
- [45:50]
Mike Pesca
That's it for today's show. Cory War produces the Gist. Michelle Peska is CBSO of Peach Fish Productions. Astra Green runs our social media, Kathleen Sykes runs the Gist list, and Leo Baum just runs around in circles doing all sorts of things like making spreadsheets improve gpru, do Peru, and thanks for listening. The GIST is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.