Skoll World Forum Interviews: Spotlight on National Poll Worker Recruitment Day

Peter Yeung (interviewer): Hello, Jill. Thank you very much for joining us today at the Skoll World Forum.

Jill Habig: Thank you for having me.

Peter Yeung (interviewer): To begin with, can you just introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about the work that you’re doing?

Jill Habig: I’m Jill Habig. I’m the founder and CEO of Public Rights Project. We’re a US-based organization, and we work with local government officials across the country to help them use government power to advance civil rights and democracy. We work with about 200 local governments across 41 states in the US. We work on a range of issues, from voting rights and elections, to abortion and reproductive rights, to worker’s rights.

Peter Yeung (interviewer): Obviously, that’s a pretty broad spectrum right in there. But I suppose, how exactly would you define the problem that you’re trying to solve with this?

Jill Habig: When I started Public Rights Project, the problem I was really trying to solve was the idea that local governments have a lot of untapped power to advance people’s rights. But they’re really fundamentally ill-equipped to deliver on that power. We have this classic civil rights story in America that is a little bit like Schoolhouse Rock. We think about injustice, and then people organize to change the law. There’s a legislative debate, a law is passed, and then we magically have our rights.

The missing piece of that puzzle is that rights aren’t self-executing. If the people in charge in government aren’t actually using government power to make sure people’s rights are protected, the law on paper can be completely different from the law as it is experienced by people on the ground.

I saw that firsthand, working in state and local government, where I was actually charged with building a children’s civil rights unit in the Attorney General’s Office in California. We had had decades old power to enforce children’s civil rights in the school system, in juvenile justice, et cetera. We had just never used it. We didn’t have a team in place. We didn’t have a budget. We didn’t have the skillsets that we needed to do those kinds of cases. It’s a problem that we see across the country, where states and cities have more power than they currently use, to protect civil rights and democracy. I set out to create a playbook and a toolkit for governments to use their legal power more effectively for civil rights.

Peter Yeung (interviewer): Could you, I suppose, describe a little bit of how this affects individuals on the ground? What are some of those cases that they aren’t properly being served by this policy?

Jill Habig: Sure. The worker’s rights context is one area where there have actually been a number of policy wins over the last 10 to 15 years. Workers have organized for higher minimum wages, for greater protections, and sick leave, and paid leave. But on the ground, 20% of workers still aren’t actually getting minimum wage. Their employers aren’t being held accountable to the rights that they are supposed to have under the law. We’ve actually built teams in cities across the country to help make sure that workers actually get what they’re owed under the law. We had a case in California that brought back $6 million for workers who had been mistreated by their employer.
In a similar context, in voting, we work with election officials in cities across the country, who are facing lawsuits trying to undermine voting rights. Voters may cast a ballot, but then there may be a legal challenge preventing that ballot from being counted. If local election officials don’t have the legal support they need, then voters’ ballots don’t actually getting counted and the election results can’t match what people voted for

It’s a pretty simple intervention, in lots of ways. It’s providing the resources, the skillset, the assistance to make sure that government officials can actually do the right thing, and make sure that people’s rights are actually experienced and practiced, not just on paper.

Peter Yeung (interviewer): Right, exactly. Yeah. It is, as you say, a pretty simple objective, at least in theory. I just wonder how exactly you’ve gone about development that work and scaling up? Obviously now, it’s very much widespread. I just wonder have you adapted as well over time? What exactly have you needed to adjust along the way?

Jill Habig: When I first started Public Rights Project, the biggest thing that I was focused on was helping local government officials use power they already had more effectively. That’s still a huge part of our work. But what we’ve seen in the US over the last several years is that there are increasing attempts to undermine that power and undermine the will of voters. Democracy is facing a death by 1000 cuts strategy in the US. We’ve actually really adapted our strategy to help local government officials defend the power they already have, and make sure that they’re able to do the jobs voters have elected them to do.

The voting context is a big example of that. We work with local election officials who are just facing threats, harassment, litigation trying to prevent them from doing their jobs. Things as simple as opening an early vote center to help people cast a ballot. Or using drop boxes to help people vote during a pandemic. Those sorts of common sense pro-voter policies are increasingly being challenged by conspiracy theorists and election deniers. We’ve mobilized a lot of resources to help government officials just be able to do the job that voters have elected them to do. We’re seeing that trend really grow in states across the country, where there are just increasing efforts to undermine the very fabric of our democracy in a number of ways.

Peter Yeung (interviewer): Right. Where exactly do you see the roots of that? I suppose perhaps the elephant in the room, the tanned elephant in the room, Donald Trump, may be one of those touchstones. But where has this come from exactly? This more hostile context.

Jill Habig: It’s much bigger than any one candidate, or any one president, or elected official. There has really been a movement to undermine multiracial democracy in America, as we’ve seen communities organize in a number of states to build power, to get policy change. Whether it’s criminal justice reform, or abortion rights, or worker’s rights. There’s a really concerted effort by corporate interests, by anti-democracy and authoritarian interests to just rig the rules of the game so that, even if voters vote for a particular outcome, that there’s an end run to get around voters on the back end. Certainly, Donald Trump has been an existential threat to US democracy, but he is not alone. He’s more of a symptom than a cause, in my opinion. We see gerrymandering really be a big cause of this problem. Where you have often majority white gerrymandered state legislators, who are abusing their power to override Black voters, or Black elected officials. There’s certainly a racialized dynamic there, as well as an ideological one, trying to undermine democracy.

Peter Yeung (interviewer): I imagine, obviously you’re working across many different kinds of contexts here, and social demographics, et cetera. I just wonder what kind of differences that you have come across in those different states that you’re working in? How have you had to respond to that?

Jill Habig: Certainly, every state in the US is different. They have different laws, different politics, et cetera. But what we’ve seen is that, across the country, people believe in really fundamental values. They believe that voters should be able to vote, and that elections should match what people actually voted for. They believe that women should have control over their own bodies. It’s actually not a very controversial issue in the US, when you ask voters. It’s controversial because of entrenched minority power in a number of state legislatures. But there’s actually a lot of common ground on values across party lines. We work with many people of both parties on abortion rights, on voting rights. I think the bigger issue is entrenched power in some of these elections that don’t actually match what people have voted for. In that sense, I actually have a lot of hope because I think there’s a lot of common ground that ordinary Americans and voters can have on a number of these issues.

Peter Yeung (interviewer):
Yeah. When you use that term, entrenched, obviously for me, it signifies that you’ve had, not to say the obvious, but a bit of resistance to the work you’re doing. Can you talk to me a bit about that? What is the blow back of this kind of reworking of the political order?

Jill Habig: Yes. We have a few examples. In Georgia, we have litigation right now on behalf of a bipartisan group of prosecutors, against a state law that was passed in Georgia. It creates a partisan commission that can remove elected prosecutors from office, simply for making decisions that this partisan commission disagrees with. It’s really a complete end run around voters. Voters have elected these prosecutors. They have a variety of ideological positions, but they’ve run on their record with voters. Voters have elected them. And now, the state is trying to come in over the top to punish those prosecutors for, for example, making statements about abortion rights. Or diverting some people from incarceration. We’re actually challenging that commission in court, because we think it’s unconstitutional under the Georgia Constitution. It punishes people for free speech. It retaliates against them for doing the jobs voters elected them to do. We actually had a big win last year even, in the Georgia Supreme Court. Now the legislature is back with a different version of that law, and we’re going to be back in court again, challenging it again.

But we’ve had a number of successes, even in states where we’ve seen these kinds of abuses of power by state officials against local democracy. We had a win in Florida last year. Where the Governor passed a bill that was attempt to undermine police reform in the state, after the murder of George Floyd. It essentially criminalized protest, and then it provided a veto against local police budgets. Essentially, if advocates on the ground tried to organize and convince their city to hold police accountable for civil rights violations, the state could come in and just override what citizens and local governments had done. We actually took them to court, and got a win to take that power out of the Governor’s hand and keep it with local governments. Even in states where there have been a lot of fights on these issues, a lot of ideological confrontation, we have seen state courts and local government officials be able to step up and do the right thing, and hold the line for civil rights in a number of states.

Peter Yeung (interviewer): I just wonder how you see this developing in the future? Obviously, there’s been a trend not only in the US, but across the world really, in Latin America, in Europe, in Asia, of growing populism, and I suppose extremism in politics. Perhaps, not despite the work you’re doing, but how do you see this going forward in the next few, I don’t know, election cycles or years to come?

Jill Habig: I’m optimistic because I think that, what we’ve seen in states across the country, is that when voters actually have an opportunity to weigh-in on these questions, they tend to vote for greater democracy, greater civil rights, and for the rule of law. I think when we can bring that accountability into state courts and into state elections, we can actually build a better society than what we’re seeing right now. We saw this even in Michigan, right after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade. We were able to go into court in Michigan, on behalf of a group of prosecutors, and actually get a court order protection abortion access just a couple of months after the Dobbs decision. We’ve seen this now, through a combination of elections and litigation in states across the country.
I think there’s a growing movement of people who really believe that our institutions are worth defending, believe that the rule of law is worth defending, and believe that voters have a right to be heard. I’m optimistic for the future.

Peter Yeung (interviewer): Great. Yeah. I think you have, throughout our conversation, pointed to some positive signs. With your approach, what exactly are, I suppose, the limitations? What can be achieved through this and what can’t be achieved? What are other changes required?

Jill Habig: I really think about litigation, which is the main thing that we do, as a compliment to the organizing, and other popular activism that other groups are doing and that people are doing on the ground. As a lawyer, I love to litigate. I’m a hammer and I see a nail, and it’s a lot of fun. Litigation is only one tool. Litigation can get you into court to defend a right that is already on paper. It’s much harder when you need to actually change a policy. You need activism, you need organizing on the ground. You might need electoral advocacy to get different people into office. I think it’s really important to build an ecosystem of groups that are working for a better democracy. We can support, on the litigation. But our goal is really to use litigation to empower groups organizing for better policy and better elected officials in the future. And then, we help them do their jobs once they’re in office.

Peter Yeung (interviewer): Right. Yeah, I see. I see. I suppose then, going forward, what are going to be the next steps in the road for you guys? Obviously, we’ve got the election coming up. Are there any particular objectives that you’ve set out?

Jill Habig: Ultimately, what we’re trying to do is actually build a society where every community has a government that’s fighting for their rights. Imagine what our democracy would look like if we actually had a government that delivered for people, and that viewed its responsibility as protecting its own constituents rights on a daily basis.I think for us, we’re looking not just at this election cycle. Certainly, our top priority this year is making sure that our elections hold, and that people are able to vote, that their ballots are counted. The election result matches what people voted for. That’s fundamental to everything else we want to build. But beyond 2024, we’re really trying to build an infrastructure at the state and local level. So that when government officials get into office, they can actually have a playbook to use their power to make sure that workers get the rights that they’re owed, that women can get abortion care and healthcare that they need. That states can’t interfere with what voters have already voted for. These are really basic things, but I think we’re trying to build for a bigger future than just holding onto the rights that we have.

Peter Yeung (interviewer): Right. Yeah, I see. Simple things to ask for, but still a lot of work ahead. Thank you so much for your time. I really, really appreciate you sharing about your work.

Jill Habig:
Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Omar Parbhoo: So I’m part of ideas42, which is a behavioral science nonprofit, and basically what we do is take the latest research coming out of academia in psychology, behavioral economics, even neuroscience, to apply to some of the greatest social challenges in the world. My work in particular focuses on civic engagement in the United States, and how do we understand the behavioral barriers, the biases, the environmental barriers that stop people from being able to participate fully in our democracy and other civic spaces. And then we design solutions to overcome those barriers so that everybody has the chance, the ability, the desire to participate fully.

Matthew Beighley (interviewer): What did you discover? What have you learned, potentially, that was even surprising about participating in voting?

Omar Parbhoo: Yeah, so a lot of people focus on the fact that voter turnout in the United States, even in presidential years, is quite low. I don’t know if we’re unique in the world, but we are somewhere in the middle of the pack and not really living up to the full potential of our ideals as a democracy. I look at that, and I see a lot of structural barriers, a lot of design that is intentional, and some unintentional, that keep people from participating. What I’ve learned over the years is that there are tens of millions of people that have at least a weak intention to participate, but somewhere along the voter journey they drop off. And for very understandable reasons that we can directly tackle, that we can design for, that we can really support people so that they can fully participate.

Matthew Beighley (interviewer): Are there any components of this that you’d like to focus on, like… You said there were intentional and unintentional.

Omar Parbhoo: Yeah.

Matthew Beighley (interviewer): Do you feel comfortable describing some of those? I’m really curious.

Omar Parbhoo: Yeah, sure.

Matthew Beighley (interviewer): I want to learn, actually. I think this is fascinating.

Omar Parbhoo: Yeah, absolutely. So one of the maybe most surprising things for me, we focus a lot on trying to understand people’s motivations and why they think they should or shouldn’t participate. But a persistent challenge that we’ve seen over and again, is just basic information about how to vote is lacking. And we see people who miss deadlines or don’t understand that a step has to be taken for them to successfully cast a ballot. And it’s understandable. Voting is a very infrequent act, and for a lot of people, a new act. So when somebody misses a step or doesn’t realize something along the voter journey exists, that isn’t a lost opportunity. And we have designed a lot of solutions around ensuring that people get the information they need in a way that is timely, that is actionable, that feels relevant, so that they get the support along the entire voter journey and are able to successfully cast a ballot at the end of it.

I think about it a lot like directions on a map. I’m old enough to have had atlases in the glove compartment when I used to go on road trips with my family. An atlas is a very complex tool to use. It’s really hard to figure out how to find where you are and where you need to go. And then the internet came out, and we had things like MapQuest, where you can put in your directions, or sorry, put in your destination, and then you get your directions very nicely laid out for you, and you can hit print and have it all on a page. But even then, you’re getting everything in one go, and it can be very complex to follow in real time.

And we’ve evolved now and we have GPS navigation that tells you as you are going on your journey when you need to turn, what to expect, and you get information that is timely along the way to ensure that you get from point A to point B. And what I would love to see when it comes to elections in the United States is that people get that same sort of service where they are navigated along the voter journey, getting the information they need at the right time so that they can go from that desire and intention to cast a ballot all the way to actually doing so.

Matthew Beighley (interviewer): Is there a case study or a location in the US where you were able to increase the amount of information to voters and you saw an increase in voting, or any way to study impact?

Omar Parbhoo: Yeah, absolutely. So the pandemic was an incredible year for many reasons and a very hard year. And it was also an important election for our country. States like the state of California decided to move to an all vote by mail system on an accelerated path because it was the safest way to cast a ballot, both from a health perspective, but also from the safety and security of our democracy. Now, it is not easy to get people to change their habits on how they vote or think differently about casting a ballot. When you are trying to cast a ballot by mail, and you’re going to get your ballot in the mail, the first thing you need to do is make sure that your address is correct on your voter file so it comes to the right place. So what we did with the Secretary of State of California is help them provide the information for voters that they needed to have so that they could take the steps to move to an all vote by mail system as seamlessly as possible.
The state was sitting on 6 million email addresses. So we said, “Could we use those and do a campaign where we meter out the information at the right time for people?” So one email was about checking your address. The next was about signing up for ballot tracking so you know where your ballot is and reminding them when the ballot was due and how to turn it in. And what we saw was incredible.

People, first off, responded to an email, which we weren’t sure was going to happen, but the information felt so relevant to them that they opened it at high rates and then took those actions. So for example, with the address verification, we saw a 94x increase in people going to their voter file and making sure that their address on file was correct. And on top of that, we saw an 8x increase in registration because people who thought they were registered, had been registered in the past, had their registrations lapse, and then learned as they were going to go check their address, that they were no longer on the voter file and had the opportunity to register in time. So we’ve seen, in many cases, and that one was probably the most pronounced, that giving voters the right information at the right time really changes behaviors.

Matthew Beighley (interviewer): But why is voter participation, the more people participating, good for everybody?

Omar Parbhoo: What about our democracy in the United States would I like to change? And the answer is that I would love it to be more representative. And what I mean by that is that there are so many structures in our democracy that don’t give everyone the same voice and the same influence over how we are governed. So we have institutions like the US Senate, we have the Electoral College, we have gerrymandering, we have laws in place that restrict people’s access to the ballot. All of this undermines the legitimacy of our democracy, and it entrenches minority voices in a way that doesn’t reflect our country and our ideals as a whole. And it leads to a lot of friction. It leads to people feeling isolated and underrepresented and feeling disconnected from their own government.

And that has all kinds of implications, not only in people’s sense of belonging and feeling properly represented in their governments, both at the national and local level, but also in how our policies reflect the needs of the people around the country. There’s a distortion that we see in our policies because of the capture of our democracy by a minority of voices. So when we work to create a more representative democracy, we see that as a way of creating a healthier democracy, a democracy that is more responsive and more reflective of the people that make up our wonderful diverse country.

Matthew Beighley (interviewer): Are you hopeful? Is the needle moving in the right direction?

Omar Parbhoo: That’s a very good question. I think the needle is fluctuating a lot these days. And it’s okay. We need to be reminded every once in a while that our democracy is worth protecting and that we need to work hard to protect it. And it has been hard for eight years for our country. And it’s not that what we’re seeing is relatively or is new in any meaningful way, but it is more pronounced when it comes to the attacks on democracy. The things that were before sort hidden are now said out loud, are done out in the open. And it is hard to hold onto hope when we’re seeing such a backslide in a lot of our democratic norms in our democratic institutions. But despite it all, I am hopeful. I do feel like as a country the true will of the people is that we want to protect our democracy, that we want to have a government that is reflective and responsive to the people.

So we want to protect democracy. And I do see more organizations and more people centering the importance of our democracy in what they do, what they vote for, what they are going out in the streets to demand. And it’s going to be a slog. But I think we have the momentum now to fight for something we’ve taken for granted for generations. And it’s this moment that’s going to be, I think, a catalyst for the foundations of a stronger democracy going forward. It’s just going to be painful as we go through it right now and try to protect the institutions that have really been under attack, that weren’t defended in the way they should have been.

Matthew Beighley (interviewer): What’s the world you’d like to see?

Omar Parbhoo: What I would like to see, the vision I have for democracy in the United States, is one that is actually representative of everybody in our country. And what I mean by that is that the institutions that underpin our democracy actually reflect the views of the majority. We have a lot of structures, a lot of policies in place that entrench minority views. So when you think of the US Senate, the Electoral College, when you think of gerrymandering and policies that restrict access to the ballot, what we are actually seeing is an undermining of the democratic ideals. What I and a lot of organizations that are here today are working towards is protecting the ideal of a representative democracy that is vibrant, that includes everybody who is eligible to participate. We are working to make sure that we are removing the barriers to participate. We are making it easy for people to follow through on their intentions to cast a ballot.

It’s difficult in our country when we have elections that are administered at the local level. We have 8,000 local election administrators in our country. Every jurisdiction does things slightly differently. So it is really hard to work to create a system that equitably creates access to the vote, that makes it so that everybody can participate in the same way and have the same ease of access. So what I would like to see in our democracy is one that really values and elevates the voice of every person, that believes in the ideal of one person, one vote, and creates structures, creates norms, and creates institutions that truly protect that.

Matthew Beighley (interviewer): So why do you do this? What drew you to this?

Omar Parbhoo: So I have two answers for that. The first is that I’m an immigrant. I came to the United States at a very young age, but it took many, many years for me to actually get naturalized, to become a citizen, to have the right to vote. And I take that right very seriously. It is something that is a expression of being part of America and a way of me reaffirming my sense of belonging to the country. And it’s a duty that I feel very strongly about and one that I want to protect for the country as a whole.

But secondly, my first career was with the U.S. Department of State. And during that time, I worked very closely in the Middle East and North Africa on economic policy. And it was right when the Arab Spring happened, and I went to, very shortly after, to Tunisia, to Libya, to Egypt, to other countries in the region. And I saw the promise and the opportunity that democracy offers. I saw the power of people having a voice in who governs them and the government feeling accountable to the people. But I also saw the challenges and how fragile democracy really is.

It wasn’t long after doing that work that I started seeing the same breaking points in our own democracy here in the United States, and I knew that we couldn’t take our democracy for granted. So I felt very motivated to shift my attention back, back home, and work to doing whatever I can to make sure that our democracy stays protected, stays as solid as possible, to live up to the ideals and the promise of self-determination.