'Intense': Former AG Holder reveals vetting Tim Walz as Kamala Harris’ running mate

so folks uh thank you all for being here our next guest was a key figure in the Obama Administration serving as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States the first black person to hold the office and the third longest to serve in that role as a steadfast defender of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 today he serves as the chairman of the national Democratic redistricting committee continuing the fight to protect voting rights across our country he is a very busy man because he also just led the vetting process for vice president Harris's running mate joining me now is none other than Eric [Music] Holder how are you good to see you good to see you they told me I you know you're right you're right I asked for this chair too shame on me oh hey I'll sit wherever you tell me to say well thank you very much for being here General holder you know I'm going to start with where I ended you just wrapped up leading the vetting process for vice president Harris's um running mate uh she of course chose Minnesota Governor Tim Walls who we will hear from tonight what was it that made the vice president choose Governor walls well first I'll say that she had the um great ability to pick from a really wide range of really qualified people um and I think you know I was asked this as as I was going into the um Arena last night and I think it was both his accomplishment he's done a lot as uh as the governor of Minnesota has a great career you know in the military uh a distinguished Congressman a great teacher uh and then there was also the chemistry component and I think in the meeting that they had um something just kind of clicked so I think it was the combination of the accomplishments and uh and the chemistry that propelled him to be the uh the nominee and he's going to be a great vice president now what what was your initial reaction when they called you and said uh um well how did who called first of all uh I think I got a call from Tony West Tony West called you who was uh kamla's uh brother-in-law brother-in-law uh he served in in the Department of Justice um so Tony calls you says Eric we need you to do a a twoe betting for the running mate yeah what was your initial reaction and did you ever consider saying no because I mean we saw how the JD Vance roll out happened and if there was something wrong with this vetting they were're going to put it on Eric Holder thanks for that Simone uh it seems to be going all right thus far I'm going just say that yeah I mean it was interesting because I I led the um the vetting for the Obama um effort that produced uh Joe Biden and we had about two and a half three months to do that this one took 15 days and so it was one of those do what the vetting 15 days so we got um 70 lawyers from my firm Covington and Burling um on it and we started off I think with about 11 candidates and ultimately you know worked 24 um I say 24/7 but 247 and 8 I guess you know and on the thing and I think we did um you know a good job I I looked at more YouTube videos of the the candidates than I think I've ever seen in my life my my YouTube hours are like off the charts now you know looking at uh you got to look at this you got to look at that you got to look at that so uh it was um it was daunting but the time was so short that you didn't have time to really get I about it you know it was only at the conclusion you said hope we got everything but and I think we did I think we did and I think as I said tomal I think is uh is going to be a great vice president well if you didn't there are excellent journalist in this room that will find it yeah so don't don't look it's trust me trust me it's good it's cool you know the the Trump campaign has already started criticizing um trying to attack Governor walls particularly on his record on voting rights um they've criticized him for supporting a law that allows evicted felons to vote after they served their prison sentences what one what do you think about that criticism but more so what do you think about Governor Walter's record on voting rights uh in the state of Minnesota and how that could serve as a uh a bullwark if you will if they are elected to the White House well first I think his his record on voting rights is superb um and I think that criticism from my perspective is actually a compliment you know he is supporting allowing people who are in the you know the penal system once they have finished their serving their sentences to vote and if you understand the really sorted history that goes behind that policy you know African-Americans were enslaved freed had the right to vote and then that vote was taken away and one of the ways in which they did it was to say if you have a criminal conviction you can't vote so what do they do would pass a neutral sounding law except you then go out and take those people who were enslaved and arrest them for a bunch of you know nonsense crimes depriving them of uh of the right to vote um you know the people of Florida had an ability to make a determination it was a ballot initiative and they voted overwhelmingly to give people in Florida who once they finished their sentences the ability to to vote it would have been the greatest reinfrank uh since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but Ronda santis and the Republicans in um in Florida did something to essentially take away the ability that the voters wanted to give to um to the those who had been formally incarcerated and so this is something that actually polls very well and people say well wait a minute you finished your your sentence you you're you know you're trying to make a go of it there are studies that show that people who are involved in the um the electoral system after they leave the penal system actually do better in their um in their Rehabilitation so I think that that's not a a criticism that I'm worried about at all isn't it remarkable that in the United States of America and some in some states if you are convicted of a felony you lose your voting rights but you can still run for president if you're convicted of a felon I just think about that one that's not that's not a hypothetical you know I'm just saying just just to be clear just just to be clear you know as as we mentioned at the top you have you know you have really dedicated your entire life to um public service but also specifically the issue of voting rights and in your post-government life you're focusing on redistricting work now you will you have said yourself that this is not necessarily the sexy work you know redistricting doesn't scream oh yes ah what is people don't know what don't you all love redistricting this is this room is primed for redistricting so you know and you hate Jerry mandering right there you go this has this does have a real impact on people's daily lives just can you just explain why redistricting is the right fight to be in and how and how impactful it really is yeah well you know we do redistricting every 10 years the year after the census uh and you would hope that we The Districts The Districts would be drawn in such a way that they'd be fair but we have this called Jerry mandering so that you can draw the lines that almost guarantee that one party or the other um is going to win and that leads to really kinds of all kinds of negative results if you're in a safe seat you can do things inconsistent with maybe what you know the people in your state want to do but you suffer no electoral consequence and let's be really tangible about that after the do's decision the terrible Do's decision that said all right you know Row versus weight is overturned States decide you have these gerrymander districts these gerrymander States state legislatures passing uh these really Draconian anti-choice laws again inconsistent with the desires of the people of a particular state but they can pass these laws um without any regard to what the people want and suffer no electoral um consequence and so I wanted to get at you know that problem um you also see if you have if you're in a jander seat you're not worried about a general election you're worried about a primary and so that D drives people further and further to the right and be fair some people further and further to um the left and it means that you can't cooperate because that's seen as a sign of weakness if you cooperate with your you know people on the other side of the aisle invites a primary Challenge and then nothing gets done and it breeds inaction cynicism in the people of the in the American people because they see our state legislatures and to a lesser extent um at times Our House of Representatives you know not doing the kinds of things that we generally agree upon I mean we are a very divided nation that's true but we agree on some basic things like you know San gun laws that polls you know pretty well um protecting the right to vote protecting the climate these are all the kinds of things the American people are kind of of one mind but we have these Journey Mander legislatures that don't do things consistent with the desires of the people well the national Democratic reding committee has been doggedly committed specifically to this effort and and there has there has been some change happening um your group put out a memo in March that said the current national Congressional map is more representative of the American people as a whole heading into 2024 the 2022 map specifically the New York Times said that those were the fairest maps in 40 years y so this year's maps are even more fair than the M the midterm Maps um that sounds great yep but there are still some challenges where do the biggest challenges remain as it relates to redistricting yeah it's interesting um you know when we came in um the a study had been done by Princeton University in the after the last round of redistricting 2011 and said it was the worst gerrymandering of the past half century uh and so our New York the New York Times thing which we say was was correct um you know fairest we've had in maybe the last 40 years um it means that we're going to have more fair elections we're going to have um better results we're going have results that are consistent with the desires of the people but there are still places that are problematic Florida is a problem Ohio is uh still a problem Wisconsin until recently um has been a problem Texas is a problem Georgia um still a problem there so there are still states where um there's a lot of work um to be done and so we are in the process of trying to unwind the gerrymanders in those States as well the ndrc the national Democratic redistricting committee what we're trying to do is just make the system fair just make it fair because I my theory of the case is that if the system is fair Democrats progressives we'll do just fine we'll do just fine I I think the Republican Party by contrast has made peace with the notion that they're going to rig the system in such a way that they will be a minority party in terms of popular support but they'll have majority power it's almost like a political apartheid and they've made peace um with that and that's um that's pretty disturbing it's very disturbing political aparti I had not heard that description before but it it seems quite accurate um the national Democratic registering committee the improvements that we've seen you all have had a hand in some of those and I'm thinking specifically about um States like Alabama and Louisiana who in this upcoming election will now have new additional there are there are candidates are going to run for a new seat right um which thanks to a supreme court challenge due to section two was a section two challenge of the Voting Rights Act Now section two is literally the last defense that Advocates have of the Voting Rights Act because ever since 2013 the Shelby V holder and you are the holder and the Shelby V holding you I know you hate it I know you like we call it the Shelby County case my name is not associated even though it's technically on there it's just a Shelby K that's like you know you wouldn't want your name associated with you know Dread Scott versus holder you you know no no so it's Shelby it's just the Shelby County case s the Shelby County case in 2013 if you want to be my friend you call it the Shelby County case and you want to be my friend I want be I am I thought I was your friend you are you are you you see how he just threw me to the Wayside I'm just asking the question I'm sensitive I'm sensitive okay well talk to us about section two because there is a a a district court judge a a federal district court judge in the a circuit that has since ruled that the president that groups like the ndrc um or the NAACP legal defense fund or the ACLU all of these groups everybody that know maras and you who goes out there to sue on behalf of the people for fair seats and representation that that is not that that is um he called it what flimsy footing and this judge ruled that actually only the United States government the department of Justice the attorney general has the standing to sue under section two and that ruling I mean he ruled this in November 23 2023 this is looks like it's going to go to the Supreme Court eventually that currently affects Minnesota Nebraska Arkansas North Dakota South Dakota Iowa um are you concerned that the last stall the last defense if you will for voting rights in this country um this Supreme Court could be poised to it all yeah I'm I'm always worried about this supreme court in the sense that they don't rule it seems to me on the basis of principle or precedent but on the basis of personnel you know they've got the votes now to do things that they've wanted to do for an extended period of time that particular case you know this notion that somehow only the government can bring section two suits under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 now again voting rights of 1965 we've been allowed to bring private parties have been allowed to bring lawsuits under uh the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but suddenly somehow some way this judge in 2023 find something that nobody else has seen until that point and um he said they didn't take a close enough look right that is that like the dumbest thing you've ever heard stupid um really yeah and so you would think all right well you know that's a dumb thing that a district court judge has done appell court maybe has agreed with you think Supreme Court obviously will you know overturn that decision but I got to tell you I'm a little concerned based on what they did with regard to affirmative action what they did with regard to abortion again those were you know precedents established in the 70s and upon which people have relied in ordering um their lives and so um I take nothing for granted when we get to uh to this court but this one is really this one would really really really be um a reach because there's things in the legislative history of the act that talk about the private right of action um so we we'll we'll you know we'll see what happens this uh what do you think the Supreme Court should be expanded when you talked about this makeup of this court do you think time to add more seats yeah I think so um mean I think that um we need term limits you know 18 years um so here's a commercial go out and buy my book and unfinished March I where I talk about all of these reforms that I think we we should have and one of the things I say is that uh we should have Supreme Court um term limits which is really popular um Republicans Democrats liberals you know conservatives uh Independents all think yeah that's right you know we have this notion of Lifetime tenure the founders put in place to protect judges from political influence and that's fine but it was also at a time when people didn't live nearly as long as they live now you can serve on the court you know 30 40 50 years um and if you're on the court for that period of time and the cloistered way in which they live you can kind of lose I think a connection to the American people and come up with some of the decisions we've seen over the course of this last decade that are again inconsistent with what I think is best for um the nation so yeah I think 18-year terms and I think that expand the court by at least two to deal with the two seats that I say were stolen um you know merri Garland nominated never hurt got a hearing um that's one because you can't have according to the Republicans you can't have a a a nomination during the course of an election year and then Amy Cony Barrett is put on the court while people were still vote had already started voting so those are two seats that I think um there ought to be some redress for but beyond that I actually think that uh my proposal is that we should have a president appoint a a Supreme Court Justice in his or her first year and his or her third year of every term and that way the process becomes more regularized with 18-year terms the court would expand for a while but over time 18year terms first and third year um you get back to a nine member Court he's telling y'all to buy the book he'll tell you more inside unfinished March March it's in paperback I'll sign them all General hold um I have two more questions for you this has been the most so much litigation has happened in the leadup to this election and it is it is still happening as we speak and then you have changes and and leader Abrams spoke about this with Luke Russ Luke specifically in Georgia you have a Georgia elections um board which voted three to three to two to approve a rule that allows these folks on this board to look at the ballots one more time and take another check before they are certified yeah are you concerned that the elections in Georgia will um be challenged I'm very concerned about uh the Integrity of the system in Georgia um some of the people who are leading that effort um to do things in a way that's inconsistent with the way things have been done there for you know a huge amount of time I think maybe forever um are election deniers and um to put them in charge and to allow them to change processes gives me great concern you know you want to check ballots what are you going to check them for what are you going to do with them once you check them um you know the ability to pushing down to local systems that might be um you know populated with election deniers gives me real concern about um having a fair count in Georgia which is going to be a you know a critical a very critical State very critical last question for you um look look I'm on time look they got the timer on me and everything Lord we got 2 minutes and 3 seconds to go you know what but you two minutes I'm trying to do my black job you know went in early went in early okay yeah attorney general is a black job too well so is president of United my question is do you think white house chief of staff is a black job because I have heard mentions that in a um Harris Administration that you could potentially be a very strong candidate for white house chief of staff I'm just telling you what the streets are saying General holder I don't know anything about that I mean I it depends on how the vet goes um you know but got to get on that YouTube no I mean I think I'm pretty I I've had a good career in government I'm pretty satisfied with the things that I've done so I think I'm I'm I'm pretty cool but you know I'm going to try to do everything that I can to make sure that in fact um kamla Harris will have to pick U um a white house chief of staff that's what I want to see happen Okay no white house chief of staff but any any inklings for running for a higher office uh no I'm too old at this point please give it up for the 82nd Attorney General of the un9 States of America chairman of the national Democratic risting Coalition Eric Holder right thank you it's so good thank you a pleasure thank you