Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less