Journalist Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks with Stacey Abrams about vaccine hesitancy, voter suppression, her political future, and the armor that protects her.
Photos by Darnell Wilburn
hen I first heard of Stacey Abrams, she was just beginning on her road to embracing what John Lewis called “Good Trouble.” It was 2006, and she had won the primary election for a seat in the Georgia House of Representatives with 51% of the vote, avoiding a runoff. And while I was living and working thousands of miles away in Johannesburg, South Africa, Georgia was never far from my mind, since I grew up there in the mid-1940s.
But while I didn’t know Stacey Abrams, I knew Black women who had been blazing trails for as long as they’d lived in Georgia and in this country. I had learned about some of them from my Black teachers, who taught us our history when the white people in charge of maintaining “separate but equal” attempted to keep us ignorant of it. And I got to know some of them personally, for they had been my high school classmates, who, as college students, took it upon themselves to challenge those who denied our history as well as our present access to equal facilities all over Atlanta. They were a critical part of the Atlanta Civil Rights Movement, and it was they who created a more equal system in Georgia and paved the way for Stacey Abrams, who, years later, picked up that flickering torch. And pick it up she did.
I got to know a little more about her from my dear friend Vernon Jordan, who had become a kind of mentor to her, as he was to so many. We met only once, and briefly, as she deplaned in my summer home of Martha’s Vineyard. I am not quite sure how she knew who I was, but before I could say hello, she extended her hand and called out my name, smiling broadly. Maybe it was the Vernon connection or the Georgia connection or both, but it was a memorable moment, as was our second meeting, for this interview. Unlike our brief but more personal airport meeting, we each got down in our respective, professional ways, albeit with one little departure from me at the end, which may or may not have been a serious request, when she confirmed her interest in running for president should “the stars align.”
Charlayne Hunter-Gault: I want to begin with something that I think is on a lot of minds, and that is, given the increasing dangers of the current health pandemic, how are you doing? And what are your coping mechanisms that we could probably all benefit from?
Stacey Abrams: I think it’s just following the science and the public health recommendations, which are that this isn’t just about protecting yourself and your family, it’s also about protecting the public. And so it’s about following mask mandates, recommendations, making sure I’m vaccinated, watching out for my family members, and being really careful with one another. And then, on the public policy side, in addition to Fair Fight, I founded two organizations: one called Fair Count, the other called SEAP, Southern Economic Advancement Project. And we’ve been working hard to encourage vaccination, distribute PPE, which, unfortunately, in some communities is still hard to get because of poverty and [lack of] access. And so my well-being is always tied to how those around me are doing, and so I have been privileged to be able to not only help take care of myself and my family but also contribute to ensuring the communities that are hardest hit are getting the resources they need.
CHG: Yes, and we of course know that it’s people of color who are the hardest hit. What has to be done to help them get the vaccine, but also to convince the doubters? Because even among some of the young people who have access to Twitter and information that their parents may not have, I keep finding doubters about the vaccine. What can be done?
SA: Hesitancy is grounded in both historical legends and truth but also current information. The stories that I grew up with, the stories that you heard about Tuskegee, the treatment that communities of color have often faced when it comes to the medical community, has created a legitimacy of concern. [A deceptive study by the U.S. Public Health Service that ran from 1932 to 1972, the “Tuskegee experiment” resulted in the deaths of more than 100 Black men who thought they were being offered free health care when the study’s real purpose was to observe — without treatment — the natural, painful ravages of untreated syphilis.] And so part of the responsibility that we have is to not dismiss the concerns but to address them head on, to be very intentional, thoughtful, and honest. Because if you say, “Just trust me,” it’s not going to work. This is an earned trust, not an automatic trust. And so we have to acknowledge the legitimacy of the concerns.
The second part of that, then, is to also acknowledge the difficulty. This is a vaccine that’s going to make you sick for a period of time. You know that to be true; it’s happened to me for both doses. And for folks in our community, they don’t have the financial wherewithal to actually take two days off, take three days off, to recover from the vaccine. And so there’s a hesitancy that’s born of simply not having the flexibility in their logistics to get the vaccine. And then the third piece, which is the hardest to address, is the rampant misinformation. You pointed out that social media access was greater; that also then means that misinformation is greater. When I was growing up, when you were growing up, we had hardened centers of information. I mean, as journalists, you understood this ...
CHG: Right, Black press.
SA: Yeah, but you’ve got not even just the Black press, but basically, as Americans, we got all of our information from three newspapers and three television stations. Now the different stations would disseminate the information differently. And the Black press would often put a lens on it that gave it more cultural relevance. But we had a hardened universe of information. Now we have this incredibly disparate source of information that propagates and promulgates at such speed that you can’t get ahead of the bad information. And if you’re a younger person, in particular, your ability to sift out what’s real and what’s false has been weakened because you were never trained to do it. And I say all that to say this: We’ve got to acknowledge the existence of misinformation. And instead of being critical of those who believe in it, we’ve got to be thoughtful about how we dispel it. And right now, the response is more of a “Oh, God, how can you believe that?” as opposed to, “OK, do you believe this? Talk to me about why and let me help you think about a different way to frame it.”
CHG: So how do we get that message out? We all know that many local newspapers are dying. Tell me more about the organizations that you started.
SA: So we’ve done a few things through SEAP, the Southern Economic Advancement Project. Our work has really focused on making sure we’re investing in the organizations that are doing the work. And so there, we are doing grants to small organizations. We’ve provided data, which is incredibly important, because if you’re out there trying to help someone get the vaccine but you don’t know where they live, and you don’t understand their logistical challenges, you’re not going to solve the problem. And we, through SEAP, have been really investing in organizations in Georgia and actually across the [12] Southern states to help get access to better patients, better logistics, and helping the organizations in those communities that are trusted partners actually help them do their work with the people that they work with.
And then on the Fair Count side, what we’ve done is really focus on dissemination directly. So we’ve been hosting vaccination events, especially in south Georgia. I did a two-city tour a few weeks ago where we went down and we were able to ensure that we got, I think, about maybe 100 people vaccinated. And that was a big deal, especially in some of the small Georgia towns, but we are investing. We actually have an entire canvassing team that’s doing nothing but calling folks and reaching out and helping them get vaccinated. We have a faith team working with churches. And so we are doing a lot of work on the ground in Georgia. And we are spreading. We’re doing some work in Mississippi as well, where we’re really helping build the infrastructure for getting people vaccinated directly.
CHG: That sounds terrific.
Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images
SA: On one side it’s helping build the infrastructure across the South and investing in groups that are already doing the work. But for Georgia, we’re actually doing the work ourselves of trying to cover the gaps that we unfortunately see happen in our public health system.
CHG: Right. So you know, since the Civil Rights era, I have come to think of down South and Up South, the North being Up South. So I hear you saying that you’re having some important impact in the South, especially Georgia and other Southern states. How do you get that Up South to the North?
SA: Part of it is working with other community groups. I haven’t focused as much on directly impacting Northern climes, because we’ve got a lot of work to do down here. But luckily, I’ve worked with friends. And I know there are groups that are trying to do this work as well. And so to the extent we can be supportive, we’re all sharing information. We’re working together in these different cohorts. But going back to the fundamental challenge of hesitancy, the best way to do something is for someone they trust to help them. And so it is the most effective means of communication and deployment of vaccines, to have local groups doing local work, as opposed to people flying in. Because you and I both know, if somebody flies in from New York to Cordele, Georgia, it’s not going to work. And the same thing is true — someone coming from Athens, [Georgia], trying to go up to Chicago, is not going to necessarily convince someone to listen.
CHG: Right. Well, let’s just hope that the word gets out. Because the more success you have, I think, the safer our community and our world can be. That’s all really great. And that is about one of our primary situations right now. But let’s turn to your main effort — these will be your organizations, [one being] Fair Count, which is involved in what you have been saying in so many words about salvaging our democracy, all of which arises out of efforts to change voting requirements in an increasing number of states. And at the moment, you surely know, but for our readers, there are more than 400 bills with provisions that restrict voting access that have been introduced in 49 states. Why is this not what appears to be a losing battle? And how do you counter the argument that these are simply efforts to protect the integrity of voting?
SA: In the wake of the 2018 election, I actually created three organizations. So there’s Fair Fight, which focuses on democracy; Fair Count, which is to focus on the census and using the census as an organizing tool; and then SEAP, which is the public policy side. To your question, this is not a losing proposition, because we are still making progress. We knew in 2020 that the Republican Party had a very clear vision of winning elections by suppressing the right to vote. We saw that play out on a daily basis with the fights over how we were going to vote during COVID. And all of the lawsuits they filed to block access to the right to vote, all of the restrictions that ... they tried to maintain despite knowing that people were facing possible disease and death if they voted.
That same time, they were trying to block every attempt to make it easier to vote at the same time that [Postmaster General] Louis DeJoy was slowing down access to mail-in ballots and throttling the efficiency of the Postal Service at the exact same time that organizations that were under the umbrella of the Republican National Committee were trying to challenge the legitimacy of voters. All of these things are happening because for the first time in almost 40 years, Republicans have the ability to coordinate their voter suppression activities. They’ve been precluded from doing so by a lawsuit. And that lawsuit, from 1982 … unfortunately has been lifted by a Republican-appointed judge. And so for the first time since the early ’80s, Republicans were able to coordinate their voter suppression efforts. And so what we’re seeing play out this year is not about the loss of the presidency, but it’s actually a much deeper and much broader attack on the changing demography of our nation. They understand that they can either change their approach, or they can change the rules. And unfortunately, the Republican Party at large has decided to change the rules rather than try to appeal to the emerging demographic that has been reaffirmed by the 2020 census.
CHG: I just wanted to interject by that you mean the increasing percentage of people of color in this country —
SA: That’s right.
CHG: — and ultimately becoming a majority. And I keep hearing that the fear of that is what is driving it, which is what you seem to be saying.
SA: Republicans have faced identity crises before, as have Democrats. It happens. Parties face identity crises when you have a certain way of counting your party and communicating your values; you get wed to that, and you get the victories that come with that. But when the message starts to weaken because the audience changes, you have two choices: You can either adapt to your new audience, or you can kick people out of the process. And what Republicans are doing is trying to kick people out of the process, because they don’t believe that the current construction of our electorate favors them. They’d have to change their messaging, they’d have to change their policies. And so what we’re seeing play out on a state-by-state basis — and this gets to your point about those 400 bills — is that across the country, rather than confronting the changing demography of our nation, which is not going to reverse itself, they’re instead looking at all the ways these populations have entered the democratic process, and they’re trying to close those off. They’re trying to make it harder, if not impossible.
Photo by Jessica McGowan/Getty Images
CHG: So you are working hard to fix that with your organization? How successful are you? And how are you judging your success?
SA: One is that we need awareness, because this didn’t just start in 2018, or 2020. We’ve been watching this erosion of our democratic values for several years. And one very clear example of that was the success of the Shelby decision in 2013. So voter suppression has had a bit of turbo speed added in the last five years, but ...
CHG: Sorry, I just want to say, define the Shelby decision real quick.
SA: Yes. So the Shelby decision in 2013 eviscerated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by essentially nullifying the formula of Section 4. So what this means is that the formula that said, Here’s which states are covered by the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court said that formula was outdated. And instead of saying, Here’s how you fix the formula, they simply extended the application of the formula, which meant that for the last eight years since 2013, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been inert. Which means that the Justice Department could not use it to block attacks on voters of color using the Voting Rights Act. So that happens in 2013. But before 2013, we saw the march of restrictive voter ID [laws], which really started in 2005, in Indiana. And in Georgia, you saw the litany of restrictive laws that were [first] passed in the North actually, starting after President Obama’s election in ’08. So that’s when we saw Michigan and Wisconsin start to take on much more aggressive anti-voting legislation. In 2013, we had the Voting Rights Act gutted by the Supreme Court. And by the time you get to 2020, 2021, we are in a full-blown crisis. But no one was talking about it. There were occasionally a few stories about it from 2006 and 2010, and 2013, but there was no sustained attention to the onslaught of voter suppression. It is much easier to get people to fight to protect their rights when they know their rights are in danger. And we have had extraordinary success in raising awareness. So that’s number one.
Number two is that we have seen the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act get support. So we see the For the People Act, it’s going to continue to be amended and revised. But twice now, Democrats in the Senate have said that they believe this law was necessary. So despite all the obituaries that have been written about voting rights, it may not have moved as far as we want, but it’s still a lot.
CHG: That's pretty powerful. How concerned are you, though, about Democratic cohesion, given the emergence of the progressive left? And somehow sometimes they don’t quite see things the same way as more long-term Democrats in the middle of these things. What do you think? Is that a real threat to getting all of this accomplished that you’re hoping for?
SA: No, I think that we keep trying to mimic a unitary government, in a unitary system, when it’s completely far afield of who we’ve always been. The Democratic Party, by its very nature, contains everyone who’s not Republican. And that means you’re never going to have absolute uniformity in who we are. By and large, our disagreements are not about what; it’s about when and how. And so as long as we share the same fundamental belief system — that there's a role for government to play in ensuring fair access and equity in our society — we’re in good shape. And yes, we’re going to have growing pains and public disagreements. But I don’t think we face an existential crisis.
CHG: Well, that’s pretty hopeful. I’m happy to hear that. Let’s talk for a moment about Black women specifically, and what they are contributing to our democracy, but yet the particular challenges that they continue to face. Black women, and for that matter, other women of color, they’re all facing similar issues, right?
SA: Yeah. Our political system is not designed for those who deviate from, you know, our historical norm, which for the first 100 years was white men. And so for women writ large, women of color in particular, there is a constant battle to reshape not only the electorate, but the process, and that requires that we confront challenges that are both internal to politics but also external to, simply, society [in order] to be successful.
CHG: And one of them, of course, is abortion rights. I mean, there’s a big challenge to ensuring the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies.
SA: I’m not despondent. I know the Supreme Court, as constructed, is likely going to eviscerate Roe v. Wade.
CHG: You think?
SA: I think it’s going to be really hard to continue to sustain it with the composition that we have with the addition of [Amy] Coney Barrett. I mean, you only need five. And right now, I think John Roberts, unfortunately, is not going to be an effective sway against the five who are very strongly supportive of eviscerating Roe v. Wade. But that said, what we have to remember is that if they strike it down, it does not mean the elimination of abortion rights. It means that it reverts to the states to determine access to abortion rights. But that’s only if Congress does not take action to fully validate abortion rights across the states. So Congress can take action. And these things are always going to be hard, they’re always going to be difficult because they are, again, embedded in both ideological and political arguments, which are not the same thing.
But those challenges can be met if we focus on both levels of government, state and local. And we focus on a spectrum of opportunities. And we don’t put all of our efforts into only one fight. I believe in multitasking. We have to recognize that, yes, we are outnumbered on the Supreme Court, which we easily have to redouble our efforts to win at the congressional level to hold onto the presidency, but also to win at the state level. Because in each of those places, you can make progress.
CHG: Right, I just remember, as I listened to you, hearing my colleague many years ago, Julian Bond, talk about how important it was once you get national attention, to go back to your home communities and work there, which is what you seem to be indicating in so many ways. And our shared state of Georgia, always on my mind, what are the prospects of it being a model for the rest of the country?
SA: I think the prospect’s certainly strong; we have to keep working at it. The remarkable victories in 2020 and 2021 are not permanent. And that means we’ve got to keep building infrastructure, we’ve got to continue to field not just good candidates, but we’ve got to field smart ideas. We have a demographic tailwind that I think is going to bode well. I mean, right now, Georgia is among the most demographically diverse states in the nation. And that means that in terms of political will, we are going to see more and more pressure for the state of Georgia to really reflect the political needs of a broader, diverse constituency, and that tends to bode well for communities that are historically marginalized or disadvantaged.
CHG: I want to turn finally to some more personal aspects of your life. Where did you get the armor that clearly protects you? And why don’t you ever seem to be “no ways tired,” as that old saying goes, and what of that can you pass on to the younger generation, who may or may not have the kind of educated family you had to help you create that armor?
SA: My parents are extraordinary people, and I am grateful for that. Part of what they raised us to understand was just, one, that we had an obligation. And it wasn’t out of altruism. It was that we benefit from making certain that others are taken care of, that our faith tells us that we benefit, that our civic duty tells us we benefit, that logic tells us we benefit. So you’re going to fix the problem, you can fix it for yourself, or you can fix it for society. If you do it for society, you diminish the likelihood that the problem will return. And that’s part of what they wanted us to understand. But it was also a lived experience. My dad was arrested when he was 14, registering Black people to vote in Mississippi. And even though my mom was doing the same work across town, she just managed not to get caught. But it wasn’t a lecture from them. It was how they live. And it’s how they raised us to live.
CHG: There are six of you, right?
SA: Yeah, I’m the second of six.
CHG: And so how do you pass that on to the younger generation, many of whom don’t have the kind of family you had, and yet they need that armor.
SA: You have to model the behavior. Two examples I would give are the aftermath of the 2018 election.
The political logic says, I should bow my head, move away gracefully, and live to fight another day without creating controversy. But my responsibility was to say that I didn’t have the right to win, no one has the right to victory. But as an American, I have the right to my citizenship not being questioned, and that for every single voter, my responsibility was not to challenge the legitimacy of our democracy, it was to challenge those who would undermine that democracy. And so when I made my non-concession concession speech, it was for exactly that reason, that thousands of young people joined my campaign, and thousands more who never thought they cared about politics showed up and voted, record numbers. My responsibility was to validate their work by saying, “You’re not imagining this. This is really against you. But here’s how you fight back so your votes can matter and your voice can count.” And then, back in 2020, when the maelstrom about the vice presidency and all that stuff was happening, and people got very offended by my forthright response, I know that you can’t tell someone to be confident and to have faith and to have ambition, if everyone they see who should emulate that shrinks away from it. So I answered those questions, because I know that when I was growing up, no one ever got asked the question, let alone answered it. ... Yes, there’s a personal danger to being too forthright. But there is a psychic responsibility that I hold that says, I cannot deny who I am. Because I’m then giving people permission to deny what someone can be. And if you want to build that armor, person by person, we have to live our values we say we hold. And that’s what I try to do every day.
CHG: Right? Well, my final question. With your ever increasing profile, you do seem to be everywhere these days. Can you tell us whether your next step might be to either reclaim the gubernatorial seat you won but that was denied to you? Or a larger one that would have you moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
SA: I have not decided what my next steps are politically, but I do intend one day, if the stars align, I do intend to one day run for president. It is a job I would love to hold. I believe that we should do good. Why not try to do good on the largest stage possible? But there’s a lot of time between here and then. And my current mission is to make certain that we preserve democracy, that we protect our families by addressing COVID, and that we do what we can to ensure that communities, especially in the South, get the services and support they need.
CHG: And with everything going on, you maintain hope.
SA: I don’t talk about hope, I believe in being determined. Hope feels good, but I’m not optimistic or pessimistic. I am determined.
CHG: Well, I’m determined to stay until you get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and you may want me, no matter how old I am at that point, to be your press secretary.
SA: Yes, ma’am.
CHG: Thank you so much for taking time out of your very busy schedule. I know this is going to be a wonderful addition to The Bitter Southerner.
SA: Thank you so much. I appreciate you reaching out.
