Watchdog.

orgs interview with Libertarian gubernatorial hopeful Robert Sarvis Note: This was an in-person interview, transcribed word-for-word as accurately as possible in order to preserve the flow by Kathryn Watson of Watchdog.orgs Virginia Bureau. She can be reached at katie@watchdogvirginia.org. WD: Tell me about your family and how you got into politics. Sarvis: I guess the best place to start is just, how Ive always been interested in politics, from a private citizen point of view. Ive always followed it. My family was fairly cognizant of what was going on throughout my childhood. I grew up around here, so we lived pretty close to D.C. and followed both local budgetary issues and also the national politics. But it was only in the last several years that I really became interested in doing something kind of different. Because, I saw the Republican and Democratic parties not really presenting choices in the interest of the average citizen. WD: Was there any one issue or even that really sparked your involvement? Sarvis: It was pretty much across the board. The Republican Party is fairly untrustworthy on economic issues. They say a lot of good things about small government and unleashing business, entrepreneurship. But, they dont follow through on it. The transportation bill was a perfect example where its just, no prioritization whatsoever of spending, and just a lot of tax increases. And the Republican nominee for governor has essentially said hes not going to try to undo any of that. So, thats a problem. And then, on social issues as well, you just kind of see the good changes that are occurring are occurring organically. And the most you can say is really government is getting in the way, trying to impede those changes. So, two years ago, I ran as a Republican for state senate. And it was an interesting experience. I learned a lot. But one of the things I learned is that the Republican Party is not a good place for a liberty candidate, somebody who thinks that we should be, in the first instance, free to live our lives how we want to. And so, when this election came around, the Libertarian Party was looking for a governor candidate. And a few of them had asked if I would be interested. I basically looked at what the race was going to be like, and when it became clear that it was going to be Terry McAuliffe against Ken Cuccinelli, I decided, why not run? Because Virginia really needs another option. I think the other two candidates really epitomize exactly whats wrong with their respective parties, and really shouldnt be trusted with the reigns of government. WD: How so? Sarvis: I think in both cases, for one thing, we can start with the idea of crony capitalism and business sort of being in bed with government. I think neither party

has any credibility on that issue at all. Certainly, Terry McAuliffe doesnt, because he was the big money guy for Democrats for a long time. The Republicans dont have any more credibility than the Democrats do, at any level of government. And you see this with everything thats going on with Star Scientific, both in the McDonnell administration and also, connections with the Republican nominee. And there are so many ways in which Republicans talk about small government, but they dont go after some of the regulations and the occupational licensure laws that really protect incumbents rather than protect the public health. So, thats one thing. I think that the Republican Party is sort of trying to foist a social conservative agenda onto the greater populous. I respect their views, from the standpoint of, how to live your own lives and things like that. But, I really think, for example, the gay marriage ban from 2006, I think that was a huge mistake. I dont think we should use government to impede social change thats happening organically. So, I think thats an example. Ken Cuccinelli wants to run as a liberty candidate, but hes very inconsistent when it comes to things like drugs and federalism, and on taxes, again. So, I really dont think that the Republicans or Democrats have any credibility on these issues. And it really seems like Virginians really want another option, and polls show that. Theres a Washington Post poll showing that 40 percent of people wish someone else was running. So Im trying to fill that void. WD: Obviously, even though these candidates arent particularly well-liked on either end, they at least have some name recognition. So, what do you feel like your campaign needs to push on to get your name out there? Sarvis: I think thats what were struggling with right now, just because were not yet confirmed to be on the ballot yet. The SBE, the Board of Elections, will hopefully get back to us in about a week or two. And once we have that. I think the fact that we had to go through so much just to get on the ballot, the point of those ballot access rules, are to keep out non-credible candidates. And so when youre on the ballot, I dont think that theres a very strong argument for keeping me out of the debates, for example. And I think that if Im in the debates, Ill win the election. In North Carolina, they had a Libertarian gubernatorial in the debates, same for 2008. They also had one for Senate in 2010. So, you know, I think theres a very strong argument for including me. And were just going to do everything we can to get myself and my arguments and my vision for Virginia in front of the voters. WD: What are some things, on the flip side, that you as a Libertarian candidate offer that the other two dont? Sarvis: Im trying to avoid ideology and focus on solutions that are really going to work. I have experience as a lawyer, I have experience studying economics. I have experience starting a business. I know what its like to be laid off. I have a lot of experiences that help me understand what its like to be people in various walks of

life. So what I want to do is A), I want to focus on economic growth and jobs. And the way to do that is trying to get the government to stop trying to figure out what the technologies of tomorrow are going to be, kind of unleash the power of entrepreneurship, not just in the industries that we talk about, but also, in things like education. I want to focus heavily on the idea of school choice, unleashing the power of parents and teachers to work together for the benefit of our students, rather than sort of binding them into a system thats just not working. All around the state there are counties that are really struggling to graduate their students and put them either through colleges or vocational schools to get them job skills. We need somebody who is going to focus on how to do that best, and I think the evidence is very strong that the best way to do that is to put parents in charge of the money being spent on their kids. And I think Im the only candidate whos really willing to fight really hard for that. And I think thats something thats going to resonate with a lot of voters. WD: Are charter schools just one piece of the puzzle? Sarvis: Yes. I think that we should be multi-faceted in our approach. I certainly am not sort of focusing on one solution. I think we have a lot of options that have been tried throughout the country and throughout the world. And there are a lot of different ways we can do that. Charter schools are a great one. Parental triggers to create charter schools, to put them outside the public school regulations rubric. Also, direct subsidies and tax credits. Public school choice matching programs. I want to push all of these things and figure out what the public is willing to do. This is not an ideological campaign. This is a, lets get things done campaign. And so, I start from the premise of, what is politically feasible, and lets do the best thing within that. WD: Going back to jobs, do you see it as a primary responsibility for a governor to create an environment where there can be good jobs? Sarvis: I think the best way to think about it is that first, the government should do no harm. Theres a lot of busy-bodying by the government, trying to do things that they think will improve the job climate, when in fact, its oftentimes making things worse the unintended consequences and perverse incentives that it creates, taking money from one set of industries or taxpayers and trying to give it to another to get growth there. I think we should get out of that business. But, we should also look at all the regulations, occupational licensure rules, tax rules, and just kind of have a more intelligent system more efficient taxes, fewer taxes, get rid of a lot of the business taxes that just cause a lot of headaches, replace it with a very small number of taxes that are very easy to pay. Reduce spending, cut out a lot of unnecessary spending. But really, focusing on just the job climate. And one of the important parts of that is our social policy. Businesses and investors do not want to come to a place that is hostile to gay rights, for example. Im easily the most stridently in favor of repealing that ban from 2006 and recognizing same-sex

marriages. So, theres a lot of things that we can do to make this the best place to start a business, to move your business. WD: Are social issues and economic issues inseparable? Sarvis: Absolutely. And we see that in terms of, if you look at Silicon Valley, who, a lot of the successful entrepreneurs there, they either have said or have said with their donations that they support same-sex marriage, recognizing same-sex marriage. The atmosphere of a place that you want to move your business to, if you are yourself gay, or even one of your managers or some of your workers, youre not going to want to move to a place that they feel uncomfortable being in, or they feel ostracized as a person. And this isnt simply a business thing. I think its the right thing to do. But, its also one component of that argument for being an attractive business atmosphere. And so you cant say business people only care about taxes. No, thats not how it works. WD: Speaking of taxes, what is your overall tax approach? Sarvis: I would like to end a lot of taxes that are just plain inefficient or just overly burdensome. A lot of them are the way local jurisdictions raise money. So, we do have to be concerned about that. But, thats not a very difficult problem to solve, in terms of whether the power to have a sales tax. The money can be raised, the question is, how do you raise it? You want to raise it in the least burdensome and most efficient way. And so, generally speaking, I think most economists will agree that consumption taxes are better than income taxes, and certainly, theyre better than things like the business professional occupational licensure tax. So, Id just like to move in the direction of more intelligent, evidence-based policy. And you know, I think that will enable us also to reduce rates by getting rid of the, I should have mentioned this as a totally separate part, is getting rid of a lot of the preferential treatment of particular industries, of particular, we have evaluation rules for certain industries that gives them a tax break. WD: Are Republicans and Democrats equally culpable in favoring certain industries and taxpayers with incentives? Sarvis: Oh, absolutely. Thats unquestionable. So, the only way we can do this, and one of the things is that, Republican or a Democrat is going to meet resistance in the General Assembly, because each party, each of the major parties, doesnt want the other party getting credit for whatever. They dont want the other parties, constituents, to win out at the expense of their own. And so, theres actually a really strong argument for a third-party candidate to come and say, look, we can end all of these tax breaks for everybody. When we do it for everybody, its fair. If we have something that everybody has to pay, you cant really claim that its oh, youre sides winning and my sides losing. Theres a lot more that you can do. If I have to negotiate both with Democrats and Republicans in the General Assembly, theres a lot to be said for what we can do. So, I think that theres if I can get in front of

enough people and make that argument, I think theres no question that will resonate with people. WD: Gay marriage obviously, you support it as a part of your platform. Do you think that your position resonates with Virginias political identity? Is that something members of both parties could rally around? Sarvis: I think there are a lot of people in both parties who are going to resist the change. But, I think that if we all recognize that this is where society, totally separate from government, is going, there will be a willingness to say, OK, lets do this, not make it into a political football. I think most people recognize that its going to happen and that its the right thing to do, so why dont we come together? Do it properly, through democratic means, democratically reversing the ban in the Constitution, democratically enacting it. I think thatll do a lot for bringing Virginians together, yeah. WD: What are the major challenges you see facing Virginia? Sarvis: There are a lot. I think certainly education, closing education gaps racially, socioeconomically, there are a lot of vested interests in favor of the status quo, and education is going to be really hard to make resources available in the way that I was talking about. But, thats something that people respond to. The D.C. voucher program that the Democrats killed I think in 2009 or so, that was very popular with people who had an opportunity to be a part of it. Adrian Fenti, the former Democratic mayor of D.C. has said, my party is on the wrong side of education reform. Unfortunately, the Republicans arent really effectively pushing for something that creates a market for educational services. And thats why theres this big vacuum. So education is a huge one. Obviously, our transportation, the way we do transportation in Virginia is kind of theres a lot of ways in which it doesnt make sense. Its very bureaucratic. Its very centralized. Its unfair. There are a lot of geographic subsidies. Theres a lot of hidden subsidies of different types of transportation. Im of the view that we should be relatively agnostic with regards to modes of transportation. I think the Democrats and Republicans have this road versus rail fight, which really doesnt make a lot of sense. The transportation bill moves us in the wrong direction. It moves us away from a system where users pay for the construction and maintenance. It moves us more towards a system where theres a general fund. The tax increases, a lot of them, are going into the general fund. How do we know thats going to go to transportation construction? So, thats a huge thing where we should actually do a redo of transportation, focusing on prioritizing all of state spending so transportation everybody knows its a huge priority. We should act as if it is, and move as much as possible towards a user-pay system. WD: Along those lines, what are your thoughts on toll roads and the proliferation of public-private partnerships?

Sarvis: Generally speaking, Im in favor of public-private partnerships and toll- based approaches, as long as tolls arent used as this cash cow to fund unrelated infrastructure or even other things. I think that the Dulles toll increases, the toll increases that people are talking about, sound pretty problematic to me. I think its basically taxing one set of people to subsidize another. And you know, thats being done by an organization where Virginia has a minority influence over the MWAA. Generally speaking, if tolls, if we had a system where construction was done according to the way big capital projects are often done theres a borrowing phase, theres the construction, and then the tolls pay to pay down the debt, and then tolls also pay for continued maintenance of those particular roads, and you have a private company, the public-private partnership is the administration of the road, the upkeep of it and things like that, thats not problematic to me at all. I think thats a good way of doing things. And if you have intelligent tolling where you dont have to stop and create a traffic jam when its actually, you know, you can drive through at full speed, thats not going to cause, that shouldnt cause voters much concern. Where voters get really upset is where theyve already paid for the construction, and theyre just paying tolls just because the system is so messed up, and the politicians just want to raise revenue. So thats one of the main reasons people dont like tolls, is because theres a way of just adding on to the burdens of the taxpayers. And so, if you get away from that system towards a system where tolls are simply you know, done in an economically and intelligent way, theyre tied to the project, there are different companies that are doing different highways or whatever, and then you know theres also the concern about privacy. Thats a good thing when you have different private organizations running the different highway systems. There are rules for them having to be able to hook up properly. But the private information is kept in private hands. The government has to come to the private organizations with a warrant to get the information about any particular car that theyre looking for. So I think thats a system. But its so radically different from sort of the status quo and where were moving towards. I shouldnt say that were not moving towards that in some sense, because obviously weve had some of the HOT lanes and other things being built that way. But we need to make it more competitive, do it on a larger scale so that were unburdening people who arent using the roads as much, or arent using the way theyre doing it in terms of oh, electric cars have to pay a set amount. Well, that doesnt take into account how much they drive. It doesnt distinguish hybrid cars. Is it fair to them, how theyre being treated? Theres a lot of ways in which, do we trust 140 legislators to have gotten things right at the level of how much electric vehicle drivers have to pay, the whole, 25 percent of the funding has to go towards mass transit. Is that the right percentage? I mean, do I trust 140 legislators and a governor and the Commonwealth Transportation Board or whoever to come up with a number thats supposed to make sense for all time. It just doesnt make sense. And so, having prices on more of our infrastructure would do a lot better job of making our, of just being more cost-effective in how we produce our transportation infrastructure.

WD: What do you think of Virginias disclosure laws? Obviously, Gov. Bob McDonnell has been in the news a lot about that. Do you think Virginias disclosure laws need to be tighter? Sarvis: Its hard to say. Theyre already, I wouldnt say onerous, but its already something that I thought twice about running when I was looking at like, do I really want to fill this out? I dont really have anything that Im really concerned about people knowing. But most people, especially a lot of us Libertarians, are a little shy about putting all that public information out there. Its certainly a concern, when things dont get disclosed. I just dont know how much were buying with those disclosure laws. At some point, it becomes you know, at some point it becomes just a matter of oh, I left something out and now Im being raked over the coals for it. I dont have enough experience with it to say where the balance lies. I do think theres reason to be concerned about whats going on right now with Star Scientific and all those things. But that did come out, so there are other ways of getting at that information, and its up to the voters. I mean, if the voters, if it turns out that they dont really care and theyre just going to vote how they normally do, then disclosure can really only do so much. Its really up to the voters to keep people honest. WD: What do you think about gubernatorial term limits? Virginia is the only state in the country where a governor cant run for two consecutive terms. Sarvis: I think its worked pretty well. I would like to see that maintained. I would also like to see term limits on a lot of other officials, including state legislators, possibly even local officials, and Id love to see also congressional term limits. WD: What are the benefits of term limits? Sarvis: I think that certainly, its empirically shown that the advantage of incumbents is quite strong. I think that you do get more competitive elections when theres rotation in an office. I think theres a lot to be said for just the basic idea that people know that theyre going to be returning to fully private lives. I dont know how long the term limits would be. I generally favor shorter ones. There are arguments going both ways, but I think its a good thing to get new people in there. You also have more people who have served, over a 20-year period, youre going to have a lot more people who have served, so youre going to have a lot more people who are looking to run for senate or governor. Thats also going to also produce more competitive primaries and elections, especially at the local level. At the local level, for the same reasons that Madison wrote in the federalist papers, a small Republic or a local jurisdiction, its very easy for factions to develop and to take control of we would call them special interests, take control of the government. When you have the same person over and over again, the costs of controlling the Legislature go down. If you have to keep lobbying a different person each time, then the costs go up. I recognize that there are arguments on the other side. I just think that it would be a good idea to give it a try.

 WD: What do you bring as a newcomer to Virginia politics? Some might say thats a disadvantage. Do you think its an advantage? Sarvis: I definitely think that theres an advantage in it. The disadvantage is in lack of name recognition and lack of the sort of epic fundraising opportunities that the other candidates have. But thats also an advantage in terms of the fact that people know that I dont really have, that Im not beholden to any industry. Im certainly not doing this because Im aiming at higher office or anything like that. Most people dont run as Libertarian if they have the aspirations to have a long career that ends in higher office. But people know that Im doing this because Im just tired of what I see, the depredations of the two major parties. The loss of freedom, the increasing burden to taxpayers. I think that theres a lot of reason to think that Libertarians especially, but third-party candidates generally, have more of an interest, just from the strength of their beliefs, that theyre willing to run as a third party. That theyre a little bit more willing to stand up to special interests and requests for special treatment. WD: What few words characterize and summarize what youre all about? Sarvis: My campaign theme is a Virginia thats open-minded and open for business. And I think that really encapsulates what Im trying to do. On my website, somewhere I think in my bio section, I talk about how in so many ways, I am representative of so much of Virginia, in terms of our diversity, our increasing ethnic diversity. The fact that Republicans and Democrats are talking about whos more of a real Virginian, I think thats just a really bad thing to get into. And its something that I certainly I was born here, Im the only gubernatorial candidate who was born here, I have a great education, which is something that we really need to invest in. I have a very diverse professional career. I think thats something that we really have to appreciate in pretty much every aspect of our economy. And we have to, I should have mentioned this earlier too, something thats not really getting a lot of talk yet is the fact that Virginia is so dependent on federal government. A very large percent of our economy is dependent on direct federal outlays, and another significant portion is dependent on more indirect outlays people being employed by the government and such. So, I think most people recognize that federal spending has to come down at some point. And we have to be in a position to transition our economy. And the best way to do that is to make it as free as possible, to have an educated workforce, to have entrepreneurs who feel like they can start businesses here. And I think that will naturally happen, as long as we dont drive people elsewhere or as long as we keep our laws fairly business friendly and make them even more business friendly not trying to pick industries that are going to do better than others. WD: What advantages does Virginia have as a state, just naturally, without economic incentives and tax breaks from the state to certain industries or companies?

 Sarvis: I think we have a lot of different types of industries that can really expand or absorb people who are losing jobs elsewhere. I mean, we have the ability to be a dynamic economy. We also have a pretty good, educated workforce, in terms of the people who are already here, whether they came for some of the science and technology, the microchip industry is sizeable here, lawyers. And you know, theres a fair number of computer-science type people. And if you go to the farming regions, you see a transition from tobacco to soybeans or to chickpeas. I saw a New York Times articles about the chickpea industry in Virginia. I mean, thats the kind of thing we have to do is not shield people not shield people from the economic changes that are going on leave people to come up with their own ways. Not as individuals buffeting the storm, but as communities, as businesses, localities, local jurisdictions. Really helping re-train work forces or encouraging businesses to change the direction of, not look to government for contracts, but actually look for other ways to generate revenues, etc. WD: Another state policy question for you. What are your thoughts on higher education how much the state should be supporting that? Sarvis: So my views on higher education are, I think theres a lot of demagoguery on higher education, where anybody who isnt talking about just increasing the aid to students is looked at as anti-education. I think thats the total wrong way of looking at it. I think one of the reasons education costs have gone up so dramatically is a lot of the ways in which we subsidize it. I think that a lot of the tuition increases merely capture the benefits that were trying to give to students, the tuition increases capture that. And it generally goes to the benefits of the institutions, the higher education institutions the professors and the institutions that have more prestige because of that. And the students are left in the same place, only with much more debt burdens when they come out. So how do you get past that? Well, you move away from this one-size-fits-all system. A lot of the problems that we have through occupational licensure there are a lot of different licensure systems and accreditation programs that really lock in students into particular tracks. And I think that we need to get away from that, and stop subsidizing particular paths. Higher education, in a sense, is sort of a subsidy of wealthy people. And I know that wealthy people appreciate the subsidies and dont want to vote against those being taken away, but I think as voters have recognized the tuition increases taking away all those advantages that were trying to create and making students worse off, I think theyll be open to different solutions. So, I think that if we had a better system, a freer economy, a freer market in educational services, starting in very early education and going all the way up through higher education, we can move to a system thats much more dynamic, that has a lot more opportunities for people, that there are so many more tracks where its an apprenticeship of jobs. I think in a free- market system of educational services, you would have a lot more companies saying hey, well pay for you to get a degree in engineering, and youll agree to work with us a certain amount throughout the year and for a few years afterwards. And those kind of benefits are both beneficial. They dont drain the public fist. And theyre

mutually beneficial to the student and to the corporation. There are a lot of programs like that for graduate school. There arent nearly as many for undergrad. And I think part of that is because its so cheap to get the subsidized student loans and other grant processes. WD: Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act where do you stand on that? Sarvis: I think its a very bad idea to invest in the federalization of our healthcare. I think that there are things we can do at the state level. But one of our major concerns should be in reversing the trend of federal control over our public policy. It just ties our hands. It ends up increasing our spending so that the spending we have to do on federal programs crowds out the spending that we want to do at the state and local level. And it doesnt improve our health outcomes it only wastes a lot of money. There are a lot of things we cant control directly because theyre federal programs. But I think that a) we should be advocating for the repeal of those programs, and that can include, there are a lot of ways to do that. Theres no direct mechanism. But there are a lot of ways to express our displeasure, certainly, and to call for constitutional amendments or appeal, or call for our senators to act in certain ways with regards to those programs. But then on the state level, we can do a lot in terms of a) rejecting the Medicaid expansion, b) coming up with ways to make Medicaid more efficient. More oversight is obviously good, but a change in focus I think would also be better. The supply of primary care is something that we could make huge strides on. Virginia has, for one thing, I think loosening occupational licensure laws, including in the medical field. Right now, nurses are trying to do more. They would like to do more. They have the capacity and the skills to do more, but they are not allowed to, under state law. And weve had a gradual loosening of them, but theyre still somewhat strict in that, a nurse doesnt have independent practice. Only a certain number of them can work with one particular doctor. So I think we should get rid of a lot of those things. There was also, I think, some sort of pilot program for rural areas that dont have a lot of primary care doctors where nurses could work independently. The argument in favor of that really applies everywhere. If there are people who cant afford doctors, it doesnt matter if someone cant see a doctor because they live in a rural area where theres not enough doctors, so the price to see one is high, or because they live in an urban area where the rate (of people per doctor) is high such that they cant afford to see one. The arguments apply to both situations. We should let people, nurses especially, offer whatever services they feel competent to offer, and not use this licensing system to keep the supply of primary care small and drive up costs. Theres a lot of other issues like that, regulatory issues. We have such a backwards- healthcare system, and were just making it worse with the ACA and the Medicaid expansion and all that stuff. Were moving in the wrong direction. WD: Where do you stand on the abortion issue? As a Libertarian, do you even see it as governments role to get involved in it?

Sarvis: I think its a really hard issue. It kind of goes back to a persons philosophical commitments or metaphysics, religion and stuff like that. My view of it is, I think its a really difficult issue. Im fairly moderate on it, mostly for scope of government reasons and rule of law reasons. I think that you cant use criminal prohibitions on something where theres not overwhelming public support for it. A lot of times, youll see laws passed that criminalize abortions after a certain amount of time without at some point, between conception and birth, peoples views change. The percentage of people who are willing to support prohibitions changes. Over half of abortions occur in the first nine weeks. The public support for banning those is really low. I really dont think that I can really say what the law should be. Its a hard issue. I legitimately think its a hard issue. People can disagree on it. And what I dont like is sort of the demonization on any issue. And that just turns me off to the entire issue. There are two issues where I think that the Republicans were wrong on, and those are the two bills that passed in the past few years the ultrasounds and the using hospital regulations, applying them to abortion clinics. I think the pro-life people should have been against these on rule of law and scope of government as well. The misuse of public health law for the purpose of making abortion clinics compliant with regulations costly enough that they have to close I think thats an abusive of the rule of law. I think thats a total mistake. The trans- vaginal ultrasound requirement, it got changed to an ultrasound that just goes on a belly. But for a woman to go in to get a procedure that is legal under the current law and have her have to undergo a procedure that is mandated by the government, that just strikes me as just wrong. Its one thing to try and convince your fellow citizens to see abortion in the way that you do, as protecting life and therefore that we should ban it either from conception or from this point on, whatever. But, if its going to be legal, I just dont think that the government should be then adding on these mandates of what doctors must do with their patients, etcetera. And I think its a little bit odd to argue in the Obamacare context, that government should not be in the room with a person and his or her doctor, but then on this issue, have a totally different viewpoint. So without taking an absolutist position, we should be able to agree that these are misuses of the law. WD: Would you pursue automatic rights restoration for those who have been convicted of felonies, but served their time? Sarvis: I strongly am in favor of re-enfranchizing people who have served their time and have shown themselves to be capable of avoiding recidivism. Its a little bit strange that people are talking about re-enfranchizing without talking about a major reason why people are being disenfranchised, and that is the drug war. And I think the drug war is a huge issue that, the Republican and Democratic parties are just obtuse on. I mean, this is something that is ruining, that has ruined and continues ruining a lot of communities and a lot of families, particularly black families. It leads to arrest records that keep people from being employable. When we send a lot of people to jail, there are a lot of kids who are growing up without fathers in their house. Thats going to cause problems. The incarceration rates in America are very high. In a lot of areas, there are no jobs, so selling drugs is one of the few things that

they see people doing that can put money on the table for their families. And that just plays into another aspect of the problems in certain localities, which is land use and zoning ordinances and development regulations that keep jobs out of certain areas, makes it hard for people to work or start businesses. And that drives a lot of people into drug trafficking. The drug issue is also an equality and issue of disparities, in terms of sentencing and who gets punished and who gets caught. I mean, the number of rich white kids who are smoking pot in their dorm rooms I think the legalization of marijuana would happen a whole lot quicker if those people were being caught and punished at the same rates as young black kids. But your question was about disenfranchisement, and I think that the path that people go from using drugs and then selling drugs and things like that, is affected in a large part because we have this drug war the criminalization and just the illegality of it it sends a lot of people to prison, it ruins a lot of lives, and it results in a lot of disenfranchisement. If we legalized marijuana and de-criminalized a lot of other things, I certainly think that that would ameliorate a lot of these problems. But your question, I certainly do support streamlining the process of re- enfranchisement. A, I would support a constitutional change. But B, I personally think it can potentially be done in the constitution. So, Id like to sit with it and explore that, too. WD: Anything else youd like to add? Sarvis: In terms of the gun control, gun rights debate, Im fairly strong on gun rights. But the way I like to look at gun control is if you want to make a big dent in gun violence and violent crime, again, lets go back to the drug war. Thats a huge reason for why we have a lot of the violent crime that we do, regardless of if its guns or not. Its a huge reason why we have gun trafficking. Were doing exactly what we did in the prohibition era. And what happened in the prohibition era was, when we got rid of prohibition, there was a decade-long decrease in violent crime. And theres no reason to think that wouldnt happen now. Weve essentially created through the drug war, a well-funded, well-armed, and violent world of violent gangs, organized crimes, and etcetera. A large portion of our gun crimes and violent crimes are committed by those gangs and organized crime. So by changing policy on drugs, we can have a huge impact on the things that were trying to get at through gun control, without having to burden law-abiding gun owners.