Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Fahey Q&A with Lisa Nash, leading a new movement in the first primary state

Opinion

The Fahey Q&A with Lisa Nash, leading a new movement in the first primary state

"We have invited, and want to have, all voices at the table," says Lisa Nash.

Courtesy Katie Fahey

Having organized last year's grassroots movement ending Michigan's politicized gerrymandering, Fahey is now executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She interviews a colleague in the world of democracy reform each month for our Opinion section.

Lisa Nash, a Democrat who lost a close state House race last year, and former Republican state Rep. Terry Wolf are the dynamic force behind The People's incredible New Hampshire leadership team. They just pulled off a three-day, five-city statewide kickoff tour where we heard from some incredible Granite Staters of all stripes.

As the tour ended, I spoke with Lisa about our time on the road and about what it's like to be one of those people who jumps into action and helps her community regardless of anyone's personal politics.


Our recent conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Fahey: How did you get involved with The People?

Nash: Last spring I was invited to an event in Manchester with Andrew Shue, who is now The People's board president, by my friend Terry Wolf. People attending were saying, "We're all feeling this divisiveness and gridlock in politics." It's so hyper-partisan that people are feeling left out altogether. Unless you're on the polar ends, you're not part of the conversation. I ran for state representative because I was feeling these very same things: increasing polarization, partisan gridlock, average people feeling left out, left behind and completely unheard. We need to get people back into politics. We need to get people pushing for changes.

Fahey: New Hampshire is proudly always the first state to host a presidential primary. Is it more polarized as a result?

Nash: We actually tend to be more open to political differences because of our place on the calendar. Our access to presidential candidates is fairly unique and often brings people from across the political spectrum into the same spaces. We also have a hardy, independent, New Englander attitude that resists being put in a narrow box.

Fahey: How has your life changed since getting more involved in politics?

Nash: I have learned there is no black and white. When you sit down and talk with someone, you can better understand them from a human perspective without using the lens of "party affiliation."

Fahey: Talk a bit about your role with The People?

Nash: With five events in three days, we are getting up and running! We're getting people in the room talking about what's happening in the country, what's happening in politics and how people feel about it. We have to start by building trust in order to have those conversations. And we have to let people know we're a welcoming place to talk. Otherwise it's really hard to find common ground, because people are going to retreat into their corners.

Fahey: How did you first meet Terry Wolf?

Nash: Our kids were in preschool and we were new moms. At the time, we didn't talk about politics, not directly. Through the years, as our kids got older, we started getting involved in local politics in our own ways. Our friendship never revolved around politics, but we always could talk openly with each other and respect each other's positions. We didn't always agree. I think that's the beauty of our friendship; as we grew and evolved and got more involved, a mutual respect was always there. Coming into The People to work together, we already knew that we can disagree and still like and respect each other and work together.

Fahey: That's inspiring. I look at my bipartisan friendships and it's not like they started with "Hi, I'm an independent." Or "Hi I'm a Republican. Let's be friends."

Nash: That is key to everything we're talking about. When you're cheering at your kids' soccer game or you're at a business meeting, nobody is asking about political backgrounds. But as soon as politics come up, it seems like defenses automatically go up. We've forgotten that we're all people first. How we identify politically is just a sliver of our identity. It's not the only part of who we are. Somehow, we've forgotten that. It's happened over the last generation. Something shifted.

Fahey: What steps are you taking to facilitate an environment where people can talk respectfully about politics?

Nash: We have invited, and want to have, all voices at the table. We're talking about what people see as the problems and ideas about fixing some of these things. We're not focused on, "What party are you from?" Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, or if you identify outside of those parties, I think it is very limiting to put people in those boxes, especially right out of the gate.

Fahey: If you were speaking to a high school student or a new immigrant to the country, how would you describe what being an American means to you?

Nash: Two words: freedom and opportunity. We have the freedom to move about freely, to speak about our government, to choose our elected officials, to practice any religion and to protest. We have the opportunity of education and of working hard to move from one economic or social class to another. These ideals have been fought and sacrificed for, and being an American means we will continue to fight to uphold these values.

Fahey: Do you have a new year's resolution?

Nash: Watching the news can be overwhelmingly negative. But once in a while, you glimpse a story that gives you hope: The person who opens a bakery and hires homeless people, maybe, or the person who fixes old bicycles and gives them to people so that they have work transportation. I've been thinking about people that really inspire me. For the next year, I am focusing on doing things, even small things, that can have a positive impact on my community.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less